4 ms·

But why do those occupations pay less and why are women more often in them? Why do women have less experience? Why do they have less access to economic output a

by aklemm 8y ago

But why do those occupations pay less and why are women more often in them? Why do women have less experience? Why do they have less access to economic output after taking on the lion’s share of caregiving needed in society? That is the rest of the question. “There is no pay gap if you control for...” is not an explanation and doesn’t move the needle in terms of creating a more equitable work environment.

zaarn 8y ago
Likely, men get low paying jobs very often too. I would argue that this is similar to some other attributes found in studies; there is a higher standard deviation due to higher risk taking on part of men, since the lower limit of income is 0, there is a natural plateau but there is no maximum income to level off on, so the average/median will be skewed towards risk-taking. At least, that seems to be a fairly rational explanation of the data. Men get into a lot of horrible low end paying jobs too but if 1 out of 100 makes 100 million per year, it averages to 1 million per year.
- tomp 8y ago
  Men also get into a lot of horrible high-paying jobs, like trucker, miner and pretty much anything in the oil industry.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Sewage cleaners, firefighters, combat pilots (which IIRC are fairly male dominated but also place hefty physical limits like body type and sizes on you), etc. These horrible jobs are all fairly high risk (injury, sickness, death), they can pay well, sometimes they don't. And basically, yeah, as I said, that'll skew you averages and medians around.
tomp 8y ago
> Why do they have less access to economic output after taking on the lion’s share of caregiving needed in society? Because they produce less economic value. You can argue that's unfair, but forcing employers to pay less productive employees more is not the answer. There are other society-wide changes you could implement, such as alimony, which is mostly awarded to women, because they miss out on career opportunities taking care of the children. Personally, I'm strongly against alimony (it seems sexist, unfair and the wrong kind of incentive), but I would support initiatives such as paying young parents/families to have children, and longer & better paid parental leave (which would be a cost to society/taxpayers, but assuming that children are valuable to society, that cost is worth paying).
- aklemm 8y ago
  Raise prices on education and care services. Do it through tax policy, worker organization, and the ideas you mention like more leave. Somehow we need to make educated people and well-cared-for people a result that people want to pay for.
  - tomp 8y ago
    huh? both of these have been rising, and I'm not sure that's exactly been productive... if anything, we should subsidize these services more (i.e. the society should pay for them, not the individuals). I'm a smart successful guy nearing 30 (i.e. "prime child-having age") but if anything, I'm really put off from having kids anytime soon by the incredibly high costs of childcare and education. I can't imagine what it must be like for e.g. single mothers...

by aklemm 8y ago

zaarn 8y ago

Likely, men get low paying jobs very often too. I would argue that this is similar to some other attributes found in studies; there is a higher standard deviation due to higher risk taking on part of men, since the lower limit of income is 0, there is a natural plateau but there is no maximum income to level off on, so the average/median will be skewed towards risk-taking. At least, that seems to be a fairly rational explanation of the data. Men get into a lot of horrible low end paying jobs too but if 1 out of 100 makes 100 million per year, it averages to 1 million per year.

tomp 8y ago
Men also get into a lot of horrible high-paying jobs, like trucker, miner and pretty much anything in the oil industry.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Sewage cleaners, firefighters, combat pilots (which IIRC are fairly male dominated but also place hefty physical limits like body type and sizes on you), etc. These horrible jobs are all fairly high risk (injury, sickness, death), they can pay well, sometimes they don't. And basically, yeah, as I said, that'll skew you averages and medians around.

tomp 8y ago

> Why do they have less access to economic output after taking on the lion’s share of caregiving needed in society? Because they produce less economic value. You can argue that's unfair, but forcing employers to pay less productive employees more is not the answer. There are other society-wide changes you could implement, such as alimony, which is mostly awarded to women, because they miss out on career opportunities taking care of the children. Personally, I'm strongly against alimony (it seems sexist, unfair and the wrong kind of incentive), but I would support initiatives such as paying young parents/families to have children, and longer & better paid parental leave (which would be a cost to society/taxpayers, but assuming that children are valuable to society, that cost is worth paying).

aklemm 8y ago
Raise prices on education and care services. Do it through tax policy, worker organization, and the ideas you mention like more leave. Somehow we need to make educated people and well-cared-for people a result that people want to pay for.
- tomp 8y ago
  huh? both of these have been rising, and I'm not sure that's exactly been productive... if anything, we should subsidize these services more (i.e. the society should pay for them, not the individuals). I'm a smart successful guy nearing 30 (i.e. "prime child-having age") but if anything, I'm really put off from having kids anytime soon by the incredibly high costs of childcare and education. I can't imagine what it must be like for e.g. single mothers...