4 ms·

> so why would we not mitigate it? For two reasons. One simple and one complex. The first and simple reason is that you're applying rules categorically. If

> so why would we not mitigate it? For two reasons. One simple and one complex. The first and simple reason is that you're applying rules categorically. If I live in a multi-generational household I don't need to stay home and care for the children to the same degree as a more "typical" family. Compelling me to stay home reduces my earnings with no added benefit to my wife or family. In fact you've hindered my family's ability to progress economically. You've hurt a specific woman to help the average woman. As I've illustrated above, the average woman does not exist. Mandatory leave helps a statistical category but not women. The second more complex reason has more to do with economics. We already know that women who have never married earn more than men of the same category (the gap is not large or worth considering). > As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.[1] From this we can gleam two things. 1: Women are not being "treated differently based on the circumstances of their birth" (at least in a way that disadvantages them in terms of salary). 2: Mothers are being treated differently based on their behaviors. I hope the first statement is self-explanatory but the second might need additional context. How does an employer know if a women will give birth in the next five years? The obvious answer is "they don't". So if that's the case how do businesses know to pay mothers less than never-married women? Because they're not paying mothers less. They're paying never-married women more. People with more continuous years of service are more able to capitalize on opportunities in the workplace and are never in a position to be rendered redundant by a replacement. If you compel men to take paternal leave, you open them up to all the detriments that mothers face. You take a family who's member has already taken an earnings hit and doubled down. The gender wage gap (as it exists in the United States in 2018) is not a concern. Efforts to fix the gap will result in lower wages for fathers not higher wages for women (the terms "fathers" and "women" were chosen with significant care). tl;dr: Fixing the pay gap between never-married women and mothers will solve the gender pay gap as a corollary. 1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/pay-gap-studies-disprove-myth-sexism-responsible/?target=author&tid=900925 https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/pay-gap-studies-dispr...

lovich 8y ago
My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. >From this we can gleam two things. 1: Women are not being "treated differently based on the circumstances of their birth" (at least in a way that disadvantages them in terms of salary). 2: Mothers are being treated differently based on their behaviors. I hope the first statement is self-explanatory but the second might need additional context. Women are being treated differently here because when a man and woman decide to have a child, the woman is guaranteed to have to take leave and that is known and accounted for before hand. Mandatory parental leave makes that cost be the same regardless of gender. It is disingenuous to say women aren't being treated differently and only mothers are, when men don't get the same treatment despite being fathers >If you compel men to take paternal leave, you open them up to all the detriments that mothers face I view this more as spreading the burden of child rearing across society which I agree would increase the burden on men and companies. It is a completely necessary part of being biological life and continuing our society, but as we currently stand we just demand that a subset of society takes care of it on their own dime. If paternal leave was mandatory for children we would be treating men and women equally, because women have no choice but taking leave when they have a child, and we would be promotion better care for the children which is in our own best interests. We are k type breeders, not r type, and we have shown a better return on investment by giving better care to less children. >The gender wage gap (as it exists in the United States in 2018) is not a concern. That is an opinion, not a fact.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  > My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. That was understood in my post. Long periods of paid leave inhibits earnings growth and leaves you vulnerable to replacement regardless of gender. This is what was meant by "Fixing the pay gap between never-married women and mothers will solve the gender pay gap as a corollary." > Women are being treated differently here because when a man and woman decide to have a child, the woman is guaranteed to have to take leave. Yes there is a guaranteed recovery period. And, yes, depending on how long you are absent this leave will effect earnings. But... > men don't get the same treatment despite being fathers Men who take long paternity leave suffer the same income stagnation as women. "Still, most men can’t afford to take more than a few days off after the birth of a new child. Especially because parental leave can depress long-term earnings [...] regardless of gender."[1] Compelling paternity leave does not increase the earnings of mothers. It decreases the earnings of fathers. Which may very well shrink the gender wage gap but it makes families poorer and less able to provide for themselves and their children. To be trite, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. > I view this more as spreading the burden This, I believe, is our fundamental disagreement. You think a burden is being spread more thinly whereas I think you've created additional burdens. In my opinion, and I believe the data backs me up, this strategy reduces fathers and does nothing to help mothers (economically). 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-risky-business-of-paternity-leave/282688/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-ris...

lovich 8y ago

My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. >From this we can gleam two things. 1: Women are not being "treated differently based on the circumstances of their birth" (at least in a way that disadvantages them in terms of salary). 2: Mothers are being treated differently based on their behaviors. I hope the first statement is self-explanatory but the second might need additional context. Women are being treated differently here because when a man and woman decide to have a child, the woman is guaranteed to have to take leave and that is known and accounted for before hand. Mandatory parental leave makes that cost be the same regardless of gender. It is disingenuous to say women aren't being treated differently and only mothers are, when men don't get the same treatment despite being fathers >If you compel men to take paternal leave, you open them up to all the detriments that mothers face I view this more as spreading the burden of child rearing across society which I agree would increase the burden on men and companies. It is a completely necessary part of being biological life and continuing our society, but as we currently stand we just demand that a subset of society takes care of it on their own dime. If paternal leave was mandatory for children we would be treating men and women equally, because women have no choice but taking leave when they have a child, and we would be promotion better care for the children which is in our own best interests. We are k type breeders, not r type, and we have shown a better return on investment by giving better care to less children. >The gender wage gap (as it exists in the United States in 2018) is not a concern. That is an opinion, not a fact.

rukittenme 8y ago
> My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. That was understood in my post. Long periods of paid leave inhibits earnings growth and leaves you vulnerable to replacement regardless of gender. This is what was meant by "Fixing the pay gap between never-married women and mothers will solve the gender pay gap as a corollary." > Women are being treated differently here because when a man and woman decide to have a child, the woman is guaranteed to have to take leave. Yes there is a guaranteed recovery period. And, yes, depending on how long you are absent this leave will effect earnings. But... > men don't get the same treatment despite being fathers Men who take long paternity leave suffer the same income stagnation as women. "Still, most men can’t afford to take more than a few days off after the birth of a new child. Especially because parental leave can depress long-term earnings [...] regardless of gender."[1] Compelling paternity leave does not increase the earnings of mothers. It decreases the earnings of fathers. Which may very well shrink the gender wage gap but it makes families poorer and less able to provide for themselves and their children. To be trite, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. > I view this more as spreading the burden This, I believe, is our fundamental disagreement. You think a burden is being spread more thinly whereas I think you've created additional burdens. In my opinion, and I believe the data backs me up, this strategy reduces fathers and does nothing to help mothers (economically). 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-risky-business-of-paternity-leave/282688/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-ris...