3 ms·

Some will point to this as evidence that the unequal outcomes in our society are not a result of sexism, but biological differences between sexes. Others will s

Some will point to this as evidence that the unequal outcomes in our society are not a result of sexism, but biological differences between sexes. Others will say society has taught women to give up more easily on their aspirations. Who knows what the truth is? Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is trying to label individuals based on a set of predetermined qualities?

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
Economically, a good chunk of unequal outcomes are a necessary evil in order to incentivize the behavior necessary for an efficient economy. If being a high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-ranking ones, nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb the corporate ladder. You can read more about it by getting into Tournament Theory, but the basic gist is this: "winners" get paid more than their output is worth, "losers" less, but the average participant's compensation tends to be proportional to the average value of work. It's useful when the difficulty of measuring output is so burdensome to make piece-work uneconomical. There's other categories where the pay incentives are necessary. Taking on physically dangerous, unpleasant, or taxing work (eg, oilfield workers), or doing jobs that require a large investment in skill development (doctors, software developers). If you don't have the pay differential, a lot of important jobs just won't get done. >Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is trying to label individuals based on a set of predetermined qualities? It absolutely makes a big difference when it comes to public policy. If the unequal outcomes are because one sub-group is more willing to take the risks we want to avoid or develop the skills we don't have time to learn, it's extremely counterproductive to try to fix those outcomes. The inequality is the price we pay to get people to do things they'd rather not. Backtracking on these incentive gradients is short-sighted at best.
- wolco 7y ago
  "If being a high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-ranking ones, nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb the corporate ladder." I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Once they have the power they give themselves more. Would you rather clean bathrooms or tell others when to clean them for the same pay?
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Maybe, but those are not the sorts of people you want in high-ranking jobs, as a general rule. So it still makes sense to explicitly reward competence as an alternative.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Also, there is the theory that in some cases the averages are the same but the standard deviations are not. Even if true, this would result in phenomena that is hard to explain to much of the population.
Bostonian 7y ago
It is when many people point to over-representation of men in a field as proof of discrimination and something that should be corrected by the government.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

Economically, a good chunk of unequal outcomes are a necessary evil in order to incentivize the behavior necessary for an efficient economy. If being a high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-ranking ones, nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb the corporate ladder. You can read more about it by getting into Tournament Theory, but the basic gist is this: "winners" get paid more than their output is worth, "losers" less, but the average participant's compensation tends to be proportional to the average value of work. It's useful when the difficulty of measuring output is so burdensome to make piece-work uneconomical. There's other categories where the pay incentives are necessary. Taking on physically dangerous, unpleasant, or taxing work (eg, oilfield workers), or doing jobs that require a large investment in skill development (doctors, software developers). If you don't have the pay differential, a lot of important jobs just won't get done. >Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is trying to label individuals based on a set of predetermined qualities? It absolutely makes a big difference when it comes to public policy. If the unequal outcomes are because one sub-group is more willing to take the risks we want to avoid or develop the skills we don't have time to learn, it's extremely counterproductive to try to fix those outcomes. The inequality is the price we pay to get people to do things they'd rather not. Backtracking on these incentive gradients is short-sighted at best.

wolco 7y ago
"If being a high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-ranking ones, nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb the corporate ladder." I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Once they have the power they give themselves more. Would you rather clean bathrooms or tell others when to clean them for the same pay?
- 0815test 7y ago
  > I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Maybe, but those are not the sorts of people you want in high-ranking jobs, as a general rule. So it still makes sense to explicitly reward competence as an alternative.

SkyBelow 7y ago

Also, there is the theory that in some cases the averages are the same but the standard deviations are not. Even if true, this would result in phenomena that is hard to explain to much of the population.

Bostonian 7y ago

It is when many people point to over-representation of men in a field as proof of discrimination and something that should be corrected by the government.