3 ms·
What a silly article. Furthermore, even assuming that women do in fact choose lower-paying jobs, to what extent is this tolerable? After all, whether the cause
by hugh3 16y ago
What a silly article.
Furthermore, even assuming that women do in fact choose lower-paying jobs, to what extent is this tolerable? After all, whether the cause is societal pressure or neurobiology, either way women are influenced by something outside of their direct control.
If you're going to declare it "intolerable" when a person is influenced to do something by their neurobiology, then what in life is tolerable?
What would it mean to be free of the influence of our own neurobiology? It's not even a meaningful question -- our neurobiology creates all our desires from the will to power to the need to poop.
Besides, instead of asking why women choose low-paying careers, perhaps we should be asking why men choose high-paying careers. After all, high-paying careers largely tend to suck -- they're physically, mentally or emotionally draining and the hours are long. But young men want to earn a lot of money so they can... you guessed it, impress women.
- JohnnyBrown 16y agoI came here with that exact quote in my clipboard. Also entertaining is the hand-wringing and explaining that goes on whenever someone notices that education doesn't perfectly predict income.
- CMartucci 16y agoIt's not silly. I brought up that point out of fairness. I, personally, do not believe that a choice is unfair if it is influenced by our neurobiology. I am a materialist and determinist.
- CMartucci 16y agoI mean...there are biological explanations for RACISM. Does that mean racism is tolerable? Of course not. I think I brought up a fair point -- Yes, it may be the case that women are influenced by their neurobiology to choose lower-paying careers. Does that mean we should stop talking about the issue? I don't think so.
- hugh3 16y agoIf there is gender discrimination in pay, then this is the kind of thing that the market will eventually figure out, provided that not everybody actually believes that the labour of one sex is worth more than the labour of the other. If Alice is underpaid relative to Bob at company X (or for that matter, if Bob is underpaid relative to Alice, or if Bob is underpaid relative to Charlie) then some smart employer from company Y will figure this out and offer Alice a job for slightly more money. Nature abhors arbitrage, and employers won't go round hiring men for more money if they can get the same quality work out of women for less money.
- nhaehnle 16y agoThe market is not some magic fairy, it is a result of how we all interact. Employers have gone around hiring men for more money than women, perhaps because those men have been able to trick them into thinking they were better than the competing women - a lot of decision-making is about perception, after all. Many facts of life are only questioned rarely. People complaining about gender inequality will cause some of those facts of life to be questioned and that can trigger the kind of reaction that you outline to correct this type of arbitrage. Bottom line is: The market is not magical. It takes precisely this kind of discussions for participants in the market to become aware of the kind of opportunities that can make markets produce better outcomes.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nhaehnle 16y agoYou could look at it from the point of view of realizing the most of the potential of society. If it is true that women perform better academically but then go on to lower-paying jobs, this might indicate that there is a lot of potential that goes to waste. As a society, it might be useful to think about how to activate it.