4 ms·

That's precisely the point Milton Friedman made regarding the 'wage gap' when asked about it 40 years ago. He noted that if one group of people could be every b

That's precisely the point Milton Friedman made regarding the 'wage gap' when asked about it 40 years ago. He noted that if one group of people could be every bit as productive as another at a fraction of the cost, that's a compelling competitive advantage. But as others became aware of the advantage, the overlooked group of people would find themselves more sought after. And that would drive up their wages and increase their opportunities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

david38 6y ago
Yes, sometimes, like moving jobs to India. Other times, no, because it would mean that group is just as good as me, and I can’t have that.
- trentnix 6y ago
  That's the thing: one's bias and one's bigotry are competitive disadvantages. A competitor without those biases and bigotry would have a financial and strategic advantage. As Friedman points out, the market punishes the bigot when the market is permitted to do so. Only the government can prevent the bigoted businessman from paying the price for his bigotry. The underlying problem with letting the market handle things, as far as I can tell, is that the activists can't claim credit for punishment administered by the market.
eloff 6y ago
I wouldn't say he was wrong. It did mostly correct itself. Today there's very little of the wage gap that you could possibly attribute to sexism. That's not to say it's zero and sexism is no more - but it's the smaller part of the problem now. The wage gap is mostly a motherhood gap. For those women who choose to become mothers, suddenly there are more important things in life than the company's priorities. They start falling behind women who didn't have children, and men who carry less of the work of the household. This is surprisingly not common knowledge by now even though it's well supported by data and well discussed by feminists, including Hillary Clinton. Speaking about populations in general and not individuals - women with children on average earn less because work isn't the highest priority in their lives. I think they're the smart ones. The other major component of the wage gap is that women on average aren't as well represented in higher paying fields like STEM fields, or work that's physically dangerous and undesirable - but pays well. With that latter segment of jobs, again one could argue women are being smarter about it. This is true even in the most enlightened countries like the Scandinavian countries - in fact it's more true there. I think the only way to address that is to get it into the heads of young girls who're still in school that those STEM jobs can be women's jobs. How to accomplish that is still a mystery.
- trentnix 6y ago
  Not only was he not wrong, his solution even addresses disagreements about whether the gap still exists. You say the remaining gap is a 'motherhood' gap. Someone else thinks its chauvinism. And someone else thinks it's feminist propaganda. And another thinks it's a Masonic scheme. It doesn't matter! The market will correct for whatever injustice might actually exist. But only if the law permits the market to enact a price for bigotry.

david38 6y ago

Yes, sometimes, like moving jobs to India. Other times, no, because it would mean that group is just as good as me, and I can’t have that.

trentnix 6y ago
That's the thing: one's bias and one's bigotry are competitive disadvantages. A competitor without those biases and bigotry would have a financial and strategic advantage. As Friedman points out, the market punishes the bigot when the market is permitted to do so. Only the government can prevent the bigoted businessman from paying the price for his bigotry. The underlying problem with letting the market handle things, as far as I can tell, is that the activists can't claim credit for punishment administered by the market.

eloff 6y ago

I wouldn't say he was wrong. It did mostly correct itself. Today there's very little of the wage gap that you could possibly attribute to sexism. That's not to say it's zero and sexism is no more - but it's the smaller part of the problem now. The wage gap is mostly a motherhood gap. For those women who choose to become mothers, suddenly there are more important things in life than the company's priorities. They start falling behind women who didn't have children, and men who carry less of the work of the household. This is surprisingly not common knowledge by now even though it's well supported by data and well discussed by feminists, including Hillary Clinton. Speaking about populations in general and not individuals - women with children on average earn less because work isn't the highest priority in their lives. I think they're the smart ones. The other major component of the wage gap is that women on average aren't as well represented in higher paying fields like STEM fields, or work that's physically dangerous and undesirable - but pays well. With that latter segment of jobs, again one could argue women are being smarter about it. This is true even in the most enlightened countries like the Scandinavian countries - in fact it's more true there. I think the only way to address that is to get it into the heads of young girls who're still in school that those STEM jobs can be women's jobs. How to accomplish that is still a mystery.

trentnix 6y ago
Not only was he not wrong, his solution even addresses disagreements about whether the gap still exists. You say the remaining gap is a 'motherhood' gap. Someone else thinks its chauvinism. And someone else thinks it's feminist propaganda. And another thinks it's a Masonic scheme. It doesn't matter! The market will correct for whatever injustice might actually exist. But only if the law permits the market to enact a price for bigotry.