9 ms·

I've seen the argument that women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings.

by daenz 5y ago

jldugger 5y ago
Probably the better faith argument is that it should impact both genders equally, but it's a lot harder problem to solve, with multiple layers of interaction in a dynamic system.
- godelski 5y ago
  If it affects both equally that's equivalent to no effect when comparing the difference. I think if we're discussing in good faith then you and the parent agree but are using different perspectives.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    > women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings is different from > affects both equally Perhaps the first should have been "women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings greater than those experienced by men".
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings greater than those experienced by men". Greater than men in general, or men who make the the same choices as the impacted women?
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Well, if the parents are married all the earnings typically accumulate as common assets. In the event of a divorce those common assets are divided, and usually for a period of several years or more the higher earner is required to transfer further income from their paycheck to the lower earner. This doesn’t show up in the statistics I assume. It’s possible this doesn’t create a 100% balance, but it’s also not 100% balanced that one partner was able to spend far more time with the children (and usually both parents want to despite what some debate participants will say), and other non financial costs and benefits. One way to solve this would be to require all marriages to have a pre negotiated divorce agreement with experienced advisors on both sides to discuss what would be fair compensation in case of divorce.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > but it’s also not 100% balanced that one partner was able to spend far more time with the children That can easily be balanced via legislation. What cannot be balanced is one partner having to take on all the health risks and lifelong consequences of childbirth and breastfeeding, etc.
    - odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
      So you are ok that Ukranian women atm to also not be able to leave the country and have to fight? Because there are also a lot of consequences for being a man that just keep being ignored (famous Hillary Clinton's quote that the real victims of war are the widows of the fallen soldiers springs to mind)
    - scarmig 5y ago
      In general, men get the short end of the stick with the current setup of household gender roles. They work more hours, at jobs they like less and are more stressed at, and experience far more on the job fatalities and permanent disabilities than women do. The net result of this is that men are more likely to die any given year during their careers and have a life span shorter by several years than women do.
    - epicureanideal 5y ago
      > one partner having to take on all the health risks Sure, but let’s be careful not to cherry pick the statistics. It’s still true that the average life expectancy for men is about 5 years shorter than women. I notice that there are attempts in our society to balance some areas of risk but not others. Breast cancer funding is much greater than prostate cancer funding despite the latter killing more people, etc.
      - klipt 5y ago
        Yeah if we really cared about equality of outcome we'd be funding men's health to the tune of trillions to reduce the life expectancy gap.
    - 5y ago
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Even, you would need to define a specific problem. If you are talking about overall career impact post birth, you would only expect equal outcomes if men and women are making the same choices and have the same preferences. If the "problem" is simply different numeric outcomes between men and women, it ignores any differences between the wants of men and women.
JamesBarney 5y ago
How do we fix this when the underlying cause is workers who prioritize their job more and have more years of experience get paid more?
- daenz 5y ago
  This is what "equity" refers to. It means that the playing field must be deliberately tilted to "counteract" any natural tilting. If that feels unfair, that's because it is, intentionally. But the counter argument is that it was already unfair from the start.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Is it unfair if choosing to prioritize career, working longer/harder at it, and becoming more skilled/productive at it is rewarded in the market?
  - tomp 5y ago
    Paying more productive people the same as less productive people is a great way to ensure there are no productive people.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  What does it mean to prioritize a career? There are a lot of career obligations that aren't fundamental to productivity. For example, people are largely expected to go to an office and be physically present for eight consecutive hours. This makes certain kinds of childcare activities impossible. But if instead flexible hours or work-from-home were the norm, this choice would no longer be necessary and it no longer becomes a "one or the other" situation. Consider something like the idea that pumping at work is unprofessional. This is a 100% cultural thing. Pumping does not make somebody less productive. But if we don't consider this cultural influence we might just say "well women just choose to stay at home when they have infants and there is nothing we can do about that."
- missedthecue 5y ago
  If and individual makes the personal decision that some priority is more important to them than money, society should tell them they're wrong and give them the money anyway?
AdrianB1 5y ago
I have seen companies where having and raising children result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings: I personally know 2 women in my office that were promoted while in maternity leave and one after she left the company: some companies bend backwards to promote women. I also have a colleague in the team in US that took a 15 year break to be a stay at home mom, the kids are now teenagers so she came back to work; she was automatically promoted to a position similar with having the past 15 years working. My point: it depends on the company, country, field of work etc.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Do your male coworker get promoted while on bonding leave? Is that typical?
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    Males are rarely, if ever promoted, in the past 10 years the ratio was 10 to 1 female to male.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  What does someone getting promoted after they left the company mean, in practice?
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    An announcement was posted the person is leaving the company (she gave notice). 2 weeks later, another announcement was posted that the person was promoted. The person did leave the company as planned.
- Fargoan 5y ago
- bertjk 5y ago
  > ...and one after she left the company This honestly sounds pretty fishy-- like they wanted to goose their diversity stats for free while not actually changing any part of their org chart.
smugma 5y ago
It shouldn’t. If you have 10 Years experience and take a year off to birth and raise a child, you should be able to come back and be paid similarly to a man or woman who has 10 years of experience and not be penalized 2-3 years of experience for it. People may have different commitments to work after having kids, and compensation can and should be adjusted based on that. I definitely work much less than I did pre-kids, but my compensation has gone up significantly. I think this is typical for men. My wife also works less for more money post kids (but she had kids while doing postdoctoral work, and then moved to private industry).
- nightski 5y ago
  I'd take this a step further and argue that any gaps in employment history should not be looked on nearly as negatively as they are today. It really invokes a wage slave mentality.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    At least in tech, I think we're mostly there already, particularly if the applicant has some explanation for it (and even then it's getting rarer to ask about it). With the large amount of no-child/one-child families and waiting until mid 30s to start having kids, it's very common for people to have enough income/savings that they can take a few months or even a couple years off to travel the world or try a startup, or something else.
    - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
      I'd be careful stating this, as the reason why this isn't happening might be as simple as "there aren't enough experienced tech workers to make such a demand". Considering tech recruitment is still willing to do many other things which aren't empirically proven or even have empirical evidence suggesting against the act, there is room for skepticism here.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Following this to its logical conclusion, would you say that devs with 10 years experience shouldn't earn any more than someone fresh from college?
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Yeah, I've encountered multiple feminist types who feel this way. Sorry, the market pays based on experience, not on age! You're asking for a subsidy.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  At what point are we as a society going to call out this self interested promotion and self entitled freeloading for what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
david38 5y ago
This is laughable. For this to be true, * raising children would require zero time and overhead * or people who don’t have children should be barred from working more hours than a working mother can reasonably work. Of course this entire discussion is mostly classist to such a degree many people literally don’t see it. For a mother to work full time with young children requires a lower paid (usually a woman) person to take on the child rearing role. So it’s sexist for a woman to take a few years prioritizing her children, but it’s equality for another woman to raise those children?

I've seen the argument that women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings.

by daenz 5y ago

I've seen the argument that women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings.

jldugger 5y ago

Probably the better faith argument is that it should impact both genders equally, but it's a lot harder problem to solve, with multiple layers of interaction in a dynamic system.

godelski 5y ago
If it affects both equally that's equivalent to no effect when comparing the difference. I think if we're discussing in good faith then you and the parent agree but are using different perspectives.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  > women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings is different from > affects both equally Perhaps the first should have been "women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings greater than those experienced by men".
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >women having and raising children should result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings greater than those experienced by men". Greater than men in general, or men who make the the same choices as the impacted women?
epicureanideal 5y ago
Well, if the parents are married all the earnings typically accumulate as common assets. In the event of a divorce those common assets are divided, and usually for a period of several years or more the higher earner is required to transfer further income from their paycheck to the lower earner. This doesn’t show up in the statistics I assume. It’s possible this doesn’t create a 100% balance, but it’s also not 100% balanced that one partner was able to spend far more time with the children (and usually both parents want to despite what some debate participants will say), and other non financial costs and benefits. One way to solve this would be to require all marriages to have a pre negotiated divorce agreement with experienced advisors on both sides to discuss what would be fair compensation in case of divorce.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > but it’s also not 100% balanced that one partner was able to spend far more time with the children That can easily be balanced via legislation. What cannot be balanced is one partner having to take on all the health risks and lifelong consequences of childbirth and breastfeeding, etc.
  - odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
    So you are ok that Ukranian women atm to also not be able to leave the country and have to fight? Because there are also a lot of consequences for being a man that just keep being ignored (famous Hillary Clinton's quote that the real victims of war are the widows of the fallen soldiers springs to mind)
  - scarmig 5y ago
    In general, men get the short end of the stick with the current setup of household gender roles. They work more hours, at jobs they like less and are more stressed at, and experience far more on the job fatalities and permanent disabilities than women do. The net result of this is that men are more likely to die any given year during their careers and have a life span shorter by several years than women do.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    > one partner having to take on all the health risks Sure, but let’s be careful not to cherry pick the statistics. It’s still true that the average life expectancy for men is about 5 years shorter than women. I notice that there are attempts in our society to balance some areas of risk but not others. Breast cancer funding is much greater than prostate cancer funding despite the latter killing more people, etc.
    - klipt 5y ago
      Yeah if we really cared about equality of outcome we'd be funding men's health to the tune of trillions to reduce the life expectancy gap.
  - 5y ago
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Even, you would need to define a specific problem. If you are talking about overall career impact post birth, you would only expect equal outcomes if men and women are making the same choices and have the same preferences. If the "problem" is simply different numeric outcomes between men and women, it ignores any differences between the wants of men and women.

JamesBarney 5y ago

How do we fix this when the underlying cause is workers who prioritize their job more and have more years of experience get paid more?

daenz 5y ago
This is what "equity" refers to. It means that the playing field must be deliberately tilted to "counteract" any natural tilting. If that feels unfair, that's because it is, intentionally. But the counter argument is that it was already unfair from the start.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Is it unfair if choosing to prioritize career, working longer/harder at it, and becoming more skilled/productive at it is rewarded in the market?
- tomp 5y ago
  Paying more productive people the same as less productive people is a great way to ensure there are no productive people.
UncleMeat 5y ago
What does it mean to prioritize a career? There are a lot of career obligations that aren't fundamental to productivity. For example, people are largely expected to go to an office and be physically present for eight consecutive hours. This makes certain kinds of childcare activities impossible. But if instead flexible hours or work-from-home were the norm, this choice would no longer be necessary and it no longer becomes a "one or the other" situation. Consider something like the idea that pumping at work is unprofessional. This is a 100% cultural thing. Pumping does not make somebody less productive. But if we don't consider this cultural influence we might just say "well women just choose to stay at home when they have infants and there is nothing we can do about that."
missedthecue 5y ago
If and individual makes the personal decision that some priority is more important to them than money, society should tell them they're wrong and give them the money anyway?

AdrianB1 5y ago

I have seen companies where having and raising children result in no interruptions of their career growth or earnings: I personally know 2 women in my office that were promoted while in maternity leave and one after she left the company: some companies bend backwards to promote women. I also have a colleague in the team in US that took a 15 year break to be a stay at home mom, the kids are now teenagers so she came back to work; she was automatically promoted to a position similar with having the past 15 years working. My point: it depends on the company, country, field of work etc.

rdtwo 5y ago
Do your male coworker get promoted while on bonding leave? Is that typical?
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Males are rarely, if ever promoted, in the past 10 years the ratio was 10 to 1 female to male.
sokoloff 5y ago
What does someone getting promoted after they left the company mean, in practice?
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  An announcement was posted the person is leaving the company (she gave notice). 2 weeks later, another announcement was posted that the person was promoted. The person did leave the company as planned.
Fargoan 5y ago
bertjk 5y ago
> ...and one after she left the company This honestly sounds pretty fishy-- like they wanted to goose their diversity stats for free while not actually changing any part of their org chart.

smugma 5y ago

It shouldn’t. If you have 10 Years experience and take a year off to birth and raise a child, you should be able to come back and be paid similarly to a man or woman who has 10 years of experience and not be penalized 2-3 years of experience for it. People may have different commitments to work after having kids, and compensation can and should be adjusted based on that. I definitely work much less than I did pre-kids, but my compensation has gone up significantly. I think this is typical for men. My wife also works less for more money post kids (but she had kids while doing postdoctoral work, and then moved to private industry).

nightski 5y ago
I'd take this a step further and argue that any gaps in employment history should not be looked on nearly as negatively as they are today. It really invokes a wage slave mentality.
- freedomben 5y ago
  At least in tech, I think we're mostly there already, particularly if the applicant has some explanation for it (and even then it's getting rarer to ask about it). With the large amount of no-child/one-child families and waiting until mid 30s to start having kids, it's very common for people to have enough income/savings that they can take a few months or even a couple years off to travel the world or try a startup, or something else.
  - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    I'd be careful stating this, as the reason why this isn't happening might be as simple as "there aren't enough experienced tech workers to make such a demand". Considering tech recruitment is still willing to do many other things which aren't empirically proven or even have empirical evidence suggesting against the act, there is room for skepticism here.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Following this to its logical conclusion, would you say that devs with 10 years experience shouldn't earn any more than someone fresh from college?

LorenPechtel 5y ago

Yeah, I've encountered multiple feminist types who feel this way. Sorry, the market pays based on experience, not on age! You're asking for a subsidy.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
At what point are we as a society going to call out this self interested promotion and self entitled freeloading for what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

david38 5y ago

This is laughable. For this to be true, * raising children would require zero time and overhead * or people who don’t have children should be barred from working more hours than a working mother can reasonably work. Of course this entire discussion is mostly classist to such a degree many people literally don’t see it. For a mother to work full time with young children requires a lower paid (usually a woman) person to take on the child rearing role. So it’s sexist for a woman to take a few years prioritizing her children, but it’s equality for another woman to raise those children?