3 ms·

And yet the takeaway from his point is entirely valid. The returns from the money spent on education are not present if the time spent in the field is low (thr

And yet the takeaway from his point is entirely valid. The returns from the money spent on education are not present if the time spent in the field is low (through either low hours or leaving the field). Ex - Nearly 40% of female physicians are either part time or no longer in the field at all after just 6 years. And that's literally data coming from the AAMC (https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/why-women-leave-medicine https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/why-women-leave-medicine). 22.6% of female physicians are part time after 6 years, compared to just 3.6% of male physicians. That's your gender gap... Further - the obvious cause is staring everyone in the face... children. Women are still disproportionately considered the primary caregivers for children. If you want to remove the gender gap... make it more compelling for men to stay at home and take care of their kids. Personally - I think this will be a fairly challenging task, because I happen to see childcare as a very rewarding occupation (at least when they're your own children, especially below the age of ~12), which makes it obvious why women presented with the opportunity to stay at home take it. But that reward is not financial.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
I can't think of how we ensure that men and women have the same exact outcomes without taking away their freedom of choice or enforcing equal pay regardless of time worked. Are there any societies out there that could not accept the inequality in earnings and successfully figured out a solution that felt both liberal and fair? It feels like you just can't get an egalitarian utopia without the government setting hard limits on how much or how little each person can work. Seems like getting 100% parity would be mostly unsolvable, given human nature, unless we were to replace those workers with computers.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Personally - As a father, I think you could get a hell of a lot closer with the following 1. Free childcare (we've already gone a long way here with the public school system, which at the end of the day mainly boils down to childcare in many parts of the US) 2. Family stipends during FMLA leave for childbirth. Number 2 in particular is required because social norms are still absolutely geared towards expecting new fathers to take considerably less time off to ensure a paycheck is coming in. This sets a rhythm that is hard to adjust later - the father does not spend as much bonding time with young children. Housework falls to the mother because she is no longer working. Once the mother is recovered the patterns are already established, and the conversation about cost of childcare vs the mother's salary begins on a biased foot. I'd actually much prefer being a full time stay at home dad, but holy fucking hell is the stigma running strong there across our society at large.
zx8080 4y ago
From the other point of view, what would it mean if women will spend much less time with children. For example, if they will be some better compensated. Will children be spending time in nursery? From the financial point of view that seems to be wise for women. But what changes does it bring to the socium? For children, spending time mostly in a nursery while both parents work hard vs with mother (or both parents) is very different.
- scarmig 4y ago
  Of course, it's also possible for the father to deprioritize career and take on childcare duties. But that's much harder to make happen, and it's not because companies don't provide enough paternity leave.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I took more paternity leave than my wife took maternity. I got SO much fucking flak for it from family/friends/co-workers. Especially the older crowd (45+). The deal on paper is often not the deal you're expected to take. Opting out of a career in favor of childcare is considered a privilege reserved for woman in many circles. I'd happily be a full time stay at home dad - but I make 3x what my wife does because I went into software and she works for a non-profit. So currently we balance both full time jobs and pay for daycare. But that starts to make less sense if we have kiddo number 2 or 3 - because then daycare costs begin to eclipse her salary. The problem is that 5 to 8 years from now - all the kids can attend public school, and we'll likely both want to work full time at that point regardless of what we do now, but the person taking the gap will likely end up making less (they will be 5 to 8 years less senior & experienced).
    - tw98521358 4y ago
      In theory yes but your wife wasn’t planning to earn that much money anyway, extra 5 years at a non profit probably won’t boost earnings much if at all. That actually happens to a lot of families, the woman is often not that interested in bringing in income and just focuses on whatever she ways to do. That’s a luxury that many women get and that gets reflected in the salary averages

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

I can't think of how we ensure that men and women have the same exact outcomes without taking away their freedom of choice or enforcing equal pay regardless of time worked. Are there any societies out there that could not accept the inequality in earnings and successfully figured out a solution that felt both liberal and fair? It feels like you just can't get an egalitarian utopia without the government setting hard limits on how much or how little each person can work. Seems like getting 100% parity would be mostly unsolvable, given human nature, unless we were to replace those workers with computers.

horsawlarway 4y ago
Personally - As a father, I think you could get a hell of a lot closer with the following 1. Free childcare (we've already gone a long way here with the public school system, which at the end of the day mainly boils down to childcare in many parts of the US) 2. Family stipends during FMLA leave for childbirth. Number 2 in particular is required because social norms are still absolutely geared towards expecting new fathers to take considerably less time off to ensure a paycheck is coming in. This sets a rhythm that is hard to adjust later - the father does not spend as much bonding time with young children. Housework falls to the mother because she is no longer working. Once the mother is recovered the patterns are already established, and the conversation about cost of childcare vs the mother's salary begins on a biased foot. I'd actually much prefer being a full time stay at home dad, but holy fucking hell is the stigma running strong there across our society at large.

zx8080 4y ago

From the other point of view, what would it mean if women will spend much less time with children. For example, if they will be some better compensated. Will children be spending time in nursery? From the financial point of view that seems to be wise for women. But what changes does it bring to the socium? For children, spending time mostly in a nursery while both parents work hard vs with mother (or both parents) is very different.

scarmig 4y ago
Of course, it's also possible for the father to deprioritize career and take on childcare duties. But that's much harder to make happen, and it's not because companies don't provide enough paternity leave.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I took more paternity leave than my wife took maternity. I got SO much fucking flak for it from family/friends/co-workers. Especially the older crowd (45+). The deal on paper is often not the deal you're expected to take. Opting out of a career in favor of childcare is considered a privilege reserved for woman in many circles. I'd happily be a full time stay at home dad - but I make 3x what my wife does because I went into software and she works for a non-profit. So currently we balance both full time jobs and pay for daycare. But that starts to make less sense if we have kiddo number 2 or 3 - because then daycare costs begin to eclipse her salary. The problem is that 5 to 8 years from now - all the kids can attend public school, and we'll likely both want to work full time at that point regardless of what we do now, but the person taking the gap will likely end up making less (they will be 5 to 8 years less senior & experienced).
  - tw98521358 4y ago
    In theory yes but your wife wasn’t planning to earn that much money anyway, extra 5 years at a non profit probably won’t boost earnings much if at all. That actually happens to a lot of families, the woman is often not that interested in bringing in income and just focuses on whatever she ways to do. That’s a luxury that many women get and that gets reflected in the salary averages