3 ms·

> it seems no one has come to identifying the cause of wage gap. That's because there is no discernible wage gap. There is an earnings differential that has b

> it seems no one has come to identifying the cause of wage gap. That's because there is no discernible wage gap. There is an earnings differential that has been pretty much fully explained. For example here, fairly comprehensively: "both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect women's and men's incomes -- including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact -- and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay." https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/154275... But there are many other sources. One example was a study of wages at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which has completely codified/rigid pay structure and still managed to "discriminate" against women, pretty much at the same rate as the national "gender pay gap". How? The men did more overtime, more shifts at inconvenient times etc. In fact, given all the evidence, as far as I can tell it is overexplained. Alas, this doesn't fit The Narrative™.

Onewildgamer 4y ago
Haha. Well I agree with the reasons for difference in pay gap. My suggestion is why not make those metrics public as well, people can see for themselves if it related to working hours, output, level of risk etc.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  That information largely is public. But as I wrote, it doesn't fit The Narrative™, so it doesn't get reported.
belltaco 4y ago
Is that true in places like South Korea as well or only in the west? Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the right to vote?
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Equal pay legislation was introduced in the US 60 years ago in 1963. I would guess it wasn't introduced just for fun, so presumably before that unequal pay was commonplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 South Korea introduced equal pay legislation in 1987. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that. But I really have no idea. Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..." Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected"). https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-in-south-korea/ https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-...
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > an issue that is completely gender neutral It's not completely gender neutral. For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol. Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.) Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      > It's not completely gender neutral. Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter. You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results. > women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact. This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender. Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. > emphasized the physical differences between men and women, I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs. So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Onewildgamer 4y ago

Haha. Well I agree with the reasons for difference in pay gap. My suggestion is why not make those metrics public as well, people can see for themselves if it related to working hours, output, level of risk etc.

mpweiher 4y ago
That information largely is public. But as I wrote, it doesn't fit The Narrative™, so it doesn't get reported.

belltaco 4y ago

Is that true in places like South Korea as well or only in the west? Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the right to vote?

mpweiher 4y ago
Equal pay legislation was introduced in the US 60 years ago in 1963. I would guess it wasn't introduced just for fun, so presumably before that unequal pay was commonplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 South Korea introduced equal pay legislation in 1987. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that. But I really have no idea. Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..." Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected"). https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-in-south-korea/ https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-...
- lapcat 4y ago
  > an issue that is completely gender neutral It's not completely gender neutral. For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol. Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.) Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    > It's not completely gender neutral. Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter. You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results. > women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact. This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender. Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. > emphasized the physical differences between men and women, I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs. So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯