4 ms·

This is expected after using policy to close the wage gap artificially quickly. Fast movement towards a goal means overshoot (under damped). Letting the wage

This is expected after using policy to close the wage gap artificially quickly. Fast movement towards a goal means overshoot (under damped). Letting the wage gap naturally close as societial enlightenment increases could've resulted in no overshoot (critically damped). We should strive to dampen the oscillation to a minimum around the desired setpoint (wage equity). If the oscillation grows rather than dampens, the instability will eventually break the larger system that it's operating in. Take the analogy of 'the pendulum swings both ways' for societal norms. If you apply pressure to the pendulum you could slow it to a stop, or you could speed it up enough that it breaks it's chain and becomes a cannonball.

ajross 2y ago
I think that's backwards, and not substantiated. The "policy to close the wage gap quickly" was primarily removing roadblocks: more access to high wage jobs and high-status educational paths, higher wages for traditionally "female" professions, etc... The problem detailed are actually endemic: women do better in primary education, and always have. So if you take the roadblocks out of their way they'd be expected to do better in early career paths that "look like school". I don't know that this is really that surprising. So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? (Edit: the whiplash on the votes in this comment is dizzying, but I guess unsurprising. I do think that an awful lot of people on this forum aren't mentally prepared for the case of "What if women actually are better at entry level corporate work than men are?")
- avmich 2y ago
  > So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? Yes. Why not?
- johntitorjr 2y ago
  Your libertarian perspective is missing the individual humanity of the issue. It's not about systemic roadblocks, it's about society's values. Our society has pushed a lot of messaging towards girls and women that encouraged academic and professional excellence. Media unabashedly points out examples of successful women. That's encouraged girls to dream and women to persevere. As a middle-class white man, the messaging I've heard is that success shouldn't be celebrated because anyone with my level of privilege should be successful. It's not uncommon for me to feel shame from national media. I second guess myself on my masculine traits being toxic. I'm NOT advocating to be less encouraging of women. But I think we should be more loving and encouraging of little white boys so they don't grow up to become NEETs, MAGAs, or DOGEs. Edit - Sorry to have not answered your question. >if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? Maybe. Action could be useful, but only a delicate touch that doesn't exacerbate overshoot in the other direction.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? It's funny you put it this way. Feminists were never satisfied when men suggested that maybe men got paid more because they were more hard-working or talented, and maybe their success was simply the result of good choices and higher natural ability, or biological life cycle differences, or the preferences of women themselves to not work as hard. To actually answer the question, I think the fix that should be put in place is to stop assuming that sex differences are because of discrimination, and immediately end policies that promote quotas on people based on characteristics like sex. It's clear that women have not been actually disadvantaged in general for a very long time, and pretending otherwise is harming men. Treat people equally as possible, and let the outcomes be what they must. In my opinion I think men are also losing motivation because all the jobs they might like are being outsourced and undercut. They're told they are oppressors even though they have little real power in society. Most of them aren't getting any attention from the opposite sex either, because women don't want to date down. Demographic imbalances also make the dating pools skewed in favor of women. In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids, or even be tricked into thinking they can have it all at 40. But by then it is too late.
  - ajross 2y ago
    So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be. Instead, the reason is social and governmental repression of a disadvantaged class, and regulatory action is needed to address the unfair results. How exactly is that not just DEI for men? > In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids And that's just plain sexist. Yikes.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be. Yes! I don't care that you gave a reference. Men invented practically the whole world around us and are more physically capable than women. They have been doing half of the work or more for millenia, and aspire to do great things (for women's benefit no less). You think some pissant DEI-funded result that only applies to modern times, where men are abandoning college because it's not worth it and women proceed because they are highly conformist and do what they're told, changes that? >How exactly is that not just DEI for men? What I said was to stop favoring women. If I was a woman I could have my pick of jobs or at least a leg up. I might have also gotten scholarships and other opportunities in school. That is not even possible for men. Try to make a scholarship or other benefit for boys and see how much shit you'll get. Even the Boy Scouts were forced to take girls. Somehow you think treating people equally according to their characteristics is DEI for men. I think you're a woman trying to justify discrimination against men. >And that's just plain sexist. Yikes. So, me acknowledging that women may regret letting 100% of their eggs fall out before trying to have a kid is sexist, but saying something as stupid as women are better workers than men in general isn't? Yikes indeed.
iLoveOncall 2y ago
> policy to close the wage gap artificially quickly You jumbled your words, here's what the sentence should have been: policy to close the artificial wage gap quickly. It's well known that at equivalent position, company and resume, there is no wage gap.
- johntitorjr 2y ago
  artificially quickly != artificial wage gap I said what I meant, but I agree, it could've been said more clearly.

ajross 2y ago

I think that's backwards, and not substantiated. The "policy to close the wage gap quickly" was primarily removing roadblocks: more access to high wage jobs and high-status educational paths, higher wages for traditionally "female" professions, etc... The problem detailed are actually endemic: women do better in primary education, and always have. So if you take the roadblocks out of their way they'd be expected to do better in early career paths that "look like school". I don't know that this is really that surprising. So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? (Edit: the whiplash on the votes in this comment is dizzying, but I guess unsurprising. I do think that an awful lot of people on this forum aren't mentally prepared for the case of "What if women actually are better at entry level corporate work than men are?")

avmich 2y ago
> So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? Yes. Why not?
johntitorjr 2y ago
Your libertarian perspective is missing the individual humanity of the issue. It's not about systemic roadblocks, it's about society's values. Our society has pushed a lot of messaging towards girls and women that encouraged academic and professional excellence. Media unabashedly points out examples of successful women. That's encouraged girls to dream and women to persevere. As a middle-class white man, the messaging I've heard is that success shouldn't be celebrated because anyone with my level of privilege should be successful. It's not uncommon for me to feel shame from national media. I second guess myself on my masculine traits being toxic. I'm NOT advocating to be less encouraging of women. But I think we should be more loving and encouraging of little white boys so they don't grow up to become NEETs, MAGAs, or DOGEs. Edit - Sorry to have not answered your question. >if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? Maybe. Action could be useful, but only a delicate touch that doesn't exacerbate overshoot in the other direction.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix? It's funny you put it this way. Feminists were never satisfied when men suggested that maybe men got paid more because they were more hard-working or talented, and maybe their success was simply the result of good choices and higher natural ability, or biological life cycle differences, or the preferences of women themselves to not work as hard. To actually answer the question, I think the fix that should be put in place is to stop assuming that sex differences are because of discrimination, and immediately end policies that promote quotas on people based on characteristics like sex. It's clear that women have not been actually disadvantaged in general for a very long time, and pretending otherwise is harming men. Treat people equally as possible, and let the outcomes be what they must. In my opinion I think men are also losing motivation because all the jobs they might like are being outsourced and undercut. They're told they are oppressors even though they have little real power in society. Most of them aren't getting any attention from the opposite sex either, because women don't want to date down. Demographic imbalances also make the dating pools skewed in favor of women. In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids, or even be tricked into thinking they can have it all at 40. But by then it is too late.
- ajross 2y ago
  So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be. Instead, the reason is social and governmental repression of a disadvantaged class, and regulatory action is needed to address the unfair results. How exactly is that not just DEI for men? > In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids And that's just plain sexist. Yikes.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be. Yes! I don't care that you gave a reference. Men invented practically the whole world around us and are more physically capable than women. They have been doing half of the work or more for millenia, and aspire to do great things (for women's benefit no less). You think some pissant DEI-funded result that only applies to modern times, where men are abandoning college because it's not worth it and women proceed because they are highly conformist and do what they're told, changes that? >How exactly is that not just DEI for men? What I said was to stop favoring women. If I was a woman I could have my pick of jobs or at least a leg up. I might have also gotten scholarships and other opportunities in school. That is not even possible for men. Try to make a scholarship or other benefit for boys and see how much shit you'll get. Even the Boy Scouts were forced to take girls. Somehow you think treating people equally according to their characteristics is DEI for men. I think you're a woman trying to justify discrimination against men. >And that's just plain sexist. Yikes. So, me acknowledging that women may regret letting 100% of their eggs fall out before trying to have a kid is sexist, but saying something as stupid as women are better workers than men in general isn't? Yikes indeed.

iLoveOncall 2y ago

> policy to close the wage gap artificially quickly You jumbled your words, here's what the sentence should have been: policy to close the artificial wage gap quickly. It's well known that at equivalent position, company and resume, there is no wage gap.

johntitorjr 2y ago
artificially quickly != artificial wage gap I said what I meant, but I agree, it could've been said more clearly.