3 ms·

Thinking there’s a lot of true things in here being pulled into a narrative that doesn’t really make sense in context. Not saying young men don’t have problems,

by moomin 11mo ago

Thinking there’s a lot of true things in here being pulled into a narrative that doesn’t really make sense in context. Not saying young men don’t have problems, but even with all those problems they’re still earning ten percent more than women in the same age bracket.

twiclo 11mo ago
No one is going to take you seriously if your argument is the tired, long debunked, wage gap argument. Women make less than men because they choose to. In recent years when you compare single working men to single working women, women are out-earning men. They're graduating college at higher rates. There are countless other statistics that paint a clear picture that men are struggling. At what point will you actually care?
- cauch 11mo ago
  No one is going to take you seriously if your argument is the very reductive "because they choose to" (being tongue-in-cheek here, don't take it seriously) It is very clear that public image has a huge impact on what people choose. For example, people who consider themselves introvert choose, in majority, to avoid fields that have a strong extrovert vibe. Similarly, people will tend to not choose fields if the field "gives a vibe" they don't feel they belong to. So, if there is an initial bias toward men, the fact that some people don't choose the field is in no way a proof that there is no bias. I agree that the 10% number is not the best, but the "corrected" number where you take the samples in same job and position does the same mistake. In fact, there are arguments that in these cases, you have a selection bias (some of the men in the field are seeing this field as their calling, but some of the men are just doing it as a job without being overly passionated, while the women that are not overly passionated just don't choose this job) and that using this methodology, women should overperform because there is a gap. The "real" number is probably in between.
michaelt 11mo ago
> they’re still earning ten percent more than women in the same age bracket. Both things can be true. To use an exaggerated example, if you pay the top 20% of people six figures and leave the bottom 80% to starve, the average earnings would look great, but you’ll soon have an angry mob on your hands. Now imagine if your average man used to be able to do skilled factory work and support a family, but those jobs have gone and growth sectors like care don’t pay enough to support a family. Then imagine an electoral system where a 4% margin separates the winner and the loser. Doesn’t take 80% of the population being disaffected to flip the results.
- cauch 11mo ago
  I think that you are right, but what is the worse (illustrative numbers): - 70% of men being allowed to get 20$ and 30% being excluded from this opportunity and getting only 5$ - 100% of women being excluded from the opportunity to get 20$ and getting only 12$ Sure, the excluded women gets more than the excluded men, but it is also very unfair that men have 70% chance to "make it" while women have 0% chance to "make it". Not saying one is worse than the other (and it is illustrative numbers anyway), but just to illustrate that 1. in both cases, looking at only one metric is not enough, 2. at the end, the answer is not really "objective" or "mathematical", and two persons can reach different conclusions based on their values.
- UncleMeat 11mo ago
  People usually compare median wages. "It's a few highly paid men skewing things" isn't what the data says.
wakawaka28 11mo ago
Men and women have different preferences. Men work hard to basically have money to spend on women (who demand that men make more), and women have the preference to have kids and experiences rather than straight cash. Young women generally make more than young men, and get better and more comfortable jobs.

by moomin 11mo ago

twiclo 11mo ago

No one is going to take you seriously if your argument is the tired, long debunked, wage gap argument. Women make less than men because they choose to. In recent years when you compare single working men to single working women, women are out-earning men. They're graduating college at higher rates. There are countless other statistics that paint a clear picture that men are struggling. At what point will you actually care?

cauch 11mo ago
No one is going to take you seriously if your argument is the very reductive "because they choose to" (being tongue-in-cheek here, don't take it seriously) It is very clear that public image has a huge impact on what people choose. For example, people who consider themselves introvert choose, in majority, to avoid fields that have a strong extrovert vibe. Similarly, people will tend to not choose fields if the field "gives a vibe" they don't feel they belong to. So, if there is an initial bias toward men, the fact that some people don't choose the field is in no way a proof that there is no bias. I agree that the 10% number is not the best, but the "corrected" number where you take the samples in same job and position does the same mistake. In fact, there are arguments that in these cases, you have a selection bias (some of the men in the field are seeing this field as their calling, but some of the men are just doing it as a job without being overly passionated, while the women that are not overly passionated just don't choose this job) and that using this methodology, women should overperform because there is a gap. The "real" number is probably in between.

michaelt 11mo ago

> they’re still earning ten percent more than women in the same age bracket. Both things can be true. To use an exaggerated example, if you pay the top 20% of people six figures and leave the bottom 80% to starve, the average earnings would look great, but you’ll soon have an angry mob on your hands. Now imagine if your average man used to be able to do skilled factory work and support a family, but those jobs have gone and growth sectors like care don’t pay enough to support a family. Then imagine an electoral system where a 4% margin separates the winner and the loser. Doesn’t take 80% of the population being disaffected to flip the results.

cauch 11mo ago
I think that you are right, but what is the worse (illustrative numbers): - 70% of men being allowed to get 20$ and 30% being excluded from this opportunity and getting only 5$ - 100% of women being excluded from the opportunity to get 20$ and getting only 12$ Sure, the excluded women gets more than the excluded men, but it is also very unfair that men have 70% chance to "make it" while women have 0% chance to "make it". Not saying one is worse than the other (and it is illustrative numbers anyway), but just to illustrate that 1. in both cases, looking at only one metric is not enough, 2. at the end, the answer is not really "objective" or "mathematical", and two persons can reach different conclusions based on their values.
UncleMeat 11mo ago
People usually compare median wages. "It's a few highly paid men skewing things" isn't what the data says.

wakawaka28 11mo ago

Men and women have different preferences. Men work hard to basically have money to spend on women (who demand that men make more), and women have the preference to have kids and experiences rather than straight cash. Young women generally make more than young men, and get better and more comfortable jobs.