4 ms·
Women are not objectively less productive workers. Men die earlier--insurance companies have figured this out so why don't companies pay them less as a result?
by czep 12y ago
Women are not objectively less productive workers. Men die earlier--insurance companies have figured this out so why don't companies pay them less as a result? They're going to die sooner, that's a significant risk to the company, they should be paid less than women. Men are more likely to engage in risky behavior, more likely to have anger management issues, more likely to provoke harrassment cases, all reasons to pay them less because they impose a higher risk on the company.
But for some reason you want to conveniently ignore all these facts and instead point to maternity leave and say that's why we should pay women less? Think again.
But further, if your weren't trolling, the answer to your question is that even if the assumption were true, to pay them less would be sociopathic. That's why it's wrong. Again, think.
If disabled people are actually, objectively, less productive workers, a drain on society, why is it wrong for societies to euthanize them?
- TheLoneWolfling 12y agoMen die earlier, yes. You have a point there. [2][3] says that ~90999/100000 males survive to age 60 and ~94194/100000 females survive to age 60. That's a difference of ~3195/100000, or ~3.2%. However, the question becomes if men retire earlier. And the answer is no. [1] Women retire earlier than men on average (at least in Canada. Don't have stats handy for anywhere else, unfortunately). And that's measured in years, more than compensating for the above. Regarding disabled people, a simple answer is that society as a whole would be against it, as there is enough of a chance of any individual person becoming disabled that it is in their best interest to not allow such a law. And making an argument from an economic as opposed to a moralistic point of view does not make one a sociopath. As you may not have noticed, I never mentioned my moral point of view on the matter, as it's irrelevant. [1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionm/m-age-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionm/m-age... [2] http://www.prdh.umontreal.ca/BDLC/data/can/mltper_1x5.txt http://www.prdh.umontreal.ca/BDLC/data/can/mltper_1x5.txt [3] http://www.prdh.umontreal.ca/BDLC/data/can/fltper_1x5.txt http://www.prdh.umontreal.ca/BDLC/data/can/fltper_1x5.txt [4] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-eng.pdf http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-...
- czep 12y agoMen at all age levels have higher insurance rates than women. This means they are riskier employees than women and if the reason women are being paid less is purely economic then the situation ought to be reversed and men should be paid less because of the higher risk. So clearly the reason is not economic but is a systemic bias. Yes, making an argument involving decisions that affect the life chances of human beings and hiding behind "economic theory" is sociopathic.
- nawitus 12y ago>Men at all age levels have higher insurance rates than women. This means they are riskier employees than women and if the reason women are being paid less is purely economic then the situation ought to be reversed and men should be paid less because of the higher risk. That assumes that only insurance-based risk affects economics.