When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears • Hacker News Board

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#31

Post by johnfn » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #22

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

> As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them.

That's not true. Very easy counterexample: negotiation. Women are generally less inclined to negotiate then men, causing them to earn lower salaries. Does that mean that people value jobs performed by men who negotiate more than jobs performed by women who don't? Of course not - it has nothing to do with the value-add at all.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#32

Post by projectileboy » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

oldboyFX wrote: post #11

Still not sure what to believe on this issue. Some points of discussion are (unrelated to article): 1. If women were 25% cheaper than men while being as competent, wouldn't white/male capitalists trip over themselves to only hire women to increase their profits? 2. Women are less likely to negotiate salary and assert themselves, as women in general are more agreeable than men. Is this behavior based in biology or is…

Point (1) makes perfect sense, except that historically the answer has very clearly been "no", as it has applied to capable women, people of color, LGBTQ, etc. etc.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#33

Post by johnnyb9 » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

mathperson wrote: post #24

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. But it isn't really subject to market forces the way software engineering is. A better teacher doesn't bring in more revenue and profit for a public school. Most teachers work in public schools. I am not disagreeing with you in general (I am not taking a stand either way) but this is a pretty silly example.

So they are valuable, so long as you don't value them with money.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#34

Post by jahewson » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

rexpop wrote: post #7

onewhonknocks wrote: post #3

When adjusted for factors such as hiatuses for raising kids, the answer is 'no.'

Why don't men take these hiatuses?

That's a great question, there are so many overlapping factors, such as not even having the right, or not being able to afford both parents on lesser-paid leave, to basic stuff, like they don't do the breastfeeding, or social stuff like there being no "mum's club" for men. That's before you even look at culture but I suspect that when people are faced with financial and logistical limitations then culture and preference are actually not the first place to look for answers.

I'm on paternity leave in California right now and if it wasn't for my wife's employer offering benefits far above those the government offers, we wouldn't be able to afford it.

Two things I've observed so far are that with my wife breastfeeding, she keeps her days full, but I'm bored out of my mind. It's not like the baby does anything other than eat and sleep. The other is that new mothers are typically accompanied by their own mothers - so my wife has her family around, which is great for her - but it's not the same as having my own family around.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#35

Post by darawk » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

Others wrote: post #28

darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

The problem is gender roles. Women are taught by society to think that, as women, they should go into certain careers. These careers, like teaching, tend to be lower paid than the careers men are encouraged to go into.

Now that is an explanation I can get behind. I think that there is a degree to which society socializes women to prefer lower paid jobs. That I think is absolutely legitimate. But the idea that sexism causes us to value those jobs less is, I think, absurd.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#36

Post by burkaman » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #22

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

What do you think causes such extreme gender disparities in positions like CEO, or board of directors?

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#37

Post by darawk » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #31

darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

> As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. That's not true. Very easy counterexample: negotiation. Women are generally less inclined to negotiate then men, causing them to earn lower salaries. Does that mean that people value jobs performed by men who negotiate more than jobs performed by women who don't? Of course not - it has nothing to do with the value-add at all.

That's not sexism, though. That's women negotiating less.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#38

Post by chickenfries » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #22

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

> As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'.

I challenge you to question if either of these assumptions hold in all cases or just in an idealized world where everyone is a "rational consumer."

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#39

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:39 PM UTC

rexpop wrote: post #7

onewhonknocks wrote: post #3

When adjusted for factors such as hiatuses for raising kids, the answer is 'no.'

Why don't men take these hiatuses?

For our family, I didn't take any significant time off while my wife did because I genuinely love my work and it's very highly compensated, both of those factors significantly in excess of my wife's job at the time.

She loves the outcome; I love the outcome; the kids love the outcome. It was about as close to a no-brainer decision as I've seen on an important topic.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#40

Post by rarec » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 8:39 PM UTC

Others wrote: post #28

darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

The problem is gender roles. Women are taught by society to think that, as women, they should go into certain careers. These careers, like teaching, tend to be lower paid than the careers men are encouraged to go into.

>The problem is gender roles. Men are taught by society to think that, as men, they should go into certain careers. These careers, like software development, tend to be higher paid than the careers women are encouraged to go into.

Kinda works both ways as an argument. If they were so concerned about pay, they can try and negotiate for more. Men are taught/encouraged to do this more from a young age. If you want to be paid more, you gotta haggle, you can't just accept the price on the sticker.