Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 362 posts

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

#271

Post by rhizome »

OJFord wrote: post #262
rhizome wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Invert this: what explains capitalists paying women 25% less for the same skills? Why aren't the salaries of men decreased in light of actual proof that the work can be done for less?

That's not an inversion, it's the same point: apparently it can't.

Either I don't understand or I disagree. GP's point was not that a true capitalist would reduce the overall compensation.

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

Quanttek wrote: post #239
randyrand wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists" It's called a meritocracy. And its what most people want. People will always want to play the victim card regardless.

So you're saying that women are just worse in everything?

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by sheepmullet »

rayiner wrote: post #161
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…

> 3. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs, such as teacher, caregiver etc. In general women tend to care about people while men care about things (STEM). Again: biology or social construct Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. The fact that Sweden has skewed representation…

> Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric.

India has massive and pervasive poverty and tech especially is seen as a way out of poverty. Many programmers there earn 5x the average wage.

Comparing that to the UK where programmers are not paid particularly well compared to other professions is disingenuous.

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

#274

Post by sheepmullet »

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…

> 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?

Spot on. Decades of outsourcing should have convinced everyone that businesses are not out to help the working class white man.

Profits above all.

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

#275

Post by abiox »

soneca wrote: post #202
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…

> 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? I believe this is a very weird ponderation. The whole point is that capitalists don't do that because there is sexism among them. They are ignoring rational evidence because they have a preconceived idea that women are worse employees. If capitalists were…

> They are ignoring rational evidence because they have a preconceived idea that women are worse employees.

wouldn't this imply they would avoid hiring much, if any? why bother hiring people you don't feel are worth hiring?

> No, they werent because they were racists.

racists hire people they're biased against all the time if there is some advantage in doing so.

i'm more inclined to believe the circumstance you speak of was avoidance of socioeconomic consequences. there was a time when having a team with too many black athletes (heaven forbid mostly, or even all black) would tank your ticket sales.

> Why are today employers more enlightened that past team owners?

well, it helps that it doesn't hurt ticket sales.

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

#276

Post by PhasmaFelis »

deno wrote: post #220
soneca wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I believe this is a very weird ponderation. The whole point is that capitalists don't do that because there is sexism among them. They are ignoring rational evidence because they have a preconceived idea that women are worse employees. If capitalists were…

And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist. There are, believe it or not, women entrepreneurs (and btw the very conservative Poland is leading the rankings[1]), so even if all male employers were in fact equally sexist, that would just mean female-led companies would out-compete them. [1] http://wbj.pl/poland-high-in-global-women-entrepreneur-leade...

> And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist.

Hardly. It just requires that enough men are sexist to discourage women from entering a field in large numbers. One abusive person in a position of power can have a hugely disproportionate impact.

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

#277

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

randyrand wrote: post #141
Quanttek wrote: post #135

I hate these kinds of statistics because all they say is "If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists". Industries typically inhabited by women getting paid less? Predominantly male/female industries suddnely decreasing/increasing in average pay when women/men enter it? Women having a lesser likelihood of getting promoted? Women having a lower likelihood of getting hired for higher…

>"If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists" It's called a meritocracy. And its what most people want. People will always want to play the victim card regardless.

Language is funny.

The term 'meritocracy' entered the popular lexicon with the publishing of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy, a satirical work that lampooned the idea. But the term was adopted seriously and has persisted.

I think it's self-evident that the notion accomplishes nothing, rather just kicks the can to a debate over what you consider meritorious.

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

#278

Post by sheepmullet »

twobyfour wrote: post #206
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…

Do women choose jobs that are lower paying? Or do we pay less for careers that are female-dominated? There are some observations (sorry, don't have the links right now) that typical salaries for careers such as teaching and primary care medicine have decreased as they've transitioned from being male-dominated to female-dominated.

> There are some observations (sorry, don't have the links right now) that typical salaries for careers such as teaching and primary care medicine have decreased as they've transitioned from being male-dominated to female-dominated.

Of course. What did you think would happen when a field gets an oversupply of new employees who aren't pay-sensitive?

As an aside why do you think big tech companies are pushing for more women in tech? Because nerds and women don't focus on pay as much as men in general do.

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

#279

Post by JimboOmega »

lr4444lr wrote: post #186
UncleMeat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly that was the case in the past, and cultural inertia is real. This allows inequities and biases to persist over time. So although women are not forced to choose teaching, for example, there are more teaching role models who are women and culture nudges women towards that career. This causes the persistent inequity in career pay that was caused in part by the original influx of women into the field when expli…

Cultural inertia is surely a factor, but I doubt it's as severe as the parent is insinuating. For instance, how do you explain women overtaking men in say, veterinary medicine? At one point, the field was entirely male dominated.

So was nursing, and really most(all?) fields. Of course going from nursing to veterinary work is not as huge a leap.

And in all cases, somebody has to be the first one; somebody has to show a path, often against institutionalized sexism. Once the door is open (especially when there are few doors) I can see careers tipping fast.

Of course computer science used to have a lot of women; especially when they were being used as human calculators(!), so I don't know what exactly changed that made it a boys' club.

Regardless of the cause, it has the perception, which makes it self perpetuating in some sense - women see articles about how tough it is to be a woman in tech, and are turned off by it, even if the higher pay is there and it's all just rumors.

I suppose though there is something of a reverse impact in some fields (in terms of labor force participation) - like nursing, which is so female dominated, there's actually negative pressure for men who try to enter it . But it also just isn't held up as high as medicine at the MD level.

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

#280

Post by JimboOmega »

lr4444lr wrote: post #85
JimboOmega wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, imagine a scenario where women are initially not in the labor force. But they want to work, same as anyone Then, one day, society changes. "You can work, but you can only be a nurse, teacher, or secretary". You don't think there'd be a supply glut driving down wages in those areas? Suppressing them over a long period as women gradually enter the labor force there? And by the same token, that society that says y…

Are you insinuating that women - today - are forced into that narrow set of professions if they want to work?

forced, no.

But do they face strong institutional barriers and negative climates in some of the best paying professions (like engineering)? Yes.

The scale of it isn't like it was 50+ years ago, but let's not pretend like it's "All Better Now"

Post reply on HN