Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#221

Post by door3 » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

burntwater wrote: post #154

door3 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because unless you’re an antinatalist, some people having children is socially necessary. If the next generation had no children, society would collapse. Also, many women have unplanned pregnancies.

Society would shrink, it would not collapse. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. There's no such thing as a truly unexpected pregnancy. Undesired and unplanned perhaps, but not unexpected. In the event it does happen, there are options for either continuing or ending the pregnancy, I still see no reason why anyone should be compensated for voluntarily choosing to continue the pregnancy.

I guess "people that aren't rich have the right to comfortably raise a family" is an axiom that I had that I didn't really expect to have to defend.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#222

Post by door3 » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

burntwater wrote: post #187

Frondo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a proponent of a universal basic income, I would agree that yes, you should also be paid for sleep.

And under a plan where EVERYONE equally receives that UBI, I can see how you can say it's "being paid to sleep." Under a plan where people are being paid unequal amounts simply for being alive, that's where it's wrong.

Raising a child is not just "being alive". It requires a tremendous amount of uncompensated labor.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#223

Post by SaintGhurka » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

sudoke wrote: post #209

boffinism wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about wealth inequality as a bad thing they're normally talking about self-perpetuating wealth inequality, or wealth inequality that is caused by things that are seen as inherently unfair, like the family you are born into. A lot of people who have comparative wealth and have worked hard for it feel they have earned their wealth, disregarding the fact that a lot of other people work equally hard and…

People who think wealth inequality is a problem are being short sighted. >wealth inequality that is caused by things that are seen as inherently unfair, like the family you are born into. I, like my father before me, am making sacrifices to benefit my future generations. It's not unfair, it's called being responsible and thinking about the future. edit: changed delusional to short sighted.

So rather than downmods, I'd be really interested to hear why people disagree with this - apart from the argumentative "delusional" comment.

Is it wrong to work hard to improve your children's future prospects?

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#224

Post by cup-of-tea » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

nerdymanchild wrote: post #199

cup-of-tea wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some regulations make the market less free, some make it more free. Many free markets degrade into oligopolies and eventually monopolies unless they are regulated. Free market economics is something you learn on the first day of economic theory. But then you very quickly learn that they don't actually exist or if they did exist would be very bad for us (due to high external costs etc.) In what market do consumers rea…

Why is a working free market predicated on consumers having perfect knowledge? Free != Efficient

That's just the definition of free market. How can it be be free if the consumers don't have perfect knowledge?

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#225

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

sudoke wrote: post #145

logfromblammo wrote: post #120

Real life stubbornly resists all attempts to make it more fair . An 8% difference in either direction is acceptable to me. It's good enough to tolerate until it's worth revisiting for further improvements. So now that we have the gender pay gap (almost) sorted out, perhaps we should tackle a problem more likely to cause societal problems: the increasing measures of wealth inequality.

Why is wealth inequality a problem? People should be free to pursue maximum compensation for their skills and abilities, not be limited because they are better at somethings than other people.

It is not, in itself, a problem.

A certain amount of inequality encourages economic growth and innovation. Zero wealth inequality would be perfect communism. A lot of people--myself included--presume that would retard growth due to a lack of incentives.

The maximum amount of wealth inequality would be for one person to own the entire world, and for everyone else to have nothing. This is practically impossible, of course. We can only approximate it, such as by 1% of Earth's population owning 99% of its wealth. This generally encourages the other 99% of the people to take some of that wealth by force, without regard to any increased productivity the current owner may be able to squeeze out via economies of scale or capital investment, or whatever.

A medium amount of inequality encourages people with less wealth to do neat and interesting things in order to become more wealthy (economic mobility), and for those with more to make capital investments that increase productivity, purchase luxury goods, and finance megaprojects (concentration of capital).

So the problem is when the amount of wealth inequality moves away from the optimal profile, which remains undiscovered. My perception is that we are moving away from the optimum, rather than toward it.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#226

Post by JPGalt » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #56

JPGalt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would further add that the credibility of the person performing the "study" is also no longer analyzed which it should be because implicit bias is a serious factor.

Implicit bias or confirmation bias?

I would say it could be either but none the less bias is a relevant variable that should always be considered. For example, studies on say smoking or the health benefits of a pharmaceutical performed by a tobacco company or big pharma respectively are openly and voraciously discredited as bias which they should be. Anything relating to social justice of any sort is swallowed as irrefutable fact without a second thought or an ounce of critical thinking applied.

It is then regurgitated argumentum ad nauseam and any statistical (read fair and scientific) analysis of the study and its bias are attacked as anti-something, racist, misogynist etc. It is academically and morally corrupt and cannot and should not be allowed. The academic community should be vocally standing against this practice but being that they are afraid to be called a name or slur they swallow it.

People have put their political subscription above everything else and it is sickening.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#227

Post by Mononokay » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

door3 wrote: post #214

Mononokay wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Biology has already discriminated and made her life hard, should we make it worse? Her choices made her life hard. She could have not had the child. Biology did not discriminate against her, it gave her a choice. In modern society having children is absolutely a choice, for both parties involved. You can argue that the government should, which, while I don't at all agree with, is reasonable. It's not reasonable, ho…

unplanned pregnancies exist, and abortion access is spotty at best, especially for poor people

Putting children up for adoption is an option more frequently than not, and vasectomies and tubectomies exist.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#228

Post by JPGalt » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

crispyporkbites wrote: post #60

JPGalt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me to the multiple variable analysis and the full report that demonstrates the clear evidence you mention. I have yet to find one and I have tried damn hard.

You’re only comparing one variable, pay, so I’m not sure why you want a multivariate analysis. If you’re asking whether there’s a gender pay gap amoung similarly qualified people, then you’re asking a different question.

That is an academically dishonest approach to this or any perceived issue. Anyone who would even begin to approach any issue in a manor as to prove a hypothesis true or untrue would follow the basic scientific method. There are many variables that account for differences in pay. Ignoring them is dishonest and will only be accepted by idiots. Sorry for the harsh words but it is true.

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#229

Post by d0lph » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

sudoke wrote: post #165

gluelogic wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he is saying is that, generally, given the choice, women will prefer social work to asocial work.

This is the same sexist attitude that got that google employee fired. I suggest you stay off HN and stick to TD with these ideas.

Why is it sexist to suggest that women might prefer different careers from men?

Re: Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

#230

Post by belorn » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

ada1981 wrote: post #200

_o_ wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is ok, that you skip it, the difference on pay gap is men having far worse life for those few extra bucks. It is not everything about the money and your path is correct. We (men) are doing it wrong and we are the idiots. The extra money is just not worth it, but we are pushed into craving for social status (which in most cases equals to income, car, house,...) due to the fact that potential mates (females) are…

Interesting theory. So you think if women make more, than men will try to increase the wealth inequality in other ways? I'm curious about that. Alternately, they could also just learn how to validate and be with women's emotions (and their own).

You mean women could stop evaluating men based on money?

Wealth for men is the single highest factor when predicting response rate for male profiles in dating sites (according to the data I have read). Wealth and earning rates of married men correlated to the rate in which their spouse will file for divorce. Men and wealth has a similar relation as women and appearance.

Men as a single group has as much ability to stop being evaluated for their wealth as women as a single group can stop being evaluated on appearance. In theory women could stop compete on appearance between other women, but its dubious if that would actually change male behavior. Similarly, men could stop compete for wealth but its questionable if that would cause any cultural change for women.