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

As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 536 posts

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#451

Post by dpark »

skybrian wrote: post #433
dpark wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're getting X% merit increases every year and miss one, it will look forever as if you're underpaid relative to your peers. So people who take a long parental leave will have a permanent "pay gap" unless either the company pro-actively bumps them up (pay for the absent time as if they were present) or the employee overachieves to catch up (in which case they still have a pay gap relative to their overachieving…

Since I started out working for startups, I guess I'm used to people changing jobs so often that you can't really generalize about salary like that. Like, I can't imagine judging someone by their previous or current salary versus age. (Or even knowing either data point with much precision.)

You're right that it's not cut-and-dry. A year out of the workforce doesn't guarantee a lower salary for any particular individual. It does bias toward a lower salary, though. This is the case whether you're job-hopping or not.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#452

Post by dekken_ »

tome wrote: post #395
dekken_ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and someone (them/they) have to win

I suspect, by "why would anyone", you were referring to him tolerating rather than people having proper discourse.

Why would anyone tolerate not having proper discourse.

In full.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#453

Post by sokoloff »

BeetleB wrote: post #448
sokoloff wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not at all curious about your year off (other than as incidental conversation if you choose to bring it up). I am curious about your experience and competency, both overall and in terms of recency/currency, as I believe both of those are strongly correlated to your projected contributions to my company. A pilot with 5K hours of experience is more experienced (in the pilot job market) than one with 4K. I don't car…

>A pilot with 5K hours of experience is more experienced (in the pilot job market) than one with 4K. I don't care that you could have had that extra 1K hours if you'd worked an extra year instead of doing something else. I only care whether you do or don't (as it pertains to this dimension of the evaluation). This example, along with ones others have given, all reduce to the same thing: You are not interested in dete…

To the last point, I believe that, ceteris paribus, competency increases with experience and decreases with time out of the daily exercise of those skills.

Of course everyone tries to evaluate absolute competency (ceteris non paribus) in an interview. I’m not suggesting that anyone stop doing that. I am stating a belief that experience is positively correlated and perhaps a necessary precondition of competency. If that's the case, considering experience as a component of the overall evaluation is indicated.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#454

Post by AngryData »

jaxtellerSoA wrote: post #213
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should I hire the person who was away for a solid year on parental leave over the guy who has been working diligently during that time? Maybe I'm coming from a place of privilege but that point of view makes me incredibly sad. I can't imagine being able to discriminate based on parental leave

> Maybe I'm coming from a place of privilege but that point of view makes me incredibly sad. Why? It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to take on risk that it wouldn't otherwise in the name of "equality". Choices have consequences, if you choose to stay out of work for a year to raise your child then you will be less employable.

It makes me sad to think that business is put above human needs. Overall business will thrive no matter what kind of rule set you impose. If you or another individual stops doing a specific business because you don't know how to deal with new rules, the whole point of capitalism is that somebody better than you would take your place and do what you cannot.

Trying to protect business, to me, has always seemed like a problem of personal greed being leveraged over the community's interests. Those who are individually benefiting by the current systems don't want to change it because they could potentially lose their current advantages or be superseded by others who are more willing to do more.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#455

Post by rohit2412 »

jahaja wrote: post #127
rohit2412 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the above notion is the biggest component of the gender pay gap.

Could you clarify what you mean please? I'm arguing against the imagined notion (which is also regarding representation, not pay).

Well, that notion is certainly used to argue about gender pay gap, where figures like 77 cents to the dollar are touted of.

For representation, if you increase the scope of the notion from "discrimination is the only reason" to "discrimination and unconscious social biases are the only reason", it certainly applies.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#456

Post by specialist »

zeroname wrote: post #313
Frondo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses exist at our leisure -- not the other way around. As we build and refine our society, it's entirely up to us to determine how best we want to put businesses to work, to improve society. Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules can go solo or work for someone who does.

> Anyone who wants the benefits of owning a business can be subject to those rules. Oh, those benefits of running a business. You know, like working more hours than everyone else, putting your own money on the line, being the last to get paid. Here's some hard facts: 1. Most businesses are small businesses 2. Most people are employed in small to medium businesses 3. Most businesses fail because they lose money If you…

What are the biggest hurdles (challenges) to starting and running a small business?

What would you change to encourage, empower small businesses?

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#457

Post by aklemm »

leetcrew wrote: post #450
aklemm wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if you're in a position where you can afford to shoulder the financial burden of having children, that's great and I wish you the best. if not, don't expect the small sliver of childfree folks to make up the difference for you. if we actually get to the point where society can't replace itself, maybe we can talk again." It's exactly as rigorous as your argument. We've both submitted opinions to be considered. I'm no…

i guess it boils down to you wanting me to help pay for you to raise your child(ren) and me not wanting to. an impasse indeed. there are many more of you than there are of me, so you will likely get your way if you wait.

More like I want you to pay for your fair share of having an educated workforce available made up of a generation that are contributors and not takers.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#458

Post by ThrustVectoring »

jschwartzi wrote: post #421
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop believing feminists when they say they want equality of outcome. They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers. Feminists don't want equality of outcome. They want to point at the fact that women make less money as a group than men in orde…

> They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers. Instead of becoming frustrated with feminists for not defending mens' rights, why don't we get together and start to demand safer work environments, shorter workdays, less competitive roles, and…

A lot of these folks won't take things easy just because the job is made easier. They're quite driven and focused on optimizing for overall pay. What matters is how dearly they can sell these tradeoffs.

If someone wants to work 60 hour weeks to make the most of things, forcing their job to be 40 hours just makes them pick up a less lucrative side hustle with their free time. Or if their risky job is made too safe, the risk premium disappears and in order to collect it they must retrain if able.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#459

Post by AngryData »

cvwright wrote: post #334
illumin8 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this response, and the downvotes on the parent comment, incredibly sad. If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. Even in prehistoric times, it was generally understood that there was societal benefit to letting women take care of children when they were extremely young and that perhaps letting a new mother sk…

> If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. For better or worse, you just described the early industrial United States. And people flocked from all over the world to come to it.

That might a lot to do with the highly available and relatively untapped resources and cheap land. Britain was more industrialized and progressing faster than the US at the time, but only received a fraction of the amount of immigration, but it was also highly settled with much more expensive land and most resources already claimed/owned and being tapped to fuel their industrialization.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#460

Post by avar »

jeffdavis wrote: post #369
avar wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is equality of opportunity. If some people in society want to do some activity knowing they won't build job experience while doing so, let them, even if other people don't want to and become more employable as a result. That's freedom. Whether e.g. women on average tend to take more parental leave is only a small subset of those sorts of situations in society. I (a man) took a months-long parental lea…

Equality of opportunity is a complex topic that sounds good to everyone but also means different things to everyone. The reason is that opportunities are, themselves, often the result of earlier choices. For instance, the opportunity for a desirable job may be the result of earlier experience attained, which may be the result of choices about how much time to spend on work versus family or other pursuits. It gets eve…

As the GP you're replying to: All of this is correct.

Commenting on this & the thread at large though there's a general confusion here between the narrow question of whether the right way to subsidize e.g. parental leave should be done at the employer level, and whether it's worthwhile to do so at all.

Many here are assuming that an objection to the former is equivalent to an objection to the latter.

That's not the case at all. It's possible to be a proponent of radically progressive social policies that would massively benefit parents raising children and be 100% against those policies having any negative downstream impact on companies trying to hire them as workers in the future.

E.g. one way to do that (just spitballing here) would be to recognize that a new individual in society is likely to have a long-term positive revenue impact for the government. Some percentage (e.g. 10%) of their taxes would be paid directly to their parents, and this amount could be paid on birth on the basis of median income in the country and adjusted past the age of 18 accordingly.

This would give parents a massive subsidy lifetime subsidy, and a huge incentive to steer their children towards lucrative careers which would have a positive impact on economic growth.

Post reply on HN