Live data from Hacker News

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

science.sciencemag.org

501–510 of 536 posts

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

#501
post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>an educated workforce available made up of a generation that are contributors and not takers. When this is this is the case let me know. All I see is system pumping out special snowflakes that only know how to bitch and complain and scream at the slightest amount of discomfort or offense.

You are an extreme miserabilist and a hateful person - please stop and think about what life is about.

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

#503
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah so discriminating against the posh kid who took a "Gap Yah" is ok now. Presumably we should discriminate against all 4 year graduates as they took an extra year to graduate's who do it in 3.

> Presumably we should discriminate against all 4 year graduates as they took an extra year to graduate's who do it in 3. We do . All things being equal, the person hired a year earlier will have higher pay. As they should, since they have an extra year of experience. Assuming equal candidates, the one with more experience will do a better job (second system syndrome notwithstanding).

What's absolutely amazing to me is that one of the biggest complaints about unions you see is how pay is tied to seniority; the worker who's there the longest gets the most pay, not the one who "deserves" the most pay.

And here people are arguing the exact same thing!!! One extra year of time working means higher pay!

That's exactly what a lot of union pay scales are structured like, but that's evil unions; this is somehow just right???

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

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence of this phenomenon from beginning to end as you describe it? It sounds fascinating.

If you take studies that compare the gross earnings of men and women and control for some of the obvious differences in decision-making, the gender gap tends to disappear. For example, I remember hearing of a study that looked at something like "single, childless people aged 25-34 with a college degree and living in an urban environment." In this narrow demographic slice, women made something like 2% more money than…

I’ve read similar studies about the pay gap that states the gender pay gap gets smaller but most notably doesnt disappear except in extremely small examples like you stated. Could you link me to studies that says they disappear entirely or become meaninglessly small?

“Roughly speaking it's something like "if the pay and requirements are equivalent, which is a more preferable job" often lands on female dominated fields.” Could you explain what you mean by a preferable job? Because I think an office administrative job probably sucks a ton of dick. Education also broadly sucks as a career, especially given the political climate. Healthcare support super duper sucks, but the only healthcare support I know about is those assistants for the elderly which involves a lot of really unpleasant work, or nursing which is also really unpleasant and involves stuff like cleaning up vomit and shit.

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

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make very valid points about determining the actual outcome we prefer and channeling solutions to achieve them. There is some nuance. For example, a $5k tax credit might help me level the playing field today, but that $5k difference still exists for social security calculation.

> There is some nuance. For example, a $5k tax credit might help me level the playing field today, but that $5k difference still exists for social security calculation. Sure, so identify the problems and fix them. The way social security works is illogical. It's supposed to be a safety net, so why do we pay in proportion to past income rather than giving everyone the same amount? Do the affluent somehow need a larger…

The system is perfectly logical, the more you pay in over your career (based on income), the more you receive annually upon retirement. The real question is whether this is the optimal setup for broader society.

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

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Young, talented people do this all the time. If your idea of how to dismiss this criticism is to suggest wage gaps themselves are fake and that somehow men are inherently more valuable to the workforce at an intrinsic level, you're going to have to do more than compare it to seniority-based compensation schemes. (2) Tom, to be crystal clear: I think both dismissals are equally bad things to do. My point is that p…

Jordan Peterson said it best: There is no wage gap. There is an earnings gap. So, nobody is suggesting that wage gaps are fake. They're asserting it as undisputable fact. Find a place where men and women of equal experience, time at work and so on are being paid differently because of their gender and you have an easy lawsuit on your hands. In practice this doesn't happen because such discrimination doesn't happen. W…

> Find a place where men and women of equal experience, time at work and so on are being paid differently because of their gender and you have an easy lawsuit on your hands. In practice this doesn't happen because such discrimination doesn't happen.

There are hundreds to thousands of such lawsuits every year. And within a month of California rolling back forced arbitration, more popped up. Including 2 high profile class action lawsuits.

Maybe instead of listening to a man who thinks synonyms are clever life advice, you should research the actual subject. Comments like this suggest you don't have any understanding of the subject at all.

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

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're comparing a difference in wages to a difference in population. This is not actually correct (and in fact, I'm not talking about college and these numbers are not correct for college participation! ), but even if it were, we can formulate wage problems in terms of populations. > Moreover, if you want to see a large difference, what's with the gender balance in the prison population? And it's a popular argumen…

> This is not actually correct (and in fact, I'm not talking about college and these numbers are not correct for college participation!), but even if it were, we can formulate wage problems in terms of populations. But then the numbers are completely different. If you look at something like gender balance at the 20th or 30th percentile income level for full time employees, there are more men at those below-median inc…

> But then the numbers are completely different. If you look at something like gender balance at the 20th or 30th percentile income level for full time employees, there are more men at those below-median income levels than women. Then men are underrepresented around the middle, but women are highly underrepresented at the top.

This is an excellent deflection, and it's also a relatively recent phenomenon. A surge in health care worker requirements which involve a lot of traditionally gendered roles has caused this outcome.

If you control for that, this effect is substantially less pronounced.

> The people making millions or hundreds of millions a year bring the male average way up but that does nothing for the bottom 90+% of men who on average are actually making less than the average woman.

And once again, we get to a phrasing of the problem that implies that it's a problem when men are at a disadvantage but inevitable when a woman is at a disadvantage.

> The argument is that there should be consistency. If it's a problem in one case then it should be a problem in every case. We have laws against employer sex discrimination and a slew of programs to try to help women advance their careers. The wage gap is smaller now than it was 20 years ago, and smaller 20 years ago than it was 40 years ago.

And these laws are largely toothless because of forced arbitration and Non-disparage agreements. The month California nullified these, a flood of class action lawsuits against major employers opened up. New York is considering such a law as well. I wonder if other states will have the courage to actually let the law come into play>

> What analogous thing is actually being done to keep men out of prison? What progress has been made there?

This is a common MRA talking point I encounter. I absolutely agree with you that incarceration rates are absurd and dehumanizing. It's a travesty of justice and in many cases a systemic attack on citizen's rights. This does not have any bearing on our current conversation, and we as a society _MUST_ be able to pursue more than one social justice issue at a time.

> You're also apparently claiming that going to prison is a choice in the same way that choosing a profession is.

No, you did that. I claimed it was the same as doing poorly in primary school. To be clear: I think that argument is as absurd as suggesting that it's strictly women's choices that disadvantage them.

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

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take studies that compare the gross earnings of men and women and control for some of the obvious differences in decision-making, the gender gap tends to disappear. For example, I remember hearing of a study that looked at something like "single, childless people aged 25-34 with a college degree and living in an urban environment." In this narrow demographic slice, women made something like 2% more money than…

I’ve read similar studies about the pay gap that states the gender pay gap gets smaller but most notably doesnt disappear except in extremely small examples like you stated. Could you link me to studies that says they disappear entirely or become meaninglessly small? “Roughly speaking it's something like "if the pay and requirements are equivalent, which is a more preferable job" often lands on female dominated field…

Suckier jobs will do things like make you dirty, risk life and limb, be highly stressful and/or competitive, have little to no extrinsic social rewards built in, require extraordinary amounts of training and preparation to enter, or require extended periods of time away from home.

>Office Administration

It's a desk job that gets you home at a consistent time, and requires little specialized training. It's got sucky aspects, sure, but at that level of candidate competitiveness it beats out a lot of other choices.

>Education

It's got a ton of extrinsic social reward in it. People like and respect teachers, and you get to see the result of your work when your students do well.

>nursing

Again, lots of extrinsic social reward. The people you care for get better and appreciate you, and you're part of the mission to help people get better. Keep the unpleasant cleaning and remove the thankfulness and you get janitorial work, which is male dominated.

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

#509
post #503
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presumably we should discriminate against all 4 year graduates as they took an extra year to graduate's who do it in 3. We do . All things being equal, the person hired a year earlier will have higher pay. As they should, since they have an extra year of experience. Assuming equal candidates, the one with more experience will do a better job (second system syndrome notwithstanding).

What's absolutely amazing to me is that one of the biggest complaints about unions you see is how pay is tied to seniority; the worker who's there the longest gets the most pay, not the one who "deserves" the most pay. And here people are arguing the exact same thing!!! One extra year of time working means higher pay! That's exactly what a lot of union pay scales are structured like, but that's evil unions; this is s…

You’re misunderstanding. Rewarding for merit will bias towards higher pay for experience. More experience will in general lead to higher merit and thus higher pay.

Also HN, despite the meme, is not a hive mind. Some here are in support of unions and don’t consider them evil.

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

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I'm trying to make is that you do seem to be making this A > B comparison without caring about the quality of those hours. Again, it seems to present the argument in a way that echoes the concerns I've heard. "A" simply starts off with an advantage in how you keep presenting it. There doesn't seem to be room in your opinion or examples for a pilot with 3k hours flying commercial vs someone with 5k hours fly…

> You don't care _how_ they spent those 5k hours...simply that they have them? I didn’t go deep, because this isn’t an aviation forum, but sure the quality of hours matters. Retract, multi, instrument, PIC, dual given, high-performance, turbine, jet, 91, 135, 121, etc all matter. Smash-n-goes in a 172 aren’t the same as flying the line/signing for a transport jet. Anything past the FAA ATP 1500 hour mark, the quality…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN