> Not some hand wavy "work smarter" bullshit.
If you're so violently opposed to the notion that hours spent "butt in seat" is a good metric for entitlement to compensation, why exactly are we having this conversation on HN?
> What we do know, (and you know this as well you're just not thinking critically) is that over a large population those that generally work more hours get more done and do better across the board.
Interestingly there are studies demonstrating that the absolute loss of productivity from 4 day weeks compared to 5 day weeks is negligible in most jobs. Even for 25 hour weeks (i.e. 5 hour days) the absolute loss of productivity is not even remotely proportional to the difference in hours. There have even been examples of one full time job being split into two part time jobs resulting in greater productivity. Turns out most jobs (and especially knowledge work or creative work) don't function like conveyor belt manufacturing.
> This isn't a strawman, it's called common sense.
I'm starting to believe you don't know what either of these two things mean given that those two things aren't mutually exclusive nor do they apply to the same thing. Also common sense is a heuristic, not an empirical source. It's just a fancy way of saying "gut feeling" rather than looking at actual research.
> What are you implying? that women are smarter than men so of course if they put less hours in their smartness suddenly makes up for the stupidity that is men? Come on.
Again your unstated prejudices are showing. And again I have to remind you that at no point did I say two people working doing the same work for different amounts of hours should be paid the same wage. This is your strawman you seem to want to attack, not something I said.
> There are enough exceptions that someone can construct a counter argument/research paper via miscellaneous examples but the general majority across current cultures and past cultures that men take on the bread winner role.
Because god forbid someone debunks the renaissance era myth of the hunter-gatherer division of labor, I guess, despite zero archeological evidence for it and plenty of counter-evidence from looking at isolated indigeneous communities still in existence at the time. I guess it's just "common sense" that things have always been as they are and there's no such thing as a cultural bias that may inform our interpretation of data about the past, especially during the early stages of modern science when we tried to interpret the past through the lens of understanding ourselves to be at the pinnacle of human evolution.
Sorry, you're of course right. Historical studies and archeology never evolved past 19th century navel-gazing and if it feels true to you that is the absolute standard for empirical evidence we should all adhere to. Men always won the bread, whatever that means for a pre-agrarian society. One man, one woman, barefoot and pregnant at the stove as god intended. All of history just incidentally happens to reflect the cultural mores of early modern European aristocracy that rediscovered it. Sorry, I really have to tap out now. You've won this debate with facts and logic.