Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that's the essence of the disparity. If you controlled for gendered roles, there would be no significant gender wage gap in any direction. Only if you ignored them . If you pass out a net economic benefit there is a gap. It's not as big as some stats name, but it's very much there. Heck, the very study we're discussing asserts these metrics grow! > Arbitration agreements became popular when plaintiffs attorneys…
> Only if you ignored them . If you pass out a net economic benefit there is a gap. It's not as big as some stats name, but it's very much there. Pay gap after controlling for occupation is 2%. This is statistical margin of error territory. https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap > Heck, the very study we're discussing asserts these metrics grow! ...when you give women more choices. What do you propose, stop off…
That's actually a discredited stat, but a persistent 2% discrepancy is definitionally not an error as you so slyly present here.
> Litigious trolls and wasting millions of dollars on unmeritorious litigation is an actual problem that actually happens.
So do meteor strikes on datacenters. It's not worth actually fortifying your roof; it won't make a difference anyways. Arbitration is a bad rule, it's an anti-worker rule, it's bad for the tech industry, and it's also a very expensive expectation for small companies to try and support.
If you think it's a net win, you're either siding very strongly with large corporations in exclusion of everyone else or you haven't actually examined the financials of a small tech business.
> Moreover, what seems to actually happen is that people say it's a problem for women and move to take steps against it without even considering that it could be a problem for men, and then no steps are taken against the problem for men. And if someone points that out, they get called inconsistent even though what they're asking for is consistency.
If the problem is, "Now men have less systemic power and advantage" then no, you shouldn't expect payback for that. I thought folks were all in for the meritocracy here.
> Only if you assign a value of zero to the homemaking work, which is obviously unreasonable. The homemaker's household is the "employer", but because the "employer" and "employee" share finances, the credit and the debit both go to the same account and cancel out. That isn't the same as being uncompensated. If the work was uncompensated there would be an outstanding balance at the end. It's like how a programmer who writes software for personal use is neither getting it for free nor working for nothing -- the cost is in labor and the payment is in software.
This is an absolutely absurd argument. Not only do your prior salary distribution arguments ignore homemakers, you now reveal they do so on pure sophistry. You cannot eat cancelled debt, children are not clothed on those ideas. And women shouldn't be entirely beholden to their households for life.
If women end up with no money in pocket at the end of the day for what everyone agrees is difficult work with long hours, but then you IGNORE them in your salary distributions to say, "Why can't we focus more on how men feel about all this," that makes you look pretty misogynistic.
> And in addition to receiving the value of the homemaking services, the household also has the benefit of not paying any of the taxes that would be owed if the same labor was performed on the books, and not pushing the household's tax return into the higher tax brackets.
You are speaking as someone who has not run the numbers. Even modest minimum wage would radically outperform your minuscule tax benefits here. And again, I note that you only speak to "the household" and not to the actual individual women, a tic in your prose suggesting exactly the scenario you're envisioning and how women must struggle to successfully escape it should they feel the need to.
> So what's the market value of a 24/7/365 on-call polymath with a job description requiring them to do absolutely anything that comes up? (There's a reason families can only afford it when the other spouse makes a lot of money.)
Why don't we require private interests that benefit from this essential labor to fund a reasonable working wage for this then? I am genuinely all for this. And then suddenly your aforementioned male salary woes become very prominent in the distributions, and women aren't compelled to stay with abusive partners because they don't have the resources to leave. We can focus on your evidently very urgent problems, and women get compensated fairly and may freely choose how to apply that (taxed, surely) compensation to their household.
No one disagrees on the societal benefits of strong parental involvement in childhood development. No one disagrees that this has a powerful effect on local, state and national economics. This is perhaps the single most unquestioned axiom in the politics of the developed world! The only question, raised here and elsewhere, is how equitable the arrangement is to women.