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

When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 362 posts

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#61

Post by kazinator »

darawk wrote: post #22
johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

Sexism is present in those forces which guide girls and women toward those under-valued positions.

> I'd grant you that teachers are underpaid, but that isn't sexism

Sure; however a statement like "teaching is work befitting a woman" would be sexism.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#62

Post by jxcole »

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

You summarize the exact point of the article perfectly: women are paid less not because they have the same job and are paid less, but because they are offered different jobs which pay less. To address sexism we should focus on making sure women have the same opportunities to do the same job that men do, rather than just trying to make sure everyone in a certain job category is paid the same.

What about this is embarrassing? Do you fee that women don't deserve the same high paying jobs as men?

It seems you are demonizing an article for saying the exact same thing that you are...

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#64

Post by mhermher »

abritinthebay wrote: post #15
onewhonknocks wrote: post #3

When adjusted for factors such as hiatuses for raising kids, the answer is 'no.'

If you just adjust everything away... well yes. But the point is that those things you have to make adjustments for are the problem .

The idea is that you're looking for the effect caused by gender/sex, so you have to remove the contributions of other factors.

Theoretically, what the comment is saying is that women get paid less because they take more leave, not because they are women. Again, theoretically, if men took leave to the same extent, their salaries would also decrease to the same extent. That's the point of controlling for other variables, so that you can tease apart the individual effects they have before they're all muddled together.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#65

Post by darawk »

johnfn wrote: post #51
darawk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not sexism, though. That's women negotiating less.

It's absolutely sexism that salary negotiations favor behaviors that men are comfortable with and women are not.

No, it isn't. The world doesn't need to be designed to produce equality of outcome. Just equality of opportunity. Women may choose to negotiate less, and that's fine. They'll get paid less. If women want to choose to negotiate more, they can do that too, and be paid more.

If you want to argue that it's sexist that we socialize women to negotiate less, i'm all for that, though.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#66

Post by pithic »

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

Perhaps teaching isn't quite as valuable as you think. Has that ever occurred to you?

Or, perhaps unctuous grandstanding should supplant market forces.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#67

Post by Jare »

oldboyFX wrote: post #11

Still not sure what to believe on this issue. Some points of discussion are (unrelated to article): 1. If women were 25% cheaper than men while being as competent, wouldn't white/male capitalists trip over themselves to only hire women to increase their profits? 2. Women are less likely to negotiate salary and assert themselves, as women in general are more agreeable than men. Is this behavior based in biology or is…

You don't see how all these surprising facts where people are doing things that go against their best interest, can be explained by irrational but strong forces such as sexism?

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#68

Post by JimboOmega »

darawk wrote: post #22
johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

Well, imagine a scenario where women are initially not in the labor force. But they want to work, same as anyone

Then, one day, society changes. "You can work, but you can only be a nurse, teacher, or secretary".

You don't think there'd be a supply glut driving down wages in those areas? Suppressing them over a long period as women gradually enter the labor force there?

And by the same token, that society that says you can't be an engineer or a CEO because you are a woman - that severely punishes those women who do seek those jobs - you don't think women would respond to that? That even if they could produce more economic value, the societal pressure can override the capitalist tendencies of organizations and individuals to maximize wealth?

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#70

Post by dixie_land »

projectileboy wrote: post #32
oldboyFX wrote: post #11

Still not sure what to believe on this issue. Some points of discussion are (unrelated to article): 1. If women were 25% cheaper than men while being as competent, wouldn't white/male capitalists trip over themselves to only hire women to increase their profits? 2. Women are less likely to negotiate salary and assert themselves, as women in general are more agreeable than men. Is this behavior based in biology or is…

Point (1) makes perfect sense, except that historically the answer has very clearly been "no", as it has applied to capable women, people of color, LGBTQ, etc. etc.

the answer is yes if you simply look at how many Chinese and Indians there are for entry-level software engineering jobs.

if the answer is "no" for women or any other particular group then it just proves the point of the article, i.e. there's barely a pay gap when factoring in exact job responsibilities.

Post reply on HN