Gender Pay Gap

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GWHgVZJQU

We had Jordan Peterson talk about this, but why it is not shared when it a woman?
Is the Gender Pay Gap more myth than substance? Are people attempting to patronise females under the guise of gender quality?
As Fragony puts it: "Main Stream Media Lies" ?

Discuss.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Adjusted number still shows a 7% gap here in the USA. That's a more realistic number than the oft cited 78% raw figure. It is still, however, not one-for-one.

[Kyniklos]

Just propaganda. If its in fact true that women do the same job and still their wages are lower, men would never be employed by anyone, since they are more expensive for no reason.

But since nobody even tries to understand how this "working" thing functions, they actually belive this nonsense.

[Husar]

Adjusted number still shows a 7% gap here in the USA. That's a more realistic number than the oft cited 78% raw figure. It is still, however, not one-for-one.

I don't know what adjustments you've taken here, but while I agree with some some of the ones I heard about, others seem a bit phony.

For example their "choice to have a child instead" is a funny one since if all women chose to work instead, humanity would simply die out very soon...

And if they choose to have children and earn less, they're often in more financial hardship, especially when they retire and get less money as a reward for having earned less.
Yes, they do get to choose, but one of the choices is useful for the entire community (creating a future employee/customer/taxpayer) and rewarded with poverty and/or dependence on others. Is that really fair or a choice between equally rewarding options?

Could this choice be why birth rates in the developed world are going down in many countries?

Of course as someone who sees a lower world population as a good fix for many problems, I do not entirely object, but it's not the best argument for the pay gap IMO.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know what adjustments you've taken here, but while I agree with some some of the ones I heard about, others seem a bit phony.

For example their "choice to have a child instead" is a funny one since if all women chose to work instead, humanity would simply die out very soon...

And if they choose to have children and earn less, they're often in more financial hardship, especially when they retire and get less money as a reward for having earned less.
Yes, they do get to choose, but one of the choices is useful for the entire community (creating a future employee/customer/taxpayer) and rewarded with poverty and/or dependence on others. Is that really fair or a choice between equally rewarding options?

Could this choice be why birth rates in the developed world are going down in many countries?

Of course as someone who sees a lower world population as a good fix for many problems, I do not entirely object, but it's not the best argument for the pay gap IMO.

The accepted adjustments are for education and relevant experience. When working with "lifetime" earnings rather than annual salary, unpaid maternity leave is factored out.

The answer is culture centric and truly relevant only in Western or near-Western cultures/economies. In most of the developing world, women as professionals are still too much of a novelty. In Western culture, it varies from state to state depending on laws regarding parental leave etc. What cannot currently be accounted for is that a woman on maternity leave is not part of/experienced with whatever content is being dealt with by her organization for the duration of her leave. Return her to her job with no loss of pay etc. and you still have that experience gap which may end up contributing to her getting edged out in the next performance review because she is behind on being "in the know" for that organization (and I do not mean this to be snippy, the women's reviewer probably assesses this unconsciously). In addition, Western cultures have not traditionally taught women to bargain as they have men, creating some disadvantage in negotiation for one's own compensation.

Of COURSE this contributes to a lowered birth rate. Any woman serious about her career, unless her husband stays home with the kids, inevitably faces some measure, however small, of career disadvantage by having a child. Add to that the waning of religion in the West (most of which advocate/countenance more births per woman), and the effect of industrialization and technology (farmers no longer need 8 kids to help get the harvest in before it rots, etc.) and there are clear pressures to reduce the number of births per woman.

Until technology obviates the need for a woman to carry a child to term in her body, this problem will continue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But since nobody even tries to understand how this "working" thing functions, they actually belive this nonsense.

What do you mean by this?

[Montmorency]

It's better to call it a "work gap". Roles gap, authority gap, etc.

It comes down to the single greatest vulnerability of women as a class. Is it differences in muscle mass or bone density? Plenty of men are weak or unconditioned, they're distinguished from women. That's not the difference in treatment. Is it putative cognitive differences? To the extent these exist they would compensate for certain cognitive deficits in men - but again there is clearly massive variation between individuals, and the world isn't explicitly structured to optimize either individual or collective differences anyway. That's not it.

It's pregnancy. The possibility of pregnancy, and the rigor of neonatality, is the single defining vulnerability of womanhood. All the rest follows. That's why restricted access to contraception and abortion is tantamount to slavery, and why the development of reliable contraceptive and abortion procedures is about as significant as the harnessing of electricity in the grand scheme. You literally cannot have women's lib without that.

I can even somewhat apprehend the perspective of the trans-exclusionary feminists (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism), and the existence of infertility is little argument since every woman is by default *interpreted* as a *potential* breeder, or a post-menopausal woman as a *former* potential (or actual) breeder. Even a widely-acknowledged "barren" woman is seen through this lens.

Accomodation and affirmative action for women is quite necessary, but the underlying vulnerability remains. "Separate but equal" is a paper-thin facade. Maybe something can be accomplished without neutralizing the question, maybe sci-fi grade contraception for all, maybe a dystopian induced infertility on birth pending access to privileged licenses... but it always has to be in the back of your head, at least. How fragile the arrangement of untranscended humanity.

Everything sure is grim, huh?

/might be willing to ejaculate onto a clutch of eggs


The accepted adjustments are for education and relevant experience. When working with "lifetime" earnings rather than annual salary, unpaid maternity leave is factored out.

The answer is culture centric and truly relevant only in Western or near-Western cultures/economies. In most of the developing world, women as professionals are still too much of a novelty. In Western culture, it varies from state to state depending on laws regarding parental leave etc. What cannot currently be accounted for is that a woman on maternity leave is not part of/experienced with whatever content is being dealt with by her organization for the duration of her leave. Return her to her job with no loss of pay etc. and you still have that experience gap which may end up contributing to her getting edged out in the next performance review because she is behind on being "in the know" for that organization (and I do not mean this to be snippy, the women's reviewer probably assesses this unconsciously). In addition, Western cultures have not traditionally taught women to bargain as they have men, creating some disadvantage in negotiation for one's own compensation.

Of COURSE this contributes to a lowered birth rate. Any woman serious about her career, unless her husband stays home with the kids, inevitably faces some measure, however small, of career disadvantage by having a child. Add to that the waning of religion in the West (most of which advocate/countenance more births per woman), and the effect of industrialization and technology (farmers no longer need 8 kids to help get the harvest in before it rots, etc.) and there are clear pressures to reduce the number of births per woman.

Until technology obviates the need for a woman to carry a child to term in her body, this problem will continue.

Interestingly, in the Arab world women (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162654.pdf) are coming to dominate STEM, maybe because it's a sanctioned career choice for women and it offers a lucrative place in the economic hierarchies of the region.

[Fragony]

Woman usually work less hours

[rory_20_uk]

This whole farce is based around the utterly inaccurate assumption that every man and woman views their greatest achievement in life as maximising their earnings. Perhaps there is more to life...?

A lot of this revolves around children. Women both have them and often choose to put their careers second to their children.

How about the question is how much time do men and women get to spend with their children and see the gender gap there.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Woman usually work less hours

*fewer


This whole farce is based around the utterly inaccurate assumption that every man and woman views their greatest achievement in life as maximising their earnings. Perhaps there is more to life...?

A lot of this revolves around children. Women both have them and often choose to put their careers second to their children.

How about the question is how much time do men and women get to spend with their children and see the gender gap there.

~:smoking:

This is true and I thought about it.
The problem here is that earning less has other consequences, such as poverty, especially after retirement. And/or dependence on others, e.g. abusive men, to avoid poverty. When a grandma can't even afford to buy small gifts for her grandchildren, this "more to life" aspect begins to fade in the face of depression.

It's not that there isn't more to life, just that in capitalism, access to it often requires sufficient capital...
Like, imagine the men who don't see their children often could afford a better lawyer, might help as well. :shrug:

[Fragony]

Less is also ok

[Greyblades]

These days the greatest hinderance to "social justice" is the mass discretiting by those people who abuse its good will to get an advantage in the workplace.

[rory_20_uk]

This is true and I thought about it.
The problem here is that earning less has other consequences, such as poverty, especially after retirement. And/or dependence on others, e.g. abusive men, to avoid poverty. When a grandma can't even afford to buy small gifts for her grandchildren, this "more to life" aspect begins to fade in the face of depression.

It's not that there isn't more to life, just that in capitalism, access to it often requires sufficient capital...
Like, imagine the men who don't see their children often could afford a better lawyer, might help as well. :shrug:

The main "issues" so far have been the female stars in Hollywood earning less than the men and in the UK it has often been how the BBC presenters have been paid only a low 6 figure sum rather than a higher 6 figure sum. In none of these cases does what you say apply. I think they're valid points, but are lost in the noise.

Equally, happiness has been shown to be almost flat once one is able to support the basics of one's life: rich women have controlling, abusive husbands who probably have access to lawyers for some truly medieval pre-nups (look at poor Ms Trump). The value of money decreases as one's time to spend it decreases. So those on £40k working a 35 hour week might have a happier life than those on £400k and working a 120 hour week. Depends on their hobbies, family, enjoyment of their job etc etc etc.

Lastly, earning also does not show where the money goes - a "poor" woman earning only £20k might be living in a house her ex-husband continues to pay for and has to pay upkeep for both the children she controls access to and of course herself. So the money she actually has could in fact be equivalent to a salary of over £100,000 a year - since of course most of her income is tax-free.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

In my ideal world, women get 6 months of paid leave by directly debiting Jeff Bezos bank account.

[Kyniklos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU