|
Fansy posted:Short answer: it's complicated. lol "It's complicated, here's a couple thousand words that boil down to (a) the gendergap exists and (b) it's because of discrimination, but because nobody is willing to come out and say they hate women, we'll talk to some Harvard economists for 45 minutes."
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yea, this is a great point- if the whole 70 cents on the dollar was remotely true you'd see managers falling over themselves to hire women. This would only be true if all hiring managers were absolutely perfect and logical machines and not human beings with emotions and prejudices. So this argument falls apart immediately under the barest amount of scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
And on that note: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ quote:Women, ethnic minorities, and non-U.S.-born employees received a smaller increase in compensation compared with white men, despite holding the same jobs, working in the same units, having the same supervisors, the same human capital, and importantly, receiving the same performance score. Despite stating that “performance is the primary bases for all salary increases,” the reality was that women, minorities, and those born outside the U.S. needed “to work harder and obtain higher performance scores in order to receive similar salary increases to white men.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This would only be true if all hiring managers were absolutely perfect and logical machines and not human beings with emotions and prejudices. So this argument falls apart immediately under the barest amount of scrutiny. Patriarchy is a hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This would only be true if all hiring managers were absolutely perfect and logical machines and not human beings with emotions and prejudices. So this argument falls apart immediately under the barest amount of scrutiny. You're doing this wrong. Instead of treating the rationality of managers as a statement that can be evaluated based on evidence you need to just assume, axiomatically, that all economic actors are perfectly rational. Then, based on this assumption and a few other untested assumptions you deduce conclusions about how the market behaves. These models are far too perfect and elegant for us to risk damaging them by introducing real world observations or data to the glory that is Econ101.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're doing this wrong. Instead of treating the rationality of managers as a statement that can be evaluated based on evidence you need to just assume, axiomatically, that all economic actors are perfectly rational. Then, based on this assumption and a few other untested assumptions you deduce conclusions about how the market behaves. These models are far too perfect and elegant for us to risk damaging them by introducing real world observations or data to the glory that is Econ101.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Also, it's obvious that no black or gay customers were ever discriminated against because the free market clearly dictates that business owners don't do anything that would make them earn less money. Customers = money. QED And if they do discriminate, just don't shop there any more. Because a competitor who doesn't discriminate will magically appear out of thin air and you can just shop there instead. All hail the Invisible Hand!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Sometime soon I will make a thread about what I call the 'New New Economy'. I think the wage gap and income inequality have the same solution - a national system of pay grades. Compensation can no longer be kept 'secret' to play individuals against each other and a 'public shaming' mechanism can bring executive pay to a reasonable proportion compared to the janitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is important to emphasize that the women already in the STEM/high paying fields are still much more likely to switch out of those fields than men, and that's primarily due to the work culture. In a male-dominated trade, managers tend to start assuming that workers don't have wombs. So they set it up so it's hard to do the job if you are a primary caregiver to children. Think of the video game industry - crunch time and the culture of hanging out, doing nerd stuff after hours, make it really hard for a mother to be really part of the team. If there were a lot of women on the team, people would start to remember that kids exist. Female-dominated industries tend to have more of a "we leave on the dot of five" culture, not because women are lazy, but because daycares close at 6pm. This would be a bit of a culture change for many male-dominated industries, which have a sort of vibe that clocking out is for wimps who need more coffee. The pipeline is definitely an issue, though. The time to recruit a coder is 10 years old. Not many people get really into code if they start after their early teens. It seems to require the brain malleability of a kid to really click. Many academic subjects are like this. To get women into STEM you need to persuade girls that STEM is fun. And our culture is really bad at that. It's hard to change culture at the click of a finger, no matter how many cool punk girl hackers you write into TV shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:In a male-dominated trade, managers tend to start assuming that workers don't have wombs. So they set it up so it's hard to do the job if you are a primary caregiver to children. Think of the video game industry - crunch time and the culture of hanging out, doing nerd stuff after hours, make it really hard for a mother to be really part of the team. If there were a lot of women on the team, people would start to remember that kids exist. Female-dominated industries tend to have more of a "we leave on the dot of five" culture, not because women are lazy, but because daycares close at 6pm. This would be a bit of a culture change for many male-dominated industries, which have a sort of vibe that clocking out is for wimps who need more coffee. The actual solution to this is doing away with the notion that women are in any way the "better" or "default" primary caregiver. The fact that "women on the team" are what remind people that "kids exist" is itself merely symptomatic of a much deeper level of cultural misogyny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. Eh, last I read it was a 7-10% gap, not 30, let me go digging later this week when I have some downtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Sometime soon I will make a thread about what I call the 'New New Economy'. I think the wage gap and income inequality have the same solution - a national system of pay grades. Compensation can no longer be kept 'secret' to play individuals against each other and a 'public shaming' mechanism can bring executive pay to a reasonable proportion compared to the janitor. If the only way your plan can work is by prepending it with "After glorious revolution" I think you need a new plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
The wage gap exists, but its women who get paid more than men as of 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:If the only way your plan can work is by prepending it with "After glorious revolution" I think you need a new plan. Actually I am talking about something that could be done legislatively if there was political will - but it would probably need to go as far as a package of Constitutional Amendments or a Convention. But I will offer Saint Hillary an offering and atone for my sin of imagination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
anne frank fanfic posted:The wage gap exists, but its women who get paid more than men as of 2015. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
Amusingly, when a job is regarded as a job women go for, it's valued less. Software engineering was valued far less when it was mostly done by women and men were predominantly in hardware, for one example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:Amusingly, when a job is regarded as a job women go for, it's valued less. Computer programming in the age of the ENIAC was very different from computer programming now. Conflating them is naive or dishonest. The work that the women computer programmers did during WWII was pretty menial and was stuff like opening/closing switches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Computer programming in the age of the ENIAC was very different from computer programming now. Conflating them is naive or dishonest. The work that the women computer programmers did during WWII was pretty menial and was stuff like opening/closing switches. Weirdly this didn't end with ENIAC and lol yes it's all opening/closing switches in one manner or another, in varying degrees of complexity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Yes programming now with high-level natural languages and module libraries and interpreters is very different from having to code reams and reams of machine language. Menial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:[citation needed] Respected journal "Things MRAs Actually Believe" of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Computer programming in the age of the ENIAC was very different from computer programming now. Conflating them is naive or dishonest. The work that the women computer programmers did during WWII was pretty menial and was stuff like opening/closing switches. ENIAC programs look like this:  That's completely hosed up and insane, but it's recognizable as something even more basic than machine code. These programs were written by women who had degrees in math and were able to calculate ballistics equations by hand. If you want to call that menial, then you can't get away with calling this not menial: 
Lyesh fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:ENIAC programs look like this: Dang it's almost like work is less valued when it's mostly women doing it??
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:ENIAC programs look like this: I'm not sure you understand what menial is. This isn't a pissing contest, I've had to do that sort of thing before in processor design classes. It's not particularly hard, it's detail oriented and you have to be trained in it but it's the sort of trained monkey thing we typically do once these days and then write a program to handle it from there. It's like old school human computers, we got rid of them when we could get electronic computers to do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Sometime soon I will make a thread about what I call the 'New New Economy'. I think the wage gap and income inequality have the same solution - a national system of pay grades. Compensation can no longer be kept 'secret' to play individuals against each other and a 'public shaming' mechanism can bring executive pay to a reasonable proportion compared to the janitor. That said, nothing particularly bad happens in Sweden where everyone's pay is a matter of public record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of trained monkeys. I mean women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I'm not sure you understand what menial is. This isn't a pissing contest, I've had to do that sort of thing before in processor design classes. It's not particularly hard, it's detail oriented and you have to be trained in it but it's the sort of trained monkey thing we typically do once these days and then write a program to handle it from there. It's like old school human computers, we got rid of them when we could get electronic computers to do the same thing. There WAS NO TRAINING for them though. They came up with the notation and wrote the programs, etc. That's the hard part that you do once. That's programming. You also don't get to say it's not a pissing contest when people in a male-dominated field are trying to justify the high salaries and prestige of their field as compared to the similar things that happened in the field when it was dominated by women and low salary/prestige. Writing programs in assembler (let alone machine language) is tedious and detail-oriented, but it sure as hell isn't menial. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Just talk about pay with your coworkers, in actual real dollar amounts. Nothing is legally keeping it secret (the opposite, in fact!) Im some (if not most) work places in America this will literally gently caress you. It needs to become a political plank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
The argument that "well, if there really was a wage gap then managers would be falling over themselves to hire women" doesn't make any sense, because the whole reason for the alleged wage gap is women are perceived as less capable, less desirable employees. Why would there be a lower employment rate for women if their value as employees is seen as less?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:Amusingly, when a job is regarded as a job women go for, it's valued less. You've got the cause and effect backwards here I think, historically a job has been considered "for women" because of it's low value, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've got the cause and effect backwards here I think, historically a job has been considered "for women" because of it's low value, not the other way around. That's not true (or at least not in all cases): when the industrial revolution came around and factory work became the standard way of earning a living, female factory workers were typically paid just under half of what the male factory workers were paid. These were new jobs that didn't exist before the creation of manufactories, and both male and female workers were employed in the same jobs, especially in the creation of wool and cotton goods, and shoe-making, as well as packaging in several industries. In all of those cases the average wage for a female worker is often less than half of that for male workers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've got the cause and effect backwards here I think, historically a job has been considered "for women" because of it's low value, not the other way around. You'd think so, but it turns out no. In Russia, for another example, the majority of Doctors are women, and it's one of the lowest-paid professions they have. http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/18-10-2010/115411-doctors_russia_usa-0/ ReadyToHuman fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Luxury Communism posted:The actual solution to this is doing away with the notion that women are in any way the "better" or "default" primary caregiver. The fact that "women on the team" are what remind people that "kids exist" is itself merely symptomatic of a much deeper level of cultural misogyny. Sadly that would result in a worsening of working conditions because the partner in the relationship would then get the kids and the woman thus is able to put in too much time in at work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:You'd think so, but it turns out no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
botany posted:That's not true (or at least not in all cases): when the industrial revolution came around and factory work became the standard way of earning a living, female factory workers were typically paid just under half of what the male factory workers were paid. These were new jobs that didn't exist before the creation of manufactories, and both male and female workers were employed in the same jobs, especially in the creation of wool and cotton goods, and shoe-making, as well as packaging in several industries. In all of those cases the average wage for a female worker is often less than half of that for male workers. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said edit: it's also just wrong, women generally worked different factory jobs then men, specifically they came into the factory workforce en mass with the invention of the power loom because the child labor that were the chief workers of that industry weren't tall enough to operate it. ReadyToHuman posted:You'd think so, but it turns out no. This also doesn't address what I said at all, it's clearly considered a low value profession in Russia Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You assume doctors aren't considered low value in Russia. That's actually the opposite of what any stringing together of my posts would deduce I assume
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
Weird how it is the same job but valued differently. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:The argument that "well, if there really was a wage gap then managers would be falling over themselves to hire women" doesn't make any sense, because the whole reason for the alleged wage gap is women are perceived as less capable, less desirable employees. Why would there be a lower employment rate for women if their value as employees is seen as less? Do you really think that in a country of 300 million people, there is not enough employers who wouldn't have the intelligence to exploit that particular gap if it was there? I mean, while I'm no fan of the rich and wealthy, I'd feel dishonest if a starting assumption was "all employers and hiring managers are mouth-breathing idiots".
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
It's an amusing resilient handwave, to watch unfolding. Well see it isn't so much a wage gap as it is women just don't pursue high-value professions for some reason. Well here's the same job in the same place different time periods, when the work was more difficult and more foundational and primarly women it was less valued, and here's the same job at the same time, in different places, and it's valued less where women do it more, for some reason. Now, we could think "Huh there's a pattern of women's work being devalued" or we can just think those foolish women keep seeking out undervalued work. Dang it women! Stop doing that! You're making a wage gap!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Do you really think that in a country of 300 million people, there is not enough employers who wouldn't have the intelligence to exploit that particular gap if it was there? They don't have to be mouth-breathing idiots for there to be a gap. They just have to value being sexist and various other qualities that have nothing to do with job performance (notoriously difficult to measure).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
There are also cultural expectations that make women "bad workers"- it is acceptable, even somewhat expected for a father to be neglectful to their children because of work requirements, but women must balance between necessary childcare and appearing to be working too little, which is a difficult process that gets harder the higher up the ladder you move. As a consequence, a woman who puts in the same effort and time as a man is obviously neglecting her children if she has them, so she's definitely not the kind of person you want to work with. If she puts in adequate time for her children, she's not a hard worker. If a woman doesn't have children, of course, this produces its own prejudices that work against her.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:40
|
|