|
Quorum posted:No, but it's also not quite as simple as advocates often make out, either because they truly believe it's a cut-and-dry situation or for rhetorical effect. It's a lot easier and more persuasive to uninformed bystanders if you rail against evil fatcats who are paying women 70% of the rate, versus a detailed explanation of complex sociological factors with no single villain and no easy solution. Pretty much this. You'd think that women would have a permanent massively lower unemployment rate and higher participation rate if they were willing to work for so much less if it were as simple as advertised.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Lyesh posted: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). Oh sure, I'm not debating the existence of the wage gap, I feel that would be incredibly foolish to do so. Mostly I'm thinking in terms of the degree of it and the gap being more reflected in the discouragement of women from participating in high paying jobs. Wouldn't the exploitation itself reflect in lower unemployment and higher percentage of participation in the labor market if it was 30% when everything else being equal, such as job choice? That's a withing breathing distance of getting labor at a 1/3rd discount, if I was an uncaring employer, my workforce would be almost totally women. Like I totally agree that people devalue "women's work" which is a ball of dog-poo poo, especially things that are often caregiver/educator roles (ones that are often more fundamentally important to a properly functioning society than many of the high paying jobs). I offer the perspective as that we should investigate how to end discouraging women from the higher paying jobs. OR To go from a funky angle, should men be encouraged into what are traditionally jobs that are considered "women's work". The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The rear end in a top hat of the internet, same as the other unsupported claims earlier in the thread There are some articles that support some of it. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/ For a quick googling. It argues that job choice is the major component of the gap.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They don't have to be mouth-breathing idiots to hold prejudices. Sexism is still incredibly pervasive in our society, particularly among the older people who make up hiring managers and/or small business owners. Yes, and those held prejudices would encourage them to only pay for women at a lower rate, I'm fine with that statement. Why would prejudice be stuck at the line of "never hire women, they aren't any good at working". Besides, my point was that the gap was largely about job choice, and the sexism behind that, not a 30% wage gap that is touted in most of the news articles I see. quote:Although why the gently caress do people keep bringing up the 30% rate when absolutely nobody ITT has claimed that as accurate? My apologies, I was going off the 72% value that is often repeated in the media. Would you like to offer a percentage value for a starting point of discussion? I have zero issue going with a different starting point. EDIT:To spell out where I'm coming from: I'm in agreement there is a wage gap, based largely in sexist attitudes, but that the origins are a bit more subtle than what is considered common wisdom.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where are you still seeing that percentage lately? Every single serious source I've read in the last decade all say it's somewhere in the mid single digits range, between 4-7%. The only places I ever see 30% in this day and age is on MRA blogs bitching about how it's not actually 30% because *shits pants uncontrollably*. Well, for examples of recent mainstream news articles I offer these two as examples: http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/18/news/gender-pay-gap/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-announce-new-rules-closing-gender-pay-gap-n506941 So, how serious should we take mainstream media is the question I suppose. I don't think it is particularly contentious that the general narrative is shaped by the media conglomerates, and to ignore it is to write off our understanding of how the wage gap is perceived in popular discourse. At the risk of appealing to in-group vanity, I'm perfectly happy to assume D&D is somewhat more informed, but not at the risk of not starting the discussion at the point that is presented by the popular media. EDIT: Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Good thing it's not a zero-sum game? So, as a thought on the (I assume agreed upon) job choice issue, what do you think would help? Paternity leave that must be equally taken by both parents? I've seen arguments for it in articles like: (under argument 2) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/10/want-better-dads-happier-mums-and-healthier-kids-make-men-take-paternity-leave
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 20:59
|
|