Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ian_ronald_maiden t1_jam0qku wrote

Reply to comment by Pressed_Thumb in Gender pay gap difference in select geographies [OC] by Ok_Acanthisitta5799

So you seem to acknowledge that a gender pay gap exists, you just don’t think it’s something that needs addressing then, even when you’re talking about jobs specifically paid for with tax dollars

2

Pressed_Thumb t1_jannixx wrote

I'm not well acquainted with the data and I don't think the data presented in this graph is useful at all to understand the issue (as I discussed in other comments). So I can't say I acknowledge that it exists.

I would say this is something that needs to be addressed if it was clear that women make less than men when performing exactly the same job, out of sheer discrimination.

By looking at this data alone, there could be so many different phenomena skewing the average. It could be that women prefer professions that make less money. It could be that women have a greater chance of stopping their careers to take care of their families. If that's the case, then the gap in the average is not an issue, IMO.

1

Ian_ronald_maiden t1_jaokytd wrote

There are indeed many different phenomena that skew the average male. Women choosing professions that make less money is among them.

The question is, of course, why is it that professions chosen by women almost always seem to be valued less monetarily, even when they’re among the most important and in demand jobs in society.

Taking care of families is another part of it.

And, while it’s not an issue for you, it is an issue for women and the government who have to plan and account for the personal and community impacts of an enormous section of society being less prepared for an independent and healthy retirement

1

Pressed_Thumb t1_jaqm5gt wrote

What do you mean you say a profession is valued less? Do you want to suggest that it's done deliberately by someone or something?

The value of each profession is always a reflection of the market, that is, supply and demand. The employee always wants to be paid more and the employer always wants to pay as little as possible (regardless of the employee's gender).

If women were universally valued less as employees, that would just create a massive opportunity for companies hiring only women to have margins greater than their competitors. In a short time, many other companies would seize the same opportunity, increasing the demand for women's labor and thus normalizing the wages across gender.

My speculative take on this is that the biological differences between genders reflect on their average personality traits, making them choose jobs differently.

For being more competitive, men tend to pursue high-income careers and positions. Also, men have a predilection for things instead of people, which is a driver for choosing STEM careers. On the other hand, women gravitate more toward the humanities and don't focus so much on increasing their income. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but on average, this seems to be the case.

1

Autistom t1_jan9qay wrote

On the contrary - its precisely because these jobs dont generate direct income that the have to be paid from your taxes and therefore are paid less than positions in the free market where you can increase salaries of the most valuable positions to attract better employees and generate more profit.

But, as the others have probably realised by now, you will just rewert to your ultimate “you dont understand the term” or “your opinion is just incorrect” argument again. Alas this is my last comment in this pointless crusade - try to be thankful that the system works even though you dont fully understand it is my final advice (othervise the people working these unfarly underpaid social services but we doing manual labour by now).

0

Ian_ronald_maiden t1_jao50hc wrote

What a complete load of high school rubbish

0

Autistom t1_jao6dfw wrote

And again - thats not an argument. You are not capable of defending your believes so you resort to insults.

1