- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
but in the argument with the girl, he was the one coming from a logical and factual standpoint (not saying that his argument is 100% on point) while the girl was just acting ignorant.-The second point (the green part) was not meant to explain discrimination. It was meant to explain some of the known factors why you will see women having lower wages. Just discussing the systems the produce those outcomes.all this is a good breakdown of why women get paid less and it is a societal "problem" but none of the green highlighted text does anything to suggest that it's employer discrimination. It seem's like you're supporting his point that the girl saying "it must be discrimination!!!" is talking nonsense because you just listed a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the employer to why women get paid less on average.Most of my experiences with left-leaning feminist women always ended with ad-hoc personal attacks against me, even after I presented logical, rational ideas in a calm discussion.
They were quick to shame me and call me a sexist/misogynist for disagreeing with them and giving legitimate explanations. For example, one topic that constantly gets them heated is the pay "inequality" between men and women in the same job/field.
What you be telling these women to make them so heated papi
As mentioned, the topic of pay "inequality" always seems to get them in their emotions.
Example: I was having drinks with my homie and his girl a few weeks ago. We're discussing politics and joking about the self-destructing debacle of Hillary/Trump. His girl interjects about something she read online: women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I ask her to explain; she literally just repeats that same line and says it's pure discrimination. I calmly explain to her that while the average wage for women is ~77% of the average wage of men, the difference is not likely a result of discrimination. I further elaborate that women are more likely to either temporarily or permanently drop out of the workforce. Also, women are more likely to work part-time and unsurprisingly, part-time employees overall make less than full-time employees. At this point, she's getting flustered. I continue to say that more women than men drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, which is absolutely cool with me. I even put it out there that women without children tend to make a bit more than men without children (regardless of age). She's now heated and saying that it's not a woman's fault for leaving the workforce. I ask her, "So it's not a woman's choice to leave the workforce? Who forced her?" She yells that it's the children's fault for forcing mothers to quit their jobs. I'm pretty confused at this point, but she abruptly tells me that since this wage gap exists, women should be getting paid the difference by the government.
My homie is cracking up at this point (his fault for choosing to be with a self-proclaimed feminist and fan of Anita Sarkeesian), but I try to dig in a little deeper. I ask her, "If women are getting paid less, wouldn't companies hire women instead to work the same exact job, thereby increasing profit and minimizing costs?" She tells me she's offended I would even ask that and that discrimination is the only answer to this inequality. I send my homie a few links and articles that debunk this discrimination-based wage gap and he tells me she's not reading any of it. So much for being open-minded, huh?
Famb you were rustling oye girl.
-But she was wrong and you're wrong. She was right and you're right
The entire gap is not based on explainable factors (which economist generally gets labelled discrimination), but part of it is. It is well researched topic in Labor Economics, you could probably search on Google Scholar or NBER and find many papers on the gender pay gap. You gonna get real familiar with the oaxaca decomposition
I have read many articles showing that part of the wage gap is explainable, there is part of the gender wage gap that just can't be explain, at least by not any model out there right now.
That signals there is discrimination
-Secondly, you're "if women make less, why don't companies" just hired women is a nice troll job but I figure you're touching on this:
Women go cost women just much as men, and yes they choose to drop out the labor market (I'll touch on that). But during that time think about it, the company doesn't get any productivity from that worker, so in return he pays that women a lower wage to make up for it. Men don't drop out, so in turn they get a higher wage. I'm pretty sure this was what you were arguing to baby girl.
But
Women aren't just choosing to drop out the labor force on a whim. Taking care an child has large negative economic consequences, and currently America's social and economic is making women bare to many of those cost herself. Women should get paid maternity leave, so should men. Currently women have to stay home for weeks to months, yet men get looked at funny style for being out over a week. When you see both groups taking the same amount of time off after a baby, you will see the pay gap shrinking. Because their compensation structure will both change. Right now women generally have to drop out, while a man doesn't
Then
Now add to that the household division of labor is crazy unbalanced. Women put in way more time, and energy into raising a child and taking care of households (doing basic house work) than men do. This is time women aren't compensated for, time she could be in the labor market proving trading her time for more money, or investing in human capital that will lend to higher wages.
Then
Society (both men and older women) funnel our girls into lower paying careers, or act somewhat hostile to her entering a male dominated field. This **** starts from when like pre-algebra. Girls get told that being cute is just as important that being competent. So men and women might be in the same field, doing what is classified as the same job on a survey, but when you look closer the man's job is more specialized, and he can demand a higher wage
-So let's review. Women have pushed to make choices that will negatively affect them economically, men don't, and add to that women put in tons of work that goes uncompensated. Work that benefits other men, and society as a whole
It will take a combination of public policy, and men making different decision in the workplace, and them doing more work to take care and raise kids. Add women making different choices. But society is still on the hook for part of the problem It is all about trade offs. And someone the person saying it is all about discrimination, is missing the other half of the picture. So it the dude saying it discrimination doesn't pay a factor, or it is just women's choices that are lending to her lower pay.
I know you be getting wavy with liberation way of thinking and that people's choices explain everything. I dipped my toes into those waters at one point in life. But the most dangerous thing about that way of thinking is that it ignores the socio-economic systems driving outcomes we see in society
-And to be honest, you come off just as bad in your story as ole girl does.
the only time you bring up discrimination is on what can't be explained, which is a pretty weak argument seeing that you followed it up by doing a great job of providing a thorough explanation of all the non employer discrimination factors that lead to this statistic.
-Ole girl was arguing that her opinion is fact, Slighted was arguing no his was fact. I didn't say definitively that employer discrimination exist. I said it signals it does, not that it proves it.
Maybe it from me doing econometric work in the Labor market, but most papers to Oaxaca style decomposition, that is how it is discussed. Peoplehave tried to explain the differential in all sorts of ways, and there still remain some part of the wage differential no one can't explain.
So there must be some unobservable things going on that is causing that, and the most likely thing could be discrimination, it could be other things, or things no one had found yet.
But discrimination is used because it kinda fits, we can't measure the feelings in someone's heart, and thoughts in here head. We will never know, and the fact researchers have tried many things and some of the gap is still there, might be because there is truly something partly driving the wage differential see will never be able to observe.
And the best guess is discrimination because it makes the most sense. It was not an argument for anything really, just to point out to Slighted the case isn't closed like he claims
in his story and example, he came with the stronger argument and she looked like a fool.
It's always going to be somewhere in the middle, of course there is going to be some discrimination out there from specific employers, but from your own breakdown of society and slighted's points it doesn't seem like discrimination is the main reason behind this statistic.
in arguments like this I usually assume that neither party is talking in absolutes because if they are then regardless of topic they are probably both wrong