Women are paid less not because their jobs are worth less, but because employers can get away with paying them leas. There are values other than market value. Society needs both nurses and engineers. Women and men should be equal not just in opportunity, but in outcome (ie, economic power).
In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for. Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.
You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which ideology they favor. This is in the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you would read them and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
Yes. And if more people want to become engineers, and if becoming an engineer is easier, then engineers will end up getting less money than nurses.
I mean... the more fun a job is, the more people will want to do it despite getting little money, right?
> In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for.
I recall reading some statistics that (in germany) 80% of domestic spending is done by women. Seems about right.
> Women should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.
Uh. That's outright discrimination there.
Either against men or against childless people.
A good manager is expected to give an easier schedule to someone who is caring for a sick family member, why would it be horrible to give an easier schedule to someone who has to spend a lot of time taking care of a new baby?
Biology has already discriminated and made her life hard, should we make it worse? Should we make having children as difficult as possible for our fellow citizens?
"Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace."
I think you have to work a bit more to support that assertion. I'm not opposed to the idea of some kind of compensation for home-makers, but putting that on employers seems backwards. Why should that not be a form of social support?
I’m speaking on the level of principle, not implementation. There are a variety of ways you could implement this, but I think that is a secondary question to the basic principle that donestic labor exists, is socially necessary, and is, unjustly, not compensated financially. Most people in this debate, even left-leaning people, don’t acknowledge that.
If a homemaker is married, they are compensated by their partner (including alimony and child support after divorce). If a homemaker is single, they receive charity from government.
"Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace."
Why should anyone be compensated anything for routine life-management work? What you're asking is akin to saying everyone should be paid to sleep. Sleeping, bathing, eating, maintaining the home -- these are all parts of functioning as a human. Taking care of children is a function of having chosen to have offspring - I would say it's a voluntary hobby, even.
Because unless you’re an antinatalist, some people having children is socially necessary. If the next generation had no children, society would collapse. Also, many women have unplanned pregnancies.
> Because unless you’re an antinatalist, some people having children is socially necessary. If the next generation had no children, society would collapse. Also, many women have unplanned pregnancies.
And that's the fault of the employer . . . how? If they have a child, it shouldn't be subsidized by their employer. Everyone in the West could abstain from having children for three generations and immigrants would make up the numbers - there's no need for most people to have children.
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. There's no such thing as a truly unexpected pregnancy. Undesired and unplanned perhaps, but not unexpected. In the event it does happen, there are options for either continuing or ending the pregnancy, I still see no reason why anyone should be compensated for voluntarily choosing to continue the pregnancy.
There’s a lot of things that are irrational to an employer, ie providing health insurance or limiting the hours their employees work. Fortunately labor laws exist and are enforced. And just to emphasize, I said the primary caregiver, who is usually but not slways a woman.
Healthcare requires the time and resources of healthcare professionals, and no one has the RIGHT to the time or resources of other people. We abolished slavery in this country, I'm sick of people like you arguing to bring it back.
The problem with this kind of "gene-centered" social thinking is that the implication, almost always, is some sort of regressive or conservative politics about social problems and inequalities being a result of natural forces. A horrifying example of this is, for example, the book "A Natural History of Rape" which makes a biological deterministic argument that explains rape as a natural and evolutionarily selected-for behavior in men.
Show me a controlled longitudinal study where (eg) men and women are raised in an identical environment, treated identically, and not even informed of the concept of gender. That doesn't exist, and never will exist. There are massive emergent cultural forces that make biology a pretty useless tool for doing sociology, much like chemistry studies the emergent properties of physics principles, but trying to account for emergent properties of atoms and molecules in terms of quantum mechanics is totally useless. Human societies should be studied on sociological terms, not biological ones. With even the smallest amount of effort, you can see that there are HUGE confounding factors that make any attempt to explain social outcomes biologically totally useless.
Every person under capitalism has to sell their labor in order to survive. This means that the employee and employer are not on equal footing - I cannot reasonably refuse to work and live a comfortable lifestyle, which means I have to make certain sacrifices (ie, working 40 hours a week in order to survive). This is all fine if I feel like I am treated well and compensated fairly, but if I feel like I am not, as an individual I have very little power. I can quit, but if I feel like most workers in my industry are not treated fairly, there's nowhere to go. However, if I organize with other workers, I have the bargaining power to make certain demands: suddenly employers realize if they want to employ people who have my skills, they have to meet certain reasonably requirements with regards to hours, compensation, etc.
Things like the 40 hour workweek aren't just a result of market forces. Market forces by themselves literally worked people to death - life expectancy in Liverpool during the industrial revolution was 15. It was through organization and struggle that workers achieved the rights they have today.
This is not only not true but incredibly disempowering. Every person under capitalism has to create value that others will pay for. It could be a traditional job, freelance work, a small business, a startup, being the stay-at-home domestic partner, performing, etc. Most people will choose a job because that's an easier path with well-defined benefits, but if you limit yourself to that, you're really boxing yourself in. What if you want to be a film director or a novelist? Those aren't even jobs you can apply for.
This comment seems to ignore the large portion of people that operate as small businesses. They make money by selling products they create or services they provide, not raw labor to customers.
You certainly can choose not to work for any given company (or even industry). You just might take a pay cut or might have to take on some personal financial risks to start your own business, which isn't palatable to some people.
See Coase's Theory of the Firm. Technology is changing the equation by removing transaction costs, and you see more freelancers and self-employed and Uber drivers.
I agree that the current framework makes freelancers and self-employed more vulnerable to cashflow problems, and it's an issue.
I've seen some interesting ways to mitigate it, even in my own country (with affordable health services for small business owners but they have salary caps that exclude IT workers)
It is economically viable for massively more people to do it. The main issue is a lack of simple economics and business education in US high school graduates. Without that, people have no idea how to go about starting their own small businesses.
There are lots of things that don't require dedicated employees that companies insist on.
For example, a public school shouldn't need to employ janitors, it should just contract with cleaning companies.
Unfortunately, the high school systems in the US give people no education on starting small businesses so people lack the economic and practical knowledge on doing so.
> Why would I want my salary to be the same as everyone else? If I am better than the next person and I am a better negotiator, why should my salary be identical to the lazy fuck that has the same number of years of experience?
Why do you have disdain for other workers, who largely share your economic and political interests?
If a correlation is completely explained by controlling for a third factor, that doesn't make the original correlation a lie. If black people are poorer than average and poor people commit disproportionately more crimes, blacks committing disproportionately more crimes is just what you'd expect.
What knowing the controlling variable does is give you additional information about what interventions are likely to change the situation. If you thought the reason for more crimes committed by blacks were their skin color, you might think that vitamin D deficiency is the culprit and attempt to provide them with supplements. Knowing the influence of economic factors makes that suggestion appear silly, and crime-prevention efforts would be better focused on improving the economic standing of blacks.
>If a correlation is completely explained by controlling for a third factor, that doesn't make the original correlation a lie.
The implication of "black people commit more crimes" is that there is something about being black that involves a degree of criminality. It is a very poor way of describing the issue. A much better framing is "black people in the US are disempowered socially, politically and economically and black communities are ignored by US social policy." Another, far more useful framing of the issue, that I hardly ever hear is that black people are more often the victims of crimes.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's against the site rules and we ban accounts that do it; we have to, or this place will go up in flames.
The united states prison system is designed to systematically incarcerate and disempower black americans. It has nothing to do with "breaking laws". Incarceration is not correlated with crime rate, and nearly everyone breaks laws, but a small segment of the population is incarcerated to a large degree (black men).
>I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5).
This kind of PC-obsessed SJW seems to me to be a total fabrication of the right disconnected from what actual leftists and progressives are fighting for.
#metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity
#blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity
You know what, I think these are issues where people should be polarized "morally righteous" about, whatever that means. They are real injustices that affect a large number of people on a daily basis. Activists rightly view these struggles as ideological battles to be won, not conversations to be had. What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people?
This kind of PC-obsessed SJW seems to me to be a total fabrication of the right disconnected from what actual leftists and progressives are fighting for.
Pay more attention to what's not said.
#metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity
...and men with similar stories of being on the receiving end are ignored or told to shut up and sit down.
#blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity
...and people trying to bring up actual statistics, or examples of non-black men getting murdered by police, get shouted down. It can't be about us-vs-them culture or training that says to always escalate instead of de-escalating or any other systemic issues, it has to be solely and directly about racism.
>...and men with similar stories of being on the receiving end are ignored or told to shut up and sit down.
That is not true at all. It's just that these events are much rarer (women rarely occupy positions of power and abuse that power sexually).
>...and people trying to bring up actual statistics, or examples of non-black men getting murdered by police, get shouted down.
Again, you're fighting strawmen. Most leftists are anti-police in general and certainly care about violence against white people committed by the police, especially white people who are marginalized in other ways.
>it has to be solely and directly about racism.
It isn't solely about racism, but racism is a huge, primary component.
> What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people?
But how much of politics is economic theory? We're split along the dismal science of welfare and taxation. It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women". That's really what I feel unjustly about. In the past people may have been more willing to discover your nuances, now it's a simple matter of red team or blue team.
>It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women".
Perhaps, but how fine is the line between "you advocate for economic policies that disenfranchise black people and women" and "you hate black people and women"?
I agree -- I think that right wing economics falls apart under debate and scrutiny (ie, it reveals itself to be based on the interests of the wealthy and powerful and to the disadvantage of the poor and middle class) and discussion is a good thing. But I haven't seen many economists becoming subject to deplatforming in the way that racist or misogynistic speakers like Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, etc have (rightfully) been, so I don't see this as really an issue.
Maybe it has something to do with the systematic impoverishment of black communities and the destruction of black families through mass incarceration, and "innovative teaching" will do little to fix these inequalities, which require much deeper and more structural policy change.
On a related note, Washington D.C. specifically has a massive lead pipe problem which has been ignored for decades.
A lot starts with criminal justice reform and getting rid of the "War on Drugs". You can't help but to notice that once drugs started affecting rural and suburban American, that it became all about "treatment" and less about locking people up.
These terms are ambiguous and have fluid meaning. But in general, anything on the Republican party platform, or supported by a substantial portion of Republicans or self-identified conservatives, is something I would consider part of mainstream conservatism. Quick examples include:
* That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted.
* That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law.
* That welfare programs should be cut back.
* That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy.
* That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful.
* That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers)
* That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias.
These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements.
"Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.
How is meritocracy conservative exactly? I worked in a big tech company in Bay Area, and it is empathized in my hiring training session heavily that we are not afraid to miss good people but we are afraid to end up with bad ones. Not agree with far-left opinion != Being conservative.
A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative.
As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.
Interesting that you say that. "Meritocracy" has become a bit of a bad word in Bay Area tech companies. [1]
And in case I didn't make this clear, that was just a quick dump of views that I think are generally considered conservative. Real life is much more nuanced than a list of bullet points. I fully agree that there are, for example, people who want tougher immigration laws but otherwise don't consider themselves conservative.
When you say conservatives support Meritocracy do you mean like how Ivanka and Jared got jobs with the White House? When people criticize the word "Meritocracy" they are not criticizing the concept but the usage.
>When people criticize the word "Meritocracy" they are not criticizing the concept but the usage.
I don't agree - there is a subset of people that criticize meritocracy as a concept because they believe the idea of 'merit' is inherently racist and classist - if you start at a different level, it becomes more difficult for you to accrue 'merit' and so that needs to be balanced and taken into account. Some people believe this is much more important than hiring or promoting on 'merit'
Most of mine are from conversations with people, but this is what I immediately thought of (though I know the definition has changed a little since) https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ
The wordpress article says academic meritocracy doesn't exist because teachers are biased. The author is calling it a myth to say it exists in our society. Doesn't seem like they are against an actual meritocracy.
Though I suppose it's easier to dismiss complaints about bias when we pretend those complainers just hate our meritocracy.
The author is saying that a meritocracy is a dystopian nightmare. Literally, he coined the term meritocracy to describe his dystopian nightmare civilization.
I'm not sure how to parse your last sentence. Could you clarify what you mean?
Voicing such statements creates a hostile work environment for
1. your immigrant coworkers who entered the country on H1B or other visas;
2. coworkers who benefited from affirmative action to get into university;
3. friends/relatives of law-abiding-but-undocumented aliens.
You might think you are just making abstract policy statements. But to your listeners, you are making threats to destroy their livelihood and their families. Of course they react negatively!
How would you react if someone, in the name of abstract policy, argued that people belonging to your demographic group don't deserve jobs or should be kicked out of the country?
As a member of a representative democracy, I should be able to hold and express political opinions on things like immigration and affirmative action without risking career death. The fact that I can't do so is beyond just sad, it's dangerous to our democracy in general.
As a member of a representative democracy, you have the right to express whatever political opinion you please. But if you exercise that right in your workplace and announce to your coworkers that you want the government to destroy their lives and families - well, you ought to be prepared for an extremely negative reception.
Well, “never” would be wrong, but it's been a while since that was the common (and, when I say a while, I mean since the Democrats were the southern conservative party and the KKK was a major and overt influence in their candidate selection.)
> Welfare got repealed by Bill Clinton in the 90s.
AFDC got replaced with the more restrictive TANF as the primary federal-funded welfare program in the 1990s by the Republican Congress with Clinton’s support, but welfare was not repealed.
They weren't the ones who committed genocide on the entire continent.