Conquer Club

spurgistan wrote:
There have been plenty of peer-reviewed articles where identical fake resumes were made using black-sounding names and white-sounding names, and the white names got called in for interviews at a much higher clip. A bit outdated, but 2009 nber study

And, umm, this has to do with women in the military, how?

If you are referring to my jab at BBS, you needn't concern yourself, I am just playing with him. Fraudulent resumes get a person no job, as soon as the fraudulent resume is discovered.
One job I had a long time ago, a fellow had gotten hired and he was working out just fine. Come in one day he's gone. "What'd he do?" I asked, he lied on his application and when discovered, even though he'd been hired, they fired him.

Oh, and you been listening to Rush lately? When was it, Thursday I think it was, when that very study you have linked to was brought up.
I'll bet ya that any of those who got offered interviews didn't show up for the interview. LOL. Since those people didn't actually exist. I point out this just because exposing wrongdoing through fraudulent means is just funny. It is what it is, but I don't think it has much to do with anything when it comes to female combat troops getting paid the same as male combat troops. Pay in the military is pretty much "Your rank fall here in the table of pay".

spurgistan wrote:It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.

That's kind of out of nowhere. Ok then, sure I guess. And this has to do with women serving in combat roles how? That's just a completely different topic all together.
Are you for or against women on the front lines? I'm all for it, so long as they can pass the exact same PT that males can pass. And the PT isn't all that heavy, really. Hell, in Turkey during the First Gulf war, I seen guys who got their service rifle jammed, couldn't clear the jam and just throw their weapon down on the ground and all pissed off. Sad but true.

spurgistan wrote:Proscribed means the exact opposite of how you used it there. Minor quibble.

My apologies. I hit the wrong letter. Thank you sir. But you got my meaning, all the pay is specifically laid out by the military and there are no charts that have "Male earns X" and "Female earn X-Y".
That's why I think it silly to be worrying about the pay, women will get the same terrible pay as the men.

This all seems more like a PR campaign than anything. You are right, anyone in their right mind won't want to get anywhere near a battlefield. Seems like an issue for feminists and such, which makes me <yawn>. I'd think most women would be of the mind "screw that" (and rightly so) when it comes to- "How would you like to serve your country by killing the bad guys on the front lines?"

Lord knows, we'll have plenty of more wars. Never a shortage of them. Someone has to fight in the wars, I guess. Seems wasteful to me, but the politicians know best.......
Anyway, have a good day!

john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.

The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.

The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.

I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).

Right, I think the problem arises when it's not Haggis vs. TG but Group A of people vs. Group B of people where the groups contains millions.
I think many historical ills can be partially traced to treating large groups of people as if they were individuals. If you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's more dishonest than Bob, then that's cool. If however you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's a Jew and Jews are more dishonest than catholics like Bob, then that's very uncool.

Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.

The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.

I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.

I don't think any real scientists is claiming the whole 25% is discrimination. So yes it is predominantly explained due to what the video discusses. Some people say there is still a significant margin that is due to discrimination though. Again, from the wiki article

However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.[3]:80

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.

I haven't studied the problem in depth, but from what I can see so far the case isn't closed.

Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.



Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.

Lootifer wrote:

john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.

The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.

The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...

Agreed. Look at Mao's Red Army from the 1930s and on. No problems with brotherhood solidarity there.

http://www.historynet.com/women-warriors.htm

Also, this has inspired me to start the second tournament in my Wonderful Warrior Women series. I will keep you posted, my eager awaiting fans.

Lootifer wrote:Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Well you just lost that bet, since it is 30% of them (that have either raped or sexually assaulted).

Reinforces my point though.

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

Here here!

saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

thegreekdog wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...

john9blue wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...

That's an unfortunate and poor analogy, but yeah, it does sound like that argument.

saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

Was this the flame? I didn't see it in time.

2dimes is unstoppable now, and Scotty will pay for it.

spurgistan wrote:

john9blue wrote:i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.

I will say this (and note the specific language).

If an employee takes a leave of absence after the birth of a child, he or she will be less effective than someone who does not take a leave of absence.

If an employee works a part-time schedule to take care of his or her children, he or she will be less effective than someone who works a full time schedule.

There are ways that firms deal with these two realities, but they are most definitely realities.

This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?

thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?

Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Mary is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?

Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Marie is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.

Whoops... sorry. I read your "moving the goal posts" line and for some reason thought that you were the one that were moving the goal posts.

I agree with the above, by the way.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.

There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.

I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.

BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.

Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.

john9blue wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...

What are you talking about? Haven't you seen the Godfather?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?

Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Mary is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. [1] What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. [2] Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.

[1] Then her expected productivity would increase--if the subject is mentioned; however, she would have to make a convincing case.

[2] The employers could probably be sued for inquiring about her medical history (I'm not 100% sure, but I smell a lawsuit with that topic).

Mary isn't being penalized. She can produce kids, and like other women, she's very likely to have them, and like most women she's very likely to take time off to care for them. Also, IIRC, she is required to received maternity leave (which will be deducted from her wage ultimately--just like the employer's paying his 'share' of one's Social Security tax). All of this reduces her expected productivity (or marginal product of labor), thus justifying a lower wage--on average--compared to a man.

Looks like the federal government is 66% to blame on this one. 33% goes to society in general for having women raise the kids--in general, in general, in general. 1% goes to saxitoxin because he's a penis head.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Looks like the federal government is 66% to blame on this one. 33% goes to society in general for having women raise the kids--in general, in general, in general. 1% goes to saxitoxin because he's a penis head.

guilty

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.

There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.

I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.

Well, from what I recall, the younger the woman, the more likely her wage is equivalent to the man's, so it seems that things are changing. What's weighing down the numbers is all those old people and their old ways. So, already things are 'on the mend'--without the help of lefties and their government intervention.

RE: I'd imagine that if there was no threat of being sued for asking questions about one's medical history and other very personal questions, then many of your concerns could be alleviated. But thanks to anti-discrimination laws and what not, this is impeded.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.

Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.

Sure, just saying that it's not as bad as many think it is--which is a point that needs to be made. Otherwise, those idiots will advocate for well-intended policies with bad outcomes.

P.S. Evolution is a lie. You can't have string cheese from nothing.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.

I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.

i think a distinction needs to be made here. i'm not saying that there don't exist women who CAN be great soldiers. i'm just questioning whether the benefit of the additional military power is worth the potential costs.

also, your "statistical analysis" is a bit off, considering that the military is largely composed of males in the upper, say, 10% of physical fitness. and the fact that women who can beat 99% of men exist doesn't change the fact that, given the distributions are clustered around the mean, probably 75% of males are more capable of being soldiers than 75% of females.

basing public policy on extreme statistical outliers is generally a bad idea.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.

Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.

i agree with most of BBS' post, except for his claim that women being caretakers is "unfortunate". i think it's a real possibility that women, on average, are better caretakers.

also, my original post was:

john9blue wrote:the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

i said "much less" for a reason. i do believe that there exists discrimination against women. i've seen it personally from my coworkers (software development is possibly the single most male-dominated white-collar profession). but i think the "70 cents" figure greatly exaggerates how prevalent it really is.

john9blue wrote:
i agree with most of BBS' post, except for his claim that women being caretakers is "unfortunate". i think it's a real possibility that women, on average, are better caretakers.

Oh, it's unfortunate that society in general tends to delegate the upbringing of children to women, which on average lowers their expected productivity, thus depressing some portion of their wage.

I'd have thought you'd see the unfortunate aspect being that they are not sufficiently rewarded for caretaking (nor properly incentivised to do a good job of it).