Have your say: Women gain higher earnings boosts after studying at university

Scroll to see replies

I'm just wondering what you would consider an acceptable level of inequality, if any. Very few would like to see those who happen to be less academically gifted struggle to pay rent or buy health insurance. But equally, very few would have a problem with 'intelligent' people earning more over their lifetime. That implies there's a middle ground.

In your view, what's an acceptable earnings premium for the 'intelligent'? 0%? 10%? 30%?

I am not really sure. Even though I want change I am still quite conervative. We need to work it out as we go along. Unintended consequences and all that. The history of the 20th century is full of failing grand schemas to improve the human condition. I am more of a radical reformist for this reason.

Ok. Well many people less gifted already do struggle to pay rent or get healthcare. So we should be fixing that first. And the great thing about this problem is we know how to do it becasue we have working examples already in existance. In my view rent should not be a thing just as health insurance is not in this country. Although I accpet that may be hard to do. At the bare minimum there needs to be adequate council housing.

It depends on what the intelligent people are doing. I'm sure more poeple would be willing to richly reward an intelligent person who cures cancer, invents the internet, or discovers a groundbreakign scecret of the universe. But these are not the poeple who get insanely rich usually. They often do get paid quite well, but nothing on the levels of the super rich. And often money was not the main motivation for what they did. Watson and Crick discover DNA. Then some patent whore capitalist comes alond and decides he wants to own the code that builds humans so he can make billions running a biotech empire. I don't think most poeple like those poeple very much. They only really defend them when thier economic position in society is tied to the success of the super rich (or they are convinced that is so). I mean that is the argument made by the ultra rich, they do not defend insane wealth inequality by saying we deserve it, they rather smartly say wealth trickles down.

The intelligent mega rich who poeple may like tend to be the "inventors" of consumer goods we all enjoy. Take the iphone. All Steve Jobs did (not without effort) came up with a concept and then tooks all the work of lesser known lesser paid poeple and cobbled it all together. It's the same with the games industry. All these multi million games are built on what is essentially a public infrastructure of algorithms developed by many many man hours of research.

Another things that distorts wealth unfairy is intelectual property which makes less and less sense in the IT age we find ourselves in. If you want free markets then people should be able to copy and play with ideas. They should be able to recieve patronage to try out their ideas from bottom up crowdsourcing. Information should be free. This will only become more of a problem as stuff like 3D printing takes off.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 81

Good bloke

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

In my view rent should not be a thing

If you really want to go down such a radical path then you need to think out how to make it work first. Making it up as you go along has been shown not to work, as you must be aware.

There are three main ways to find accommodation: Owning the home requires both earnings and some capital, and the presence of a capital owner who is willing to lend you money.

Renting works for those without capital but requires people with capital who seek a return on that capital (and this applies to lovable councils too, not just evil capitalists).

So, since you don't like capitalism that just leaves mud huts, which involves a return to a time several hundred years ago, which I suspect you wouldn't like. I certainly wouldn't.

You therefore need to find a fourth way..

Reply 82

yudothis

So the alternatives for men are better? Is that surprising?

Reply 83

Waldorf67

Original post by PQ

(That bits from the last page).

I’m not denying that apprenticeships exist. I was (and am) questioning your use of engineer as a non-grad job along the same lines as electricians and builders. They’re very different careers and apprenticeships are a minority route. It’s like giving the example or paramedic because older paramedics trained without a degree and ambulance drivers don’t need a degree.

Well you’ve completely misinterpreted or manipulated the stats there. Which is ironic given your “tag line”.

I explicitly stated that apprenticeships provide options for those who are not suited to the traditional academic setting. You then looked at a sample of individuals from only the higher-prior attainment group. Of course not going to University is rare for the high attainment group, even for non-engineering careers?

So you think that the government incentivised increase in apprenticeships is comparable with a redundant policy about paramedics? Well okay.

You just didn’t really know that engineering apprenticeships existed which is not even an issue. But for some reason you’ve chosen to argue about nothing, and stick to your initial misconception that silly old me confused engineering with car mechanics. Just like how I think paramedics just drive around in those big yellow vans, brum brum 🚑

Reply 84

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Reply 85

looloo2134

Original post by yudothis

So the alternatives for men are better? Is that surprising?

Nothing to stop women training to be builder apart from they don't wanted to get hurt. They rather work retail were money less and there almost no chance of being hurt.

I know women who works as builders they earn the same as male builders because their good at their job. Construction want people who work hard whatever sex they are.

Reply 86

looloo2134

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Argubaly the most socially criticle jobs are low paying. Eg bin men and nurses. Depends what you mean by socially criticle. A lot of it is not even paid. YOu wouldn't have society without new humans. Child rearing is unpaid. I am not syaing this should be changed. Life may just be unfair.

First scenario is women are capable of doing the male higher paying jobs but society puts them off from doing them. Or something fundamental about being a woman means you are better at and/or prefer to do the lower paying jobs.

Either way women are being paid less for being women.

Bin men earn good money it also less stressful than being a nurse and don't need to do a 3 year degree. I know people who been bin men for years they love their job it also keep them fit.

Reply 87

yudothis

Original post by looloo2134

Or maybe society values the work of men more - it's seen in professions where more men enter and salary goes up, and those that gain share of women drop in salary (good example specializations for doctors).

But sure, whatever floats your boat.

Reply 88

looloo2134

Original post by yudothis

Ever ask yourself why 95% of people killed at work are men bin men earn more money than dinner ladies because there job is dangerous and dirty.

It you wanted equality women would be doing low wage jobs on building site along with men. Equal number of men would be at university the same number women would be homeless. Women would have the same change of killed in army. I don't want any person killed at work male/female.

The same number of women should have badly paid dangerous jobs it they want well paid job just like men.

Reply 89

Doones

Original post by looloo2134

Ever ask yourself why 95% of people killed at work are men bin men .

Source?

Farming is much more dangerous.
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/most-dangerous-jobs-britain-a7565936.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 90

yudothis

Original post by looloo2134

I thought those kinds of jobs pay more which is why women benefit relatively more from university degrees. Not a logically coherent argument.

Also, you don't actually engage with the topic. You just rehash the same points every MRA brings in these situations. "blah blah equality means blah blah should also do the "bad" jobs blah blah". The fact that men's work is valued more by society is completely ignored by you.

Anyway, I'm out, don't feel like discussing this tired old argument, I favor other issues at the moment. Please don't quote me here.

Reply 91

looloo2134

Original post by Doonesbury

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/03/03/97-employees-die-work-men-2009-2014-figures/

I was talking about all workplace deaths I was wrong 97% of deaths were men.

Reply 92

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by Doonesbury

6 people so far in 2018 listed as dying due to: "The deceased came into contact with cattle" :eek2:

Reply 93

BasicMistake

Original post by yudothis

Can I get a source on that? Not that I don't believe you but that's quite an interesting fact which I haven't come across before.

Reply 94

yudothis

Original post by BasicMistake

Can I get a source on that? Not that I don't believe you but that's quite an interesting fact which I haven't come across before.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17657994/men-women-doctors-salaries-pay-gap-voxcare

as more women entered the OB-GYN field over the years, pay actually fell overall, rather than women’s income rising.

Generally, there's also a ton of anecdotal evidence out there, that in my opinion paints a clear picture even if hard numbers are not available. But of course for those that disagree, a lack of numbers means "doesn't exist", but that's a different story.

Reply 95

looloo2134

Original post by PQ

6 people so far in 2018 listed as dying due to: "The deceased came into contact with cattle" :eek2:

What know about farmers is the tend to be over 55 years they working 16 hour days they work on their own with dangerous animal and machinery. It not shocking their a high death rate.

Reply 96

TimmonaPortella

God, who really cares about stats like this?

Get what you need to do the best you can for yourself, and stop fretting about how broad groups defined by particular characteristics stack up against each other. It's not important.

Reply 97

username521617

Original post by TimmonaPortella

and stop fretting about how broad groups defined by particular characteristics stack up against each other. It's not important.

Which is essentially the very core of modern social justice.

Reply 98

username4316350

doesnt mean much to me as averages are just that an average. mine is pretty promising looking at that. doesnt mean ill get it. perhaps i might get half perhaps ill get 2x. but does say alot about some subjects and uni tho. one questions why they even bother going.