Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does the gender pay gap exist? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    If, in a couple, the woman decides to spend a couple of years out to look after her kids, and the man decides to work to provide for them, that is there choice and it's a perfectly good one. It is literally no one else's business how people choose to organise their families, and the idea that the aggregation of individual choices might be a problem 'for society' is absolutely outrageous.
    Well it's outrageous that you actually believe that individual choices aren't at all impacted by the people living around them in the place where they live and that norms created by society - because it is a thing - do not even unconsciously have an effect on the decisions people make. Yes there are of course individual choices and different situations but *most* situations often end up with the woman staying home.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    It’s not that society views it as the norm it’s that it IS the norm. It is usually the case that women chose to become the primary caregiver in a family
    Well the fact that it is the norm is what leads society to view it as the norm which is the problem. Of course some women will choose to stay home - that's their decision - but many women in the higher end professions have worked very hard to get there and I find it highly unlikely that they want to throw that away to stay home and care for the children but apparently they do, as proven by the existence of a pay gap.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeatle)
    Well it's outrageous that you actually believe that individual choices aren't at all impacted by the people living around them in the place where they live and that norms created by society - because it is a thing - do not even unconsciously have an effect on the decisions people make. Yes there are of course individual choices and different situations but *most* situations often end up with the woman staying home.
    I absolutely do believe people are influenced by others around them. I just don't think it's the job of you or me or the government or anyone else to tell people on what basis they should make decisions about their own lives.

    OK so assume that women who want to stay home have been influenced by social norms. So what? They still want to do it. They presumably believe it would make them and their family happier. Who the **** are you to tell them they're wrong? Why should they act in a way they think undesirable? Even if that is those desires are a product of their upbringing, they're still very real, and you can't wish them away.

    The implications of this sort of logic are terrifying.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    It’s not that society views it as the norm it’s that it IS the norm. It is usually the case that women chose to become the primary caregiver in a family
    Ah, endogeneity, my dear old friend.

    Humans understand so little about their world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I absolutely do believe people are influenced by others around them. I just don't think it's the job of you or me or the government or anyone else to tell people on what basis they should make decisions about their own lives.

    OK so assume that women who want to stay home have been influenced by social norms. So what? They still want to do it. They presumably believe it would make them and their family happier. Who the **** are you to tell them they're wrong? Why should they act in a way they think undesirable? Even if that is those desires are a product of their upbringing, they're still very real, and you can't wish them away.

    The implications of this sort of logic are terrifying.
    If you have socially conditioned someone to be x, let them be x? 1984 comes a calling.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    If you have socially conditioned someone to be x, let them be x? 1984 comes a calling.
    You have managed to get this analogy wrong in every possible respect tbh. The relevant dystopia here is clearly Huxley's, and it is the modern left that wants to change and control people's desires, not us. The main difference is probably that the modern left's objectives are less coherent than those than the World State, to the point that I've never even seen anyone attempt an explanation as to why there should be parity between the ambitions and life choices of men and women.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    If you have socially conditioned someone to be x, let them be x? 1984 comes a calling.
    Is this supposed to be ironic?

    When faced with a choice between telling people how to live their lives and letting them live as they choose, you seriously think it's the latter that smacks of Soviet totalitarianism?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Is this supposed to be ironic?

    When faced with a choice between telling people how to live their lives and letting them live as they choose, you seriously think it's the latter that smacks of Soviet totalitarianism?
    You have no clue what you are talking about, which doesn't surprise me reading your posts. You show no ability to engage with the points presented to you. Fwiw, it's not about telling people how to live, but removing the current status quo that is telling people how to live.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You have managed to get this analogy wrong in every possible respect tbh. The relevant dystopia here is clearly Huxley's, and it is the modern left that wants to change and control people's desires, not us. The main difference is probably that the modern left's objectives are less coherent than those than the World State, to the point that I've never even seen anyone attempt an explanation as to why there should be parity between the ambitions and life choices of men and women.
    You completely ignore the past. Pathetic argumentation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You have managed to get this analogy wrong in every possible respect tbh. The relevant dystopia here is clearly Huxley's, and it is the modern left that wants to change and control people's desires, not us. The main difference is probably that the modern left's objectives are less coherent than those than the World State, to the point that I've never even seen anyone attempt an explanation as to why there should be parity between the ambitions and life choices of men and women.
    Exactly! Reading that post was a very bizarre experience.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well, there is an average difference in salary based on gender.

    But this is due to women's choices, so if they want to "fix" it, then it's up to them. But of course, that would require effort on their part, so it's easier if they just accuse people of being sexist.

    The statistically illiterate media will assist them, and people who logically dispute their misinformed claims will be accused of being "sexist".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You have no clue what you are talking about, which doesn't surprise me reading your posts. You show no ability to engage with the points presented to you. Fwiw, it's not about telling people how to live, but removing the current status quo that is telling people how to live.
    Lol, this is either wonderful satire or incredibly stupid.

    Your conjecture is that people only behave as they do because society tells them to, and thus justify removing this alleged social conditioning with social control. But there is no evidence that I can see that women do stay at home only because of society, or that the status quo is inherently bad. In any case, we're not saying that women ought to stay at home. Just that if they choose to in greater numbers than men, that's fine. Live and let live.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    not very PC statement to make. I am a woman by the way before anyone starts.
    The truth > being PC

    Honestly, I agree with every word you wrote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Well, I don't know. I don't have much of an idea at all tbh; I know what I've observed but I've no idea how representative it is around the country and among different age groups etc. I wonder if there are polling data.
    I'd think most people would believe it exists. It's reported widely in news. I can't imagine the average person is going to critically evaluate it. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeatle)
    Well the fact that it is the norm is what leads society to view it as the norm which is the problem. Of course some women will choose to stay home - that's their decision - but many women in the higher end professions have worked very hard to get there and I find it highly unlikely that they want to throw that away to stay home and care for the children but apparently they do, as proven by the existence of a pay gap.
    So caring for children and experiencing the joys of parenthood is not as fulfilling at a high paying job now?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Okay, but I think the point is really that applying any sort of commercial sense to the labour market shows that the pay gap as stated can't exist. Of course companies couldn't hire exclusively female staff in the real world, but if equivalent female labour were priced at a 20% discount to male labour you'd certainly see demand for female labour increase, which would of course raise its price.

    Of course there are rarely two exactly equal candidates, but a significant discount would still shift the market. The point of the argument is exactly that the situation described by the pay gap folks doesn't correspond with reality, and in particular commercial reality.

    You can of course pick apart how it was stated, but the basic point is sound.
    To answer your second para and some part of your first, commercial sense is not merely dictated by how cheap labour is. It would be cheaper to hire a chef from McDonald's, with no formal culinary experience, to be the head chef at a Michelin-starred restaurant than it would be to appoint Gordon Ramsay. Once you accept that businesses are looking for more than reducing overhead, the original person's argument is done for.

    Your argument is more sophisticated, but I still do not think it is true. First, if the employment market is truly sexist, it would not be unsurprising that old timey senior managers would not perceive woman's work to be on par with a man's. Hence, these managers likely see woman's work as subsidiary and are not tempted by the 20% boost. Second, it assumes that there are enough women of appropriate quality to recruit exclusively from. If you need 100 workers in an engineering firm, you recruit 20 women at the -20% rate, you'd still need to recruit 80 other workers. There being few women engineers in the locality, you'd be driven to recruit the remaining 80 from the XY group. Third, it assumes that the process of discrimination is conscious or appreciated. Managers often do not realise that they are paying someone objectively equal in quality less money simply because they are female; they often rationalise and over-play trivial factors, such as "yeah, but she was ill that time and Mike plays golf with me and the lads".

    The competition driving up the price point is quite elegant, though it relies on there being a distinction in recruiters' minds as to the value of each sex (which they do not have). Further it assumes that -20% is the "right" market price uninflated from competition. There is no reason to think that the right price is -40% reduction and -20% is thus the competition price. Plus if prices were to increase, they would lose their competitive advantage of being cheaper. Also more women would compete for said roles, and it would switch from a seller's to a buyer's market, and price would be driven down again.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    You are wrong lecturing is relatively simple - a few lectures a wekk with studnet who want to learn.

    Teaching maths - classes of 30 and students that sometimes want to be somewhere else. [Think bottom set Year 10 for 90 minutes on a Friday afternoon] You have to inspire them and prepare really good lessons to engage their interest. You need to think of different ways to help students understand - just as demanding as at a uni. Every student I teach has to make good progress - unis aren't accountable like that.
    I think teachers are actually better paid than uni academics.
    Being a professor is not about lecturing, in fact, they usually have to be lecturers as part of being academic at their university. Their main job is to conduct research, which is what they're actually paid for, lecturing is just a part of what they have to do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawlieto)
    Being a professor is not about lecturing, in fact, they usually have to be lecturers as part of being academic at their university. Their main job is to conduct research, which is what they're actually paid for, lecturing is just a part of what they have to do.
    They are not all professors - some are junior lecturers - just how much 'work' do some of them do? I know quite a few and they tell me some interesting stories about colleagues so I understand why they are low paid ...
    I'm not sure you are quite as aware as you think.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.