or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need feminism because tumblr - Page 172

post #2566 of 5586
I believe choice of profession has been neglected in this discussion. Not many women on "Deadliest Catch."
post #2567 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

I believe choice of profession has been neglected in this discussion. Not many women on "Deadliest Catch."

You would be wrong:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It takes no account for what job you hold...it's a truly shitty number.
post #2568 of 5586
There's a first time for everything.
post #2569 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I disagree that the state needs to be involved. Sure, there are shitty companies out there, but my former employer did 8 weeks for the primary caregiver and 2 weeks for the other parent. My current employer does 6 and 1.

Google allegedly is doing 6 months. As unemployment falls again, companies will do things to attract talent such as improving PTO for having kids.

It's not just shitty companies. Only 11% of private industry workers are eligible for paid family leave, of any length. It's nice that some companies are stepping up to the plate, but most workers aren't in ultra-competitive fields like tech. Wages have been totally stagnant for most workers, and it seems unrealistic to expect that employers are going to add substantial paid leave policies (why would they?). Even the companies with "generous" leave policies would rank among the worst countries in the Western world.

FMLA was passed 20 years ago, and that's pretty much where we've settled. There's not any real evidence that "the market" is going to address this issue in any significant way. If we actually care about it as a societal issue, it should be addressed more directly. If we don't care (prioritizing liberty etc), then we ought to consider the costs of that stance.

Source.
post #2570 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's not just shitty companies. Only 11% of private industry workers are eligible for paid family leave, of any length. It's nice that some companies are stepping up to the plate, but most workers aren't in ultra-competitive fields like tech. Wages have been totally stagnant for most workers, and it seems unrealistic to expect that employers are going to add substantial paid leave policies (why would they?). Even the companies with "generous" leave policies would rank among the worst countries in the Western world.

FMLA was passed 20 years ago, and that's pretty much where we've settled. There's not any real evidence that "the market" is going to address this issue in any significant way. If we actually care about it as a societal issue, it should be addressed more directly. If we don't care (prioritizing liberty etc), then we ought to consider the costs of that stance.

Source.

You know there is no such thing as a free lunch. There are two options:

1. Force companies to do more, which will have all kinds of unintended consequences (less women hired, lower base pay, etc).
2. Have some kind of government program which will require raising extra revenue, and if we treat it like UI as you suggested, will decrease people's wages as a company's cost of hiring someone increases.
post #2571 of 5586

I watched the embedded video and have found a possible solution. Simply pay administrative staff the same rates of pay as STEM workers. It won't solve the whole problem but it should greatly reduce the "gender pay gap."
post #2572 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I watched the embedded video and have found a possible solution. Simply pay administrative staff the same rates of pay as STEM workers. It won't solve the whole problem but it should greatly reduce the "gender pay gap."

We should just pay everyone the same.

Did someone post it here about reddit not allowing salary negotiations? Apparently there is the claim that is part of the gap because women don't negotiate for pay as much as men.
post #2573 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You know there is no such thing as a free lunch. There are two options:

1. Force companies to do more, which will have all kinds of unintended consequences (less women hired, lower base pay, etc).
2. Have some kind of government program which will require raising extra revenue, and if we treat it like UI as you suggested, will decrease people's wages as a company's cost of hiring someone increases.

That pretty much follows directly from what I was saying to Piob. We can't just provide this for free, so it would be helpful to know the costs and consequences of our current system for evaluation of policy solutions (including doing nothing).


Our current approach isn't free either, TANSTAAFL works for passive costs too. It has all kinds of social and personal costs. Among other costs, the US has a pretty shitty work/family balance right now and that kind of thing can have major ripples that end up affecting things on a much wider scale than just the family level. Japan is a good example there. Everybody in the 80s was convinced Japan was the model industrial drone society, and now the costs of that are really roaring to the fore.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

We should just pay everyone the same.

Did someone post it here about reddit not allowing salary negotiations? Apparently there is the claim that is part of the gap because women don't negotiate for pay as much as men.

The Reddit example is fun because they still don't publish their salary information. They could still be discriminating, or just using the "no negotiations" ploy to shaft everybody. It's not at all a pro-worker stance, it's just a dumb token towards "equality."
post #2574 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


The Reddit example is fun because they still don't publish their salary information. They could still be discriminating, or just using the "no negotiations" ploy to shaft everybody. It's not at all a pro-worker stance, it's just a dumb token towards "equality."

It reminds me a bit of car dealerships and their "we don't negotiate - the price is on the sticker" mantra (although there is even less transparency in the reddit instance).
post #2575 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

...and that kind of thing can have major ripples that end up affecting things on a much wider scale than just the family level. Japan is a good example there. Everybody in the 80s was convinced Japan was the model industrial drone society, and now the costs of that are really roaring to the fore.

I don't think what has happened to Japan since the 80's has much to do with work/life balance.
post #2576 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

FMLA was passed 20 years ago, and that's pretty much where we've settled. There's not any real evidence that "the market" is going to address this issue in any significant way. If we actually care about it as a societal issue, it should be addressed more directly. If we don't care (prioritizing liberty etc), then we ought to consider the costs of that stance.

If we "actually cared" about it, that'd be the sort of thing that would motivate the market, isn't it? And isn't it interesting that the US has higher birth rates than all those countries with the progressive leave laws and extensive middle-class welfare programs?

I do appreciate that you put forward the eugenics argument though.
post #2577 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

I don't think what has happened to Japan since the 80's has much to do with work/life balance.

Many things have happened in Japan since the 1980s. There are plenty of articles on the the negative consequences of work-life in Japan, largely revolving around their cratering birth rate but also social disengagement in general and many other factors.
post #2578 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

And isn't it interesting that the US has higher birth rates than all those countries with the progressive leave laws and extensive middle-class welfare programs?
Our birth rate is significantly increased by immigrants. If you correct for that, we're right in line with the other Western countries. And that's only looking at birth rates, which is far from the limit of the effect here.
Quote:
If we "actually cared" about it, that'd be the sort of thing that would motivate the market, isn't it?

The market is very far from perfect, and certainly the current state of the market is not the perfect solution.

"The market" isn't going to give workers added benefits simply because they want it without reasons more pressing than long term social discontent and personal unhappiness. Employees evidently don't have a lot of leverage in the US right now, judging from stagnant wages among other things. Maybe if we get back to very low unemployment, advances on that front will happen, but who knows?

Quote:
I do appreciate that you put forward the eugenics argument though.

It's not really a eugenics argument, although people certainly make that case. There are plenty of other reasons to want the high performing segment of society to have kids, or at least not to actively disincentivize them from doing so.
post #2579 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Our birth rate is significantly increased by immigrants. If you correct for that, we're right in line with the other Western countries. And that's only looking at birth rates, which is far from the limit of the effect here.
The market is very far from perfect, and certainly the current state of the market is not the perfect solution.

"The market" isn't going to give workers added benefits simply because they want it without reasons more pressing than long term social discontent and personal unhappiness. Employees evidently don't have a lot of leverage in the US right now, judging from stagnant wages among other things. Maybe if we get back to very low unemployment, advances on that front will happen, but who knows?
It's not really a eugenics argument, although people certainly make that case. There are plenty of other reasons to want the high performing segment of society to have kids, or at least not to actively disincentivize them from doing so.

Our wages our stagnant but the cost of a lot of our benefits have been going up quite a bit lately, which are in large part absorbed by employers. My last employer nearly had a riot on its hands because health insurance premiums went up 10% (it absorbed 75% of the increase).
post #2580 of 5586
Yes, I hate that my employees, Democrats all, bitch about the jumps in their premiums over the last few years and fail to acknowledge my P&L eats up 75% of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr