Why women earn less: Just two factors explain post-PhD pay gap

[Spectral]

Because some academic couples don't want to have children. Even subsidized, having children is always gonna be a financial net loss. Also a loss of personal freedom, and some people just don't like children, changing diapers etc.
These people shouldn't get the same tax cuts (or benefits) as academic couples who raise 3 kids.

Taxes are fine, in my opinion, if they're used to benefit the wellbeing of society as a whole. Public infrastructure, long term investments for the good of society.

Are you sure we want to encourage people that aren't really that keen on having kids to have kids?

[Dextroden]

Because some academic couples don't want to have children. Even subsidized, having children is always gonna be a financial net loss. Also a loss of personal freedom, and some people just don't like children, changing diapers etc.
These people shouldn't get the same tax cuts (or benefits) as academic couples who raise 3 kids.

Taxes are fine, in my opinion, if they're used to benefit the wellbeing of society as a whole. Public infrastructure, long term investments for the good of society.

So, again, we're just paying people to shit out kids with zero consideration of how they are actually raised?

[Thoughtful Trolli]

I like how every thorough investigation always discovers there's a valid reason for things and that every correction is becoming overcompensation that harms us because we've invested in throwing ourselves off the track of truth.

It's almost like everything is a persuasive argument, even reality, and people are trying to steal more and more away from the men who deserve it on account of they do more for the world. Modernism has really just become the shaming and subjugation of the cis male, probably with an intent to transform them all into servants or prepare them for an invasion by other countries, like a cult of male prostitutes.

[Independent voter]

So, again, we're just paying people to shit out kids with zero consideration of how they are actually raised?

The extra money would most likely improve the lives of the kids too.

[Awbee]

Are you sure we want to encourage people that aren't really that keen on having kids to have kids?

No! I was saying the opposite of that.

You asked why we shouldn't just lower tax rates for academics in general. To which I said, some academics don't want to have kids and so they won't raise them, thus won't need the extra money to raise kids.

Lower tax rates or "parent pay" should only go to those who actually do have children.

And like I said, it's always gonna be a financial net loss for someone with a well paying job, so these people certainly aren't gonna start having kids "for the money".

Are you sure we want to encourage people that aren't really that keen on having kids to have kids?

One might argue that this is already happening in the "underclass".

- - - Updated - - -

So, again, we're just paying people to shit out kids with zero consideration of how they are actually raised?

Zero consideration? On average, the children of intelligent, well-educated are likely to be raised better and have better future lives than those of low intelligence, badly eduated people.


Like I said, "controlling" whether people raise their kids well and rewarding it financially is a whole new topic. I think it's very unlikely to ever happen anytime soon.

[starlord]

this is actually old news, its been knocked around for a while. basically employers see women with children as a liability, because they are expected to take more time off to care for their kids. so they get paid less, promoted less, etc even if they don't take more time off.
meanwhile men with children are seen as an asset because it makes them more "stable" and less likely to run off when another company offers them more money.

[Dextroden]

The extra money would most likely improve the lives of the kids too.

Yeah, no. It's not going to happen like that. Unless, you truly think they are thinking about how to make a good future when you offer poor people money for fornicating.

[Deleted]

Girls have always worked

"Patriarchy" (such as it was, which isn't saying much) was a system of specialisation of labour where men were mostly expected to work for a living and women were mostly expected to raise children, but in both cases men helped at home and women did work, there was always a bit of a mix and for thousands of years it was a harmonious mix

Girls throughout history have in every society worked, on the farm, in part time roles, in industry, in academia - they just weren't expected to devote their lives to it the way men always have because of the whole motherhood thing

[Dextroden]

No! I was saying the opposite of that.

You asked why we shouldn't just lower tax rates for academics in general. To which I said, some academics don't want to have kids and so they won't raise them, thus won't need the extra money to raise kids.

Lower tax rates or "parent pay" should only go to those who actually do have children.

And like I said, it's always gonna be a financial net loss for someone with a well paying job, so these people certainly aren't gonna start having kids "for the money".





One might argue that this is already happening in the "underclass".

- - - Updated - - -




Zero consideration? On average, the children of intelligent, well-educated are likely to be raised better and have better future lives than those of low intelligence, badly eduated people.


Like I said, "controlling" whether people raise their kids well and rewarding it financially is a whole new topic. I think it's very unlikely to ever happen anytime soon.

Just offering people to have children is some of the most delightfully shortsighted things I've seen.

[Awbee]

Just offering people to have children is some of the most delightfully shortsighted things I've seen.

You either misread or didn't understand my posts.

We already do "offer money" to people to have children. It's called "child money" in my country and is about 200€ per child per month.

The thing is, that's a lot of money for a couple on welfare, so it might actually incentivise them to have another child, and another.

But for a well educated couple with good paying jobs, it's a ridiculously low sum, considering the salary the woman would have to give up in order to become a mother.


So we already do incentivise people to have children by offering them money, but it only works on people on welfare or with low paying jobs.

[Dextroden]

You either misread or didn't understand my posts.

We already do "offer money" to people to have children. It's called "child money" in my country and is about 200€ per child per month.

The thing is, that's a lot of money for a couple on welfare, so it might actually incentivise them to have another child, and another.

But for a well educated couple with good paying jobs, it's a ridiculously low sum, considering the salary the woman would have to give up in order to become a mother.


So we already do incentivise people to have children by offering them money, but it only works on people on welfare or with low paying jobs.

My opinion doesn't change because it is already happening. Nor do I have a positive opinion on giving more out as some lame duck way to convince the "academic " to breed more.

[Independent voter]

You either misread or didn't understand my posts.

We already do "offer money" to people to have children. It's called "child money" in my country and is about 200€ per child per month.

The thing is, that's a lot of money for a couple on welfare, so it might actually incentivise them to have another child, and another.

But for a well educated couple with good paying jobs, it's a ridiculously low sum, considering the salary the woman would have to give up in order to become a mother.


So we already do incentivise people to have children by offering them money, but it only works on people on welfare or with low paying jobs.

Yeah, an incentive based on income is the only thing that makes sense. As was mentioned earlier $500 to someone on welfare is a lot while $500 to someone making $100k a year isn't much.

[Mister Cheese]

Just another segment of no shit news...

[Mistame]

Sure, but then you end up with highschool dropouts on welfare having 10 kids and doctors staying childless. I don't think that's healthy for a society.

Again, "society" (read other people) has no obligation to those who decide to have children, regardless of the outcome. And in turn, "doctors" have no obligation to society to provide quality offspring.

Taxes. Seems extremely fair to me, considering that the academic in question is likely in one of the highest tax brackets and has already paid a big amount (and will again if they resume working). Even more so considering that their children will likely become future taxpayers.

The only way this could work in the way you're suggesting is how it's already being done, via tax breaks. No one else should have to support their decision to have children, especially via more taxes.

[Vyse]

Well I am a doctor and working 60-80 hours a week, and I make almost (!) double
what my wife makes. She works 20 hours a week as a bar maid.

Am I going to get sued now?

(

[Contesto]

It means if you were born female you either have to have no kids and make money or you have kids and lose money. Meanwhile men can have kids and not lose out on the money side of things.

That doesn't sound fair.

Women don't get paid less because they have children. They get paid less because they're working less hours. Men with Children often continue to work full-time, so getting full payment. Women tend to work only 20 or less hours a week and that leads to a lower salary and eventually to less promotions during their career.
Would you promote someone working full and overtime or someone with the same qualifications but only working 20 hours/week? And this has nothing to do with the gender.

[Deleted]

But those are real though.

Ever seen Clinton without make-up? Exactly.

Have you ever seen the Hillary Clinton mosaic image made out of dick picks?

[Belize]

Have you ever seen the Hillary Clinton mosaic image made out of dick picks?

N-n-no?

Oh my.

[Melkandor]

Aren't conspiracy theories a forbidden topic?

[Deleted]

Not surprised. Anyone want to explain how "The typical woman working full time as a medical doctor earns $135,169 a year. The typical man? $209,596, or 55 percent less"? And no different specialties doesn't explain the gap. "Nor do other factors such as hours worked or employment structure, according Anthony Sasso, a health-policy professor who told the Journal he was “befuddled” by the gap."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...x-the-economy/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/women-in...gap-1463502938

One has nothing to do with the pay gap as far as i can see, the other is paywalled.
Regardless, the reason female doctors earn less is the following:
Work fewer hours, Specialize less, work less weekends, less on call, less night shifts, less likely to work in a hospital, more likely to work in a city, (this one is more true for veterinarians, but its still true for doctors, Most women do no want to live out in the bush, and the men want more pay for the job)
Add in the classics, More overtime, more negotiation, more likely to switch jobs, - Just take my word for it - They earn less, because they earn less.
Hell if i was the ruler of the universe women shouldn't be allowed to be medical doctors - tangent I'm willing to expand on if you want.

You know if us Patriarchs were the ones to get pregnant and have kids, we'd make sure having kids and raising them made you more money, higher pension, w/e.

If men carried the kids, women would be the ones doing the fighting and dying.
In reality, reality would look pretty much just the same as it is now, just the 'men' would be women, and the women 'men'.
Because women carrying the kids is a driving force for most of the social, and biological differences between men and women.