And what does the worker class actually get in return? Globalization helped the professional class, while the working class lost their good paying jobs that were replaced by crappy service industry jobs. Yeah, so they got TV's that were cheaper because a poor person in China was willing to work for 8 dollars an hour instead of 25 here in America, but if the worker in America went from making 50k a year to 25k a year what good does a cheap TV do for him?

The worker class got gutted, while all the benefit went to the professionals. Yeah, it helped me out quite a bit because I'm not one of the worker class but it still makes me disgusted. Why should I, or any American, care about the benefit of the poor in China or India or Mexico? So I can get cheaper TV's?

No thanks.

Because you don't see my underlying point. Why do you think the level below partner may be 30% female but only 16% of partners are female?

It's pretty easy to guess. Before I explain, what do you think it is? Structural sexism?

I think you might be agreeing with me! Or at least not disagreeing.

My point was that globalization has been good for poor workers in other countries and good for the very wealthy in the US who are able to reap the economic benefits, and bad for lower/middle class workers. Then I made a suggestion about the way different political ideologies think about trying to "solve" that problem...

I don't know. It isn't important to the point I was making by citing the article...

My problem is with the statement you made here :

The POINT of globalization is that capital won't have borders but labor will. I don't see how you can have the cheaper made products from emerging countries (due to cheaper wages) without moving the jobs from a country that charges more for labor (United States) to one that doesn't (China).

If that means globalization needs to be curtailed, so be it. If you think it doesn't, I challenge you to provide a solution.

Is this true? I thought one of the standard complaints about "globalists" was that they favored (effectively) open borders.

I think you've misunderstood my suggestion. I agree that cheaper products from emerging countries requires moving the jobs to those countries. My suggestion is that rather than protecting wages by preventing the transfer of jobs we use policy to ensure that the economic rewards that international corporations accrue from doing so are more evenly distributed. There are a lot of ways that could work, but taxes are obviously important.

One way of thinking about this comparison is that trying to "curtail globalization" typically means something like tariffs like the ones the Trump administration were reported to be considering. What we're comparing is the costs and benefits of higher tariffs or other disincentives to moving jobs with the costs and benefits of redistributing profits after the fact. I am not competent to provide a solution to the problems of globalization, but I think at the least this is a reasonable way of thinking about some of the problems.

It's because there are actual differences between men and women. We are biologically different, which drives things like social factors. I've seen this in many cases, even in my own family.

There is a very good reason why women in their 30s tend to stagnate in their careers. It's due to family or the desire to have one. Women face a choice that men don't at that age - career or family. Choose one, but you can't have both. Many women must make their decision, but the idea of them choosing career and then looking back and regretting that they never had a family is horrifying to them. That's why so many of them choose to "take it easy" during those years and not take that next step, so they can have some time on their own to take care of, or start, a family. ESPECIALLY those years between 25-35.

Men don't have to make that decision, because for them it HELPS their situations (and we can start a family at 40 if we want). If man is making 130k and not partner yet and their wife is working making 85k somewhere, and they have a chance to make partner, they do it. The wife can cut back on her work, or pause her career, and start a family while the man just throws himself into his career and works relentlessly to keep getting promoted so he can take care of his family while his wife takes care of the children.

In the reverse situation, where the female is making 130k and the husband is making 85k, the man can't pause their career and have a baby! ONLY the female can do it. Sure, the female may just take a few months maternity leave and let the man take care of the household, but MOST women do NOT want that, whereas men very often do.

Anecdotally I've seen this happen many times within my group of friends. It happened to my family. I was offered a significant raise in salary to switch companies, but the new company was a 70 minute commute each way. I took it because I had a child at home but me having a longer day wouldn't hurt her in terms of childcare. I was more than willing to make my life a lot worse to make more money for my family, as long as my wife didn't suffer and she could spend time with the kid. A few months later my wife was offered a significant raise to take a global director level role. It was a large raise, a promotion, serious career exposure but it would require multiple trips a year overseas and a longer working day. After some discussion, we turned it down because it would hurt our family dynamic too much. The recruiter had a meltdown and begged my wife to reconsider (he actually couldn't believe she declined). We were adamant about not taking it, due to us wanting to try for another child and not to hurt the time she could spend with our current child. We decided, as a family, that after the kids are grown and out of the house she could pursue anything she wanted, but at this time her committing all of her time to her career wasn't worth it, no matter the amount of money they were willing to give her.

All these things add up to something. There is a good reason why so many women rise up the corporate ladder then "stop". It's not because they aren't capable of moving up, it's because they have other things in their life that may be more important to them. It's completely natural, and actually a GOOD thing! In general, we do NOT want women who care more about their careers than their families. If that was the norm across society we would be in deep trouble in terms of birth rate.

This idea you are selling is that there is some concentrated effort to stop women from advancing. It's nonsense. If you ran a company you would want the best person for a role to take that role, no matter what their gender or race or religion was. This idea that companies promote men over women because they secretly hate women is ridiculous. Give me the best person for the job, period.

I don't understand how this works or maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion? So a company moves it's production to Mexico, Trump slaps a tariff on their products, that company decides to stop moving future jobs to Mexico.

What is the point of globalization if you are just going to tariff it? If you dis-incentivize the companies from moving, that isn't globalization, is it?

Am I missing something?

Well, here's some data I found that confirms my suspicions.

http://time.com/money/4098024/pay-ga...ages-earnings/

Women's salaries seem to peak earlier for several reasons, including the fact that marriage and children affect women's pay negatively (while actually improving men's).

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...-age/21648659/

According to the study, the gender pay gap has fallen from an average of 16 percent for baby-boomers born between 1946 and 1965, to 9 percent for Generation X, born between 1966 and 1980, and to 5 percent for millennials, or those born between 1981 and 2000.

However, the pay gap begins to widen as women begin to enter their 30s and early 40s when they begin to have children and begin to take time off work, after which it continues for decades, the study said


Again, anecdotal, but in my own situation my wife could have taken that promotion and raise last year. That would have increased her life-time earnings by a staggering amount, as it was a 40% increase she declined. That one decision may have a life-long impact. If she waits, say, 8 years from now before she decides the children are old enough to manage on their own and she becomes a director, she may have effectively closed the door on her ever becoming CEO or officer level. If she moves to director at late 40s, then gets promoted to global director around mid-late 40s, she just won't have enough time to rise to officer level (assuming it's even possible for her). The change in her life-time earnings and career achievement is huge, all because she decided to have a family. Men don't have to make this choice.

If you could carry a child and decided to have a child at 30 years old and effectively pause your career for a decade, how much do you think it would affect your life-time earnings? By a ton, and we all know it.

In my uninformed opinion the best parenting situation is the one we had for most of our existence. Multi-generational multi-familys in small tribes. Where women still worked (they gathered close to around 50% of food stocks if i remember right) but others could watch kids to young to gather.

But no one wants to go back to that...

So, I should consider whether women are concubines or not based on links you referenced regarding their "happiness" that for all I know might have nothing to do with their job status, child rearing, or spending power. Brilliant!

More spew. Lol @ concubines.

Always the same tactics from you people.

Great post!

This is utterly insane to think about:

What's missing from all of this is any argument or reason for believing that most of these considerations are dominated by biological factors, as you asserted here:

Obviously biology dictates that the minimum amount of family leave a woman has to take to have a baby is greater than for men, and this is a relevant factor in the wage gap. But, it does not fully explain why men receive a fatherhood bonus while women pay a motherhood penalty, and especially the way these are correlated to social class. There is no biological explanation which accounts for all of the data.

Of course it's normal and "natural" that women (and men!) want families. But you are assuming that the fact that women have to choose between prioritizing family and work in ways that men don't is solely due to biology when there are very obviously culturally constructed factors, like the fatherhood bonus/motherhood penalty you cite. Biology doesn't explain the fatherhood bonus. Cultural notions about women's and men's differing roles does. In any case, my point has not been that women shouldn't want to have families, but that it's reasonable for us to try to make it easier for women and families to choose how best to organize their own lives. The persistence of the wage gap constrains people's choices in unnecessary ways, regardless of its specific causes.

The other problem with your anecdote as an example of biological determinism is just that I can cite plenty of anecdotes where people make the opposite decision. I know a family where the husband chose to become a stay-at-home dad in order to prioritize the wife's career. Was that decision also driven largely by biology?

Fundamentally, we don't disagree about the shape of the decisions people are faced with, we disagree about what constrains those decisions. The data you've cited doesn't support an argument for biological determinism. Nor do your anecdotes. All of these things are also consistent with the salience of culturally constructed beliefs about gender roles. This is very clear in historical perspective. It's not biology that dictated that women be restricted from having basic rights for hundreds of years. We can trace the lineage of many of our ideas about gender to ancient Mediterranean religions, including of course those found in the Bible. We can also see how the factors that constrain women's choices have changed tremendously since the 1950s, which again did not happen because the underlying biology changed, but because of cultural changes.

The problem with biological determinism is not that there are no relevant biological differences between men and women. There are. The problem is first of all that purely biological explanations are insufficient to explain the data, but secondly that such explanations are intended to justify the status quo or to preclude the possibility of change. Yet obviously change is possible. And also quite obviously many women want to have a greater degree of freedom in making choices about the balance between work and family in their lives.

We're comparing the strategy of "curtailing globalization" with the alternative strategy of managing the distribution of its benefits. You're correct that the first is trying to stop or at least reduce globalization. Hence why I referred to it as "curtailing globalization" or "nationalism". My suggestion was that the second may be more desirable/feasible.

well named you really need to scrutinize all of your social construction theories. they have been derived from the philosophy of radical feminists. they are anti common sense and anti science

the dead beat dad thing isn't a social construction. society isnt coercing men in to abandoning their children. it isnt a social construction. on the flip side, the same goes with the stats that show single parent children are with their mothers. again, not a social construction

theres things like hormones. i know, youre sick of hearing about hormones, but they matter. biology matters. old men commit less crime than men because their hormones change. men commit more crime than women because their hormones are different. women are more attached their babies biologically, because their hormones. women have hormonal reactions through their pregnancy and after the birth. this is demonstrated through a mountain of different studies

the first google result
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...mother/384179/

the choices women make aren't anecdotes or a social construction. its vastly different biology and hormones. a vastly different hormonal reaction to becoming pregnant. a vastly different hormonal reaction to interacting with the newborn. the hormonal differences and changes in women compared to men aren't in response to a social construction

these social construct theories have gone so far in to the territory of absurd. i can buy in to the idea that womens fashion is heavily influenced by social construction or something along those lines but to take it to the point where you believe mothers and fathers maternal instincts are a social construct, you have to be completely brainwashed, scientifically ******ed, or just not putting much thought in to it

I question your entire view. I think there is a good reason why there is a fatherhood bonus, and if you thought about it just a little bit it'd be obvious.

You are looking at everything through this one lens that favors your argument. It's the same thing as racial bias. Yes, we are all aware there is some racial bias, but these studies are made to only determine one type of racial bias - white bias. I would bet a lot of money that if we did the reverse studies we would see even WORSE bias, because white people are always told how biased they really are and try their best to fix it. I wish they would do a study with Asians or Latinos and if they are biased towards their own people instead of others.

The same holds true here. The correct way to do a study would be to track women in the same categories as men (single, no children, etc) and show their findings. I would bet quite a bit of money the "wage gap" would be very different if you did that. Show me a driven, career-oriented woman who doesn't want to have kids and track their lifelong earnings against the same type of man and I'd bet their incomes are identical or much closer than you'd expect. There are good reasons for this.

No one really believes an employer says to themselves "Hey, let's take the female candidate because we can pay her 23% less", right? Is it possible an employer may try to offer the female slightly less money because they think they may not negotiate for more? Possibly. Could men more often try to negotiate a little more in starting salary than men? Possibly. But the overall situations are equal, and if women went through all the steps men did at work, they would be paid exactly the same. Why wouldn't they? Because there is some sort of conspiracy?

There is no wage gap. It's a myth. I'm pro-woman, and I have a daughter and a wife. I'm highly concerned about this because I have vested interest in it. I would LOVE for both of the to kick ass and make exactly what they deserve. I'm confident they will. My wife isn't underpaid, but she is currently working beneath her level. I accept that, and so does she. It's a trade-off we desire. I would think there are millions of families who agree with us.

I didn't say anything about the causes of the fatherhood bonus being either good or bad. I said that the causes weren't biological.

Here is a good summary of recent research from the American Association of University Women:

Controlling for months unemployed accounts for the "motherhood penalty". When you read the word "unexplained" you should also keep in mind my previous explanation about how researchers approach measuring the causes of the wage gap. The entire article is worth reading and does a fairly good job explaining the actual data.

I've already addressed comments like these in some detail. You seem to be defaulting to mere re-assertion of your previous statements rather than actually responding to what I've said. The wage gap is not a "myth". The difference between saying that claims about the wage gap are false and saying that they require interpretation and contextualization is something I pointed out in my first response to you.

Of course it's a myth. Just like the justice system is sexist because men are over represented or the NBA is racist because there aren't enough Asians.

Myth.

I'll make one more attempt to make this clear. Here are three different propositions:

A) "There is a gendered wage gap"
B) "The justice system is sexist against men"
C) "The NBA is racist against Asians"

Can you see how (A) is different from (B) and (C)? Can you see how (A) is also different from this alternative version:

A') There is gender wage gap caused by employment discrimination against women

(A') is similar to your (B) and (C), but (A) is not. The existence of a gender wage gap is not a myth. It exists. Data has been provided. In the same way, it's not a myth to claim that there are relatively few Asians in the NBA, or that men are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Claims about the causes of the wage gap, the under-representation of Asians in the NBA, or the over-representation of men in arrest data may be more or less compelling, but the underlying phenomena are not mythical.

well named deserves some sort of perseverance award for getting as far as the final concrete wall that constitutes wil's mentality.

I always find it weird that the wage gap is a myth claims come right before an explanation as to why women earn less than men.

I know these guys aren't aiming for consistency here, but still.

Sure. But it's not due to discrimination as your argument alludes to. It's due to behavior.

A discriminatory wage gap just doesn't exist in my opinion. The wage gap itself can be explained very easily. If you want me to acknowledge there actually is a gap, then yes, I agree.

This is a very poor summary of my posts, imo. Here's my first post on this subject (emphasis added):

Of course, I've also provided research which controls for the various factors we've talked about, like hours worked, time taken off for maternity, education, and etc, and there is still a wage gap in basically every study that's looked more carefully. The AAUW article does a good job discussing all of this. So I also think it's wrong to say that the existence of discrimination is a "myth", but it's right to say that discrimination doesn't account for the 20% difference between median wages, that most of the causes of the wage gap are more subtle.

Man I just got off the phone with Kruger, who just got off the phone with Dunning, and he was all like, yo, we gotta come up with a Whole New Thing for this MAGA bull****.