h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Twig,

> It's not a "theory"...

> IF the above "fact" is true, [then] the very first company that stops being sexist will annihilate its competition.

The bit that follows the inserted 'then' is what we call a theory, a model of reality that makes conditional predictions that may or may not fit the observed facts. I parenthetically assumed, perhaps over-generously, that you made this claim on the basis of a theory, some flavour of microeconomics. In standard theories of microeconomics, you could indeed show that a company that was paying men too much would go out of business, but these standard theories make some assumptions which are not true, and this is partly why they've been shown empirically to be wrong. In particular, they assume 'perfect competition' (which, on my generous reading, is the key assumption for your claim above). This could mean, for example, an infinite number of buyers and sellers for every product, no costs for a business to start or stop selling a product, perfect information, etc. When any of these highly implausible assumptions break down, you no longer have perfect competition, and various inefficiencies can creep in.

I'm aware of the pitfalls of imperfect competition. But do any of them affect this parameter?

No company, for instance, has statistically greater access to women for its workforce than another. You'd think, given the apparent MASSIVE advantage a company could gain by employing women instead of men right to the top, that at least ONE major company would be doing it. Can you name one?

womens publishing....vogue??

The problem is, SorB, as soon as anyone starts discriminating against men in favour of women the poor, hard done to blokes start making a fuss about it. See how good I am for not starting a rant about privilege.

SoRB:

You are quite right in your assertion that economics works according to reliable, straightforward laws. That is in Chapter 1 of all the books. If you read on, though, you will see that these laws are oftentimes not much use in real world situations. The reason is that economies are complex, multivariate, dynamic, interdependent systems, verging on the (in the mathematical sense) chaotic.

A good analogy would be meteorology. What laws govern the weather? The Gas Laws. Vapour Points. Albedos. Those are probably the main ones. And yet when we put them all together, we still have difficulty working out reliably whether its safe to plan a barbecue for tomorrow.

And we don't have to go very far into Economics to see simple relationships becoming complex. For example...Ricardo's Theory of Rents demonstrates that Value has a dynamic which is not entirely explicable by linear Supply and Demand. Or in the childcare/Klosters example - we have to factor in the dynamics of the money supply that feeds the demand capacity. Etc. Etc.

This is what I was hinting at when I gently implied that your supply/demand model was simplistic. (And you told me to take a course ). But don't take it from me: surely Dogster's on the money when he points out that the data contradict your simple model: something else must be going on.

So, sorry - it's complicated. I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your request to dumb it down for you. But I can recommend some books.







(That said - here's a neat economic model which *was* programmed according to straightforward laws. Rather cool!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer )

Oh...one more thing...was your pay example just an interesting puzzle? Or were you planning to steer us towards a conclusion that would have been inescapable were your logic valid?

In short...what's *your* explanation, SoRB? Why aren't companies full of cheap female labour at all levels?








(Of course - many, many *are* full of cheap, female labour, but skewed towards the lower end: labour markets are striated.)

Yes, I'd also like to hear Twig's explanation. Given that your theory has been proven to be unreliable, empirically, if you want to argue that the fact that we're presenting is wrong, the onus is on you to provide a strong argument as to why the fact is wrong, not on us to explain why the theory is wrong.

Although, in fairness, we could do that. It's a non-simple explanation and you've already provided part of it by reminding us that competition only only apples within strict limits.

A longer answer would fill several books. Better, I suggest, to observe that there is a gender pay gap for no obvious reason and that we may feel that our lives would be better if we tried to resolve this.

As a general observation I'd say the whole thing is very complex for cultural reasons. If you see your mother, (as I did), give up her chance of fulfilling her potential in the career/job market to basically put first child rearing because that was the cultural norm for females, and she did what hubby expected, it can shake your confidence in imagining yourself as some sort of 'new woman' who is completely uninfluenced by history and cultural expectations of women. From a young age you see your mother as a role model if you are female, and of course neighbours, friends, media blah balh...the whole complicated mileu that we all live in. These things cut deep for many... Of course there will always be exceptions.

I've female friends who I know dam well could achieve much if all their energies went into their career..but for whatever reason went down more of a child care route..and I think cultural expectation and pressure is part of it. *I have happened to fail in both departments...*

So presumably there aren't just the same number of females available with the same 'experience' as males..and those that are can often be handicapped in terms of confidence and expectation of themselves as winners a s careerists.

It's highly complex. That I can agree with NTM about. I don't exactly know why. But simplistic theories about reasons for things like we are all the same as humans, without taking account of such things as thousands of years of history and culture are onto a loser IMO.

In a neutral pure numbers world, divorced from cultural influences and history, of 50/50 male/ female availability, both with same experience but females get paid less, tigs point would hold true.

If we all came back to this thread centuries from now..it might be clearer as to why things are the way they are in the present.

The *passage of time* and looking back at history can cast much light on things which seem a bit incomprehensible when you're bang up close to them in the present

>> asymptotes <<


I dont normally object to people freely adapting nouns as verbs
but I think I have to draw the line at that one.



~jwf~

Hmm. You&#39;re right Frs, that women take on board low expectations and thus sell themselves cheap. (And thus, as per a limited case of SoRB&#39;s supply and demand mechanism*almost*, make themselves desirable within enterprises at the low end of the labour market.) But I hope it goes without saying that women aren&#39;t the architect of their own misfortune.

Don&#39;t shoot me...but as ever, here&#39;s something on Marxism I&#39;ve just this minute read:

(in barlesque so no quotes) The word "proletarian" means those who in ancient society were too poor to serve the state with anything but the fruit of their wombs. "Proles" means "offspring." Today, in the sweatshops and on the small farms of the third world, the typical proletarian is still a woman.


By extension, the predominant societal function of women is as cattle. They are required keep the worker herd going. But we don&#39;t allow cattle in our boardrooms. Only pigs. I would suggest that low expectations, gender inequalities, etc. etc. arise because of the evolution of economic and social mechanisms which keep women in their required place.

(full article - not about Feminism, but rather good, for general interest)

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Praise-of-Marx/127027/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

NtM,

> Although, in fairness, we could do that. It's a non-simple explanation and you've already provided part of it by reminding us that competition only only apples within strict limits.

Yeah, the first thing I typed into google threw up several pretty relevant results on the first page that go into some details about it, including:

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-labour-market-discrimination.html

Both good. Especially the latter, for its introduction:

Employers may not treat workers, be they actual or potential employees in the same way – in which case discrimination is said to occur. *It is a possible cause of market failure* and we consider different aspects of labour market discrimination in this note. [my emphasis]

And also for introducing me to the term &#39;monopsony&#39;. This is what I was referring to: there are various conditions which render women victims of monopsony. Monopsony conditions mean that SoRB&#39;s supply/demand model breaks down.

All blindingly obvious to anyone who&#39;s read Steinbeck&#39;s &#39;The Grapes of Wrath&#39;.

Oh...it&#39;s worth noting that men are also victims of monopsonic discrimination. Men are more likely than women to be able to commute long distances, work away from home, work unsocial hours, work unpaid overtime, etc. etc. As such they are more valuable to employees. In the microeconomic sense.

The bigger picture is that employers are able to (ahem) extract more Surplus Value from men than from women. The men (and their families!) take the hit of the additional unpaid time, energy and stress they have to put in to earn a liveable wage. Women take an additional hit because men have less surplus labour to devote to the important business of family life. Women pick up the pieces.

So when employers discriminate economically between male and female employees, they are able to do so because they are siphoning off and accumulating labour from families.

Engels in particular was good on this.

"Men are more likely than women to be able to commute long distances, work away from home, work unsocial hours, work unpaid overtime, etc. etc. As such they are more valuable to employees. In the microeconomic sense"

You seem to be backing up my point.

"The men (and their families!) take the hit of the additional unpaid time, energy and stress they have to put in "

A hit employers know women won't take. Result: women are less likely to be hired for those jobs, and if they are, they'll likely be paid less. Because they'll be taking less of the hits, statistically.

They'll still whine about it, though.

(Talking about whining...in a purely personal sense.

My dad had a violent ambition to reach the top..and he did pretty much.

As a kid we regularly had holidays abroad in frame tents..that was all that could be afford. I can't remember a year, from a young age, when Dad didn't *whine* I can't wait to get back to *work* towards the end of the holiday.

He simply couldn't cope with the complexities of childcare. He was an accountant. He was brilliant at it...the simplicity of figures suited him. He was and is still great at it...and I thank the lord for his advice on investments...given my abject ability to make money.

Whining is an unfortunate human characteristic.)

"A hit employers know women won't take"

Won't or can't? In a familiy unit, if the man is doing all the commuting and whatnot, who does the childcare? Even if the kids are school age and the mum works there still needs to be a responsible adult at home when the kids are there and if the father's not doing it...

My wife is a woman (strangely enough) and regularly takes that 'hit' and I know several other women who do as well, but only women who don't have kids because once kids come along the man is still doing it whilst the woman has to not only work (because a lot of women do return to work, again I give the example of practically every woman of my age group I know who has had kids) but also do the school run, etc. because the man WON'T take THAT hit. So don't start saying women won't do extra unpaid work or open themselves up to stress because I can tell you that is WRONG. I will take your brush and bucket of tar away, see if I don't!

I&#39;m not sure of your underlying point, SoRB.

Yes, I&#39;ve explained the reasons for female low pay. I&#39;m not particularly *blaming* individual enterprises for this*. As you alluded, this is just how economics works. (Smith&#39;s ~Invisible Hand~).

However - we have to look at the wider picture, beyond the limited accountancy of enterprises. We might, as a society, consider that the free market monopsonic wage differentials are harmful both financially (to women) and in terms of the ~externalities~ they impose upon both women and men in when men have to draw upon their greater ability to put in extra competitive effort to secure a viable wage.

Free Market economies need not be taken as a given. In fact, I can&#39;t think of a single nation in the developed world that thinks otherwise: all take measures to smooth out the brutalities of economics. One measure that can be taken is enforcing Equal Pay. We observe that those nations with strong Equality laws, low gender wage differentials, good female representation throughout the workforce and (this is the part that should really grab our interest) high per capita GDP fed by female economic participation.

Personally, I think that the resultant emotional wellbeing and material wealth are well worth whining for. It sounds a helluva lot better than structuring economies to satisfy the needs of lonely, single, male engineers. For example.










* Well - yes I am. They should open their eyes and stop being such b******s.