I say no.
And even if there were a gender wage gap, one would need to demonstrate that it's due to a particular sex being paid less on average for just being that sex, and nothing else, and not due to a coincidence or some other variable. It would also have to be shown that the gender wage gap is unfair. Let me explain. Imagine a construction company that provides bonuses to their workers for quickly completing jobs. Let's also say that this construction company's team of workers is comprised of 50% male and 50% female. In the beginning, and in principle, men and women would earn the same amount; however, as time goes on, more men than women would probably receive those bonuses. And this is because men on average have more endurance and strength than women due to the higher amounts of testosterone in their bodies. Eventually, men on average would make more than their female counterparts. Is this unfair? I say no it isn't because both the men and women were given the opportunity to make more money. I assume the lefty will try to make the case that there should be an equal outcome, no matter what, just because.
Interestingly, a lefty lawyer could sue this construction company for sexism, sending out a ripple effect to other construction companies, discouraging them from paying their workers extra money for completing their jobs quicker, just to avoid the possibility of women being outperformed. This would hurt many men, but it would also hurt a small number of women who were able to earn those bonuses.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well I've always thought that people should get paid for the work they accomplish, not the amount of time spent.
I'm not sure whether testosterone is relevant. Maybe it helps with muscle work, but it definitely slows down brain work. And men with too much testosterone can be a big liability for organizations.
"I'm not sure whether testosterone is relevant. Maybe it helps with muscle work, but it definitely slows down brain work. And men with too much testosterone can be a big liability for organizations."
All you're doing is avoiding the heart of the hypothetical though, so let me repeat it.
It may be the case that there's a higher occurrence of trait Y for a particular sex and that trait Y helps with performing a particular job. If that's true, then what would follow is a particular sex outperforming the other sex at a particular job, on average. And if a occupation pays by performance, then what would naturally occur is one sex getting paid, on average, more.
Is that sexist? Unfair? Should both sexes be paid the same, no matter what, even when one sex comprises of more individuals who possess trait Y?
@Myuser, etc. All you're doing is avoiding the heart of the hypothetical though, so let me repeat it.
I'm afraid you didn't or couldn't read my post. I said that people should be paid for their output, not the time spent on it. If one sex has characteristics that result in a greater output for a particular task, then naturally on average people of that sex would be paid more.
Isn't that what women have been arguing for? The same pay for the same work?
"I said that people should be paid for their output, not the time spent on it. If one sex has characteristics that result in a greater output for a particular task, then naturally on average people of that sex would be paid more."
Glad to hear it!
"Isn't that what women have been arguing for? The same pay for the same work?"
Why would women in developed countries argue for something that is already a law? What's more, the way the law is now here in the US, a company could be held liable for paying one sex more than the other, even when that sex just has a higher occurrence of a trait that makes them better at performing their job. The modern-day feminist and lefty politician wants women to be paid the same as men, no matter what, even when they're not providing as much output.
@Myuser... Why would women in developed countries argue for something that is already a law?
Because there's another dimension to the issue. If you're comparing box carriers with box carriers there's no issue. But what if you're comparing nurses with police officers or elementary school teachers with computer programmers? Occupations that are dominated by a particular gender tend to have different pay levels.
"Because there's another dimension to the issue. If you're comparing box carriers with box carriers there's no issue. But what if you're comparing nurses with police officers or elementary school teachers with computer programmers? Occupations that are dominated by a particular gender tend to have different pay levels."
So you're saying that the salary for computer programmer should be artificially lowered to the salary for elementary school teacher, which would help with the gender wage gap since computer programmers are disproportionately male?
@myuser: So you're saying that the salary for computer programmer should be artificially lowered
I said nothing of the kind. I think that wage levels should be set by the market on the basis of skills and the scarcity thereof. However, wage levels are not always set by the market, especially in the public sector areas of education and healthcare.
We should also consider the reasons why particular occupations are dominated by one or another gender.
"I said nothing of the kind. I think that wage levels should be set by the market on the basis of skills and the scarcity thereof. However, wage levels are not always set by the market, especially in the public sector areas of education and healthcare."
Yes, the salaries of many teachers in the US are not set by a free market but are instead artificially set by powerful teacher's unions who pressure representatives to adopt their policies.
"We should also consider the reasons why particular occupations are dominated by one or another gender."
So, where's your evidence that the reason why there are disproportionately more male computer programmers is because of some sort of sexism? And is the same kind of sexism that makes elementary school teachers disproportionately female? And if you don't think sexism is involved at all, then what's the problem? You don't like people reaping the consequences of their free decisions?
How much more?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
"Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)."
I was hoping for a number and a unit. You know something like: on average men are 57.2 floobies stronger than women. Not a paper about the size of biceps and flexibility.
Did you miss this part?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
"The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively."
Do you see what liberalism does to the mind? It forces them to reject science.
I didn't miss that part, but it is dimensionless so it can't answer my question; I'm asking what are the dimensions and the magnitudes.
"I didn't miss that part, but it is dimensionless so it can't answer my question; I'm asking what are the dimensions and the magnitudes."
It's not dimensionless. This is a peer-reviewed scientific article. Do you think they believe that their percentages are "dimensionless"?
What is so difficult for you to understand? If a man on average can lift 150 lbs, then a woman on average would only be able to lift 78 lbs (52%), for instance. That's what that means.
Why are you so anti-science?
Yes, because percentages are dimensionless.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great, that is much closer to what I'm asking for. Is that true or is that just a hypothetical example? If it is hypothetical, could you give us the actual numbers (and could you address endurance as well)?
Well I guess myusernamekthx won't be answering my question so I'll just have to skip to the punch line:
In the document he cited, it defined strength as the amount of weight a person can lift (I don't have the full document so I'll assume it means to lift to a certain point, like over your head). But if you really think about it, that is a pretty arbitrary definition. It could just as easily been how many pushups you can do. Or maybe setups. Or how many times you can lift a 10 kilo mass over your head. Or maybe something normalized for body mass.
It isn't very convincing to say that men are stronger than women; when you crafted a metric specially designed to show that.
If you want me to sign off on men being better at lifting large masses (as described in the article) on average than women, OK maybe so. But I don't even know what it would mean to say men are stronger than women, as I don't have a metric for strength; and I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks they do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the comments about dimensions/units go; look how easy it was to spot problems once the units were included. In the example given, the conclusion would be that men are 72lbs stronger than women on average. Yes that is as stupid as it sounds, but that is the argument that was made. Before you tell me men are stronger than women, tell me the units/dimensions of strength, because I really don't think it is pounds.
Eight, or even sixteen is not enough to make for a valid study.
"Eight, or even sixteen is not enough to make for a valid study."
First of all, nobody needs a study showing that men are on average physically stronger than women. This is a common knowledge.
Second, I'll take the peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that men are on average stronger than women, along with the tons of anecdotal evidence of this fact, over the zero evidence that you have for your belief: that women are on average just as strong or stronger than men.
I never stated any opinion, you are now being dishonest.
I don't do business with morally bankrupt liars.
"I never stated any opinion, you are now being dishonest."
So why are you wasting everyone's time? Why come in here and whine about a peer-reviewed scientific study, by actual scientists, demonstrating that men are on average 52-66% stronger than women? Do you know better than these researchers? Do you, a basement dweller on a crappy atheist website, better understand what a "valid" study is compared to actual scientists and researchers?
Your conduct is a bit like a person randomly chiming into a discussion about evolution, claiming that a given body of scientific evidence in favor of evolution is invalid, and then running away. In that situation, it wouldn't be irrational for people to draw the conclusion that you don't accept evolution.
Likewise, I assumed that you don't accept that men are on average stronger than women.
Myusername, I asked TD and didn’t get an answer, I’ll ask you as well.
IYO, what would be the worst thing to happen if data actually show that there is a gender pay gap? What would be the best thing to happen?
"IYO, what would be the worst thing to happen if data actually show that there is a gender pay gap? What would be the best thing to happen?"
You didn't get an answer because it's a stupid question. It's like asking, "What would happen if my mom had testicles?"
Or to better fit the context of this forum, what you're asking is akin to what theists sometimes ask atheists, "What if God really does exist? What would you do then?"
Why don't you try to answer my hypothetical or try to provide good evidence and arguments for your beliefs?
Myusername, you wrote, “Why don't you try to answer my hypothetical or try to provide good evidence and arguments for your beliefs?”
What beliefs would those be?
@Myusername
Well, your example in your OP might explain a gender pay gap in the construction industry, but as the construction industry only employs a little over 3% òf the USA workforce, it tells us nothing about the gender pay gap overall. Your example is uselèss, it's Irrelevant cherrypicking, but lets play with it anyway.
You said " And even if there were a gender wage gap, one would need to demonstrate that it's due to a particular sex being paid less on average for just being that sex... And this is because men on average have more endurance and strength than women due to the higher amounts of testosterone in their bodies..."
So by your reasoning, the blue collar labourer lugging heavy shit around is the highest paid bloke on site. He earns more than the real estate developer who owns the site. He earns more than the architect who designed the building. Hell, he earns more than the Goldman Sachs bankster financing the site! He earns more because of his testosterone given strength and endurance: he's a manly man. The developer, architect and bankster all call him "Sir" in a hushed, reverent tone.
And before you say " No! I'm not saying that!", yes you are. You're claiming men are paid more because they have more strength and endurance because of testosterone. You don't get to say "No! I only mean they get paid more than women!" now the flaw in your reasoning's been pointed out. Either men are paid more because of all that strength and endurance from all that testosterone - which would logically make blue collar labourers the highest paid men on the planet- or strength/endurance/testosterone have fuck all to do with it and something else is going on. Which is it?
Women are physically strong as men on average, they just have separate Olympic events for men and women because the patriarchy holding girls back.
Do women get paid less than men for the same work?
I don't know. I know while my wife was still alive and I had my own landscape architect business, I was the CEO and Owner, my wife was the CFO. She actually did much less work than I did, yet she got paid a higher salary than I did.
Ooops. You asked about women getting paid less... Sorry.
rmfr
Don't be silly, that would be illegal.