News

23296 readers

3302 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What’s behind the widening gender wage gap in the US? (apnews.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

This has been definitely addressed and answered. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/bonus-nobel-laureate-claudia-goldin-on-greedy-work-and-the-wage-gap/

The root causes of the gap are social, biological and unfortunately, unlikely to quickly change. These articles will continue to be printed though as rage bait is good for PPC.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I want to point out that in the article/interview you posted,

the expert disagreed with the interviewer that the causes of the gap are biological in nature, and
that they both agreed that the causes of the gap are undergoing rapid change due to social factors from the covid pandemic, and they bet it will be decreasing over the next few decades

Figured I'd clarify in case anyone read your comment and got confused about what the expert was saying :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

My use of "biological" is as it relates to the fact women in our species are the sex that bear children, and that there is a time limit for their fertility, not a position on the biological female being better suited or predispositioned for work, or certain types of work. The significant negative career/pay effects of having or (until recently) even being perceived as potentially having a child is well covered. Labor law has focused more on reducing the latter (e.g. it's illegal to not hire marsha because she's pregnant, or not promote Jenny because she has 3 kids) while the former has been nearly ignored until recently, but COVID lockdown showed companies can fix this if they wish. The host, Dubner has covered that significant early & mid-career movements often come at terrible time for women who have a child(ren, which completely alters their career & pay trajectories downward.
The rapid change discussed in the (several year-old) source was due to optimism of change due to the massive improvement women saw in the first few years of the panedmic in pay and workforce participation in jobs and industries where they have traditionally been limited access to due to social norms or pressures of child rearing, workplace physical presence, and working hours. Essentially lockdown and the rapid change to remote work leveled the playing field for many mothers who otherwise might have had to take days off to care for their sick kids, attend events, miss worksite meetings or conferences, and not be able to work on their own schedule. Despite the data being fairly quickly and easily avaialble at the time of this incredible improvement in the "pay gap", many companies completely ignored it and launched "Return to Office" programs of different sorts--which had the predictable effect of immediately reversing this trend in companies that removed remote work. There is still much more remote work, and hybrid work available than pre-pandemic and in some cases that will remain a permanent improvement in pay data between sexes. It's challenging to level the euphoria of productivity around remote work by 2021 that was being reported and all it's positive effects on pay equity and poverty yet the surprising launch of return to office initiatives will mute improvements discussed. The gap will be decreasing but probably not as much as they may have suspected when they had this conversation, though I'm still hopeful companies dig into the data and continue to understand how much talent they're leaving on the sidelines by operating like it's 1947.
Another reason not mentioned that gives me optimism for future improvements in general perceptions of pay equity is that with reduced birthrates (it's own discussion!), there will be the positive effect of improving even macro, almost useless-without-nuance statistics like $0.80/$1.00. If women are having far fewer children, they may be able to be less or even unaffected by the employment and social decisions, pressures and norms that have seen their careers not develop as they would have without a child(ren).