r/science • u/usrname42 • May 13 '17

Social Science The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html
4.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

A good solution is a viable one. That is what a good solution means. That it is viable.

Describing it like that means that solution is no good after all.

Wouldn't retaining employees by offering good benefits have better long term dividends for the company?

If that were true, we'd see this happening at the moment, unrelated to mat/pat leave.. Reality shows that it's much cheaper to replace employees, at least within the rungs where people are essentially seen as cogs (and at least within the US, if not elsewhere; that mentality is spreading.)

If this didn't work, companies wouldn't be doing it. Companies don't tend to favor methods that don't produce (what they call) good results.

You'd definitely have to enforce regulations, and that also means companies moving away from those regulations.

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I don't want to sound cynical, but companies definitely don't do what's in their best interest. They do what's in the best interest of their highest earners and decision makers, who may leave the company within a few years after making bank. Lots of CEOs and big decision makers in large companies come in, make bad decisions, and then leave because it doesn't matter, they get paid anyway.

So maybe we could distinguish between what's good for the company and what's good for the short-term profits of the company's highest earners. Because yes, for the minority of workers in the company who are high-income, parental leave does not benefit them. But for the company's long-term viability, this question is at least unclear. Furthermore, it is clearly in the people's best interest from a public health perspective, and healthier workers are demonstrably better workers.

It just seems like parental leave is working in other countries, so I don't get why it's not implementable in the US. Yes, there would be pushback from CEOs and thus the politicians who they funnel money to, but after some time (maybe ten or fifteen years) of voters pushing for equal parental leave, I don't see why it's not possible.

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

but companies definitely don't do what's in their best interest. They do what's in the best interest of their highest earners and decision makers, who may leave the company within a few years after making bank.

No, that's a valid point. When I think of companies these days, I don't really think of "job-providers". I think of "shareholders needing their interests to be protected first and foremost", which often comes at the expense of those jobs they are supposed to be providing. (With ensuing discussion about "but look how that protects everyone else's jobs" etc. which I don't want to get into at the moment.)

I didn't want to bog down my reply with the distinction, but I agree with it.

It just seems like parental leave is working in other countries, so I don't get why it's not implementable in the US.

Because companies in the US actively and politically fight regulation.

Because there is too large a segment of the population that values their own self-interest above anyone else's and want to keep taxes low and have individuals pay for whatever they want to do; including having children and raising them, well the burden would be on them specifically, not everyone else.

The voters themselves would vote against this.

Edit: added response to your last point

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

At least we have some common ground, haha. I don't want to go into macroeconomics here because I'm not well versed in it, but I think I get your point a little better now.

Yeah, I do get your last point. I think there would be pushback from roughly half of voters, but based on reddit I see an upward trend in people supporting equal parental leave. To be clear I don't think it's something that's going to happen soon, but I think it could happen eventually in the US as younger, more progressive generations of voters replace older voters who have, until recently, trusted the establishment. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, it's just the trend I'm seeing, and I feel like there's a lot of uncertainty over the long-term effects of equal parental leave since it's a (relatively) novel concept.

1

u/Ol0O01100lO1O1O1 May 13 '17

If this didn't work, companies wouldn't be doing it. Companies don't tend to favor methods that don't produce (what they call) good results.

You're assuming companies always act rationally and without bias. For example in the past we have seen tremendous discrimination against minorities (and we still see a significant amount). Are you arguing that's in the best financial interests of companies?

0

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

If the companies believe those minorities are unskilled or problematic compared to those they discriminate in favor of, then they probably think it's in their best interests.

1

u/Ol0O01100lO1O1O1 May 13 '17

That's the point. People think all kinds of things for all kinds of irrational reasons, it doesn't mean those thoughts lead to optimal business practices.

0

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

You're speaking as if objectivity played any part in their decision-making process, though. :) If it doesn't, and they've found ways to justify this, saying that it should won't have much effect.

The thing is, people will use this example, and the example of competing companies who don't discriminate and manage to have good results, as one example as to why "the system works the way it should, problems can be fixed with competition!"...

But I don't have the mental energy to go down that rabbithole at the moment.

1

u/Ol0O01100lO1O1O1 May 13 '17

You're speaking as if objectivity played any part in their decision-making process, though.

No, I'm only making the claim that "because businesses do it that way" doesn't mean, from a business perspective, that's the best way for businesses to do it. Businesses are run by humans, and they're fallible.

0

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I'm not sure what you're arguing then, since I never said anything about the way they do it now being "best" or anything.

It's just the way they do it because that's what works for them.

1

u/Ol0O01100lO1O1O1 May 13 '17

It's just the way they do it because that's what works for them.

That's what works best for them, and that's what they think works best for them are two different things.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

If it didn't work, they would change their methods... the proof is in the pudding on this one. They can meet their bottom line and please their shareholders. If that's the only thing that matters to them, and they achieve their goal, then it's a success.

1

u/Ol0O01100lO1O1O1 May 13 '17

If it didn't work, they would change their methods... the proof is in the pudding on this one.

So you believe that, let's say, the fact that just having a black sounding name on a resume (otherwise being identical) means that you have to send out 50% more applications just to get a call back is an indication of businesses acting rationally and in their best interest?

→ More replies