Granting women leave for periods every month

[Great Minarchistan]

The salaries are already equal. At least after you discount paid maternity, productivity factors and this sort of stuff.

Nope, not even after accounting for those things are salaries equal.

If women really receive a lower wage, as you claim, why aren't businesses mass replacing men with women in the workplace?

[Bressen]

I still think sometimes that it would be better not to tie leave to any particular situations or conditions. Give people their however many standard weeks of leave and sick leave, then up everyone's pay and require that employees have the option to purchase additional days for parental leave, carer's leave or extra sick days or if they just want to work half-days so they can study oil painting.

But I suppose I would say that, being a somewhat healthy male without any interest in taking on parental responsibilities or anyone sick enough that I would need to take care of them.

Why should employers up their employee's pay just so the employee's can pay it back to the employers so they don't have to come into work? That's just an unnecessary introduction when employees are already technically paying for any extra sick days they take off because they're not earning any money whilst they're at home studying oil painting.

[Jello Biafra]

Nope, not even after accounting for those things are salaries equal.

If women really receive a lower wage, as you claim, why aren't businesses mass replacing men with women in the workplace?

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

[Great Minarchistan]

If women really receive a lower wage, as you claim, why aren't businesses mass replacing men with women in the workplace?

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

Hey, wasn't capitalism that system where the owners of the means of production only strive for more profit?

[Bressen]

If women really receive a lower wage, as you claim, why aren't businesses mass replacing men with women in the workplace?

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

Source?

[Jello Biafra]

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

Source?

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7 ... 202011.pdf
Specifically the second study, 'Bookcorp'.

[Marado]

If women really receive a lower wage, as you claim, why aren't businesses mass replacing men with women in the workplace?

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

[Jello Biafra]

Because employers don't value the work of women as much as they value the work of men, even when the work is objectively equal.

Hey, wasn't capitalism that system where the owners of the means of production only strive for more profit?

They do. They think they're getting more profit from paying more for better employees, but only paying more for equal employees.

[Bressen]

Source?

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7 ... 202011.pdf
Specifically the second study, 'Bookcorp'.

The study is about customer satisfaction, and not all employees are going to be in contact with customers - e.g someone working in the IT department, the human resources department, etc. So, whilst employers may have a bias towards one group for purposes of customer-employee interactions, that doesn't mean they value that group in job areas that don't have customer-employee interactions.

[Marado]

Hey, wasn't capitalism that system where the owners of the means of production only strive for more profit?

They do. They think they're getting more profit from paying more for better employees, but only paying more for equal employees.

Hmm.

[Bressen]

Hey, wasn't capitalism that system where the owners of the means of production only strive for more profit?

They do. They think they're getting more profit from paying more for better employees, but only paying more for equal employees.

That's not true at all. Sometimes paying the charismatic estate agent more than the introverted estate agent leads to higher profit margins because the charismatic estate agent is clearly being rewarded for their charisma with a pay rise (and is thus receiving incentive to work harder), because their charisma can influence whether or not the client buys property.

[Marado]

They do. They think they're getting more profit from paying more for better employees, but only paying more for equal employees.

That's not true at all. Sometimes paying the charismatic estate agent more than the introverted estate agent leads to higher profit margins because the charismatic estate agent is clearly being rewarded for their charisma with a pay rise (and is thus receiving incentive to work harder), because their charisma can influence whether or not the client buys property.

It all depends how much the employee can sell. Clearly, employees with higher sales would be given more pay.

[Chestaan]

Yeah, I mean, women get paid for maternity leaves, too.

Sometimes.

Isn't it mandated in pretty much all western countries? I know it is in Ireland, maybe not in the States.

[Chestaan]

Source?

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7 ... 202011.pdf
Specifically the second study, 'Bookcorp'.

That's consumer satisfaction, not employer satisfaction. If consumers prefer one gender to the other then they are more likely to shop at your business if you have an employee of that gender, hence are more profitable.

[Bressen]

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7 ... 202011.pdf
Specifically the second study, 'Bookcorp'.

That's consumer satisfaction, not employer satisfaction. If consumers prefer one gender to the other then they are more likely to shop at your business if you have an employee of that gender, hence are more profitable.

I doubt even that's true. Consumers don't base their choice of what business to purchase products from based on what gender the employees are serving that product. They might prefer one gender over another, but if your business is providing a product that the consumers want (say, coffee at Starbucks), then the consumers aren't necessarily going to shop elsewhere just for their bias against your employee's gender.

Not to mention, you also need to consider quality of the product compared to other businesses. If one business (Starbucks) provides a higher quality product (coffee) than another business (Costa Coffee), then consumers are going to base their choice of business on the business that has the higher quality product. And there's also price too, with businesses having a proportionally lower priced quality good receiving more customers than a business with a disproportionately higher priced quality good. And, there's also the proximity of the business to the customer, with more proximate businesses receiving more customers in the local area for convenience sake.

TL;DR customers aren't basing their choice of business solely on the gender of that business' employee(s), and any effect gender has on where consumers shop is minute in comparison to other criteria.

[Jello Biafra]

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7 ... 202011.pdf
Specifically the second study, 'Bookcorp'.

The study is about customer satisfaction, and not all employees are going to be in contact with customers - e.g someone working in the IT department, the human resources department, etc. So, whilst employers may have a bias towards one group for purposes of customer-employee interactions, that doesn't mean they value that group in job areas that don't have customer-employee interactions.

So customers are sexist, but there's something about employers that makes them immune to sexism?

[Jello Biafra]

Sometimes.

Isn't it mandated in pretty much all western countries? I know it is in Ireland, maybe not in the States.

Nope. In the U.S. there is no federal law that says maternity leave is paid, though some employers may offer it. Some states also mandate some amount of payment.

[Great Minarchistan]

Hey, wasn't capitalism that system where the owners of the means of production only strive for more profit?

They do.

So why aren't companies mass replacing men with women? It's a rather simple question: If women bring the same labor profit men do, yet women get paid less, in a capitalist mode of production the men would be fired and replaced by women.

[Chestaan]

The study is about customer satisfaction, and not all employees are going to be in contact with customers - e.g someone working in the IT department, the human resources department, etc. So, whilst employers may have a bias towards one group for purposes of customer-employee interactions, that doesn't mean they value that group in job areas that don't have customer-employee interactions.

So customers are sexist, but there's something about employers that makes them immune to sexism?

Well proving that employers are sexist is up to you, the paper you linked does no such thing.

Employers have an incentive to discover an employee's true profitability. That's why there are massive HR departments that analyse employee data to discover precisely that. If a consumer believes that men are more profitable than women and if they are wrong it has absolutely zero consequence to them. But if an employer is wrong then he is losing profits and thus has an incentive to investigate whether or not he/she is correct.

Here's a question for you. Imagine for the sake of argument that employers were not sexist at all. Don't you think there would still be a wage gap? Women and men are most likely on average equally productive but they may not be equally profitable. There is a difference. Women carrying a baby to term and looking after the child, collecting him/her from school etc. is a productive exercise, but capitalism doesn't value it. An employee taking time off work to look after their child will lower that employee's profitability.

[Bressen]

The study is about customer satisfaction, and not all employees are going to be in contact with customers - e.g someone working in the IT department, the human resources department, etc. So, whilst employers may have a bias towards one group for purposes of customer-employee interactions, that doesn't mean they value that group in job areas that don't have customer-employee interactions.

So customers are sexist, but there's something about employers that makes them immune to sexism?

Yes, employers aren't going to be sexist because being sexist isn't profitable. Deciding against hiring an employee that could generate a profit just because they're a woman isn't a practice employers are going to adopt, because they have a bottom line of earning money that goes against any notions of their own prejudices.

[Chestaan]

Isn't it mandated in pretty much all western countries? I know it is in Ireland, maybe not in the States.

Nope. In the U.S. there is no federal law that says maternity leave is paid, though some employers may offer it. Some states also mandate some amount of payment.

That's an absolute disgrace. US laws seem so strange to me some times.

[Bressen]

Nope. In the U.S. there is no federal law that says maternity leave is paid, though some employers may offer it. Some states also mandate some amount of payment.

That's an absolute disgrace. US laws seem so strange to me some times.

Why should paid maternity leave be mandated in the first place? You're not working for a long period of time, so why should the employer be forced to pay you for not working?

[Chestaan]

That's an absolute disgrace. US laws seem so strange to me some times.

Why should paid maternity leave be mandated in the first place? You're not working for a long period of time, so why should the employer be forced to pay you for not working?

Because punishing someone for having a child is bad policy. Believe it or not there is value in producing a child above and beyond the company's bottom line.

[Bressen]

Why should paid maternity leave be mandated in the first place? You're not working for a long period of time, so why should the employer be forced to pay you for not working?

Because punishing someone for having a child is bad policy. Believe it or not there is value in producing a child above and beyond the company's bottom line.

The employer's bottom line is that their employee is not working, and employers should not be forced to pay employees for not working, regardless of whether or not people who aren't the employer argue that there's value in producing a child beyond the company's bottom line. If the employer decides that they want to provide paid maternity leave, they can go right ahead, but it shouldn't be mandated that they do so.

Frankly, if women want to have a child whilst employed they shouldn't expect that time off to be paid for, or they should have their children before they start their career (much like my own parents did).

[Sanctissima]

Why should paid maternity leave be mandated in the first place? You're not working for a long period of time, so why should the employer be forced to pay you for not working?

Because punishing someone for having a child is bad policy. Believe it or not there is value in producing a child above and beyond the company's bottom line.

For the state, yes. Not for the company.

With very few exceptions, an employee's child is of no value to a company.