[sasper]

Since when did Fortune put out such clickbait headlines? The article does not talk about what Joanna Coles' role at Snap is, how much involvement she has in day-to-day or strategic long-term planning, or numerous other factors that would determine a salary and stock-option grants. All it does is say that she makes less than someone else.

The headline should be "One person makes less than other people". Unfortunately, that wouldn't get any clicks or reinforce the simplified narrative that women make less than men.

[gizmo]

Women do in fact make less than men. This isn't just a narrative, it's observable reality.

Unless you believe women in aggregate contribute less to society and therefore ought to make less than men do, the wage gap is a real problem that needs fixing.

[jimmywanger]

> Women do in fact make less than men.

This argument has been rehashed to death. There are multiple studies, all adjusting for different variables.

The original comment's point is fair, in that the headline is clickbait, in that it associates this particular person's lesser pay with her gender, by singling it out.

It'd be equivalent to saying "only woman in company of 10 makes less than everybody else" without mentioning her level of experience or duties.

[gizmo]

She is in fact the only woman on the board and she does in fact make less than all the other board members who are men. The headline suggests that Snap isn't doing well on the leadership diversity front, and they back that up with facts.

As for your argument that different studies adjust for different variables, that's irrelevant. My argument wasn't that individual women or women in specific jobs earn less than men do, it was that women in aggregate (meaning: all adult women) earn less in total. By adjusting for different variables you can only conclude that the wage gap is justified (e.g. because women on average have less demanding jobs, work fewer hours, whatever) not that the wage gap doesn't exist. So the level of experience or the duties of the woman on the Snap board is totally irrelevant here, because even if there are reasons for why she earns less that doesn't change the fact that she does earn less and that therefore Snap contributes to the wage gap.

[jimmywanger]

>Unless you believe women in aggregate contribute less to society and therefore ought to make less than men do, the wage gap is a real problem that needs fixing.

From your argument, based on decisions women make, they contribute less to the company, and ought to make less than men do.

Therefore, the wage gap is not a problem isn't a problem that needs fixing. Stop dog whistling.

[gizmo]

You misunderstand. Studies about the wage gap look for reasons why companies compensate women less, and how much those different factors contribute to the gap. Research on the wage gap doesn't conclude that these causal factors morally justify the wage gap, because they don't.

[jimmywanger]

> Studies about the wage gap look for reasons why companies compensate women less

You're really begging the question here. You're assuming that companies do pay the women less regardless of their contributions to the company. As I have said before, there are dozens of studies out there, and you can find evidence for and against the existence of a non-justified gender wage gap.

> Research on the wage gap doesn't conclude that these causal factors morally justify the wage gap, because they don't.

That doesn't make sense. If adjusting factors for contributions to the company reduce the wage gap to zero, there is no wage gap and there is no moral justification needed.

[gozur88]

Yes, women, in aggregate, earn less money than men. The reasons are well documented and boil down to "women make choices that end up costing them income potential".

[gizmo]

Women do make different choices, but that doesn't mean they therefore ought to make less money. Women only ought to make less if they contribute less to society than men do in aggregate, and I think the contribution of men and women is equal. Women do a lot of unpaid and supportive labor that is just as important for society to function, we just choose not to compensate women financially for this work.

What types of work are highly paid and which work is unpaid is not decided by nature (or by markets) but by our politics. Politics that stem from an age where women had practically no rights.

[gozur88]

I think this is a fundamentally warped view of how society actually functions. When a woman drops out of the job market to raise children or care for a sick relative, depending on her husband's income to feed and clothe herself, she's being compensated for what she's doing even if she isn't getting a W-2. If they divorce she's entitled to ongoing support and half of the assets purchased with "his" income.

Furthermore, the idea that free people who make choices about their lives should all make the same amount of money flies in the face of common sense. A rig diver makes a lot more money than a preschool teacher, and he should, given the work he does is physically demanding, dangerous, and damaging to his body. If the government decreed everyone should be paid the same wage what you'd have is two preschool teachers and no rig divers.

[gizmo]

Women are not actually fully compensated for the loss of income during pregancy/caretaking, which is one reason why women are far more likely than men to slide into poverty when they're old. Child-rearing is necessary for society to function, so why should women be financially punished for it?

People with more dangerous or more demanding jobs should get more compensation. I never said otherwise. Your suggestion that preschool teachers choose that job because it's financially appealing, is absurd. People choose their careers for many reasons, expected earnings being only one factor. It "just so happens" that women-majority occupations have lower compensation.

It's always interesting to see what kind of convoluted arguments people come up with to justify wealth and wages in society flowing disproportionately towards men, even though women do 50% of the labor (and 100% of the other labor).

[gozur88]

>Women are not actually fully compensated for the loss of income during pregancy/caretaking, which is one reason why women are far more likely than men to slide into poverty when they're old.

Or it could be they are fully compensated for that lack of income and they're more likely slide into poverty because they live longer than men.

>It "just so happens" that women-majority occupations have lower compensation.

And they could do other things. It's been three generations since women were excluded from professions because they were women. Everybody finds a situation that works for them based on their talents and the opportunities they have. Women work fewer hours than men, refuse to commute as far, and avoid lucrative fields in favor of something they find more rewarding in other ways.

I'm okay with that, but I don't have much sympathy when they complain about money, either.

>It's always interesting to see what kind of convoluted arguments people come up with to justify wealth and wages in society flowing disproportionately towards men, even though women do 50% of the labor (and 100% of the other labor).

By which you don't like people pointing out your mental model for society and the economy are hopelessly oversimplified.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure women do 50% of the labor? It's not like there are any reliable statistics on the subject.

[pixl97]

>even though women do 50% of the labor

[citation needed]

[throwaway28833]

>Women do in fact make less than men.

If they do then why don't employers hire women only since it's cheaper?

Here, have some reading material:

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-wage-gap-myth-that-won...

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

Also, check out Factual Feminist on youtube.