[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.

[gizmo]

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

That the wage gap is a real and serious problem is actually the scientific consensus. The wage gap has been studied for decades in dozens of countries. I'm not defending a contrarian position here, just the mainstream scientific view that labor compensation favors men.

> Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure women do 50% of the labor?

This is pretty well researched. See for instance:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/chapter4.pdf

You'll see that paid + unpaid minutes worked per day are about the same for each gender, but women do way more unpaid work and men do way more paid work.

[gozur88]

>That the wage gap is a real and serious problem is actually the scientific consensus.

That's not true at all. That the wage gap is real and a serious problem is a political consensus among feminists.

>You'll see that paid + unpaid minutes worked per day are about the same for each gender, but women do way more unpaid work and men do way more paid work.

Surveys about hours worked say nothing at all about productivity. I'm willing to concede women spend as much time working as men. But so what? That's not the same thing as saying they do 50% of the labor.

[pixl97]

>even though women do 50% of the labor

[citation needed]