[osrec]

Equal pay is an interesting topic, but it's a tough one. For example, in tennis, the prize money at grand slams is equal for both genders, yet the men play more tennis (and arguably at a higher level). The rationale often cited is that both genders are being pushed to their limit in their respective groups. By that logic, should anyone less naturally capable at a particular job (but giving it their all) be paid the same as someone more talented who is also giving it their all? It would be interesting to hear people's views on this!

[bkohlmann]

The reason they are paid the same in tennis is that they bring in approximately the same revenue via sponsorship, ticket sales, etc. Women's tennis is basically as popular as men's at this point.

However, this is not the case in professional basketball, soccer or even golf. In all three cases, the men's leagues far outperform the women's in terms of getting revenue from the marketplace...and the commensurate salaries / prize purses reflect this. The US Womens Soccer team made a big deal about this recently, but when you look at the income produced by the men in professional leagues vs. women's leagues, there are stark differences.

[osrec]

I don't think that's true in the slightest. Men's tennis is much, much more popular across the board! That's actually why guys like Novak Djokovic were complaining!

[bkohlmann]

It looks like in 2005 and 2008, revenue was similar. It's diverged since then.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/606439/tennis-atp-and-wt...

2007 was also the first year that Wimbledon (the last holdout of the four majors) paid the same to men and women victors.

It seems psychologically hard to regress from that benchmark, even if in recent years overall revenue has once again diverged.

And in non-majors, the pay disparity has returned, reflecting the differences in revenues:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/sports/tennis/equal-pay-g...

[indubitable]

Money is a measurement of value that one group or individual assigns to something else. In employment, you're paying for the value an individual provides to a company - not how hard they try. If somebody's giving it all they have and are putting out less value than people who are half assing, then you would be be obligated to relieve the person giving it their all. They've reached their potential and there's just not much there, whereas your less incentivized employees are putting out just as much with a fraction of their potential.

This is also the reason I think things like participation trophies are likely doing more harm than good. Life is and likely always will be competitive. And in competition it doesn't matter how hard you try - in the end the victory is decided by achievement alone. Stephen Hawking is not highly regarded because he's a scientist working against all odds, but simply because he's a phenomenal physicist. If he had been perfectly healthy, he would have still achieved great regard - though perhaps excepting the living Hollywood biopic. Ultimately his merit does not come with the subtext 'for somebody with such a condition' but unconditionally.

[joeblow9999]

how is this downvoted? Unbelievable

[osrec]

Unfortunately people on HN now down vote to show they disagree, rather than just for offensive or stupid remarks. It often means insightful comments that are a bit against the grain fall into the abyss, never to be seen again.