Hacker News Reader

Comment by Grustaf | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if this is sarcasm or too deep for me to grasp, but my point is that there are many forms of value. Not just economic. Income is not decided based on how much the majority of people value occupations, it's not even a factor.

Soldiers are usually highly valued but earn very little. Monks have often had even higher status and made no money at all. Money lenders were reviled but rich. Etc etc etc.

EDIT: Soldiers do earn little considering the risks they take, and the status of the job. This is still true in countries with modern professional armies, but it was much more true historically. So much so that many higher class people would actually _pay_ for the privilege. They had no shortage of money but wanted the glory that military service could bring.

View on HN

Soldiers are usually highly valued but earn very little.

My father and ex husband were both career military. You are misinformed.

In the US, soldiers get relatively little cash pay because they are provided free room and board, free medical, a free burial, free life insurance, and can access a host of other free amenities for merely flashing their ID card, such as access to free legal services for some purposes. If they serve at least 20 years, they get a retirement check for life. If you join at age 18, as most soldiers do, you can retire as early as age 38 and readily pursue a second career. Unless you were maimed in war, you will still be young and able-bodied.

They can buy a house with no down payment and the federal government will help them pay for college. Military retirees tend to be in quite good financial shape. What the federal government does not give them in cash pay it more than makes up for in countless benefits.

People who say they value what you do but do not want to pay you adequately for the job are basically taking advantage. Women are routinely expected to do things out of the goodness of their hearts, because they care.

I am a woman. I have been homeless for 5.5 years. I am incredibly sick of people acting like "we love what you do!" And then not wanting to pay me anything. I have spent a lot of time deconstructing this problem space and I very much expect to get paid these days. I do a lot less giving it away for free. Because the vast majority of people expecting me to benefit them because I care absolutely do not care that I struggle to get enough to eat every month and I need money to get off the goddamn street and back into housing.

Poverty in the US is overwhelmingly an issue for women and children. If we valued women so much, this travesty should not be true.

>Poverty in the US is overwhelmingly an issue for women and children. If we valued women so much, this travesty should not be true.

This is incorrect. 14% of women are under the poverty line, to 10% of men. That's not "overwhelming". On the flip side, a significant majority of the homeless are men.

The gender difference seen in the poverty statistic is in my estimation due to the fact that women are generally less motivated than men to earn money, and thus less willing to make sacrifices to do so (which is why men overwhelmingly work dangerous jobs, and are 10X more likely to die in a work place accident as a result). This will result in the lower income levels seen in the female demographic, which will extend to more women having income levels that fall under the poverty line.

So, about 40% more women are poor than men and you think this is not substantial? We have expressions like the feminization of poverty and the pink collar ghetto for a reason. This has been studied and there are scholarly resources on the subject.

You explanation is a big fat blame-the-victim position.

I am aware there are more homeless men than women. The reasons for that are complicated. They typically tend to be less pathetic than homeless women. It in no way justifies acting like the difference in poverty rates is small and due to personal laziness on the part of women.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com