Hacker News Reader

Comment by curtis | Hacker News Reader

We're thinking about the problem all wrong. Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids.

Of course I'm not serious, but then I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women.

If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an informed choice to de-prioritize work in order to prioritize childcare, then I am totally alright with that.

Maybe the impact of the wage gap is too big even if it's caused by women making informed choices. We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids. By doing it that way we could make the system largely agnostic about whether it's a father or a mother deciding to prioritize childcare over work in any particular case.

View on HN

I don’t like how this argument is presented, I can’t remember the correct name for an argument articulated like this but I’ll try to explain why it’s misleading as I keep seeing it lately:

> Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids.

That’s one way, the basis of the rest of this comment is then predicated on this being the only way, and as such only has to deal with this.

> I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women.

This a statement that almost every reader agrees with and allows a reader to justify the position that follows (I.e. great, can’t argue with that)

> If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an informed choice to de-prioritize work in order to prioritize childcare, then I am totally alright with that.

There is the massive assumption here, “the wage gap is caused by women” without any evidence to back it up. But the author has already trained the reader in the previous statement that they are saying something they agree with, and that the only problem we are solving is to stop women having children (the first statement).

The comment ends with a slight retraction, “maybe, ...” but does not deny the core of the argument. This allows the author to looks like they have presented a balanced view, but it’s anything but.

OP did not assert that “the wage gap is caused by women”. OP said that _IF_ the wage gap was caused by the informed decisions of women, then OP is fine with it. And that is a reasonable view.

> > Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids.

> That’s one way, the basis of the rest of this comment is then predicated on this being the only way, and as such only has to deal with this.

Did you completely skip over my very next sentence? The one that starts with Of course I'm not serious, ...?

> There is the massive assumption here, “the wage gap is caused by women” without any evidence to back it up.

This on the other hand is a completely fair thing to note. I'd suggest splitting that out into a separate comment, because a discussion of the available evidence is a good thing to have independent of how you may feel about my rhetorical approach in my original comment.

In a perfectly rational market, neither mother or father would disproportionately decide to make one choice or another to prioritize or de-prioritize work at the expense or benefit of raising children. Equal numbers of men would be making that same choice as women do. But that's not the case today.

Despite all the hemming and hawing over the wage gap issue, it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare. Even if women, in general, are making an informed decision to de-prioritize work, it's not a rational decision at the societal level if men don't also make that decision in equal numbers. No one faults a woman for making that decision for themselves and their family. But on a societal level, we're not going to see wage equality until men are given an equal chance to make these same decisions in a way that's not dictated by age-old stereotypes of masculinity and breadwinners.

I think mandatory paternity leave would help here. I also think on-site childcare, or subsidized childcare given to employees as a benefit like healthcare, could benefit both mothers and fathers and help influence more women to stay in the workforce. The costs of subsidizing childcare for a 30-something manager are probably lower than the costs of finding and training someone new to replace them if they're forced to leave the workforce to care for a newborn. There are a number of interventions the private sector can take that can be integrated around pregnancy, birth, and raising newborns that can make work a bit more rational for both mothers and fathers and help retain employees.

> In a perfectly rational market, neither mother or father would disproportionately decide to make one choice or another to prioritize or de-prioritize work at the expense or benefit of raising children. Equal numbers of men would be making that same choice as women do.

Why are you sure of this? Doesn’t this assume that men and women’s natural dispositions to work and childcare are identical? Are they? If so, how do we know?

The shape of the current market could be the reflection of discrimination alone, but I suspect there are other factors.

To me, it seems very difficult to isolate what market phenomena are due to culture and which are due our nature, or what the balance between the two is.

I like the idea of paternity leave (though I feel a little bad for those citizens that choose not to have children), but I doubt it’s going to close the wage gap, or result in a 50/50 split of house wives with working husbands and house husbands with working wives.

> if they're forced to leave the workforce to care for a newborn.

Most professional people I know have quit working because they want to take care of their children. Most only work or return to work because they have to.

> it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare.

I've decided recently, just now actually: I don't buy this.

Why would an employer discount a woman's value just because she may, at some point, take time off to care for a child?

Men also leave jobs. Shouldn't employers discount men's value because they may, at some point, leave?

I think the person you're replying to meant that men and women earn exactly the same salary, but childcare means that a person doesn't work or works small jobs part-time, meaning that their income goes down.

Employers do not pay women less just because they can have children one day. In fact, young women earn more, on average, than young men.

While not huge the US tax system has a child tax credit https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/five-things-to-know-about-the-c...

>We could choose to offset it directly, for example by subsidizing children -- kind of like a basic income just for kids.

Unfortunately, too many people thinking "why should I pay for raising someone else's kids?".

We already do pay to help raise other poeple’s kids through a variety of taxes, including public schools via property tax. This would be more of a subsidy for reproducing, rather than helping to raise them. I think it’s only rational for a community to invest in good outcomes for children, because the alternatives are not only undesireable and immoral, but more expensive. Actually subsidizing having children though, rather than investing in existing children isn’t something quite so simple. If you want to have children and are willing to make the associated sacrifices, good for you, it entire ask me to mitigate those sacrifices when I’ve chosen to not have children. I’m still happy to pay my taxes and invest thereby in their education and health, but propping up your career? No.

Exactly. Paying for them to be cared for, fed, educated? Great. Paying for you to have time off, not the same thing.

>"why should I pay for raising someone else's kids?"

Well why should I?

To pay taxes for the public services and infrastructure you will use during your retirement.

Why should you pay for maintaining roads you never use? Or social aid you never receive? It's the common good.

Because other people paid when you were young to raise you.

No they did not (especially false for US, think about why). And if they did, that's still not a good argument. The fact that we have had something done in the past is not a good argument to keep doing it - US past is full of things that weren't good and shouldn't be done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com