Vox is absolute cancer.

Female graduates 22 to 27 actually earn more than their male counterparts. Not only that but women are more likely to get a college degree than their male counterparts. If Vox had looked at the big picture, instead of just business, they would know this.

The wage gap isn't a result of a boys club or a system set up to favor men. It's a result of individual choices. On average men work more overtime and take less vacation time. Studies show that men also tend to be more aggressive in negotiating raises and are more likely to ask for a raise than women. Men also are less likely to drop out of the workforce entirely for the purpose of raising a family or take off an extended period of time for a family.

The wage gap isn't anything diabolical and honestly isn't even something we should be concerned about changing. It's an interesting number that results from taking the net earnings of all men compared to all women and reflects the different choices that people make. Nothing more.

This exactly. this is the reason why I stopped using social media new sites like Vox
We can't keep misguiding people like this otherwise situations like these happen when people try to contradict them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWd9hlp0YdM

Christina Hoff Summers also talks about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w

I actually found this rather balanced, I mean it did mention that much of the wage gap isn't because of misogyny. The problem I think is our work culture, we are one of the most overworked and vacation starved in the first world(though Japan and South Korea are worse examples), so if you're raising a kid, being a mother, you're less likely to get the job or be promoted because you're not spending that time working for your boss and you're working in taking care of your child which childcare is vital to continuing society. Things have definitely have gotten better for women in that fact they don't have to be a housewife and brood mare as it used to be in the 1950s, they can now choose to be a housewife or choose to have a career or do a bit of both(men can now do this too), and as said in the video, it also depends on whether the job has flexible hours or it's just hard, solid hours.

The Pew Research survey also spoke of these factors since women who become mothers are more likely than fathers to reduce their working hours, take time off, quit their job or turn down a promotion. I think a paid paternity leave policy might be a good policy to adopt and perhaps more paid time off for workers, but then again, it'd require either government intervention or the strengthening of unions to achieve this as they already have these things in Europe.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan.....ender-pay-gap/

"The problem I think is our work culture"
The people who work the most getting paid better isn't a problem. Just because some people value recreation and family more than their careers doesn't mean that they should be entitled to the same rewards as someone who worked 20hours of overtime. Nor does it mean that we should prevent the person willing to work more overtime from doing so. These are free choices that everyone should be able to make. Just because most women chose to value family/recreation more than men do doesn't mean that the women are getting the short end of the stick. We all work with the same finite resource of time.

Dropping a kid out from between your legs isn't something you're entitled to do as well as everything else you desire. It's a choice that comes at the expense of other options. Nobody gets to have it all- women included. If a couple decide they want to have a kid that means that one or both will have to take time from rec&work to raise the child. More often than not the biggest reallocation of time for the child comes from the mother. I've known a lot of mothers who took extensive time off to raise their kid. They weren't forced into it because of patriarchal gender norms. They did it because they loved their child and wanted to- maybe it's some of that ingrained psychology that let our species thrive.

Nothing your saying sounds reasonable to me. You're being silly

Having children is pretty vital to the continuation of a society, though too many would cause problems, too few and they'd be a lot of retiring people with few working people to help pay for their pensions with tax money(or you do a lot of automation), but as I said, they are measures to balance this out that almost every other nation does: maternity leave. Or the more equal option, paternity leave so at least it can help with at least making up for losing some of their income because of having a kid(and kids are expensive).

Supporting population growth isn't the responsibility of the employer, it's the responsibly of the state. There is absolutely no obligation for businesses to compensate an employee taking time out of the labor force to raise their family as if they were actively working like the rest of the employees. That said the state DOES incentivize this through a tax code which favors families with children.

Maternity and paternity leave aren't intended for a parent to raise a child. They're intended for the mother to give birth, recuperate from that, and make arrangements for someone else to raise the kid. Paternity leave is intended for the father to make arrangements for someone else to raise the kid. That's why these sorts of leave are only a few months or a few weeks respectively, not a few years. If a parent wants to be primarily responsible for raising a child, rather than leaving that to a nanny or something, then they realistically need to leave the workforce entirely for a few years.

This is completely beside the point though as we're discussing the wage gap and in current year a father could just as easily chose to leave the labor force to raise the kids as the mother. There isn't any rule forcing the mother into this position, to the contrary there are actually economic incentives to the contrary. Women in their mid to late 20s out-earn their male counterparts. This means that in most cases first time mothers are making the decision to forfeit the family's greater source of income so that she can be more involved in their baby's upbringing. This also helps to explain why men later in life tend to out-earn their female counterparts as the shifted financial burden forces the father to work harder and take on more overtime.

The wage gap doesn't exist the way you're pretending it does. It's merely the natural result of people being fairly compensated for work based on their individual choices in life.

It's real but it's not the result of sex-based discrimination. RedMP explained exactly why but I'll add a few other things. The types of jobs women gravitate to typically pay less than jobs that men gravitate to because of the danger or physical kill involved. There is a reason why truckers, who are majority male, get paid more than preschool teachers, who are majority female. Being a preschool teacher is a much less demanding and dangerous job than being a trucker. Similarly, the top paying college majors happen to be majors that men are more likely to enter into whereas the lowest paying majors are majors that women are more likely to enter into. This is not a a conspiracy. It just happens that women tend to prefer work that the free market doesn't consider as economically valuable.

It also needs to be said here that it has been ILLEGAL to pay a woman less than a man for the same exact position with the same qualifications and experience since the 1960's when such a bill was passed under JFK. The Lilly Ledbetter Act signed under Obama didn't fundamentally change the law since the aforementioned prohibition discrimination against women was already on the books. What it did was basically make it easier for people to sue employers for alleged sex-based discrimination.

The only way the government could erase the wage gap would be to forcibly enter in the market and determine the wages of specific jobs/fields/careers to try and create a more aggregate equilibrium in wages which is absurd. It would also have to force employers to pay women fairly substantially for not only maternity leave but also for women who decide to stay at home and raise their kids.

It's rather unfortunate, cause being a mother, it does hurt your productivity, at least in terms of serving the company or whatever, even though having children is vital to continuing society, people should be rewarded for that I think. Paid paternity leave for fathers and mothers might be a good policy to start with, and maybe amend the fact Americans are among the most overworked and vacation starved in the first world(though Japan and South Korea are way worse). But still it seems you and Red haven't really watched the video at all, most of it does explain the choices women make that are factors in the pay gap, since women are more likely to take time off, quit a job or reduce their hours when they become mothers, since...having kids is a hard job to have, though fortunately something men are taking more of a part in, though it's still leaning on mothers and kinda impossible to make it equal unless men become pregnant like male sea horses :P But I would be for paid paternity leave, almost every nation on Earth has it in some shape or form, we have no excuse not to have it, cause motherhood is beneficial to society.

I see the comments are already filled with the usual rationalizations, i.e. "individual choices", "women prefer lower-paying jobs", etc. What everyone forgets is that individual choices are never made in a vacuum, and do we know that women prefer those jobs, or do they feel obligated to take those jobs because cultural stereotyping encourages it?

No we don't forget that. We just also happen to believe that there are certain realities intrinsic to biological sex and gender that express themselves in the marketplace. Women tend to be drawn to certain jobs because of qualities inherent to their femininity and men tend to be drawn to jobs because of qualities inherent to their masculinity. In other words, there are real gender and sexual preferences at work because there are real qualitative differences between men and women. There is nothing wrong with that and no reason for society to try and correct it. It may not be the case with every single job but as a general pattern, yes these are preferences at work.

There may be some exceptions to this such as in the realm of science and technology. I can believe that some women that might prefer to go into a science or STEM career would be intimidated by the overwhelming predominance of men in those fields. But then again there are male nurses. I don't think such things are going to deter people who truly passionate about such subjects.

IMO teachers need to get paid way more (doesn't matter if male or female) especially public education system here in America.

Thanks for sharing.

no problem