The wage gap doesn't exist - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The wage gap doesn't exist
in Work Place

*grabs popcorn*
  1. Live Poll

    Does the wage gap exist?

    11 votes
    1. Yes
      36.36%
    2. No
      63.64%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • The wage gap is a statistical fact, according to the governmental research, hence it does exist. The interpretation of causes of this gap, however, has not reached consensus yet, and as far as I know, no proper models have been developed to properly explain it with the reference to the available data.

    Purely from the intuitive perspective, I would say that the wage gap is partially influenced by discrimination, but that influence is pretty small compared to other, non-discriminatory factors.
    Zombieguy1987RyanHough
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 71 Pts
    @MayCaesar Our country is a Democratic/Republic Country and we support Capitalism. That means you get what you work for. If there is a wage gap its because the person did not work as hard as those who are being paid more. If you believe otherwise then you are not realizing the simple fact that this is the U.S. and we work for our pay we are not communists and if you want equal pay go to Russia.
    pistachiopants
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 71 Pts
    The wage gap exists because it needs to exist in order for our country to not be Communist
  • billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
    is everyone paid the same? no . then there is a wage gap
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1878 Pts
    @RyanHough

    This is not how capitalism works. Your wage is not determined by how hard you work, it is determined by how much your employer values your work. The system you are describing is called meritocracy, and that system is utopian and quite authoritarian. I would not want to live in a meritocracy, although some of the meritocratic ideas are commendable.

    It is not about what I "believe", it is about what I can observe with my own eyes. I have had personal conversations with a lot of employers, all the way up to multi-millionaires, and I have seen the amount of prejudice most people do not even suspect exists. Granted, prejudice based on irrelevant factors such as race or gender very rarely enters the equation, but even that is not unheard of.

    Finally, Russia does not have equal pay. I am not sure where you got this idea, but in Russia employers are free to set any wage they want, as long as it is above or equal to the federal and regional minimum. As for communism, it ended in Russia in 1991, and even when it was still present, there was no equal pay in Russia.

    I was not claiming that wage gap is a bad thing; in fact, a lack of wage gap would mean that something is terribly wrong in the economy. I am not sure why the folks dislike my post, while essentially agreeing with me. Maybe not reading past the first sentence is the problem?
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 71 Pts
    Typically a company pays a person who does good quality work more than the average worker. A wage gap exists but that's because people expect to get paid the same as people who work more. That is also communism. Im sorry if this offends anyone but don't be a stupid person who feels they are "Entitled" to equal pay when you don't work as hard as that person. My boss pays my coworker more than me because the Female that works with me is a hard worker. She gets paid 5 more dollars an hour than me and I'm fine with it. Why don't all you sissies grow up and realize that this is capitalism, not some fantasy world where everyone is equal, The world ain't like that, I'm not saying it's ok, but that's the world we live in, the sooner you realize that the better. 
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 71 Pts
    also, the main issue with the wage gap is people think its because of gender. This may be true in some cases but we should all be grateful because any other place, people would not care. Everything has flaws, nothing is perfect, we all need to grow up.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 71 Pts
    And sorry for my lack of facts, but I'm a high schooler and I still know what goes on in life. I'm just saying grow up. this argument is just a waste of time while we should be worrying about more important matters. I'm sorry if I come off as disrespectful, I'm just trying to state my position.
  • I thought we were referring to the gender wage gap myth so I accidentally voted no. However, there is a wage gap between everyone that allows our government and economy to survive
    Applesauce
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @RyanHough
    RyanHough said:
    @MayCaesar Our country is a Democratic/Republic Country and we support Capitalism. That means you get what you work for. If there is a wage gap its because the person did not work as hard as those who are being paid more. If you believe otherwise then you are not realizing the simple fact that this is the U.S. and we work for our pay we are not communists and if you want equal pay go to Russia.
    I completely accept a wage gap if this was the case: it wasn't artificial. If the wage gap is the product of natural reason, then that would be fine. However, this is not the case. So, why are women being payed, on average, less than men? True, it is due to their different choices. However, I'm sure you and I could both agree, if suddenly tomorrow all women became pilots a question we should ask is "why?" not simply watch it happen and ignore it. So why are women  being payed on average less than men? It's due to selective advertisements, as well as the media's representation of women in general. In order to show this to you, let me use the example of male nurses. The vast majority of nurses in today's hospitals are women. Why is this? It's not because men are less inclined to go into medicine or caring for other people, because there are more male doctors than women, at least in the united states. It's because it's heavily stigmatised to be a male in a nursing role. This pushes away men from performing the role, which in turn leads to less men being in the field, reinforcing the stereotype. This is an example of the pygmalion effect. In order to counter-act this, it's clear we need to make it more acceptable for men to be in these nursing roles. This will only result in a positive impact for everyone. More nurses in the world is better for every hospital. So, returning to our original point, what can we do to close this artificial wage gap? Remove the stigma of women performing in high-level, traditionally male jobs. Unfortunately, men do not actually have any biological affinity for these roles. The only reason they continue to occupy these positions is due to the pygmalion effect.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    edited July 26
    @pistachiopants "It's due to selective advertisements, as well as the media's representation of women in general."

    It's interesting that you'd think this, given the push to get more women into high-paid fields that they are underrepresented in (though of course nobody is pushing to change the fact that the vast majority of construction workers are male). One study actually found an implicit bias towards women in recruitment (1), which makes sense given the "positive discrimination" programs companies and corporations have in place.

    "In order to show this to you, let me use the example of male nurses. The vast majority of nurses in today's hospitals are women. Why is this?... It's because it's heavily stigmatised to be a male in a nursing role."

    Men on average are more interested in things and women are more interested in people (2). Further this difference is biological, not social in nature (8). We even see such differences emerge at the pre-social stage in toy choice, and this is mediated by testosterone (3,4,5). This means that this difference is not socially constructed but rather is biological in nature. Nursing is an incredibly person-oriented role, which is why most nurses are female, just like most construction workers (a heavily thing-oriented role) are male.

    "...there are more male doctors than women"

    Being a doctor is more of a thing-oriented role than nursing. Doctors are more concerned with the condition and it's treatment, whereas nursing is more of a care-role. This also links to research which I explain later (6,7) on the greater desire for men to climb hierarchies relative to women (because doctor is a high-status role and nurse is a low-status role).

    "it's clear we need to make it more acceptable for men to be in these nursing roles."

    How would you go about doing that?

    "Unfortunately, men do not actually have any biological affinity for these roles."

    It seems that men do have an affinity to desire high-status roles more than women do. This would not only mean men on average would work harder to attain them, but that they would be more likely to even attempt to gain these roles in the first place. Studies suggest that women value power less than men do and have lower level ideal positions (6). Moreover, a recent feminist study (7) suggests only 40% of women want senior leadership positions, opposed to 56% of men. This makes perfect sense given the different evolutionary pressures on men and women in our history. One such evolutionary pressure is the fact that even highly educated women are 93% more likely to marry men who earn more than them rather than men that earn less (9).


    Sources:
    (1) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
    (2) http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
    (3) http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
    (3)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19016318
    (4) https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1
    (5) https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/06/03/infants-show-a-preference-for-toys-that-match-their-gender-before-they-know-what-gender-is/
    (6) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/women-don-t-want-promotions-as-much-as-men-do
    (7) https://womenintheworkplace.com/
    (8) http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
    (9) https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands
  • @WinstonC
    It seems that you misunderstood my point. I never claimed that women, in fact, want these job positions at the moment. My entire point was if the difference was biological or social, so I will only be focusing on your points addressing the biological factors which influence these choices.

    Your strongest point is that hormone production actually increases the willingness of women to enter certain job fields. Women affected by CAH in the womb, as I understand it, are more likely to pick jobs associated with things, rather than people. However, when we actually take another look at the jobs, then we find that there are ways to show these CAH affected women that the work they initially didn't like, may actually have more to do with "things" than they think; non-CAH affected women can be shown how this work has more to do with "people" than they think. If you think that I'm being irrational, this is exactly what the researcher that conducted the study suggested we should do, in order to encourage more women to enter STEM fields.

    Therefore, we can move onto another point. Are things that society deems feminine, that is, work associated with people, really deserving of that title? When certain jobs are presumed to be more "people-related" than they really are, this affects how women and men see them. If we really want men and women to make free decisions, we have to stop presuming that just because a job involves people, there is nothing to do with "things." This sentiment is shared by the staff who worked on the report, as previously shown. When you say "Nursing is an incredibly person-oriented role, which is why most nurses are female, just like most construction workers (a heavily thing-oriented role) are male." then you are engaging in the exact behaviour which the conductors of the experiment seek to stop, because thoughts like these are what causes these roles to be defined as such. Once again, the pygmalion effect comes to mind.

    Furthermore, the researcher, Berenbaum, also expressed that her team wishes to do this same experiment on elderly people. This is because they don't know how CAH and its pattern will actually influence career choices. Therefore, making your own assumptions when a team of qualified researchers believe that they need to do another study on the matter is illogical and unreliable.

    This makes perfect sense given the different evolutionary pressures on men and women in our history. It also makes perfect sense given that we assume that societal pressures influence men and women. The evolutionary argument is particularly weak, because when more freedoms are given to women, they tend to pursue higher level jobs than before. Moreover, what you may see as "evolutionary pressures" is easily described as previous dogmatism still being present and lingering in modern society. With no evidence to support it other than your feelings, the evolutionary argument is doubly weak. If it is so true that apparent evolutionary pressures can have such an impact, then why has the last 3 decades seen a staggering amount of women enter the STEM field, relative to before? Why have traditionally "male" roles been receiving more and more female participants?

    To summarise, while it may be true that the interest in people and things are biological (although I'm still hesitant to grant that because I'm unfamiliar on this topic) what is deemed as "people-related" and "thing-related" is not concrete in nature and susceptible to change, therefore the difference in some jobs is still societal. In fact, changing general perception is encouraged by the creators of the study.

    To answer some questions:
    ""it's clear we need to make it more acceptable for men to be in these nursing roles." 
    How would you go about doing that?"
    As an individual, I suppose not much. However I would definitely support any sort of media which represents more male nurses. Advertisements, cinema, TV shows all come to mind. I think this would only be opposed by people who think that nursing is a "female-role" and that men should keep to doing male things, however like I said, this presumption is arbitrary.

    If you don't understand why I only chose to engage with your biological arguments rather than those where you cite current statistics for men and women  in the workplace, it's because I already have said that it is totally possible that this is true, however my question will always be "why?" Where you used biology as a means to explain why, I was satisfied. However, saying that these things ought to be, simply because they already are is tautological and just begging the question.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    @pistachiopants ; "However, when we actually take another look at the jobs, then we find that there are ways to show these CAH affected women that the work they initially didn't like, may actually have more to do with "things" than they think; non-CAH affected women can be shown how this work has more to do with "people" than they think."

    I can agree that giving people more knowledge of what a role entails is good in order to allow people to make more informed career choices.

    "If we really want men and women to make free decisions, we have to stop presuming that just because a job involves people, there is nothing to do with "things.""

    I never assumed that, I'm simply explaining part of why there are sex differences in career choice. Different jobs have varying amounts of interactions with people and things and people will gravitate towards their personal preference.

    "then you are engaging in the exact behaviour which the conductors of the experiment seek to stop, because thoughts like these are what causes these roles to be defined as such."

    I didn't see them stating anywhere that people should not classify roles in order to study why sex differences exist in role choice. Indeed, this is exactly what the authors themselves did. They stated that one could, for example, emphasize thing-oriented parts of a job in order to make more thing-oriented people choose a more person-oriented job.

    "Therefore, making your own assumptions when a team of qualified researchers believe that they need to do another study on the matter is illogical and unreliable."

    What assumptions did I make?

    "The evolutionary argument is particularly weak, because when more freedoms are given to women, they tend to pursue higher level jobs than before."

    Citation needed. Moreover, the evidence is actually to the contrary, more egalitarian societies are less equal in outcomes (1).

    "Moreover, what you may see as "evolutionary pressures" is easily described as previous dogmatism still being present and lingering in modern society."

    So why is it almost universal that women marry males who earn more than them? (2).

    "With no evidence to support it other than your feelings, the evolutionary argument is doubly weak."

    I gave evidence; female mate choice (2). I'm sure you are aware that males and females had different evolutionary pressures and that this is the reason for sexual dimorphism?

    "then why has the last 3 decades seen a staggering amount of women enter the STEM field, relative to before? Why have traditionally "male" roles been receiving more and more female participants?"

    An increase in opportunity, relative to before. This is not to mention the "positive discrimination" practices to get more females into STEM. If you think I'm saying women cannot do thing-oriented roles then you're misunderstanding entirely.

    "To summarise, while it may be true that the interest in people and things are biological (although I'm still hesitant to grant that because I'm unfamiliar on this topic)"

    Your study on CAH demonstrates this. Further, I gave so many studies on it's biological causation because it is incredibly well established research and I wanted that to be clear. It's probably the best documented psychological sex-difference in the literature.

    "what is deemed as "people-related" and "thing-related" is not concrete in nature and susceptible to change"

    Are you suggesting that programming and social-work are equally people-related jobs? Moreover, your CAH study takes the fact that such categorization is valid as a given.

    " Where you used biology as a means to explain why, I was satisfied. However, saying that these things ought to be, simply because they already are is tautological and just begging the question."

    I was showing that women simply don't want these positions as much as men (3,4). If you want a non-evolutionary explanation for why then think about the fact that status, power and wealth are good methods to attract mates as a male but not as a female. Further, I demonstrated hiring bias in favor of women (5) which once again is unsurprising given the existence of positive discrimination programs.

    Sources:
    (1) http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf
    (2) https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands
    (3) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/women-don-t-want-promotions-as-much-as-men-do
    (4) https://womenintheworkplace.com/
    (5) www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
  • @WinstonC
    Before I respond, I just have to ask some simple questions.
    1.) Do you think that society has been progressively becoming more egalitarian through the years?
    2.) Roughly speaking, in your opinion, how much of the difference in occupations between sexes is due to society, and how much is due to biology. A percentage, or simply "more" and "less" will suffice.
    3.) What does women marrying men who earn more money than them have to do with the wage gap?

    That's all, awaiting your reply.
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited July 27
    The wage gap, is based on how individuals view their minimum wage jobs in relation to their cost of their individual living expenses?

    Instead of pushing the politicians to raise the minimum wage from $7 plus dollars, up to $15.00, an hour?

    Why not seek out an education via a trade school, or go to a community college, to better your chances, that pay more, than what a minimum wage job does? 

    Why make some of the business, cut back on hiring people, because others want their minimum pay increased to $15.00? 

    So what makes more sense?

    Getting an education that earns them more of a paycheck, beyond the minimum wage paycheck, or pushing some politicians to cater to some of those minimum wage employees, who want their minimum wage paychecks, to reflect their minimum wage ideological standards? 

    By not working, to better their educational backgrounds, beyond their apparent high school educational ceiling? 

    Or working two, to three jobs, to put more of a paycheck in their pocketbooks, or wallets? 


  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    edited July 27
    @pistachiopants Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: when I say "males" or "females" I am talking about the sex differences on average between the groups. Averages do not apply to the individual.

    "Do you think that society has been progressively becoming more egalitarian through the years?"

    Yes, though in some regards we have gone past egalitarianism (e.g. positive discrimination and attempts to get equality of outcome).

    "Roughly speaking, in your opinion, how much of the difference in occupations between sexes is due to society, and how much is due to biology. A percentage, or simply "more" and "less" will suffice."

    In a society where women are completely oppressed and cannot choose careers it is almost entirely due to society. In the most egalitarian societies like Sweden, it is almost entirely due to biology. This is evidenced by the fact that gender gaps actually increase in the most egalitarian societies (1). When social influences are minimized the biological influences are maximized.

    "What does women marrying men who earn more money than them have to do with the wage gap?"

    People are motivated to do things that will help them to gain sexual partners. Moreover, traits which help people successfully reproduce are naturally selected for. This means that sexual preferences that helped offspring survive and reproduce have been selected for (this is mainstream evolutionary psychology by the way). Across cultures, males are more attracted to youth and beauty (fertility), whereas females are more attracted to wealth, status and ambition (2). This is because in our evolutionary past females needed the support of a male in order to provide for her during late pregnancy and to provide for her children after birth. As a result, males have evolved to be motivated to seek wealth and status in order to be better providers because females have over millions of years sexually selected for these traits. Consistent with this, we would expect females to be more motivated than males to look good and expend more effort in doing so, which is indeed the case (3).

    Sources:
    (1) http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf
    (2) https://qlj2015.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/buss-1989-sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences/
    (3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740144509001053
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 99 Pts
    edited July 28
    I've decided I won't debate this. Jesus is Lord.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch