Basically nothing new in this interview. I used to really like this guy's ideas but then I got over it once I accepted that most real world issues are non-binary.
"Women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children". Hmmmm....
"[T]he gender pay gap only exists for women over 40, suggesting it is less about gender and more about something else entirely. Indeed, women in their twenties currently out-earn men and it is only when they start a family that the pay gap starts to emerge.
"Is this down to nasty employers undervaluing female staff once they’ve had a baby or to outdated societal expectations that women are the main child carers?
"Or could it just be that many women who become mothers prefer to cut back their hours, work part-time, decline promotions, overtime and travel away from home so that they can see more of their children? Every survey suggests that women are doing this of their own free will but, hey, what do they know?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender...
It's a fact that only women can bear children. It's also a fact that women (for whatever reasons---not saying it's right or wrong) opt at a higher rate than men to reduce their hours or leave their career after the birth of a child. So, from a business perspective, there _are_ some additional risks associated with employing women that simply don't exist for men.
Women and men are different and in practice deal with parenthood differently as far as work is concerned. If there's ever to be equal pay for equal work, the discussion will have to include the issues as they are in addition to egalitarian ideals.
It is discriminatory and I think it's fair to feel upset at being painted with such a broad brush.
It seems right now that the choice faced by society is framed as binary: should we require equal pay across genders, or should we not? And each of these possibilities has both costs and benefits. Here are some costs and benefits of equal pay worth considering:
Costs: By requiring employers to pay women more than the employers assess to be their worth, fewer women will be employed, this at a time when gender ratios in many professions (especially IT!) are horrendously lopsided. Essentially, equal pay can be implemented as a price floor, meaning that the amount of female employment demanded will be less than it would at the natural equilibrium. Legislating equal pay might change some attitudes, but just entrench others.
Benefits: The women who are working get paid more. Society is seen as more just which likely alleviates angst all around. Women's voices are seen as more valuable because women are paid just as much as men, which disempowers sexists in their discrimination. More women will want to work at the higher price point, giving firms a better pool of applicants to choose from.
Invert these points to get costs/benefits of the status quo.
Both choices seem to incur both notable benefits and substantial costs. Surely there's some third way?
"Using this generator, it was found that smoke blown through one side of the coil does not appear on the other side of cylindrical coil. The smoke flows through the wormhole and appears in a hyperspace co-dimension. It was this experiment that resulted in making first contact with the androids of the Grey aliens who told me, in a remote viewing session, that 'We saw you blowing smoke into hyperspace.'"
> It took a number of days in order to understand this sequence of events. The explanation involves knowledge of a wide range of subjects such as gravitation physics, hyperspace physics, wormhole electromagnetic theory and experimentation, quantum physics, and the nature of the human energy field.
