Brive1987 wrote:And PZ is still seeking the biological basis for the wage gap using the dichotomy of men's jobs and women's jobs.
You cannot ignore the fact that the remuneration given for ‘women’s work’ is entirely socially constructed as well — why should sociology pay less than, say, biology? I can tell you which has more immediate impact on people’s lives, and sorry to say, it isn’t the field I’ve chosen for myself. Why should pediatrics pay less than working as a surgeon? Does one require that much more training? Is taking care of children’s health less important than cosmetic surgery? As usual, these bozos ignore the value-dependencies of the options.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... 11-h288-nc
PeeZie doesn't really get how the job market in a market economy works, does he? It's not a matter of what he thinks it's more important or has more immediate impact", it's a matter of supply and demand. There's a larger supply of sociologists compared to the demand, while there's a smaller supply of biologists compared to the demand. There's a larger supply of pediatricians in relation to the demand compared to the supply of cosmetic surgeons compared to the demand.
The only ways to change this are to either diminish the supply or raise the demand. And both supply and demand have nothing to do with prejudices about them being "women's jobs" or "men's jobs", and everything to do with how many people choose a career in that field and how many people are needed who have a degree in that field.
Cosmetic surgeons earn a lot because there's a very limited supply of them compared to a rising demand. Being a cosmetic surgeon requires A LOT of training, up to ten years, and the training is very demanding, with up to 100 hours of work per week.
This isn't limited to cosmetic surgeons. Pediatric surgeons also earn a lot (more than cosmetic surgeons on average, actually) and require a long and demanding training. The same is even more true for neurosurgeons. They're both in high demand compared to the supply.
Compare and contrast with sociologists. The requirement to be a sociologist is only a master's degree, although a PhD is preferred on the market. However there's a limited and shrinking demand of sociologists, so competition in the field is very stiff. The more qualified you are the better chances you'll have, but the bottom line is that there are more graduates in sociology (especially with a master's degree) than the job market needs.
Myers seems to think that since the job market is a social phenomenon (not a "social construct", since there is no one "constructing" the job market, it's a consequence of the forces of the economy) we can artificially increase the earning potential of sociologists, or pediatricians, simply by wishing very hard, and that if we don't it's because of Patriarchy and valuing "women's works" less than "men's works".
The truth is that even in planned economies like Cuba there's a difference in earning potential between jobs, even though doctors earn far less than elsewhere. Surgeons earn more than pediatricians even in Cuba, even though they both earn less than in the US. Sociologists in Cuba earn even less than doctors, unless they happen to be high-ranking party members.
Even in the Soviet Union surgeons were highly valued and received lots of benefits which pediatricians didn't, and sociologists were a dime a dozen and were mostly employed by the Communist Party (and again, they weren't paid that well compared to surgeons, or biologists for that matter).
Planned economies can decide to artificially reward some jobs more than their value on an open market, but they simply cannot pay ALL jobs equally, or even ALL jobs with the same amount of training equally. Indeed planned economies are more likely to simply force people to fill the needed job requirements then to artificially manipulate salaries, since it's easier to limit the number of available places in a given field than to simply hire lots of people in a given field and reward them equally.
So in Soviet Russia Comrade Sociologist was likely to be required a long, demanding training to ensure his or her loyalty to the party, and then demanded to, say, move to Siberia to help with "communist re-education" of a local community, with his or her rewards being dependent on the decisions of the Party, while Comrade Surgeon, if he or she had a good training, was probably kept in Leningrad or Moscow to be at the beck and call of party bigwigs, and to be given generous benefits (for Soviet standards) in order to keep him or her working and to dissuade defecting. Also people wouldn't just be free to choose their career, but would have to wait for the decisions of the central planners.
But I'm sure that in Myers' Feminist Utopia all jobs will be paid only according to the amount of training they require, a degree in interpretative dancing will be equally as valid as a degree in aerospace engineering, and people will be completely free to study whatever they want and receive equal pay for equal training. This won't have any negative effects on the economy, because Myers' Five Year Plans will work better than those of the misogynistic and racist Soviet white males.
