It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives, though I have a hard time imagining a good way to measure that.
Obviously this is highly speculative but for quite some time now I have the theory that the former Sowiet Union states (Russia et al) and large parts of Latin America don't progress as much simply because male financial success isn't tied as much to better dating options. At least to me as a traveler it seems that many men in those countries have a wide choice of attractive girls, regardless of how well they are off.
This would also explain the rise of the Chinese economy in the recent decades, as they have a surplus of men and I heard that they need to own at least a flat and a car to have chances on the dating market.
I am from an ex-Soviet block country (Poland). I agree that people in here are less obsessed with success and money than the Westernerns. This also translates into dating/marriage choices of women.
Obviously, this is a huge generalization, but I think it can be justified by looking at our history. Over time, so much terrible things happened here that people learned not to create too strong attachments to material things and societial hierarchies (which disappear when you're invaded by another country). It was wiser to try to find joy in family, human connection and simple things that cannot be taken away from you so easily.
I was working in Rome a few years ago and people there are very practical with cars, they are small and cheap.
On the other hand here they are very much status symbols. People like to drive big and powerful German cars - you would never see someone driving a Fiat Cinquecento, even though they are much more appropriate for wages here.
Interesting. When I was visiting Malmo (in suposedly egalitarian Sweden) I was shocked about the amount of premium cars (Audis, BMWs etc.) on the streets. Seemed anything but egalitarian to me. I had similar impressions in Germany or the UK. It's interesting why Rome is different.
There’s definitely an advantage to having a small car in Italy (I had a Prius and it felt too big), but most people had cars that would even feel old here (where most people have 2nd or 3rd hand cars).
There are a few factors at play here.
At least in Poland women more often than men choose to leave rural areas in favor of cities and that results in city-dwelling populations dominated by women(often single) and rural population dominated by men(also single).
Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Men here are still regarded as providers and status, or at least status signaling, matters - one obvious example is how much people(men) spend on cars.
I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
> Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Or is there?
Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
> Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Yes, because suicide is a primary or at least a major reason that men die (or die young).
> I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
Warsaw is a great example, but ironically these womens' standards are pretty high - all in all they didn't leave their 30k-something-souls towns for the Big City to marry a man who doesn't enjoy a decent social status himself.
> Or is there? Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
Anecdata: my sister was born in 86' and is currently single and childless, just like a few of her friends. On one hand they're pressured to do something about this, on the other there aren't many eligible bachelors available because well, they're taken. This song[0] illustrates this point beautifully.
Hell, the problem is so visible right now that a TV show dedicated to making couples out of (most of the time)well-off farmers and city-dwelling women[1] was created.
How is that sad. You've actively decided to trade more of your effort to get more of other people's effort. Its a win win.
And you can stop at any time.
That said, it's a choice I didn't choose to have. I'd much sooner choose to live in a world where gender norms would allow me to both a) pursue the things I want to pursue and b) have as much dating success doing them as I do now (a fair amount, having led up to several successful long term relationships) instead of then (going months without a date while actively trying to date).
Additionally, I question the viewpoints of people who think that the pay gap come purely from evil men discriminating against deserving women instead of social norms that are enforced in significant part by women.
I would also like to live in a world where I get to do whatever I want and get from other people whatever I want. However, we live in a world where we have to give and take, so we need to give something we dont want to give to take something we want..
I'm sure you'd be much happier sculpting, but the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing.
You're right in that I'm having trouble seeing your point because what you write doesn't follow at all. If I'm a sculptor I'm producing something. Arguably something that people want and are willing to pay at least some money for. I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything. Certainly it doesn't need me to be a software engineer - a large corporation needs me to do that so they can sell more features.
If I want to maintain a certain standard of living then in many cases I have a limited set of paths on how to achieve that. The balance comes in having more ways of reaching the same goal.
Then why shouldn't you receive a salary without doing anything?
When I unexpectedly found myself presented with those two options, wouldn't you know it, I chose exactly how I said I would. I was happy with my choice, and if I found myself in the same situation I would make it again.
I'm leaving my current company because they expected me to cancel planned trips, vacations, and time with friends simply because they can't plan anything. And management was openly resentful when I wouldn't. My twenties and thirties are the best years of my life and if you won't let me have them I'll find someone who will.
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)
Women.
https://mobile.twitter.com/simonsarris/status/95977643265320...
I know lots of men who would love a simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement, but work stressful (and well paying jobs) to secure a date.
Unlike you, how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan? Or does the number of women outearning their SOs in your social group approach 50%?
I'd wager the attitudes about men's and their resources that you state to abhor, are quietly shared by a lot more of your female friends than you care to accept, to a greater or lesser extent.
One. Also my only religious friend and I think her religion is the factor here.
(You're also assuming all my friends are into the "husband" thing, I have proudly single by choice friends and queer friends too)
>how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan?
None had zero career planning. Some of them their plans haven't quite worked out for them as they would have hoped though. Same with some of my male friends too though. It's pretty 50/50 among couples that I am friends which person has more of a "career" vs "job." I even had a female friend nearing 40 who just started college. One of my friends who works low paying jobs but is married to a doctor paid the bills for 8 years so he could go to college then medical school.
In my own marriage I (female) am the "simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement" one and my husband much more of a spender. He also earns less money than me.
So, yes, it does "work that way," but first you must realize that women are humans too and not just fuckholes you pay for.
Money is incredibly important and valuable in our society. We've largely arranged our society around acquiring it, spending it, saving it and (sometimes to a sickening degree) glorifying it. Please see the fact that most people spend roughly 4,000 hours a year in their pursuit for money.
The rest of your post seems a bit incoherent to me. My original post was not a demand or a policy prescription; just wistful thinking. If pressed for something even more specific I would say: "It would be great if there was a more concrete path coupled with high demand for creative careers as there is for writing more code."
Out of curiosity I did look up average sculptor salaries in CA, but they are more than half that of an average software engineer so I guess I'll still be heading in to work on Monday ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Women do and I care because I like sex. When you have a luxury downtown apartment with a view and a sports car, it's playing the game on easy mode.
- A woman who earns more than her husband
I guess what I'm saying is that, whatever personal situation, I doubt you would be interested in a man who just lazed around the couch all day watching Netflix, playing video games, and having little ambition beyond that.
just an interpretation
They don't. They judge the success by the succession of success. Money is just a byproduct and used as proxy. Perhaps that's more pronounced where-ever you are. But boasting about money increases the chances that it will be lost soon.
I wish it weren't the case but it seems to be reality.
Congratulations, you’ve invented communism.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=generic%20ideological&sort=byD...
I very much appreciate all the hard work you do here, btw. HN is my favorite place to discuss things online. I also understand the difficulty of not letting the place get overrun with unproductive political debates. I just think we have to be careful to not unreasonably single out certain topics in a way that may seem confusing or arbitrary.
If it was solely the unnecessary snark and lack of good faith, then I think I understand. But by referring specific content in the comment, it becomes less clear.
Such discussions are off topic for a reason: they are repetitive. Worse, they turn into flamewars (case in point, see the replies to my comment downthread). This is emphatically not what HN is for. The value of this site—intellectual curiosity—withers under repetition and dies under attack.
Take a look at the comments through the search link I posted. There's a long history there. If you then still don't understand why we're doing this, I'd be happy to discuss it further (but you'll probably need to email [email protected]).
We don't really need to discuss it further, but, to clarify, I think the thing that caught my eye is when a reasonable discussion naturally starts to veer towards these more difficult, ideological topics.
Those topics aren't meaningless. It is just very hard to discuss them productively on a public internet forum, as you noted. However, it is also not unexpected for productive, intellectual discussions of other issues to meaningfully brush up against these "ideological tangents" on occasion.
The part that seems a little arbitrary to me is to say that the discussion can't proceed further purely based on content alone, as opposed to instead drawing the line based on content-neutral criteria such as civility, substantiveness, novelty, etc.
But I understand that this desire may be overly idealistic in a public internet forum, and certain pragmatic lines may need to be drawn. It sounds like might be the case on HN. Again, thanks for engaging with me on this.
Such arguments are always the same and only interest a small minority of HN users who want to yell at each other while calling it "ideas". These threads get dumber and nastier as they grow, and drown out the quieter, thoughtful things we actually do want here. Therefore we have to moderate them. Intellectual curiosity is a fragile thing, like a garden that needs protecting from off-road vehicles.
Perhaps you're the rare person who really has something original to say about political ideologies, and I missed that in your HN comments. In that case I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Nevertheless an internet forum is not the medium for such ideas—even if you're deep and original, others won't be, and the space is too constrained for all but shallow comments on grand topics. So if that's the case, you should write a book instead.
It seems that you might be unaware that the user 'dang' is a moderator.
No. lobotryas was saying that we're only discussing shortage of women writing software because it's a well-paying office job. If anything else was kept intact, but either the job was low wage or other jobs that women currently choose much more often were paid as highly, we wouldn't have the discussion about too little women writing software.
> How is criticising this as communism not valid?
Because it was not the lobotryas' point.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The point is, it is uncommon to reach that level in those given fields because the average person gets average pay.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company. Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?