Feminism

Bill, in theory I completely agree with your assessment. However, it does not account for the completely irrational employer who will always hire a man over a woman no matter what because that employer discriminates against women. There are many more employers like this out there than there should be.

Post 41

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 1:36pm

Then that employer will pay a price, right? -- like the employer who hires men at $21 an hour when he could just as well hire women to do the same job for $18 an hour. Employers are certainly free to discriminate against women if they choose, but they cannot do so with economic impunity.

Moreover, not only does such an employer sacrifice profits; he risks being put out of business by non-discriminatory rivals who, because they can produce the same product at a lower cost, can afford to undercut him by charging a lower price and capturing a lion's share of the business.

Invidious discrimination could certainly exist for awhile, but employers who practice it are at a competitive disadvantage and are less likely to remain in business than are their more efficient, non-discriminatory rivals.

Capitalism rewards efficiency and productivity and penalizes its opposite. Therefore, it discourages invidious discrimination by making it unprofitable -- unprofitable not just in theory but also in practice (as if there were a difference between the two).

- Bill

Post 42

Monday, October 9, 2006 - 3:18pm

Thomas Sowell tells an interesting story in one of his books. In 19th-century California, farms typically offered a white wage and a Japanese wage that was lower because the immigrants didn't speak English well and because the lower wage still looked like good money to them. A decade later, farmers still discriminated, but the Japanese pay rate was higher than the white one. Farmers had learned that they were good workers, and a lot of native Japanese speakers had become supervisors and farmowners, so the language skill was by then an advantage.

Peter

Post 43

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 1:14pm

When the discriminatory employers far outnumber the non-discriminatory employers, no the discriminatory employers will not pay the price. The phenomenon you describe will not occur until the non-discriminatory employers have enough jobs available to tip the scale. Until there's a tipping point, nothing will change.

Post 44

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 2:23pm

I think you underestimate how fast the market reacts, but I guess it is kind of hard to measure such abstract concepts...

Bill, in theory I completely agree with your assessment. However, it does not account for the completely irrational employer who will always hire a man over a woman no matter what because that employer discriminates against women.

Are you saying that most employers are irrational?

More importantly, assuming that you are correct, what exactly is your point (or were you merely making an observation/hypothesis)? Hopefully you weren't implying that this would justify forcing employers to hire certain people.

Post 45

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 1:50am

Deanna wrote,

When the discriminatory employers far outnumber the non-discriminatory employers, no the discriminatory employers will not pay the price. The phenomenon you describe will not occur until the non-discriminatory employers have enough jobs available to tip the scale. Until there's a tipping point, nothing will change.

There is no "price" to be paid for nondiscriminatory employment, because it's in the economic self-interest of the employers not to discriminate. If any price is being paid here, it is in the higher wages that the discriminatory employers are paying their male workers when they could just as well hire female workers at lower wages.

Nor does it matter whether the discrimination is the exception or the rule. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every other employer besides me is discriminatory -- that I am the only one who isn't. Wouldn't I have a great advantage? I'd have my pick of all those women whom I could hire for something more than what they were currently being paid, but less than what male workers were getting for work of the same kind and quality.

Assuming that I were currently paying my own male workers $21 an hour, why wouldn't I fire them and hire women for (say) $19 an hour. The women would gladly come to work for me at $19 an hour when they were currently making only $18. I would gain a cost advantage, much to the consternation of my competitors, who would soon get the picture and decide to cash in on the cheaper female labor as well. Why would they continue to employ overpaid male workers when they could increase their profits significantly by hiring women instead? They'd be stupid not to do so. Anyone that stupid wouldn't be likely to stay in business very long anyway.

You are assuming massive irrationality on the part of the very people for whom profit is the bottom line and whose survival depends on besting their competition. If in the unlikely event that this kind of irrationality were widespread, it would be a magnet for entrepreneurs who were not so irrational as to pass up a golden opportunity to profit from it. The more irrationally discriminatory the economic environment, the greater the opportunity to cash in on it by bidding away the vast number of underpaid female workers.

When one employer discovers a clear cost advantage, other employers are quick to emulate it if they can. This is not the least bit controversial; it is precisely how businesses operate in a free and competitive market. Invidious discrimination is not in the self-interest of employers, and would quickly be eliminated if and to the extent that it should ever exist. Why do you think that there were such things as Jim Crow laws? They were necessary, precisely because in the absence of coercive legislation, discrimination against blacks would have been eliminated.

For example, in the old South around the turn of the century, streetcars had segregated seating for smokers and non-smokers but no racial segregation until, that is, it was mandated by law. Even then, white streetcar companies militantly opposed the racist legislation, because it was eating into their profits. In 1896, the Louisiana railroads, which opposed the state's separate-but-equal statute and rarely enforced it, proceeded to challenge it under the 14th Amendment with a test case -- Plessy v. Ferguson -- in which Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black, purchased a first-class ticket and refused to sit in the colored car. The case went to the Supreme Court which disgracefully upheld the statute by ruling that it did not violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

With the 14th Amendment now bereft of its authority, Southern states could impose segregation virtually at will. Nevertheless, segregationist laws were as unpopular with the streetcar companies in other states as with those in Louisiana. As economic historian Jennifer Roback reports, opposition by streetcar companies to separate seating laws spanned the entire geographic range of the South, including George, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas. (J. Roback, "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," Journal of Economic History, December 1986.)

It is only by force of law that invidious discrimination can be maintained. Otherwise, the profit motive quickly eliminates it, even in the most racist of environments.

- Bill

Post 46

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 1:06pm

Jonathan,
Yes, I could be underestimating how fast the market reacts. Or I could just be a product of the deep South where everything changes more slowly than in other places. I'm saying that in my own personal experience I have witnessed many sexist employers who are perfectly okay to pay a man $21 an hour to do the same job that an equally qualified woman could do for $18 an hour. To add to that, in general Southern women seem to be more willing to accept this than women in other parts of the country. So it's not entirely the fault of the employer, but also of the women who "allow" it.

I was indeed merely making an observation. I definitely do NOT support the forcing of employers to hire certain people.

Bill,
I'm not arguing your logic. I agree with what you have said and understand the math as well as the business concepts. My observation, however, is that it doesn't quite work in real life as simply as it reads on paper.

For the record, I have never personally (that I know of) been paid less than I'm worth because I'm a woman, so please don't read any harsh or bitter sentiment into my comments. I don't want anyone to think that I feel more strongly about this topic than I do, which isn't very strongly at all.

Post 47

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 2:24pm

I'm saying that in my own personal experience I have witnessed many sexist employers who are perfectly okay to pay a man $21 an hour to do the same job that an equally qualified woman could do for $18 an hour.

The question is, would he hire the man for $21 an hour, if an equally qualified woman were willing to take the same job for $18 an hour? What you are suggesting is the following scenario: Two people -- a man and a woman -- both of whom the employer recognizes as equally well qualified, apply for a job. The man asks $21 an hour and the woman, $18. Yet the employer hires the man, thereby sacrificing $24 a day, $120 dollars a week or $6,240 a year.

If you believe this, then you must also believe that employers care so little about their labor costs that they are unwilling to hire illegal immigrants at lower wages when they could just as well hire legal Americans at higher wages. ;-)

To add to that, in general Southern women seem to be more willing to accept this than women in other parts of the country. So it's not entirely the fault of the employer, but also of the women who "allow" it.

But you just said that the employer would prefer to hire the man, even though the woman is willing to accept a lower wage. So which is it? Is the woman hired, because she offers to work at a lower wage, or is the man hired, even though he demands a higher wage? Your argument depends on the employer's rejecting the lower-paid woman for the higher-paid man? You certainly can't blame the employer for hiring women at a lower wage, if that's what they are willing to accept.

Bill,
I'm not arguing your logic. I agree with what you have said and understand the math as well as the business concepts. My observation, however, is that it doesn't quite work in real life as simply as it reads on paper.

Then you don't agree with me, because I make no distinction between theory and practice. I'm saying that it makes no sense for the employer to do this, and that they don't do it -- at least not to any significant extent. Besides, I've given you actual historical examples of business people in the old South who refused to discriminate on the basis of race, because it was unprofitable. If sacrificing profits for prejudice didn't exist in the old South, then it certainly doesn't exist in today's world.

For the record, I have never personally (that I know of) been paid less than I'm worth because I'm a woman, so please don't read any harsh or bitter sentiment into my comments. I don't want anyone to think that I feel more strongly about this topic than I do, which isn't very strongly at all.

Who's talking about harsh or bitter sentiment? You claimed to have observed that women are discriminated against in employment. Yet you now say that you have no experience of being discriminated against yourself. If this sort of discrimination was as widespread as you imply, I should think that you would have been the victim of it, at least on some occasions.

Remember also that women are, on average, less likely to remain with an employer for the same duration as men, so this can often affect the employer's expectations and hence his willingness to prefer men over women. The point I have been making is that if there were no such differences, then one could expect women to be treated the same as men, if their qualification were the same.

- Bill

Post 48

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 2:55pm

The question is, would he hire the man for $21 an hour, if an equally qualified woman were willing to take the same job for $18 an hour? What you are suggesting is the following scenario: Two people -- a man and a woman -- both of whom the employer recognizes as equally well qualified, apply for a job. The man asks $21 an hour and the woman, $18. Yet the employer hires the man, thereby sacrificing $24 a day, $120 dollars a week or $6,240 a year.

And my answer, again, is yes. I personally know employers who would make this decision. Those same employers would rather hire a male illegal immigrant over a legal American woman. I'm not saying it's a smart decision. I'm saying it happens. How widespread it is, I can't really say for sure. I'm only making observations based on my own personal experience.

You certainly can't blame the employer for hiring women at a lower wage, if that's what they are willing to accept.

If you re-read my previous post you will see my comment, "So it's not entirely the fault of the employer...."

Then you don't agree with me, because I make no distinction between theory and practice. I'm saying that it makes no sense for the employer to do this, and that they don't do it -- at least not to any significant extent. Besides, I've given you actual historical examples of business people in the old South who refused to discriminate on the basis of race, because it was unprofitable. If sacrificing profits for prejudice didn't exist in the old South, then it certainly doesn't exist in today's world.

Then I agree that I disagree with you. I've never said that it makes sense and again, I can't really comment on how often or how widespread it is. I have passed the better part of my career in male-dominated industries in the South, so maybe I have seen it happen disproportionately more often than other people. Also, being racist and being sexist may both be forms of discrimination, but they are very different. Southern blacks have fought hard battles to overcome racism in the workplace. Not so for Southern women.

Who's talking about harsh or bitter sentiment? You claimed to have observed that women are discriminated against in employment. Yet you now say that you have no experience of being discriminated against yourself. If this sort of discrimination was as widespread as you imply, I should think that you would have been the victim of it, at least on some occasions.

As for harsh and bitter comments, I only wanted to put it out there because I don't want to be labeled as a "femi-nazi" or such. As for my personal experience, I stated that it hasn't happened to me that I know of. It has, however, happened to women I know and there are employers I know who openly admit having done it.

Post 49

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 4:29pm

In general Bill is correct however it should be remembered that employees do not work in a vacuum. It could very well be that an employer believes that hiring a woman would be disruptive and would result in an overall reduction in productivity. In other words, the entire context must be considered and not just the qualifications of the prospective employees.

It's true that in today's world such considerations are less likely to matter, but that is because some entrepreneur(s) were willing to take the risk and thus teach the more risk averse. Entrepreneurs and their actions cannot be predicted.

Post 50

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:55am