What does (or should) gender equality mean in terms of closing the pay and income?

[Gentlemanjohn]

What is the goal?

1. Communism: all men and women earning a broadly similar wage.

2. Capitalist economic inequality plus gender equality: An equal representation of women and men amongst low earners, middle earners and high earners. In other words, roughly the same number of men and women working in care homes for the same minimum wage; and roughly the same amount of men and women working for investment banks for the same 6 figure salary.

Equal pay for equal work would be my suggestion

Essentially that's what I was proposing upthread - with the assessment of 'equal' being some function of effort and value to society. That needs some modification- peoples intrinsic ability to contribute isn't the same and obviously there always needs to be provision (which I'm sure we'd always want to be better than now) for those who can't for whatever reason.

Essentially that's what I was proposing upthread - with the assessment of 'equal' being some function of effort and value to society.

I think it is almost impossible to apply some sort of standard metric by which the worth of one job can be determined in relation to another, and pay people accordingly.

My proposal is quite simply that everyone is paid enough to live comfortably and has economic security. Let's suggest an absolute minimum amount of income needed to feed yourself, pay the bills and pay the rent and have a bit left over. £1000 a month? £1500 a month? Something like that. So my very modest ideal is a society where everyone gets at least that amount. If you work part-time at a supermarket, and you only make £800 a month, then you're topped up.

My proposal is quite simply that everyone is paid enough to live comfortably and has economic security.

Ideal world, yes, of course. But you also have to factor in the unforeseen consequences.

Back in the noughties, "the state" was very generous with tax credits and housing benefits. The result was inflation. Particularly house price inflation driven by high rents being paid by the govt with little/no restriction, so landlords could basically keep putting up rents which the govt seemed happy to pay, thus causing house price inflation. Then, of course, because things were more expensive, people didn't see the benefit of their tax credits nor housing benefits.

You'd need some form of price fixing control if "the poor" were to benefit from increases in minimum wage or tax credits, etc. Otherwise the increased demand (from people having money in their pocket) would just drive up prices and they'd be no better off.

Then you cap rents. You forget that bankers were reimbursed to the tune of 350 billion and no one worried about hyperinflation then. And the alternative is people don't have any money to spend on anything, then that's a bigger problem. All I'm talking about is people having a modest amount to live, not a massive QE program. In fact, I'm not talking about introducing more money into the economy at all, just redistributing it.

It's not simple, but we will have to think of something otherwise there are going to be big problems. Wages cannot continue to stagnate and rents rise. It just is not socially sustainable. There will be civil unrest, crime, mental illness, political extremism, you name it. Push people too far and you get problems. This is invariably true in human societies.

My proposal is quite simply that everyone is paid enough to live comfortably and has economic security.

Your proposal won't work, say you have 2 McDonnalds employees. Both same age, level and experience.

Employee A: Single, rents cheaply, minimal expenses.

Employee B: married, with one SAHP, 2 kids.

You have 2 different levels of living comfortably.

If you work part-time at a supermarket, and you only make £800 a month, then you're topped up.

Well...if the other part of the time (out of 8hrs or so) you're doing something like looking after dependents, yes, absolutely. But if you're choosing to work short hours ...??

Yes it would. Every individual, including the SAHP, would be guaranteed an income they could live on.

If they wanted more they'd have to work for it.

So the choices are slavery or a gender unbiased free market-I know what I would rather live with.

If they wanted more they'd have to work for it

Ah, good.

Except... is your model explicitly paying people who care for dependents, over and above your 'guaranteed income'? They can't 'work more'. And we know who does the bulk of that sort of work.

I think a lot of the particulars are being worked out regarding basic income. Proper investment in social housing, for instance, will do a lot to combat inflation, as will more stable energy sources.

Errol, yes you could pay them more. Isn't a major feminist argument that domestic labour is unpaid?

There would also be funding for childcare for people who could work.

The point is that whatever you are doing - whether looking after children or working in a supermarket - you would be guaranteed a sustainable income.

If anything, my system would allow two people to share childcare and work part-time while retaining their economic independence - which is surely one of the ideals of feminism?? It would also allow a woman to leave a man rather than be stuck with him. So what's the problem?

Well, a fundamental question is, would this ideal system overall earn enough to pay itself, at its inception or into the future?

Doesn't that mean taxpayers will cover the costs of low wages, rather than the employers?

What you have described is the benefits system.

One element of this is to reduce costs rather than increase income.

So have an adequate supply of social housing and low rents. Then people don't need large sums to pay their rent.

Give schools enough money to pay for text books, enrichment activities, trips. Then every child gets to do them.

Make school transport free to a variety of schools. And schools meals. Bring back a decent sixth form bursary.

So much of tax credits is spent on stuff that should be free or available at a much lower price.

In fact much of what is now so bad for women has been caused by austerity - cuts to legal aid for example.

Well, a fundamental question is, would this ideal system overall earn enough to pay itself, at its inception or into the future?

Sure, but remember people would be spending this money - and using it to set up their own businesses.

Setting up their own businesses? You wouldn't be able to set up much of a business with whatever was left from your 'comfortable' pay. You wouldn't get so many bothering with the hard graft and risk if they could live comfortably anyway, and would be subject to high taxes if they succeeded. And the people with real get up and go would probably get up and go somewhere else.

I'm afraid some of your ideas are lovely and idealistic but very naive.

You wouldn't get so many bothering with the hard graft and risk if they could live comfortably anyway, and would be subject to high taxes if they succeeded. And the people with real get up and go would probably get up and go somewhere else

Perhaps. But I don't think anyone is suggesting doing away with all incentive. I think we learned that lesson between the wars.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting doing away with all incentive.

Different people have different motivations and need different levels of incentive. At the moment, because of the punitive marginal tax rate of 62% on incomes between £100-£123k, we have large numbers of doctors and dentists (experienced ones typically earn that kind of money) who are going part time to get their income below £100k to avoid the 62% tax. That is real, happening now, even though the 62% is only on the income over £100k and that they still keep 38% of the extra - for them, they'd still rather have the time off and earn less. People need to earn "a lot more" to work harder or longer, not just a bit more. Same at the bottom end with benefits etc - the extra you earn by taking a new job or working more hours needs to be a lot more than the benefits you lose - not just a small amount - a large amount.

Yup. Its a large part of the reason you can't get a GP appointment or find a dentist. So, maybe if medics weren't paid so much in the first place this wouldn't have happened, but then again, why work hard all through school, then a long training, unless you're going to reap the benefits?

We should train many, many more doctors. There are plenty of talented people who want to be doctors being pushed into biomedical courses because of the shortage of training places.

It would be good for part time to be the norm. It fits better with young kids that way.

We should train many, many more doctors.
I think more universities are starting courses, but its not the sort of thing that can be done at the stroke of a pen. Possibly the medical profession is overdue a rethink - is the current long general training the best approach for everyone? (I don't know, and this is probably a whole discussion of its own!)

It would be good for part time to be the norm. It fits better with young kids that way.
Yes, or at least far more common and acceptable, for men as well as women of course.