Women vs Capitalism - The biology argument

[Blindspot82]

Was reading a book over Christmas called "Women vs. Capitalism" by Vicky Pryce which was very insightful. In her book, she quotes one leading economist as saying that the reason the gender pay-gap is so large is because of biology - the woman's natural choice to give birth and then, raise children which ultimately takes them out of the workplace for significant periods of time. They lose vital workplace skills, don't make the important connections that their male counterparts are making and thus miss out on promotion opportunities/chances to work on big projects that showcase their ability.

I agree with the economist's statement - that the gender pay-gap is related to a question of biology ultimately. But this argument doesn't solve the intrinsic problem, which is that women are generally penalised in the workplace for having children whilst men tend to scoop up the top jobs. The other obvious counter-argument is that yes, women could "choose" not to have children at all. But then the human race would die out. So it doesn't really hold up as a valid reason for such inequality.

In reflection, most workplaces now promote women into high senior roles. But...……..if you go right to the very top, 99% of the time it's a man, or a group of men who hold the leadership accountability.

I can't help feeling that women also feel forced to choose low-paid, less senior jobs after having children because they are in the main, the principal care-giver for their child/children, and the responsibility of motherhood comes first, before all others. Why can't we introduce a basic income to reward the vast quantities of work a woman does in the home, which is currently undervalued? What is it about that full-time job of raising very small children and managing a house that goes unrecognised in financial terms?

The "biology" argument is simply not an excuse to pay women less than men, or to defer finding ways to promote women and utilise their skills and talents in line with men after maternity leave. It just astounds me that we consider ourselves a modern society and yet women are some of the most financially discriminated people within it.

I agree about expectations of being geographically mobile being a stumbling block for a lot of women.

The number of senior job ads that say post holder must be flexible about working over their hours including occasionally at short notice and post holder must be able to travel within the UK and including some international travel. How does any of that work if you have caring responsibilities that you can’t delegate to someone else?

They are missing out on (women’s in particular) experience and expertise by insisting on gearing these jobs to (men in particular) who are without kids, or who can factor their kids out of their career decisions because there’s always someone else who will look after them.

What form would this withdrawal take and what would replace it? I'm particularly interested in how its replacement would govern private property and the production/distribution of products.

Well I am not sure entirely. But it is a feature of capitalism that it is constantly increasing it's reach. We decide as a society what is part of the market and what isn't. We do not allow the sale of slaves, for example.

But should we treat land and natural resources as things can be owned outright? There are reasons to think we shouldn't since we don't create them and they are absolutely necessary for future generations. What about things like futures markets, or making money through currency trading, or how do we think about interest? What about laws that allow for the existence of corporations where individuals are shielded from the consequences of decisions that can be very negative for many other individuals? What about patents and copyright, these are constructs that were intended originally to increase technological progress and support artists and innovators, but one of their effects has been to put control of vast resources into the hands of a few wealthy people and create middle men who exist largely as parasites.

Selling and buying products as people have done for thousands of years is not capitalism, really. Capitalism is about these mechanisms that begin to concentrate capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The myth that "the market" is a natural thing, that everything, including childcare or senior care or housework, the most intimate of activities in some ways, needs to be represented on this market - it makes all these things more available to those at the top to earn from. If I do work in the home that has no money value attached to it, o if I trade veg I have grown to my neighbour in exchange for help with something, that's a very straightforward exchange. The benefit is there but there is no cut going to an employer or owner or banker. So I always wonder, whose interest is it really in to capitalise those things.

Wages v social value:

Actions that have social value only rarely coincide with actions that are monetarily compensated...

Even where this is the case, it is the private marginal product for which they are rewarded, not the social marginal product. The two differ because of externalities. A worker whose job generates huge carbon emissions or other pollution will have a wage greater than their social value.

There are other forms of pollution. There’s also risk pollution. In the run-up to the financial crisis, bankers were paid more than their social value because the risks generated by their activities would fall upon others; they were externalities. I suspect this is still the case.

And then there’s intellectual pollution. “Writers” such as Giles Coren or Toby Young have a highish marginal product for their employers, but their gibberings coarsen the public sphere. One baleful effect of Twitter is that this is brought to wider attention than previously and thus imposes a greater negative externality.

stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/01/wages-vs-social-value.html

As ever, I'm wondering where care and its invisible contribution to GDP falls on this. I'm intrigued by the "pollution" discussion. It's easy to see for some jobs/tasks. I'm more conflicted when it comes to others because you can end up with some very utilitarian notional calculations in which is reduces pollution to not act in a humane manner.

I agree that mobility is a factor. It's quite common where I live for women to stay with family while men work away from home. Most recently in the oil patch but it used to be on fishing boats, or to lumber camps, or mines, or with the military.

My own family has followed that pattern at times, my father went to sea for three month on/one month off rotations, my grandfathers were in the navy, my husband worked for years at a remote station for half the year.

I suppose the problem is that often, someone needs to stay behind to deal with the day to day realities of being part of a family or community. No one is taking children or seniors to a fishing boat or a lumber camp, and to be totally frank while there are women that do some of that work, it's very heavy work that is simply not going to be suitable for many women and certainly not for those who are pregnant or have small kids. It's not difficult to see how that pattern developed.

I wonder today in a very mobile employment market if young women are more likely to stay closer to family than young men? I'd have said older women are, but I am not so sure about younger ones, they also often seem to move away. I know many young women though who have kids and want to move closer to family.

All that being said, the push to a highly mobile workforce is another element of capitalism that is meant to benefit capitalists rather than workers. It would actually be much more humane if the expectation was that families would have one main breadwinner and the other partner would be more flexible, dedicated to dealing with living apart from extended family. Instead there is increased emphasis on both partners being in full-time work.

@Gronky "I'd find it challenging to refuse free money with no strings attached"

Why? Men do it all the time.

Goosefoot, thank you for your reply. Regarding the points you made:

On expansion, I would say that's a feature of any system that seeks to provide a resource or product to the population, the difference is in how production and provision (and, by extension, expansion) is managed and by who.

On slavery, it seems to me that slavery is something of a red herring because it's not the trading of slaves that certain societies find objectionable but rather the fact of an individual existing in a state of enslavement. For example, I don't see how the average modern Western society would be any measurably more tolerant of slaves being used to produce free meals for the homeless than they would toiling on a for-profit plantation.

On resources, a key factor in the production and/or extraction of resources for a large, global market is significant investment. I believe this justifies ownership of the resource (with appropriate taxation) since, under capitalism, the labour performed by those involved is appropriately compensated and recipients can reap the benefits of economies of scale. Similarly, for patents and, to a lesser extent copyrights, these mechanisms permit the initial research investment while also offering immediate compensation to those involved in the endeavour because of the potential for a future window of control over the production. In some cases, I would say that the problems cited are the result of too much government control, rather than not enough (creating oligopolies).

Selling and buying products as people have done for thousands of years is not capitalism, really. Capitalism is about these mechanisms that begin to concentrate capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

I think this is the key source of disagreement between individuals as to whether there is even a problem and, if so, what the solution is. At its heart, capitalism is simply private individuals owning production and I believe that the issues described in this thread wouldn't be solved by its replacement. To me, the beauty of capitalism is that a worker is immediately rewarded for their labour while owners are challenged to anticipate the market and their production capabilities, meaning that the average worker is able to earn a living while retaining the freedom to change their employment. An example of this would be the amount of labour directly required or required to be exchanged to produce 1k lumen-hours of light (the article is called 'Why the falling cost of light matters').

I believe that certain alternative systems, very broadly, supplant privately owned corporations with government ones and the primary drawback of this is that the closeness between government and business (at the expense of input from workers) is closed even more.
The idea of the same individuals who write the laws I have to live by also having direct, exclusive control over everything I need to live is not a notion I find comforting, no matter how benevolently intentioned, well educated or morally sound those individuals claim to be.

Men do it all the time.

Can you give an example?

I don't think you can make a generalisation that "men" take free money all the time. Lots would, some wouldn't. nd the sme with women.

Neither of which tells us anything about whether UBI is a good idea from a big picture perspective.

Gronky

The point about slavery is that we have decided that people are not properly speaking something to be bought and sold on a market. Also, organs, ivory, heroin, and any number of other things. We decide that some services can be offered on the market, and not others. There have been different views over time of what should and should not be "ownable" and some kinds of ownership are far more natural than others. I can make a strong claim to own a shirt I made and am wearing. To say that you should pay me if you build a contraption based on one you saw that I made is less obvious, the ownership of an immaterial thing like an idea is questionable. Can I claim to "own" land I am not using because I paid someone else who did not create it either, when there are others suffering because they have none? Again, that can only be a negotiated question.
Capitalism also requires, by definition really, the existence of profit which has not always been a part of trade or private ownership per se.

Capitalism is generally only understood to exist in the modern era, it isn't applied to earlier types of private ownership. I don't think its actually very useful to talk about simple trade and ownership in a discussion of the merits or problems of capitalism, those things are not where it becomes problematic.

Goosefoot, thank you for clarifying. Regarding your examples of what and what isn't 'ownable', I would class those examples as something more specific to governments than capitalism as a system. In terms of ownership of land and other resources, I would say that capitalism is more dictating how those can change hands rather than facilitating their ownership (though capitalism is contingent on their ownership, it is more often the rule than the exception that land and other resources are owned). I also disagree that profit is a necessity, rather, I would say that the ability to make a profit is necessary for capitalism to function. It seems like alternatives either hinder development by requiring individuals to continuously, physically assert claims over land/resources or discourage development in the first place. In terms of intellectual property, it seems necessary to ensure development when the complexity of modern advances is taken into account and the abuse of the patent system is more of an indictment of certain failings within the legal system than of the patent system at its core.

I don't believe capitalism is a perfect system, I believe it is the least-bad option in terms of minimising the control others have over me. In my opinion, historic systems either made slaves of the majority of the population (serfdom), necessitated an incredibly sparse population (nomadism, which also precludes development) or required unthinkable, continuous bloodshed (tribalism). I also believe that communism similarly enslaved the population in order to even passingly function for a time (I use the term to also describe hard socialism, since the later term has evolved to also encompass certain interactions between what I take to be capitalism and government).

I'm reading Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman right now. It's convinced me that UBI is the way forward.

I am also about to begin Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? Which I think will be brilliant for considering the fascinating questions in this thread. I love it for the title alone.

I’ve got that Adam Smith book too - also bought for the title ! Not read it yet though - too busy making various others their dinner

On a bit of a tangent, is there a bit of linguistic rohypnol going on with regard to the word "work"? I'm not quite sure how to put it but I feel it's been co-opted by organisations and narrowed in common parlance to mean leaving the domestic sphere and heading somewhere to get paid a wage or salary - a synonym for "paid employment". Which leaves other kinds of work such as raising children as somehow not Proper Work - just stuff you do at home or in your leisure time when you're not 'at work'. This fits with branding of children as a lifestyle choice (ghastly phrase) like a hobby which we don't associate with pay for effort expended.

I'm enjoying the discussions in this thread.

The idea that governments hinder innovation while the private sector is a 'natural' champion for innovation is challenged by Mariana Mazzucato in her book 'Entrprenurial State'.

marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/

On the topic of how we assign 'value' to things and activities, she argues for a rethink. I haven't watched the video, but it sounds pretty interesting.

longnow.org/seminars/02019/jun/24/rethinking-value/

What happens when we confuse price with value? We end up undervaluing care. We pollute more. And the financial sector is allowed to brag about how productive it is—while often just moving around existing value, created by others. Most importantly we end up with a form of capitalism that rewards value extraction activities over value creation, increasing inequality in the process.

Economist Mariana Mazzucato: “I will argue that the way the word ‘value’ is used in modern economics has made it easier for value-extracting activities to masquerade as value-creating activities. And in the process rents (unearned income) gets confused with profits (earned income); inequality rises, and investment in the real economy falls.” Markets have always been shaped, Mazzucato notes. They can be reshaped now to better reflect and foster real value—creating a more sustainable and inclusive economy.

A professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she founded and directs the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Mariana Mazzucato is the author of The Value of Everything: making and taking in the global economy (2018) and of The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013).

ValancyRedfern (and others who support it), on the subject of UBI, do you trust the government to take that much of a direct role in your ability to live? It seems to me that it hands them a lot of power to penalise those who don't fall into line.

Antibles, NonnyMouse1337 for both 'work' and 'value' I would say they're less deliberate linguistic sleight of hand and more an expression of the limitations of language.

In the case of work, it's used as a stand in for actions which are compensated financially which we wouldn't otherwise do. For 'value', I believe it is a product of a focus on financial figures. In both cases, I believe that by focusing on absolute monetary reward to denote merit, the markets are given the power to determine merit when instead it could be down to individuals to decide on their own terms. In other words, I believe part of the issue is individuals valuing absolute monetary figures too highly.

I'm personally against the concept of using authorities to determine what the markets value because, historically, they do it rather badly. At most, I would say that carefully considered and feather-touch differential tax rates (for example, reducing taxes on wealth generation through manufacturing compared to investment) would be the way forwards because financial markets are sensitive to upset and the results can be catastrophic. This is especially significant in the era of globalism, where entire GDPs-worth of money can cross borders in days.

Finally, regarding children as a 'lifestyle choice', I realise this likely will be grotesquely unpopular on mumsnet but I believe the decision to have children is a lifestyle choice. However, because of the tremendous impact insufficient support could have on children, I'm not proposing that parents be left to fend for themselves on this basis.

Antibles

Yes, about the meaning of the language and the horrible idea of children being a "lifestyle choice". That is behind a lot of really terrible attitudes when you dig down. Children as possessions rather than as people. Having children as a hobby rather than a natural function of our bodies.

As far as this idea of trusting government with UBI my worry is quite the opposite, that it will put government and by extension citizens even more under the thumb of corporate capitalism.

“ In capitalism, women must make their unpaid work costly to society. They must be willing to NOT do the valuable work unless properly paid for it.”

Childminders do this - and they’re often vilified for doing it.
So many women think we should be doing it for free or for a pittance and they resent that we charge a fair amount for our work.
They’re looked down on for that work, too.

There are still very few male childminders, incidentally. Childcare at the bottom of the sector is overwhelmingly female. The picture changes once you get to the owners and entrepreneurs level.

Some interesting book suggestions...do they require an understanding of economics?

MIdgebabe I received Entrprenurial State for Christmas so haven't read it yet. A quick scan through the book and it looks very readable although some small bits seem a little technical, but that's understandable given the subject matter. There's a useful glossary of acronyms at the start. It's aimed at the general public I believe, although it helps if you have some interest in economics, politics, technology etc so some of the terms and phrases are not completely unfamiliar.

I don't want to detract too much from the thread topic, but I would highly encourage anyone, especially women, to read about economics and gain a basic understanding of the different schools of thought. It's presented as a homogenous field and that certain orthodoxies and assumptions must never be questioned, but that is only because there's one type that has dominated discourse for decades.

Ha-Joon Chang is a well known political economist and he has been trying to raise public awareness about economics for a while. There are about 11 YouTube videos at the moment aimed at the general public. I've gotten through about 3 so far and would recommend them. They are set up a bit weird (I don't get the classroom structure) and it's initially a bit hard to understand his accent but the subject material is fascinating, especially the one on globalisation.

The Nature of Economics -

Five reasons why economics is political -

What is wrong with globalisation? -

Frances Coppola writes about economics in various media and has a good Twitter account.

twitter.com/Frances_Coppola

www.coppolacomment.com/

Oh yes, Frances Coppola is good to follow. As is Stephanie Kelton.

stephaniekelton.com/

mobile.twitter.com/StephanieKelton

I just wanted to say thanks for starting this thread. I'm expecting my first child and on the cusp of heading off on maternity leave, and I found it put words to a lot of things I'd been thinking as of late but couldn't quite articulate.

My understanding of economics is woeful, but since reading this thread I've downloaded - and am currently a third of the way through - Who Cooked Adam Smith's dinner. If anyone was interested in the book, but worried it would be difficult without a good understanding of economics, I'd urge you to go for it. I'm a complete newbie and I've found it so interesting and informative.

I'm sorry I'm still reading the full thread but to any the OP, from my perspective it's slightly akin to the nature/ nurture debate in that it's nature first, 'nurture' thereafter hand in hand with nature. So biology first, yes but then all the associated stereotypes nurturing thereafter.

So social, gender stereotypes either learnt and followed or imposed and assumed by others.

And I've had cause to ponder over a close friendship group of mine over the years. Two of us were in co Ed and two in single sex (all different schools) The latter two definitely have more over all confidence in life and attitude, mental health too, one being very highly driven in an engineering career. Of course, personality and home life have a lot to play but it is noticeable.

I personally work in a female dominated profession (primary teaching) and I've often noticed a big difference in how female slt (senior leadership team) operate compared to male slt. Around 50% of the very few men I've worked with go very quickly into slt. Men apparently over estimate their ability for jobs whereas women underestimate, and that will be social conditioning. Only one man in nearly 20 years has taken part time to help look after his children.

So this is a background or undercurrent behind all the workings of capitalism and social value that I feel structural change can only do so much for.

Societies where there's less advantage in earning a lot (Sweden or Denmark?) as it's all taxed seem to be able to address the balance better and value men who put family first and working women.

(Sorry ended up being much longer than I thought!)

There are still very few male childminders, incidentally. Childcare at the bottom of the sector is overwhelmingly female. The picture changes once you get to the owners and entrepreneurs level.

Yes absolutely this. And I still think a lot if it is the result of gender stereotyping/ social conditioning, many young women aspire to work with children.

I've had to look objectively at my work and my dh's work. As a teacher I've always worked a lot at home, late into the eve and always weekends. It's part of the job.

When I became a mother I carried on doing this but Dh didn't really take up the reins so to speak, and would have a fun day out with our child or watch tv in the evening. I'd be simultaneously doing laundry and sorting dinner etc while working. (He's learnt a lot in the last few years!!!!!) Work load has increased vastly since my first and when my second came along I had to treat it as a day of work and book extra child care.

Dh has questioned the expense and also doesn't get that as a result we don't need to book loads of child care in the holidays like other families, (I do do a day a week for sanity and paper work) and I've started to have to point out that in a way I'm doing the childcare for free during the hols when we are not away.

This feels wrong but he assumes it's easy! But if I had a different job we would have to cover some holidays.

As I stated in another thread, I believe biology is a significant part.

One thing that isn't mentioned, however, is that the partners of these men who scoop up the top jobs also generally tend to benefit from it. There was a recent thread in AIBU ('It's a privilege to not have to work' was the title I think) and it was full of women mentioning how lucky they were that their high earning husband facilitated their lifestyle - some of whom claimed to spend most of their time 'focusing on their hobbies'.

There were a few dissenting voices in the above thread who mentioned that they wouldn't want to 'rely on a man' and who mentioned that it was risky not to maintain self sufficiency, but they were in the minority.