> they’re still earning ten percent more than women in the same age bracket.
Both things can be true.
To use an exaggerated example, if you pay the top 20% of people six figures and leave the bottom 80% to starve, the average earnings would look great, but you’ll soon have an angry mob on your hands.
Now imagine if your average man used to be able to do skilled factory work and support a family, but those jobs have gone and growth sectors like care don’t pay enough to support a family.
Then imagine an electoral system where a 4% margin separates the winner and the loser. Doesn’t take 80% of the population being disaffected to flip the results.
I think that you are right, but what is the worse (illustrative numbers):
- 70% of men being allowed to get 20$ and 30% being excluded from this opportunity and getting only 5$
- 100% of women being excluded from the opportunity to get 20$ and getting only 12$
Sure, the excluded women gets more than the excluded men, but it is also very unfair that men have 70% chance to "make it" while women have 0% chance to "make it".
Not saying one is worse than the other (and it is illustrative numbers anyway), but just to illustrate that 1. in both cases, looking at only one metric is not enough, 2. at the end, the answer is not really "objective" or "mathematical", and two persons can reach different conclusions based on their values.
Both things can be true.
To use an exaggerated example, if you pay the top 20% of people six figures and leave the bottom 80% to starve, the average earnings would look great, but you’ll soon have an angry mob on your hands.
Now imagine if your average man used to be able to do skilled factory work and support a family, but those jobs have gone and growth sectors like care don’t pay enough to support a family.
Then imagine an electoral system where a 4% margin separates the winner and the loser. Doesn’t take 80% of the population being disaffected to flip the results.