What would be good inclusivity training?

[mleok]

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

It is more fruitful, and simpler, to think that each individual has his or her own tradeoff between money and other job characteristics, and chooses accordingly.

It's also more realistic to expect that individuals have different notions of utility. There was an old board game, Careers, that allowed each player to chose some combination of fame, fortune, and happiness as their definition of success in the game of life.

[dismalist]

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

It is more fruitful, and simpler, to think that each individual has his or her own tradeoff between money and other job characteristics, and chooses accordingly.

It's also more realistic to expect that individuals have different notions of utility. There was an old board game, Careers, that allowed each player to chose some combination of fame, fortune, and happiness as their definition of success in the game of life.

Which is what I said.

[marshwiggle]

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

It is more fruitful, and simpler, to think that each individual has his or her own tradeoff between money and other job characteristics, and chooses accordingly.

It's also more realistic to expect that individuals have different notions of utility. There was an old board game, Careers, that allowed each player to chose some combination of fame, fortune, and happiness as their definition of success in the game of life.

Just to clarify the original context.

Someone argued that the lack of men in ECE and nursing was due to them being low paying, and that higher pay would get more men in.

I then responded that if that resulted in men leaving construction, plumbing, etc. for ECE and nursing, then it would be hard to recruit construction workers and plumbers.

Then I was told that people who liked outdoors, welding, etc. would continue to choose those things.


So my either/or choice was to point out that you can't argue both sides of the street.

And I agree that everyone has their own combination of factors to consider, because I believe in our society discrimination plays a relatively minor role in most of those choices.

[dismalist]

Yeah. To arbitrarily determine that some wage has to increase to attract group X, which then leaves other fields in the hands of group Y, whose wages must be lowered to accommodate more X -- stops making sense right there.

The source of the intellectual confusion is that while it is sometimes warranted to conceptually mess with a small market and ignore feedbacks, it is not in cases where we're talking about half the labor force or such.

[Caracal]

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

It is more fruitful, and simpler, to think that each individual has his or her own tradeoff between money and other job characteristics, and chooses accordingly.

It's also more realistic to expect that individuals have different notions of utility. There was an old board game, Careers, that allowed each player to chose some combination of fame, fortune, and happiness as their definition of success in the game of life.

Just to clarify the original context.

Someone argued that the lack of men in ECE and nursing was due to them being low paying, and that higher pay would get more men in.

I then responded that if that resulted in men leaving construction, plumbing, etc. for ECE and nursing, then it would be hard to recruit construction workers and plumbers.

Then I was told that people who liked outdoors, welding, etc. would continue to choose those things.


So my either/or choice was to point out that you can't argue both sides of the street.

And I agree that everyone has their own combination of factors to consider, because I believe in our society discrimination plays a relatively minor role in most of those choices.

I don't think teachers should get paid more in order to recruit more men into the profession. Teachers should get paid more because that would allow schools to recruit and retain talented and skilled people. If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

[dismalist]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

[ciao_yall]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

[dismalist]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

[ciao_yall]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

If there are fewer plumbers because they decide it's worth it to become teachers for better pay, despite needing to get more education, then that frees up more plumbing jobs.

Supply, demand, that sort of thing.

[dismalist]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

If there are fewer plumbers because they decide it's worth it to become teachers for better pay, despite needing to get more education, then that frees up more plumbing jobs.

Supply, demand, that sort of thing.

Without High School, the unemployed will not become teachers. Plumbers could become teachers, though. Then there will be fewer plumbers! Their wages must rise to entice more people to become plumbers to fill the now empty plumbing jobs. As these will be more male than female, the gender imbalance is not changed. All we have is higher wages for teachers and plumbers and less stuff for everybody else.

Supply and demand can be parroted. Look at more than one market at a time when necessary.

Thimk!

[ciao_yall]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

If there are fewer plumbers because they decide it's worth it to become teachers for better pay, despite needing to get more education, then that frees up more plumbing jobs.

Supply, demand, that sort of thing.

Without High School, the unemployed will not become teachers. Plumbers could become teachers, though. Then there will be fewer plumbers! Their wages must rise to entice more people to become plumbers to fill the now empty plumbing jobs. As these will be more male than female, the gender imbalance is not changed. All we have is higher wages for teachers and plumbers and less stuff for everybody else.

Supply and demand can be parroted. Look at more than one market at a time when necessary.

Thimk!

With high school, a plumber might see the wages of a teacher and think "Hey, I will go to college and become a teacher."

Then, there will be more opportunities for unemployed high school graduates to become plumbers.

And everyone will have higher wages and pay more taxes and there will be more stuff for everyone.

Macroeconomics!

[dismalist]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

If there are fewer plumbers because they decide it's worth it to become teachers for better pay, despite needing to get more education, then that frees up more plumbing jobs.

Supply, demand, that sort of thing.

Without High School, the unemployed will not become teachers. Plumbers could become teachers, though. Then there will be fewer plumbers! Their wages must rise to entice more people to become plumbers to fill the now empty plumbing jobs. As these will be more male than female, the gender imbalance is not changed. All we have is higher wages for teachers and plumbers and less stuff for everybody else.

Supply and demand can be parroted. Look at more than one market at a time when necessary.

Thimk!

With high school, a plumber might see the wages of a teacher and think "Hey, I will go to college and become a teacher."

Then, there will be more opportunities for unemployed high school graduates to become plumbers.

And everyone will have higher wages and pay more taxes and there will be more stuff for everyone.

Macroeconomics!

And everyone will have higher wages and pay more taxes, and the rate of return on savings will fall  and there will be less stuff for everyone.

With taxes you can do everything, except make more stuff.

Not Macroeconomics, rather magic.

[ciao_yall]

...If teacher pay went up, I suspect you would see as a side benefit, more men going into the profession. I'm perplexed by the argument that paying teachers more is going to cause a plumber shortage. I don't think that's really how it works...

The men have to come from somewhere.

The unemployment rate for people without high school diplomas is over 9%.

So, presumably, higher wages will entice more people to work instead of whatever they are doing now.

And those can be teachers? This is about teachers.

If there are fewer plumbers because they decide it's worth it to become teachers for better pay, despite needing to get more education, then that frees up more plumbing jobs.

Supply, demand, that sort of thing.

Without High School, the unemployed will not become teachers. Plumbers could become teachers, though. Then there will be fewer plumbers! Their wages must rise to entice more people to become plumbers to fill the now empty plumbing jobs. As these will be more male than female, the gender imbalance is not changed. All we have is higher wages for teachers and plumbers and less stuff for everybody else.

Supply and demand can be parroted. Look at more than one market at a time when necessary.

Thimk!

With high school, a plumber might see the wages of a teacher and think "Hey, I will go to college and become a teacher."

Then, there will be more opportunities for unemployed high school graduates to become plumbers.

And everyone will have higher wages and pay more taxes and there will be more stuff for everyone.

Macroeconomics!

And everyone will have higher wages and pay more taxes, and the rate of return on savings will fall  and there will be less stuff for everyone.

With taxes you can do everything, except make more stuff.

Not Macroeconomics, rather magic.

If people have higher wages they save more money, even after paying more taxes.

With taxes you can make more public goods like schools, roads, utilities that help make more stuff.

No magic there. Just Econ 101.

[dismalist]

If people have higher wages they save more money, even after paying more taxes.

With taxes you can make more public goods like schools, roads, utilities that help make more stuff.

No magic there. Just Econ 101.

Yup. Let's just raise everybody's wages, financed by higher taxes.

This is just a grand redistribution scheme, with less to redistribute.

[marshwiggle]

If people have higher wages they save more money, even after paying more taxes.

With taxes you can make more public goods like schools, roads, utilities that help make more stuff.

No magic there. Just Econ 101.

If we're talking teachers here, (or anyone else paid by government money), then the taxes they pay are just giving a portion of their income back. So paying them more means less government money for roads, utilities, etc., unless they are taxed at a rate of >100%.


No magic there. Just Math 101.