One way to avoid addressing a problem is to pretend it doesn’t exist. Another is to deflect attention from that problem to another. Still another is the use of intellectual dishonesty to obscure the problem. There are all sorts of ways, but the aim of each is the same – to ignore the problem. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the chancellor and president of Texas Women’s University, Carine M. Feyten
Yes, there has been an increase in income in Ghana in the last 50 years, so assuming that Ghana is not doing "just fine" is hatred and patriarchal mysogyny and cis-political-holocaust etc. etc. -
The argument with equal pay actually runs the opposite way: If on a free market, somebody is willing to pay more per hour for one person doing the job (a football player, male) than for the other (a football player, female) means, they are actually not doing the same job (although formally they are indeed perfectly comparable - same rules, same dresses, same working hours, same bruises etc.) It can therefore be assumed that the classic Marxist argument that the value of a good or service is only determined by the hours spent to produce it is actually wrong. The value of a good or service depends on what the market is willing to pay for it - if nobody wants to see women´s football (I don´t) they could even play double time for the same money, it will not add value to what they do (they would deter me personally even more).
Only in regulated markets can people achieve wages the free market would not offer. A female University Rector can claim the same wages her male counterpart does and be hired, even though she may be less suitable for the job than he.
Yes, there has been an increase in income in Ghana in the last 50 years, so assuming that Ghana is not doing "just fine" is hatred and patriarchal mysogyny and cis-political-holocaust etc. etc. -
The argument with equal pay actually runs the opposite way: If on a free market, somebody is willing to pay more per hour for one person doing the job (a football player, male) than for the other (a football player, female) means, they are actually not doing the same job (although formally they are indeed perfectly comparable - same rules, same dresses, same working hours, same bruises etc.) It can therefore be assumed that the classic Marxist argument that the value of a good or service is only determined by the hours spent to produce it is actually wrong. The value of a good or service depends on what the market is willing to pay for it - if nobody wants to see women´s football (I don´t) they could even play double time for the same money, it will not add value to what they do (they would deter me personally even more).
Only in regulated markets can people achieve wages the free market would not offer. A female University Rector can claim the same wages her male counterpart does and be hired, even though she may be less suitable for the job than he.
Yes, there has been an increase in income in Ghana in the last 50 years, so assuming that Ghana is not doing "just fine" is hatred and patriarchal mysogyny and cis-political-holocaust etc. etc. -
The argument with equal pay actually runs the opposite way: If on a free market, somebody is willing to pay more per hour for one person doing the job (a football player, male) than for the other (a football player, female) means, they are actually not doing the same job (although formally they are indeed perfectly comparable - same rules, same dresses, same working hours, same bruises etc.) It can therefore be assumed that the classic Marxist argument that the value of a good or service is only determined by the hours spent to produce it is actually wrong. The value of a good or service depends on what the market is willing to pay for it - if nobody wants to see women´s football (I don´t) they could even play double time for the same money, it will not add value to what they do (they would deter me personally even more).
Only in regulated markets can people achieve wages the free market would not offer. A female University Rector can claim the same wages her male counterpart does and be hired, even though she may be less suitable for the job than he.
Yes, there has been an increase in income in Ghana in the last 50 years, so assuming that Ghana is not doing "just fine" is hatred and patriarchal mysogyny and cis-political-holocaust etc. etc. -
The argument with equal pay actually runs the opposite way: If on a free market, somebody is willing to pay more per hour for one person doing the job (a football player, male) than for the other (a football player, female) means, they are actually not doing the same job (although formally they are indeed perfectly comparable - same rules, same dresses, same working hours, same bruises etc.) It can therefore be assumed that the classic Marxist argument that the value of a good or service is only determined by the hours spent to produce it is actually wrong. The value of a good or service depends on what the market is willing to pay for it - if nobody wants to see women´s football (I don´t) they could even play double time for the same money, it will not add value to what they do (they would deter me personally even more).
Only in regulated markets can people achieve wages the free market would not offer. A female University Rector can claim the same wages her male counterpart does and be hired, even though she may be less suitable for the job than he.