It's relevant in the sense that I don't particularly care that it'd be harder for me to get these jobs, as the pay cut vs my current job of software engineer would be so significant that I would never seriously consider it.
I'm glad your chosen profession is well paid and you have the ability to do it. Some folks have alternate dreams and maybe not the same abilities you have. Perhaps they would make an amazing educator and find the salary acceptable.
Conversely, I would care a lot if there's some job that would earn me more money that my gender hinders me in attaining (as is sometimes the case for women in tech).
People tend to react badly when their dreams, even if not as profitable as you would like, are hindered or totally roadblocked.
To the extent that society is worse off for the imbalance, part of the solution is better compensating these jobs in the first place.
That doesn't change the fact that these jobs are actually open to a segment of the population. Better salaries just makes the jobs more attractive to people who aren't roadblocked.
We're currently taking advantage of people who have a passion for doing the work by underpaying them, which disproportionately affects women.
Well, the men are being excluded so it cannot take advantage them. If the imbalance is unacceptable then its unacceptable.
I think you're responding to a stronger version of what I actually said. I said that compensation is a factor, whereas you're responding as if I said it were the only factor (which I would disagree with too).
No, I believe the whole compensation argument misses the point. There are males who want to be educators and are actively discouraged from doing the job. Compensation is not a factor in their decision or the employer decision. Its a prejudice against males in early childhood education.
If imbalance in IT is bad then it should also be addressed in education. Compensation isn't the problem.
Insurance companies (mysterious higher rates), existing daycare staff, and parents who are very suspicious of male workers. It’s a socially acceptable discrimination.
I'm glad your chosen profession is well paid and you have the ability to do it. Some folks have alternate dreams and maybe not the same abilities you have. Perhaps they would make an amazing educator and find the salary acceptable.
Conversely, I would care a lot if there's some job that would earn me more money that my gender hinders me in attaining (as is sometimes the case for women in tech).
People tend to react badly when their dreams, even if not as profitable as you would like, are hindered or totally roadblocked.
To the extent that society is worse off for the imbalance, part of the solution is better compensating these jobs in the first place.
That doesn't change the fact that these jobs are actually open to a segment of the population. Better salaries just makes the jobs more attractive to people who aren't roadblocked.
We're currently taking advantage of people who have a passion for doing the work by underpaying them, which disproportionately affects women.
Well, the men are being excluded so it cannot take advantage them. If the imbalance is unacceptable then its unacceptable.