更新： 这下面是Claudia Goldin 自己说的，她一直是有对女性的处境和地位的思考的！和隔壁楼那个所谓“冷静客观”实则断章取义，故作姿态的总结恰好相反！！！而看了那个，就开始惺惺作态的所谓“很懂的”们，贻笑大方！ ------------------------------------ One of the central findings of Goldin’s research is that differences in pay and labor force participation are due not to biological differences but to differences in the division of unpaid caregiving responsibilities between heterosexual couples. “We’ve come to a point in which women’s employment is extremely high, and yet there are inequalities,” Goldin said in a pre-dawn telephone interview. “And those inequalities are inequalities that occur within households.” --- Goldin’s most recent book, “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity” (2021), charted changes in the mix of work-life arrangements over five generational groups of mostly white, college-educated American women. The book also introduced Goldin’s concept of “greedy work,” in which employers in certain industries demand long hours — and reward the unencumbered (mostly male) workers who provide it. （以上取自哈佛的报道） --------------------------------- 以下：留给隔壁楼那一类的自诩“研究可以没有良心”的陈词滥调和误读。那种思想可以大行其道，甚至让人乍一看去以为真的是“胜利者”，恰好说明我们所处时代还有许多沉重的枷锁！很高兴，诺贝尔奖，还没那么差劲！反之，如果真的就如隔壁楼总结的那种陈词滥调，那不管它看上去多么高大上如诺贝尔奖，每一个普通人也可以有信心，大骂它一顿！（虽然是幸好，不是如此！） --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 社会不给女性提供条件照顾她们在兼顾事业和家庭时候的困难，这已经是系统性歧视。 现行的社会提供的各种条件，往往是以男性的视角来提供的，并没有考虑女性的特殊困难，并将之视为“公平”。请问怎样才是公平？像美国这样，没有完善的婚姻、育儿、托儿方面的支持，更没有针对女性的支持，所以女性只好在事业和家庭间做出取舍，这是整个社会在对女性“得了便宜卖乖”，利用女性的天性，剥削女性。这种情况下，讨论什么女性因为不能去更危险地方不能更长时间开车所以赚不到足够多的钱，有意思吗？为什么社会不能提供一个安全的环境？为什么社会不能提供足够的托儿让她们可以放心地开车赚钱？为什么车辆的设计不能更多考虑女性的需求？更别说，那个楼里面有的层主很正确地指出的，整个社会在观念上对女性必须做什么的不宽容？ 这就好比，在一个女性必须裹脚否则嫁不出去的社会里，讨论女性因为脚小所以无法扛重活，所以赚钱比男性少，这个有意思吗？是不是要诘问那个社会的女性，为什么要裹脚？为什么不干脆不裹脚不嫁，自己赚钱？社会提供了赚钱的途径给不裹脚不嫁的女性吗？ 同理，整个社会的上层，利用中下层的天性，迫使中下层大量投入到培养下一代，而这些优秀下一代所产出的成果，却大量被上层所拥有--这其实才是现在年轻人不愿意投入婚姻和家庭的真相。 人有爱、婚姻、子女的本能，这种伟大的本能被上层阶级、占优势地位的群体等等所利用了，反过来贬斥弱势群体不够投入。弱势群体为了获得和强势群体相同的投入产出比，只好牺牲自己的本能。--然后，强势群体又鞭笞弱势群体不生孩子、不顾家庭。 TMD这还给人活路吗？？？ 经济学家，也许自以为可以不像其他很多专家那样有良心？那请问你做学问干吗？为了赚大钱出大名？那你干脆整个容，顺应社会，28嫁给82，不是获利更丰满？ 这就是唯利是图、践踏弱势的社会的怪胎而已！
“Goldin has been saying for many years that the way work is organized in many professions is especially female-unfriendly,” says Barbara Petrongolo, an economist at the University of Oxford, UK. Petrongolo says that companies are now starting to change their practices with the introduction of flexible, family-friendly working arrangements and the provision of on-site creches. Some of these changes have happened as a result of policy interventions, but some are coming bottom-up from firms that see the advantages of attracting female talent. 没来得及看完，匆忙来驳斥一下你。这是Nature的文章，还不是NYT那种。按这些，隔壁那个楼完全断章取义（估计是如你一样的大男人总结的），Goldin是有带良心的批判的。 所以，是谁不能接受不利于自己的结论？？？
你弄懂了？你这些贴子灰常好啊！非常典型的例子，向大家伙儿展示，一个立场决定结论，大字不识英文不懂的冒充专家，如隔壁楼一样，是如何丢人显眼的！ 我说了我不懂经济学，感谢楼上一位的提示，找到了一些官方的总结，说明这位女经济学家想说的和隔壁楼所谓总结的恰好相反！而你呢？“很懂的”？ “Claudia Goldin is a pioneering economist,” said Harvard President Claudine Gay. “Her groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of the gender wage gap and patterns of women’s participation in the labor market have helped deepen awareness of these issues and made progress possible. The entire Harvard community sends our congratulations to Professor Goldin for this remarkable achievement.” Hopi Hoekstra, Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, echoed Gay’s praise. “Through Professor Goldin’s groundbreaking, far-reaching research, we come to understand how the demands of balancing career and family are experienced personally, in individual lives, but in a broader context,” Hoekstra said. “With the long view of an historian and the exacting precision of an economist, she reveals both the enormous gains made by women in the workplace over time and the many ways in which true equity remains out of reach. I am thrilled to see Professor Goldin and her work recognized in this way.”
Goldin’s most recent book, “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity” (2021), charted changes in the mix of work-life arrangements over five generational groups of mostly white, college-educated American women. The book also introduced Goldin’s concept of “greedy work,” in which employers in certain industries demand long hours — and reward the unencumbered (mostly male) workers who provide it.
更新： 这下面是Claudia Goldin 自己说的，她一直是有对女性的处境和地位的思考的！和隔壁楼那个所谓“冷静客观”实则断章取义，故作姿态的总结恰好相反！！！而看了那个，就开始惺惺作态的所谓“很懂的”们，贻笑大方！ ------------------------------------ One of the central findings of Goldin’s research is that differences in pay and labor force participation are due not to biological differences but to differences in the division of unpaid caregiving responsibilities between heterosexual couples. “We’ve come to a point in which women’s employment is extremely high, and yet there are inequalities,” Goldin said in a pre-dawn telephone interview. “And those inequalities are inequalities that occur within households.” --- Goldin’s most recent book, “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity” (2021), charted changes in the mix of work-life arrangements over five generational groups of mostly white, college-educated American women. The book also introduced Goldin’s concept of “greedy work,” in which employers in certain industries demand long hours — and reward the unencumbered (mostly male) workers who provide it. （以上取自哈佛的报道） --------------------------------- 以下：留给隔壁楼那一类的自诩“研究可以没有良心”的陈词滥调和误读。那种思想可以大行其道，甚至让人乍一看去以为真的是“胜利者”，恰好说明我们所处时代还有许多沉重的枷锁！很高兴，诺贝尔奖，还没那么差劲！反之，如果真的就如隔壁楼总结的那种陈词滥调，那不管它看上去多么高大上如诺贝尔奖，每一个普通人也可以有信心，大骂它一顿！（虽然是幸好，不是如此！） --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 社会不给女性提供条件照顾她们在兼顾事业和家庭时候的困难，这已经是系统性歧视。 现行的社会提供的各种条件，往往是以男性的视角来提供的，并没有考虑女性的特殊困难，并将之视为“公平”。请问怎样才是公平？像美国这样，没有完善的婚姻、育儿、托儿方面的支持，更没有针对女性的支持，所以女性只好在事业和家庭间做出取舍，这是整个社会在对女性“得了便宜卖乖”，利用女性的天性，剥削女性。这种情况下，讨论什么女性因为不能去更危险地方不能更长时间开车所以赚不到足够多的钱，有意思吗？为什么社会不能提供一个安全的环境？为什么社会不能提供足够的托儿让她们可以放心地开车赚钱？为什么车辆的设计不能更多考虑女性的需求？更别说，那个楼里面有的层主很正确地指出的，整个社会在观念上对女性必须做什么的不宽容？ 这就好比，在一个女性必须裹脚否则嫁不出去的社会里，讨论女性因为脚小所以无法扛重活，所以赚钱比男性少，这个有意思吗？是不是要诘问那个社会的女性，为什么要裹脚？为什么不干脆不裹脚不嫁，自己赚钱？社会提供了赚钱的途径给不裹脚不嫁的女性吗？ 同理，整个社会的上层，利用中下层的天性，迫使中下层大量投入到培养下一代，而这些优秀下一代所产出的成果，却大量被上层所拥有--这其实才是现在年轻人不愿意投入婚姻和家庭的真相。 人有爱、婚姻、子女的本能，这种伟大的本能被上层阶级、占优势地位的群体等等所利用了，反过来贬斥弱势群体不够投入。弱势群体为了获得和强势群体相同的投入产出比，只好牺牲自己的本能。--然后，强势群体又鞭笞弱势群体不生孩子、不顾家庭。 TMD这还给人活路吗？？？ 经济学家，也许自以为可以不像其他很多专家那样有良心？那请问你做学问干吗？为了赚大钱出大名？那你干脆整个容，顺应社会，28嫁给82，不是获利更丰满？ 这就是唯利是图、践踏弱势的社会的怪胎而已！ 珠箔飘灯 发表于 2023-10-12 09:52
你弄懂了？你这些贴子灰常好啊！非常典型的例子，向大家伙儿展示，一个立场决定结论，大字不识英文不懂的冒充专家，如隔壁楼一样，是如何丢人显眼的！ 我说了我不懂经济学，感谢楼上一位的提示，找到了一些官方的总结，说明这位女经济学家想说的和隔壁楼所谓总结的恰好相反！而你呢？“很懂的”？ “Claudia Goldin is a pioneering economist,” said Harvard President Claudine Gay. “Her groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of the gender wage gap and patterns of women’s participation in the labor market have helped deepen awareness of these issues and made progress possible. The entire Harvard community sends our congratulations to Professor Goldin for this remarkable achievement.” Hopi Hoekstra, Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, echoed Gay’s praise. “Through Professor Goldin’s groundbreaking, far-reaching research, we come to understand how the demands of balancing career and family are experienced personally, in individual lives, but in a broader context,” Hoekstra said. “With the long view of an historian and the exacting precision of an economist, she reveals both the enormous gains made by women in the workplace over time and the many ways in which true equity remains out of reach. I am thrilled to see Professor Goldin and her work recognized in this way.”
珠箔飘灯 发表于 2023-10-12 11:04
我经常说，不要讨论自己连基本facts都不知道的东西。 大家先去把这本书看了不好吗？ 她的facts很简单，就是it’s not a gender gap, it’s a housework gap because there is an extraordinarily large reward for “greedy work”. 至于解决办法，我早就，在华人，反复反复说了，追求事业的女性应该找个“管家”的配偶，或是不要追求子嗣，而不是抱怨社会。
我经常说，不要讨论自己连基本facts都不知道的东西。 大家先去把这本书看了不好吗？ 她的facts很简单，就是it’s not a gender gap, it’s a housework gap because there is an extraordinarily large reward for “greedy work”. 至于解决办法，我早就，在华人，反复反复说了，追求事业的女性应该找个“管家”的配偶，或是不要追求子嗣，而不是抱怨社会。 大衣被禁 发表于 2023-10-12 12:29
“这本书”是哪本？虽然我不懂经济学，起码懂大作一般是论文，书最多是其后的总结。好吧就看书吧，Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey toward Equity
A renowned economic historian traces women’s journey to close the gender wage gap and sheds new light on the continued struggle to achieve equity between couples at home A century ago, it was a given that a woman with a college degree had to choose between having a career and a family. Today, there are more female college graduates than ever before, and more women want to have a career and family, yet challenges persist at work and at home. This book traces how generations of women have responded to the problem of balancing career and family as the twentieth century experienced a sea change in gender equality, revealing why true equity for dual career couples remains frustratingly out of reach. Drawing on decades of her own groundbreaking research, Claudia Goldin provides a fresh, in-depth look at the diverse experiences of college-educated women from the 1900s to today, examining the aspirations they formed―and the barriers they faced―in terms of career, job, marriage, and children. She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men. Goldin demonstrates how the era of COVID-19 has severely hindered women’s advancement, yet how the growth of remote and flexible work may be the pandemic’s silver lining. Antidiscrimination laws and unbiased managers, while valuable, are not enough. Career and Family explains why we must make fundamental changes to the way we work and how we value caregiving if we are ever to achieve gender equality and couple equity.
“这本书”是哪本？虽然我不懂经济学，起码懂大作一般是论文，书最多是其后的总结。好吧就看书吧，Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey toward Equity
A renowned economic historian traces women’s journey to close the gender wage gap and sheds new light on the continued struggle to achieve equity between couples at home A century ago, it was a given that a woman with a college degree had to choose between having a career and a family. Today, there are more female college graduates than ever before, and more women want to have a career and family, yet challenges persist at work and at home. This book traces how generations of women have responded to the problem of balancing career and family as the twentieth century experienced a sea change in gender equality, revealing why true equity for dual career couples remains frustratingly out of reach. Drawing on decades of her own groundbreaking research, Claudia Goldin provides a fresh, in-depth look at the diverse experiences of college-educated women from the 1900s to today, examining the aspirations they formed―and the barriers they faced―in terms of career, job, marriage, and children. She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men. Goldin demonstrates how the era of COVID-19 has severely hindered women’s advancement, yet how the growth of remote and flexible work may be the pandemic’s silver lining. Antidiscrimination laws and unbiased managers, while valuable, are not enough. Career and Family explains why we must make fundamental changes to the way we work and how we value caregiving if we are ever to achieve gender equality and couple equity. 珠箔飘灯 发表于 2023-10-12 13:06
我贴的怎么就是你说的了？ She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men. ？??
我贴的怎么就是你说的了？ She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men. ？?? 珠箔飘灯 发表于 2023-10-12 13:14
这不就是我说的“it’s not a gender gap, it’s a housework gap because there is an extraordinarily large reward for “greedy work”.”
Harvard Magazine的采访，还有很多，你自己看去。 Nancy Kathryn Walecki: Okay, now, what does it mean when a job is greedy with an employee's time? Claudia Goldin: So one way to think about greedy jobs and there are several ways of thinking about them, so, is that if you work more hours, then you get more per hour in terms of your pay. So let's say you work 60 hours a week, you get more per hour than if you work 30 hours a week. And there are lots of potential reasons. That could be because of some fundamental aspects of the job, so that there is greater productivity. Or it could be that there's some fixed costs that gets spread out. But the greediness of jobs may also be, and generally is not just in terms of the number of hours. It's the case that, you know, ask women who are in the world of finance, how many hours a week they work. They work a lot of hours, but they may not work particular hours, and therefore, they are not going to get the higher income. So it may not be just in terms of the number of hours, but which hours? Is it, you know, the evening when you want to have dinner with the family? Is it the vacation? Is it the weekend? Is it you know, early in the morning? And it's also the case that there are many jobs, such as at universities that are "up or out" jobs, where you put in more time when you're in your 20s and early 30s than you might later.
你这个好像是对的。不过在网上看到Paul Douglas是有批评的： "…I was disconcerted to find that the economic and political conservatives had acquired almost complete dominance over my department and taught that market decisions were always right and profit values the supreme ones… The opinions of my colleagues would have confined government to the eighteenth-century functions of justice, police, and arms, which I thought had been insufficient even for that time and were certainly so for ours. These men would neither use statistical data to develop economic theory nor accept critical analysis of the economic system… (Frank) Knight was now openly hostile, and his disciples seemed to be everywhere. If I stayed, it would be in an unfriendly environment." 现在美国就像大清末年，祖宗之法不可变，纠结是否要完全按照所谓宪法本意，胶柱鼓瑟……未尝不是和这种mindset一脉相承 还有这个，说他们主导智利的改革，导致财富集中到少数人手中，引发社会巨大矛盾。这不也是美国目前面对的问题？ Finally, the school also has been criticized for training economists who advised the Chilean military junta during the 1970s and 1980s. However, they were credited with transforming Chile into Latin America''s best performing economy (see Miracle of Chile) with GDP per capita increasing from US$693 at the start of 1975 (the year Milton Friedman met with dictator Augusto Pinochet; ninth highest of 12 South American countries) to $14,528 by the end of 2014 (the second highest in South America).[76] In the years since the reforms were introduced, the economic system implemented by the "Chicago Boys" (a label given to this group of economists) has mostly remained in place.[77] The percent of total income earned by the richest 20% of the Chilean population in 2006 was 56.8%, while the percent of total income earned by the poorest 20% of the Chilean population was 4.1%, leaving a strong middle class earning 39.1% of total income.[78]Chile''s Gini index (measure of income distribution) was 52.0 in 2006, compared to 24.7 of Denmark (most equally distributed) and 74.3 of Namibia (most unequally distributed).[78] Chile has the widest inequality gap of any nation in the OECD.[79]
---
Goldin’s most recent book, “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity” (2021), charted changes in the mix of work-life arrangements over five generational groups of mostly white, college-educated American women. The book also introduced Goldin’s concept of “greedy work,” in which employers in certain industries demand long hours — and reward the unencumbered (mostly male) workers who provide it.
（以上取自哈佛的报道） ---------------------------------
以下：留给隔壁楼那一类的自诩“研究可以没有良心”的陈词滥调和误读。那种思想可以大行其道，甚至让人乍一看去以为真的是“胜利者”，恰好说明我们所处时代还有许多沉重的枷锁！很高兴，诺贝尔奖，还没那么差劲！反之，如果真的就如隔壁楼总结的那种陈词滥调，那不管它看上去多么高大上如诺贝尔奖，每一个普通人也可以有信心，大骂它一顿！（虽然是幸好，不是如此！）
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
社会不给女性提供条件照顾她们在兼顾事业和家庭时候的困难，这已经是系统性歧视。
现行的社会提供的各种条件，往往是以男性的视角来提供的，并没有考虑女性的特殊困难，并将之视为“公平”。请问怎样才是公平？像美国这样，没有完善的婚姻、育儿、托儿方面的支持，更没有针对女性的支持，所以女性只好在事业和家庭间做出取舍，这是整个社会在对女性“得了便宜卖乖”，利用女性的天性，剥削女性。这种情况下，讨论什么女性因为不能去更危险地方不能更长时间开车所以赚不到足够多的钱，有意思吗？为什么社会不能提供一个安全的环境？为什么社会不能提供足够的托儿让她们可以放心地开车赚钱？为什么车辆的设计不能更多考虑女性的需求？更别说，那个楼里面有的层主很正确地指出的，整个社会在观念上对女性必须做什么的不宽容？
这就好比，在一个女性必须裹脚否则嫁不出去的社会里，讨论女性因为脚小所以无法扛重活，所以赚钱比男性少，这个有意思吗？是不是要诘问那个社会的女性，为什么要裹脚？为什么不干脆不裹脚不嫁，自己赚钱？社会提供了赚钱的途径给不裹脚不嫁的女性吗？
同理，整个社会的上层，利用中下层的天性，迫使中下层大量投入到培养下一代，而这些优秀下一代所产出的成果，却大量被上层所拥有--这其实才是现在年轻人不愿意投入婚姻和家庭的真相。
人有爱、婚姻、子女的本能，这种伟大的本能被上层阶级、占优势地位的群体等等所利用了，反过来贬斥弱势群体不够投入。弱势群体为了获得和强势群体相同的投入产出比，只好牺牲自己的本能。--然后，强势群体又鞭笞弱势群体不生孩子、不顾家庭。
TMD这还给人活路吗？？？
经济学家，也许自以为可以不像其他很多专家那样有良心？那请问你做学问干吗？为了赚大钱出大名？那你干脆整个容，顺应社会，28嫁给82，不是获利更丰满？
这就是唯利是图、践踏弱势的社会的怪胎而已！
我是非常感激 Claudia Goldin 的研究。其实，作为妻子，作为妈妈，很多妈妈跟我一样，都很深刻的感受到社会对女性非常不公平，但是只是在个体的抱怨，而 Claudia Goldin 的研究 为我们女性 最真实的现状发出了最强的声音。
说了我不懂经济学。你有没有看旁边一个楼“不为女性说话的女性经济学家”什么的，按那里面说的，这位经济学家的意思是，女性赚不到一样多，因为她们不能工作得像男性一样多。我仅仅是看了那个楼有感而发。那个楼说的和你说的这个恰好相反。
这位经济学家本人，在用冷酷的数字说点“事实”的同时，有指出过社会对女性的系统性歧视吗？
你是看了隔壁楼有感而发而扣大帽子吗？
她系统性的指出这个问题就足够了啊
但她的态度并不是指出这个问题啊。相反她是很“冷静”地指出，这是女性自己的问题啊！你看看旁边那个楼，就是这样说的。至于那个楼对她的解读对不对，是另一个问题。
没错！ 而且这种散发霉味的世界观，不仅仅是针对女性的，既然旁边那个楼提到所谓芝加哥学派，我严重怀疑这个学派，其“保守主义”态度就是对所有弱势群体都是这种态度。所谓“社会就这样，不服你咬我呀”。 我呸
这位经济学家指出的facts是框在box里面的facts，却对这个box本身没有任何怀疑、质问、思考，这样的facts用不着她指出，更用不着诺贝尔奖来肯定。
当然，诺贝尔奖你也可以说不过如此。
我只是心疼那百万奖金，对于穷人来说还是可以改变一个家庭命运的存在！噢，不，也许十个百个家庭！
这种吃饱了撑的研究和诺贝尔奖，看似高大上，其功用，其意义，还不如给一个贫困儿童（就比如版上提到过的滕妈）一千美元，让她孩子的牙可以治疗！
就好像这个现行世界上的许多，看上去美丽高大的，还不如哪怕为穷人流的一滴眼泪，也许甚至还不如一个零元购！（当然，零元购不劳而获，为穷人流泪也只是流泪没有真正帮助。我只是说，论无耻和无用，很多貌似高大上的，也就那样）
这个倒是对的。希望抛砖引玉。
虽然不认同这位大妈的某些言论，但她这话至少是冷静理性的。
应该是对她的研究成果背后原因的质疑和探索才有的社会意义吧
“Goldin has been saying for many years that the way work is organized in many professions is especially female-unfriendly,” says Barbara Petrongolo, an economist at the University of Oxford, UK. Petrongolo says that companies are now starting to change their practices with the introduction of flexible, family-friendly working arrangements and the provision of on-site creches. Some of these changes have happened as a result of policy interventions, but some are coming bottom-up from firms that see the advantages of attracting female talent.
没来得及看完，匆忙来驳斥一下你。这是Nature的文章，还不是NYT那种。按这些，隔壁那个楼完全断章取义（估计是如你一样的大男人总结的），Goldin是有带良心的批判的。
所以，是谁不能接受不利于自己的结论？？？
你根本都没弄懂经济学家是做什么的，就别在这瞎下结论了
研究人员目的就是解释在众多事实前提下的客观规律，而不是从道德层面评价应该怎么做
你这种脑子糊涂充满主观臆断的人是无法理解这种理性严谨的工作的，别贻笑大方了
你弄懂了？你这些贴子灰常好啊！非常典型的例子，向大家伙儿展示，一个立场决定结论，大字不识英文不懂的冒充专家，如隔壁楼一样，是如何丢人显眼的！
我说了我不懂经济学，感谢楼上一位的提示，找到了一些官方的总结，说明这位女经济学家想说的和隔壁楼所谓总结的恰好相反！而你呢？“很懂的”？
“Claudia Goldin is a pioneering economist,” said Harvard President Claudine Gay. “Her groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of the gender wage gap and patterns of women’s participation in the labor market have helped deepen awareness of these issues and made progress possible. The entire Harvard community sends our congratulations to Professor Goldin for this remarkable achievement.” Hopi Hoekstra, Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, echoed Gay’s praise. “Through Professor Goldin’s groundbreaking, far-reaching research, we come to understand how the demands of balancing career and family are experienced personally, in individual lives, but in a broader context,” Hoekstra said. “With the long view of an historian and the exacting precision of an economist, she reveals both the enormous gains made by women in the workplace over time and the many ways in which true equity remains out of reach. I am thrilled to see Professor Goldin and her work recognized in this way.”
手动点赞
我经常说，不要讨论自己连基本facts都不知道的东西。 大家先去把这本书看了不好吗？ 她的facts很简单，就是it’s not a gender gap, it’s a housework gap because there is an extraordinarily large reward for “greedy work”.
至于解决办法，我早就，在华人，反复反复说了，追求事业的女性应该找个“管家”的配偶，或是不要追求子嗣，而不是抱怨社会。
芝加哥学派所谓的市场论放大一点就是丛林法则，社会达尔文主义。
我很少挺女权的，因为我也一直以为，女性如果想要A，那就必须舍弃B。
但我同时也能感受到系统性的歧视，甚至我觉得生活在这个男权社会的大部分人都会有不自觉的歧视。系统性的歧视反应在：“追求事业的女人”和“追求事业的男人”仍然在职场上受到不平等的待遇，哪怕她们不追求子嗣，哪怕她们已经有了“管家”的配偶。她们被不自觉地冠上了很多标签，使得她们职场的天花板（比男人）更难突破；这都不是她们的能力，野心和Priority的问题。
我因为只做过低级工作，所以我没有亲眼见过。我也认识很多不生或是极其完婚的女性做到partner /ceo. 但是我相信你说的这种现象的存在，我也认识为此奋斗的女性（上诉歧视）。我支持她们也觉得她们做的非常了不起。当然我也听过男人说他们被反向歧视的故事。 但是华人上的抱怨从来不是这方面的。大家抱怨的是，女性要多做家务是因为她们是女人，男人不做家务是因为他们是男人。这个我是不同意的。我认为女性多做家务是因为女人找了个少做家务的男人还选择了和他生孩子。男人不做家务是因为这些女人找了不做家务的男人还不离婚。
“这本书”是哪本？虽然我不懂经济学，起码懂大作一般是论文，书最多是其后的总结。好吧就看书吧，Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey toward Equity
A renowned economic historian traces women’s journey to close the gender wage gap and sheds new light on the continued struggle to achieve equity between couples at home
A century ago, it was a given that a woman with a college degree had to choose between having a career and a family. Today, there are more female college graduates than ever before, and more women want to have a career and family, yet challenges persist at work and at home. This book traces how generations of women have responded to the problem of balancing career and family as the twentieth century experienced a sea change in gender equality, revealing why true equity for dual career couples remains frustratingly out of reach.
Drawing on decades of her own groundbreaking research, Claudia Goldin provides a fresh, in-depth look at the diverse experiences of college-educated women from the 1900s to today, examining the aspirations they formed―and the barriers they faced―in terms of career, job, marriage, and children. She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men. Goldin demonstrates how the era of COVID-19 has severely hindered women’s advancement, yet how the growth of remote and flexible work may be the pandemic’s silver lining.
Antidiscrimination laws and unbiased managers, while valuable, are not enough. Career and Family explains why we must make fundamental changes to the way we work and how we value caregiving if we are ever to achieve gender equality and couple equity.
你贴的不就是我说的吗？ 所以我说，你别讨论了，您先去看看书吧。
我也有此印象。不过这个Goldin虽然是芝加哥大学毕业的，是否就属于芝加哥学派？
我贴的怎么就是你说的了？
She shows how many professions are “greedy,” paying disproportionately more for long hours and weekend work, and how this perpetuates disparities between women and men.
？??
这不就是我说的“it’s not a gender gap, it’s a housework gap because there is an extraordinarily large reward for “greedy work”.”
可是这个work本身是greedy的，也就是这种设置本身就不公平了啊
公不公平是个道德概念。我不讨论道德。 我一个韭菜不为资本家说话，但我请个阿姨还愿意多花钱z请不请假，不早退，不是朝九晚五到点走人，一周能工作80小时，有需要可以随时加班。
您搞错了。 我什么时候要女人去适应greedy work?我在华人都说了几年包括在这楼里，追求事业或是事业和家庭平衡的女人应该找做家务男，不允许男人greedy work.谁找greedy work男，谁活该啊，和你的性别没关系，这只跟你的选择有关啊。
你不讨论道德，可是Goldin明确说了她觉得对女人不公平呀，接受采访时候。可见讨论道德不是什么不对的事情。你不讨论道德你要社达，也不是就更符合（她所认为的）经济学的本义啊
你上个采访链接。
这个greedy work, 不仅仅是男性的事儿，是设置这种greedy work的奖励机制的问题。你的格局可以大点儿
哈哈哈哈。 我当然可以像你一样开口闭口大格局啦。 但我就是要找greedy work保姆，我还是不打脸了。
Harvard Magazine的采访，还有很多，你自己看去。
Nancy Kathryn Walecki: Okay, now, what does it mean when a job is greedy with an employee's time? Claudia Goldin: So one way to think about greedy jobs and there are several ways of thinking about them, so, is that if you work more hours, then you get more per hour in terms of your pay. So let's say you work 60 hours a week, you get more per hour than if you work 30 hours a week. And there are lots of potential reasons. That could be because of some fundamental aspects of the job, so that there is greater productivity. Or it could be that there's some fixed costs that gets spread out. But the greediness of jobs may also be, and generally is not just in terms of the number of hours. It's the case that, you know, ask women who are in the world of finance, how many hours a week they work. They work a lot of hours, but they may not work particular hours, and therefore, they are not going to get the higher income. So it may not be just in terms of the number of hours, but which hours? Is it, you know, the evening when you want to have dinner with the family? Is it the vacation? Is it the weekend? Is it you know, early in the morning? And it's also the case that there are many jobs, such as at universities that are "up or out" jobs, where you put in more time when you're in your 20s and early 30s than you might later.
你找呗，不懂你得意啥。因为有保姆？
“我一个韭菜不为资本家说话，但我请个阿姨还愿意多花钱z请不请假，不早退，不是朝九晚五到点走人，一周能工作80小时，有需要可以随时加班。” 我们很难沟通。 我同意你。你说的对。
是很难沟通。我看见的资本家们每周工作8小时，自己生孩子自己带孩子，人家爱思考社会公平游戏规则一类问题，不思考保姆和工作80小时问题。
所以我说啊，韭菜和资本家的生活是不一样的，我不关心资本家的想法，我需要greedy work保姆，我就不说打脸的话了。 你不需要greedy work保姆园丁水电工，你自然可以格局大一些。我很羡慕你。
就像前面一个层主说的，同一个黑奴系统，有的就想怎么老实干活刻薄自家人以便最好地适应这个系统。 这样也挺好，自己高兴就好。 别非要别人也承认这样才是经济学就好。
你一定要说经济学做道德评价。当然是你的自由。我从来没要你承认过什么。我只是说先读书在讨论。
你是你，别人不用和你一样。你不是经济学盖章核定人。
你这些论述矛盾之处太多，我一时懒得下口。
你这个好像是对的。不过在网上看到Paul Douglas是有批评的：
"…I was disconcerted to find that the economic and political conservatives had acquired almost complete dominance over my department and taught that market decisions were always right and profit values the supreme ones… The opinions of my colleagues would have confined government to the eighteenth-century functions of justice, police, and arms, which I thought had been insufficient even for that time and were certainly so for ours. These men would neither use statistical data to develop economic theory nor accept critical analysis of the economic system… (Frank) Knight was now openly hostile, and his disciples seemed to be everywhere. If I stayed, it would be in an unfriendly environment."
现在美国就像大清末年，祖宗之法不可变，纠结是否要完全按照所谓宪法本意，胶柱鼓瑟……未尝不是和这种mindset一脉相承
还有这个，说他们主导智利的改革，导致财富集中到少数人手中，引发社会巨大矛盾。这不也是美国目前面对的问题？
Finally, the school also has been criticized for training economists who advised the Chilean military junta during the 1970s and 1980s. However, they were credited with transforming Chile into Latin America''s best performing economy (see Miracle of Chile) with GDP per capita increasing from US$693 at the start of 1975 (the year Milton Friedman met with dictator Augusto Pinochet; ninth highest of 12 South American countries) to $14,528 by the end of 2014 (the second highest in South America).[76] In the years since the reforms were introduced, the economic system implemented by the "Chicago Boys" (a label given to this group of economists) has mostly remained in place.[77] The percent of total income earned by the richest 20% of the Chilean population in 2006 was 56.8%, while the percent of total income earned by the poorest 20% of the Chilean population was 4.1%, leaving a strong middle class earning 39.1% of total income.[78]Chile''s Gini index (measure of income distribution) was 52.0 in 2006, compared to 24.7 of Denmark (most equally distributed) and 74.3 of Namibia (most unequally distributed).[78] Chile has the widest inequality gap of any nation in the OECD.[79]
我没时间。白天 greedy work, 晚上 greedy kids。 在雪国列车上，不开心又不敢跳出去。