Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Female Labor as a Commodity

Most of my epiphanies strike when I'm in the middle of nowhere, driving to some destination or another, where my mind has nothing to do but wander.  And I remember precisely when this epiphany struck because it's the only way I'll ever remember the town of Midland, South Dakota.  Specifically:

Why is it OK that Hershey's chocolate costs less than Godiva, but the world has its panties in a bundle that women make less than men?

This then sent my brain down the road of pricing, commodities, and efficient market theory, which I all sussed out by the time I reached Phillip, South Dakota.  So let me explain.

Different commodities of different quality have different prices.  This reflects the value they offer to whoever uses them.  Hershey's chocolate, which is about the worst chocolate you can ever buy, is appropriately priced at 3 cents a pound (or whatever it is) because only kids with no palate can manage to eat that stuff.  Godiva chocolates on the other hand are priced around $.50 to $1 per piece because they are not only made from superior ingredients, but also taste infinitely better.

Sweet crude oil has a higher price than heavy oil.  This is because it's easier to refine and has a higher viscosity making it easier to pump and transport.  Refiners and extractors know this and the market reflects this in sweet crude's pricing.

And coffee, of its infinite varieties and blends, has an amazing variation in pricing all based on its quality, where it's from, is it organic, is it fair-trade, and did it come out of a cats ass (not joking).

Matter of fact, nearly everything we buy, commodity or not, has price variation based on it's quality, efficiency, profitability, taste, and all the other variables that ultimately result in value.

Ferrari's versus Fiats.
Bush Mills Black vs. Canadian Windsor
Nordstrom's vs. Wal-Mart
Pure breds vs. mutts
Regular vs. premium

You name it, pretty much everything we buy in the market has gradiated pricing to reflect differing values.

And it's the exact same thing between male and female labor.

While the lie politically correct excuse for the lower pay of women is "sexism," my epiphany forces me to ask a simple question - why is the market efficient at pricing nearly millions of goods and services in the economy, but when it comes to women, it's all of the sudden "sexism?"  Am I to believe the market, which prices everything accurately from lumber to licorice, from manure to moccasins, all of the sudden just "fails" when it comes to valuing women's labor?

The truth is the myth of the female wage gap has been thoroughly debunked that any intellectually honest person (male or female) knows and accepts this.  They know women disproportionately major in worthless subjects, take more time off, work less, etc. etc.  And when you account for these variables, the wage gap disappears.  But I am not here to debate the wage gap any further.  I know leftists and feminists will forever cling to it because it supports their religion and their profitable victim-whoring industry.  I am here, however, to shoot another simple, but logical torpedo into the wage gap myth that the average idiot on the street can understand.

For example, Dennis Prager pointed out that if women made 25% less for EQUAL WORK, all corporations would fire all men overnight and only women would be employed.  This is a simple, logical argument that normies and morons can comprehend.  Because of this it does more to fight the lie of the female wage gap than any amount of studies, research, statistics, or math that flies over most people's heads.  And though my argument may be a bit more nuanced with the concept of "efficient market hypothesis," the average idiot on the street, even your average liberal arts major, can understand that if the market can accurately price the varying qualities of millions of goods, services, and commodities, then it's also likely valuing female labor precisely where it should be.

Still, I wouldn't hold your breath in hope this bit of economic logic ends the professional victim-whoring wage gap debate.
______________________________________________

Buy my latest book "Reconnaissance Man!"
And if you really want to close the wage gap, buy my other book "Worthless!"

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your crude oil statement is getting two items mixed up. Light and heavy is viscosity, sweet and sour are sulfur content. Light is easiest to pump, and sweet is easier to process. Just a heads up from Texas!

Jason said...

I do not understand the Hershey's hate. Sure, it's not the worlds best chocolate (Lindt IMO), but it's hardly dogshit. I'll happily each Hershey's chocolate bars when I need a chocolaty snack.

Anonymous said...

Heavier grades of oil have a higher viscosity than lighter grades of oil. Just a technical correction to your otherwise sound Cappy analysis.

Anonymous said...

Heavier grades of oil have a higher viscosity than lighter grades of oil. Just a technical correction to your otherwise sound Cappy analysis.

Jay Dee said...

Actually, when the comparison is controlled for equal education and experience, women typically are paid more than men.

Anonymous said...

Math is hard:

instead of jailing one prostitute for selling sex, leftists think its easier to run after one thousand men buying sex. The working class pays for policing all men:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-fellatio-cafe-planned-near-paddington-station-claims-geneva-businessman-a3311406.html

elmer said...

FYI your books being pirated :

http://freebookspot.es/Comments.aspx?Element_ID=969046

http://freebookspot.es/Comments.aspx?Element_ID=969044

Anonymous said...

I am a female with a technical degree, MBA, and other certifications. I make more than my male co-workers...you know why? I work harder, produce more, and am more valuable.

Take The Red Pill said...

Leftist "Victimology" politics always has a demand for some group and/or person to play the "Victim" who is being 'oppressed' by the Big Bad Oppressor -- usually an Evil White Man, all Evil White Men, or especially a Evil Rich White Man.

Anonymous said...

And you have tits.

Glen Filthie said...

...until your kids get sick and you have to stay home to care for them, or you're having your period, or you get triggered at work by some awful man at work who says something you don't like.

My buddy was being groomed for a management position for the last three years. But he was white, and even worse. - a Christian. They parachuted in a native woman instead and she lasted 8 months - and ran the dept. into the ground while she was there. I see shit like this every day now, Chickie. That turd you're polishing isn't gold, and you won't be selling that PC bullshit to me.

dalrock said...

There is a related myth that in the past employers paid women less because it was not only legal but encouraged (for the good of families). While it is true that it was legal and encouraged, outlawing the practice didn't make any difference. I showed this some time back with a chart using feminist supplied data: https://dalrock.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/equal_pay_act_effect.png

In short, it would have required an effective cartel to make such a thing happen, and there was clearly not. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/the-cheating-hearts-of-the-patriarchal-cartel/

minuteman said...

During the industrial revolution exactly that happened. Most of the people working in English cotton mills were women, because they worked cheap. Coal miners, who got paid on productivity were exclusively men.

3:59 Ramp Investors said...

And next Captain Cappy will make their heads explode with mocking use of phrases such as "stochastic volatility models for pricing", "regulatory compliance capital load",
and "excess marginal social utility", upon which we will have to engage the services of "professional waste management practitioners" to clean up the "influx of unregulated effluent flows" that will result.

:-)