Could the Gender Pay Gap Actually Be A Sign That Women Prioritize Socially Valuable Careers?
A recent report from The Wall Street Journal analyzes data from early-career college graduates, finding that a gender pay gap starts early.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal published a report analyzing data from 1.7 million college graduates examining how the gender pay gap manifests itself in the first few years of college graduates' careers. They found that even for graduates with the same major, women often earned strikingly less than their male counterparts. For example, among Georgetown accounting majors, male graduates earned 55 percent more than female graduates just three years after graduation.
The data is "evidence that pay gaps between men and women often form earlier than is widely perceived," says the Journal, adding that "economists who have long examined pay gaps between men and women cite the so-called motherhood penalty—referring to the perception that mothers are less committed to their jobs—and say this affects hiring, promotions, and salaries. Determining why those gaps appear earlier isn't simple."
However, is this picture as dire as it seems? Among several explanations the Journal gives, including internalized sexism and outright discrimination, is worker preference.
Take, for example, the University of Michigan School of Law, where the median male graduate out-earns the median female graduate by $45,000. "The school said that in the classes of 2015 and 2016, 237 men took jobs at law firms, while 158 women did. Fourteen men headed into public-interest jobs, whereas three times as many women did. The classes those years had slightly more men than women." Women appear more likely to prefer notoriously low-paying public-interest law over a grueling job at a law firm. As one woman law grad, now a public defender, told the Journal, "With corporate law, I could make all the money in the world, but I'd rather get some kind of fulfillment from my job."
While sexist discrimination is difficult to disprove, there is evidence that women earn less because they prefer personally fulfilling work over highly-paid work. Rather than viewing women's reticence to take on higher paying jobs that provide relatively low value to society as a symptom of rampant sexism, we should celebrate women's freedom to choose what career path they want. If women prefer work that contributes to society or gives ample work-life balance, then a "pay gap" should be little cause for alarm.
"Often this whole discussion starts from kind of a sexist premise: that we should focus on something where men seem to be outperforming women, so we focus on something that has high value among males," Hadley Heath Manning, the Vice President for Policy at the Independent Women's Forum, tells Reason. "Men seem to prioritize wages above almost anything in their job search or in their career preparation. And so we focus on that factor, and we compare women to men and we say 'You don't measure up.'"
There may be a "pay gap," but one could easily argue there is also a "social value gap," with women being more likely to gravitate towards non-profit and public service work.
"We should encourage workplace flexibility, we should encourage employers to offer telework and so forth, but they won't do that if the goal is to make men and women workers into widgets who all do exactly the same job for exactly the same number of hours," says Heath Manning.
It is fair to examine why many of the jobs women prefer are paid less than the jobs men prefer, though much of this difference is self-explanatory: Working 40 hours a week at a nonprofit will not and cannot pay as much as working 80 hours at a consulting firm. However, other phenomena, such as the decline in salaries as a field becomes female-dominated, are worth critically examining. However, treating any pay gap as evidence of discrimination ignores the desirability of tradeoffs and choice. Assuming all types of jobs are available to all types of equally qualified workers, it is good that the workers can choose between various combinations of labor hours, monetary compensation, flexibility, and personal enrichment.
"We have to be careful the message that we're sending to women, particularly young women, about the expectations they should have in the workplace," says Heath Manning. "My fear, when we don't carefully handle the wage gap discussion and put it in the right context, is that women will perceive that this is normal, that discrimination is normal, and that being treated less than is something they should just accept."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
yes. It is also a sign that men are more interested in and able to do demanding and dangerous jobs. The worse a job sucks, the more you have to pay someone to do it. Jobs that are fun and rewarding don't pay very much because there are lots of people willing to do such jobs.
Well, jobs that are fun and rewarding and don't require special skills or abilities that most people don't have.
That's not remotely true. Plenty of fun, rewarding jobs also require high levels of talent and skill -- professional athletes and musicians, for example. Also artists and writers. I think that back in the day, 'National Geographic Photographer' was a sweet gig. Really tough to get though.
I think you misunderstand me. That was in response to "Jobs that are fun and rewarding don't pay very much because there are lots of people willing to do such jobs."
I am a student and I do work part time on this website to meet my needs. One who is jobless or want to earn more money for himself, (res-13) should must try this because this is really very easy and less time consuming and also advantageous without investing any amount.
.
SEE MORE:>>>> https://googlejobs0945.netlify.app/
I'm not sure why you believe that "athletes, musicians, artists, and writers" have more rewarding jobs than other people. Most people in those fields have really shitty lives and pay a high price for their choice of job.
No doubt many aspiring pro athletes have lousy lives: hard work, strained relationships, low pay, uncertain chance of the big reward.
On the other hand, the openings are so few and far between, we seem to have vastly more people who want those jobs than can get them. And that tells me that for a lot of the people trying to get into the majors, the costs are totally worth it, even given the likelihood that you won't make it.
Would I choose that career? Goodness no. But then again, I wouldn't choose to be a doctor, lawyer, or manager either. I'm glad there are people with different skills and preferences who want to do those jobs so I can be an engineer.
There are huge numbers of jobs for "athletes, musicians, artists, and writers"; they just don't pay well and aren't very visible.
So, we're coming up with the term "socially valuable" as a term now. I guess it's good if we can finally admit that a huge thing in the pay gap is women and men choosing different work. If we need to call that "socially valuable" (because fuck you construction workers, you job has no social value get fucked) then whatever.
I like how you renamed "Socially Useless" or "Social Luxuries" as "Socially Valuable".
In a free market, those jobs that are difficult, demanding, and especially necessary, are paid more that those that are easy, and optional luxuries.
I'm just quoting the article itself. Pointing out the new verbiage they put in play there to try to make people feel better about being paid less.
"try to make people feel better about being paid less."
You're not thinking far enough into the future. They're laying the groundwork for future arguments about bumping up the pay via legislation for their pet careers because they provide " social value. "
John Whiteman graduated the top of his law class and went to work at a top law firm and now makes twice what Joan Blacklady makes working at the public health center.
All he does is facilitate dumb corporate stuff using his specialized knowledge. She organizes fun public events to increase autism awareness in public schools. Why shouldn't she be paid what he's paid? Her work has a social value score of 85 and his is -20.
We need a law to address this gross injustice.
^THIS
their disdain for the working class is showing, again
Emma, I suspect, cannot explain why, if a company can pay a woman also half of what they pay a man for identical work --- why men are hired at all?
Seems like a huge detriment to the bottom line, no?
Of course, anybody proclaiming a gender gap is already a clown you can safely ignore.
STOP USING LOGIC, YOU MALE OPPRESSOR!
This is particularly odious verbiage because we already have a good way to measure shit that is "Socially Valuable". We call that a salary.
Seriously, if society is not willing to pay you a living wage for your work, that's probably because society doesn't value that work. And if you are earning less than some other graduate from your school, then maybe your work isn't as valued as his.
Form ESGs, to GMO Labling, to "Socially Valuable" job descriptions, what we regularly see is a bunch of leftists denying the pricing mechanisms because society doesn't find their shit as important as they think it is. This isn't school where their worth was merely measured on their cleverness. It is the real world where you can be clever and poor, unless you are willing to use that cleverness to actually solve other peoples' problems.
"Social value" is a delusional construct invented by people who want to control others but have no money, and can't influence the marketplace (or society) in any way that respects liberty.
I believe marx referred to that as....well everything he believed in
"If the market price were a person, he or she would be the wisest, most clever, most powerful person on the planet, causing the multitudes, even the ruling class with enough weaponry to destroy the planet, to submit and bow down in awe. The simple and unassuming price — so humble and yet so decisive for human decision making — is this concise point of data, a mere number, that actually causes nations to rise and fall, topples the mighty, and humbles the arrogant with its truth-telling, rational, and yet unpredictable movements."
Jefferey A Tucker
"socially valuable"
A.K.A, non-essential?
^Exactly
A man's value as a mate for women is far more dependent on his wealth than vice versa. This is another way that the "pay gap" is caused by women themselves. Fewer men would be willing to sacrifice their life choices for money if more women were open to marriage to a lower income man.
So women tend to be drawn to jobs that indulge their smug self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority over compensation? Interesting conclusion.
Women can find a guy to support them. Men generally can't do that and are expected to support themselves. So, it would be surprising if women were not more likely to choose careers on the basis of something other than money.
"Men generally can't do that"
And no matter how much the left wants to call gender "just a construct" this will always be true: Relationships where the woman provides for the family and the man does not have an expiration. Unfortunately for the woke, we have evolved this way.
Her panties aint gonna stay wet when she is paying all the bills and he is sitting on the couch, or working some dead end job, or tending to the cleaning. Marxist reprogramming wont change this. She will always be on the prowl for AT MINIMUM, her equal. Ive seen 3 different female docs who were married to guys that were basically deadbeats. 100% divorce rate among high earning women in this scenario that I have personally known.
I have personal experience with two successful marriages with a stay-at-home dad. In the first one, the dad became disabled (Crohn's disease and arthritis as a result) so his job, which involved physical work was not tenable and she had a good-paying office job. The dad does a great job with the kids (now teenagers).
The second couple I know like this had a woman who is just a really over-achieving energetic type. They are Catholic and have 5 kids. She is a VP in a tech firm. He is just a very laid back guy with a construction company and flexible hours. They do fine.
I'm sure there are a lot of failures in marriages like this where the woman is the primary earner, but it can succeed.
I'm seeing why yours are the exceptions though just from your description. The first one, is not the man's fault that he can't work. Which helps so resentment from building up. The second one, he's running a company. He's not being paid the same, but work load wise and type their jobs are similar. So despite the lack of pay he's an equal.
Yes, of course. The idea that the types of jobs they choose are of the moral busybody sort is an odd new twist.
I was also reading in an almost certainly more accurate "women tend to be drawn to jobs that *they think* will indulge their smug self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority over compensation". The number of women buried under endless mountains of social work that they can't possibly dent must be legion, but nowhere near the number of women who walk into a job doe-eyed and effervescent only to, within a couple years, if not months, become absolutely convinced that everyone except them is an incompetent bitch.
You spend a year and make $100K doing something you realize you hate, you still have $100K. You spend a year making peanuts doing something you realize you hate, you've got one less year, a load of hate, and some peanuts.
"Being a freedom fighter, a force for good, is a wonderful thing, but the pay...sucks.:- Bester, Babylon 5.
Premise is false. There is no pay gap. People are paid for the jobs they choose. There will always, so long as humans are producing, be more women who choose to not work and men who work to provide for the family. That's a lot of "0's" getting averaged into the balance sheet in the women's column. Simple as that.
There is nothing more to this story.
Did you read the article? The part where they pointed out you can clearly measure a pay difference between men and women? And that you ought not jump to the conclusion that it's caused (or not caused) by sexism and discrimination?
There _is_ a gender pay gap. We've know it for years. Problem is, people (and I think you're in this camp) see the words "gender pay gap" and assume it's code for "rampant sexual discrimination". The whole point of the article and study was to tease those two apart. Yes, there's a pay gap, no it's not obviously and entirely caused by sexism on the part of employers, and yes, that raises some unanswered questions.
No, there is not a "gender pay gap" because the idea of a "pay gap" only makes sense when you control for the work. Would you say there is a "pay gap" between the two fry cooks at McDonalds, one of whom brings home $50 a shift and another who brings home $25 a shift but whose shift is half as long? Never. You normalize for the work. The same holds true for the nature of the work as for the quantity. There is no "pay gap" between high-rise steelworker and the guy who sells ice cream at the beach.
The point of the article is not that 'there's a pay gap but it's explainable for the reasons above' - it's that 'there's no pay gap in the first place because you were trying to compare apples and oranges.'
It also, intrinsically, assumes you know better than the employer, employees, and market where wages should be. Moreover, the notion of a 'gender pay gap' implies you know better than the market when, in reality, you have even less of a clue.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that a portion of any gap is because men are generally indifferent to whom they work with while women prefer to work for and with men. Would men getting paid more because women want to pay them more constitute a pay gap? For decades, men were the primary earners while women were the primary spenders. If a man earns $1000, gives it to his wife who chooses to spend $500 on herself and $500 on him, where's the gap?
You're right and wrong.
A "gender pay gap" is just what it says it is and means exactly what the words say it means: men and women have different income. It says nothing about why they have different incomes. That it exists says nothing about whether it's good, bad, or indifferent. And it definitely exists: on a whole, men earn more than women. If you deny it exists, it sounds like you're denying measurable facts.
What you are denying, and the fine article makes this quite clear, is the gender pay gap isn't as simple as "women make 80% as much as men for the same work." That's been proven in numerous studies. But that's a different statement. It behooves us to use our words to be clear in our meanings.
IMHO, one of the big problems in US politics today is we have so many code phrases which literally mean X but imply meaning Y and Y is what people are all upset about. We're never going to reach any sort of understanding unless we become more clear about what we're saying and what we're not saying.
If you're reading this site, you should be used to that. Libertarians are often caught in the bind. "Shut down Department of Ed." (because we implicitly think think states can educate kids without oversight from the feds). "Oh, you hate public education and want minorities to stay poor!" our opponents respond. We both understood the stated words and disagreed on the implications.
No. You're part of the obfuscation.
If you wanted the stated words to mean something you would rightly recognize that "Shut down the department of education" contains no explicit implications with regard to public education in general and certainly no implication to the wealth of minorities.
If I say "Blue is not red." and you reply with "You're right and you're wrong. Some people interpret blue as red." You're one of the sacks of shit responsible for the problem.
I recommend you read the book "Stealing From Each Other" written by an economist from Texas A&M. Using US Dept. of Labor statistics he proves that when work hours, continuous years of service and other economic factors are included, there is no pay gap.
Of course, getting the "same" education but choosing different career paths is one of those factors.
Much like ball players ultimately get paid for filling the seats and making his boss money, the lawyer gets paid for making his boss money too. You don't bring in money, you won't get paid much.
There is a pay gap for women vs. men in the same jobs. It's just not as big as the gap including accounting for different job choices. The pay gap for the same jobs occurs because the initial offer is often lower for women, and they don't get promoted as much.
This result is only partially sexism. The women don't negotiate as well and they are less likely to blow their own horn and exaggerate enough to get promotions. As you know the blowhard incompetents often float to the top especially in big companies.
"There is a pay gap for women vs. men in the same jobs. "
As Rossami mentions above, not when you control for work.
The slight of hand the pay gap people try to do here is list "within the same profession" or "the same job" but never control for hours.
We have 4 colorectal surgeons here. 3 are men who crank out tons of cases. 1 is a woman who basically works 1-2 days a week. They have the "same job". The men all make a lot more. But they also do many times the volume that she does.
And they even go more broad. They will break things down into categories as broad as "male vs female physician" despite the fact that those jobs can vary widely. In medicine, women are much more likely to pick specialties like pediatrics that have much shorter and easier residencies, and less grueling hours than something like neurosurgery. But the pay gap people will compare these under the broad category of "male vs female physicians".
As above, you have to control for the work. People make what they do based on their decisions. The biggest of those decisions being work/life balance and hours worked. Unless you actually control for those things (and they NEVER do in these studies) then you are starting from a faulty premise
Exactly right.
Did anyone notice the article didn't mention even ONE company that was paying men less than women?
Because it is illegal and the company would get sued in a heart beat.
(I'm sure there are one or two small companies that don't have HR departments that may do it...but it is not a national issue).
Could the Gender Pay Gap Actually Be A Sign That Women Prioritize Socially Valuable Careers?
No.
There is no 'gender pay gap'.
Go back tp Vox or whatever shithole you crawled out of.
What the fuck is happening to reason?
"However, other phenomena...are worth examining critically..."
Reason is hiring people who have been marinating in Critical Theory Studies courses, perhaps?
Might be time to rename the site to "Feelings".
It certainly seems that way.
Need to delete that "Free Minds and Free Markets" thing as well.
There is no gender pay gap. Hope this helps.
"There is no gender pay gap".
I see you carefully read the article. Especially the parts where they described how within three years of graduating law school, men were on average earning more than women. And the part that said "don't immediately jump to the conclusion this was entirely the result of sexism."
That there are pay differences between men and women is undeniable. It exists, it's easy to measure. What's much harder to understand is _why_ that gap exists and what, if anything, we should do about it. I found the article a refreshing dive into possible causes without assuming one answer or the other.
Unless you can provide good evidence that unreasonable discrimination based on sex is a primary driver of the differences, so what? Why would anyone expect men and women to make exactly the same pay on average? Men and women clearly (on average) have different priorities and dominant personality traits. And it would be really weird if they didn't.
Saying pay difference is not the same as saying pay gap. Pay differences happen for all sorts of reasons. Pay gap is the term we use for what's left over after accounting for all those differences.
Woodchipper is right - there is no evidence for a gender-specific pay gap - it's all about choices.
^ this.
"same job title" does not equal "same job"
No doubt. That's the point of the article, that a "gap" doesn't necessarily mean "sexism". There are lots of other plausible and measurable reasons which explain it.
We could try emphasizing "gap" versus "difference". I don't know anyone else who uses those words in that way. It's fine but you'll have to explain yourself.
Well, I read the damn propaganda piece, and it said that women who choose to work in "low-paying public-interest law" make less than men who choose to work in "a grueling job at a law firm". Note those are two different jobs, and the fully explainable difference in salary has nothing to do with the sex of the employee.
I also note that although the data is available, Emma chose not to include a male to female salary comparison at both the public interest firm and the grueling firm.
As every other commenter here has pointed out, there is no pay gap for the same job at the same level of experience in comparable firms.
There are no pay differences between men and women. Hope that helps.
The reasons behind any gap have been explained repeatedly and it isn't sexism. Trying to shoehorn some measure of "social value" that women are providing but not being paid for is just "unpaid labor" from marxists all over again.
Especially the parts where they described how within three years of graduating law school, men were on average earning more than women.
this is not a gender pay gap. Please try again.
The word you're groping for is "reluctance," not "reticence." Bryan Garner's Modern English Usage notes that "reticent" means "reserved; unwilling to speak freely; taciturn," but that "the word is frequently misunderstood as being synonymous with reluctant." He then gives three examples of newspapers misusing "reticent" to mean "reluctant."
I can only imagine that people must have seen the word "reticent" or "reticence" in print, in contexts where it meant "reluctant to speak" or "reluctance to speak," and didn't bother looking the word up, but concluded that it meant "reluctant" or "reluctance" generally, and since it was a nifty new work, they started using it, but incorrectly.
(Yes, I know that Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary now lists "reluctant" as the most recent of the meanings of "reticent." That just means that the misuse has gotten so ubiquitous that a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) dictionary had no choice but to record it.)
When a misuse of a word becomes ubiquitous, then the meaning of the word has changed. I don't like it either in many cases, but that's how language works. The way words are actually used is what determines what they actually mean.
Yeah, but it's Merriam-Webster.
If MW is your standard then there is no pay gap since they decided to go with the trans affirming definition so woman is now recursively defined.
Yes. I despised people using “data” as singular, but it’s so common now I barely notice it.
Sadly, the job of lexicographers is descriptive, not proscriptive.
So, like "recession", "woman", "majority" and a laundry list of other words for which some folks seem happy to ignore traditional meanings.
Interesting article.
I read it and an obvious question was _why_ women tend to prefer "socially valuable" jobs. Why do they work as public defenders instead of corporate sharks? They may say it's because the work is more fulfilling and in many cases that's likely true. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fair amount of sexism as law firm partners hire college grads. So it could be preferences but that also could be rationalizing not expecting to get job offers at the big firms.
I could believe either explanation. I'd love to see more research.
Unfortunately in the current academic climate, it's difficult to get research funded to study personality differences between men and women.
One thing that has been pretty well observed is that women in general tend to be more interested in people and men more interested in things. Which I think explains a lot about the differing career choices between men and women.
I was probably a bit too dismissive above. I think these questions are very interesting. I just get frustrated when people immediately assume discrimination.
As someone who hires not lawyers, but engineers, I will tell you the flat truth.
We will pay more for a female engineer compared to a male one. She will get promoted faster and get more generous raises.
Every corporate incentive pushes "why don't you have more women engineers", "why haven't you promoted her already". And God help you if one leaves, the inquiry about how you could let that happen is grueling.
Where I work, EVERY TIME a Black employee is terminated, they file a discrimination complaint with the state civil rights commission. None of the complaints has ever been upheld, but they ALWAYS file.
If a uterus-haver wants to make more money, then xi
should identify as a penis-haver. Isn't that how it works? There can't be a gender pay gap, because gender is fluid and you can't measure anything when everything is a variable.
CB
^ This.
Been wondering why all the men on boards in California, where there's some 50% female requirement, don't simply send a memo to HR that they now identify as women.
If the pay gap were real, every company on the planet would only hire women. Men would totally unemployable. You really think Wall Street fat cats hate women more than they love saving money?
gender pay gap assumes wall-street sharks who would slit your throat for 1% are simultaneously turning down 20+% to uphold the patriarchy
Actually, that is happening: big corporations and academia are more and more dominated by women. Of course, they also increasingly propped up by government handouts and regulations, which is how they can afford to be sexist in their hiring.
"the Journal, adding that "economists who have long examined pay gaps between men and women cite the so-called motherhood penalty—referring to the perception that mothers are less committed to their jobs—and say this affects hiring, promotions, and salaries."
Wait, wait, wait. This is a terrible construction. It is attempting to analyze why this barrel of apples contradicts studies that show lemons are sour.
Recent Study: People graduating with the same degrees have different salaries three years later.
Previous Studies: Women and men WORKING THE SAME JOBS tend to make about the same once you factor out differences in experience and hours caused (usually) by women splitting between child rearing and careers.
Those are two totally different populations. The "Gaps" that you are measuring are totally different gaps- the former is a gap between people nominally in totally different industries, while the latter is people working the EXACT SAME JOBS.
Yes, "working the EXACT SAME JOBS" but as you described, not doing the exact same work.
What? No! Clearly women all throughout history were just stupid and didn't realize they could be working just as hard as men! Aren't women so happy these days?
If women get trained as HVAC technicians, or electricins, or auto mechanics, and are capable of doing the work, I would expect them to earn at least as much as men in the same job.
Per hour for sure. But will they be working the same number of hours as their male coworkers?
It's not sexism, it's the fact that vaginas make you bad at math.
this comment fails on every level. your stupid attempt at caricature, or sarcasm, or whatever you were trying to do, failed utterly. Just to let you know.
"While sexist discrimination is difficult to disprove"
This is an odd formulation that inverts the logical burden of proof.
Feminist argument: women don't push as hard as men to get money so it's not fair that men get more money.
In other news the current US life expectancy for men is 74.5 years and for women is 80.2 years. Until we correct this unfairness, women should STFU about money.
Right. They do get it all at the end.
It's far worse than that. If you look at lifetime contributions in taxes and government benefits, the entire edifice of government is sustained by men between about 30 and 60.
On average, women are the recipients of large government benefits while contributing far less than they receive.
Oh no, women are clearly CHEATING to live longer and it is due to SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION. Fairness DEMANDS that we deprive women of heathcare until men and women have the same average life expectancy.
Isn't that how this works?
On top of that, occupational injury deaths annually in the US are about 4,800 men, about 350 women.
garbage man job pays great for unskilled undegreed labor.
Almost no women take this job.
Another potentially high-paying job women won't take is commissioned sales positions.
US Women's Nation soccer team has been in court for years complaining about unequal pay.
“The history of negotiations between the parties,” then78-year-old judge observes, “demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players.”
The structure of the USWNT's collective bargaining agreement prioritizes base salary over potential bonuses, whereas the USMNT's CBA provides less guaranteed pay but a higher ceiling in the event that the team qualifies for tournaments and performs well.
Since the USWNT "rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure" as the USMNT, the judge deemed the players' claims that their CBA was inferior a false equivalence.
"Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play terms structure when they themselves rejected such a structure," he added.
The WSJ reporters failed to report that about 10% of female college graduates earn very little if any money three years after graduation because they had got married and/or had a baby, which explains why male college graduates averaged 10% higher earnings than females three years after graduation.
.
And of course, the woke WSJ reporters repeatedly stated and insinuated that sexism against women is the reason for the difference in earnings.
It is self evident that if there is no difference in the sexes, there cannot possibly be a pay gap between the sexes that are the same.
Q.E.D.
This was one of the worst articles I've read here this year.
It assumes that there's evidence of a "gender pay gap," which is commonly used when we compare people of different genders doing the same job, when comparing graduates from the same university.
Not all graduates from the same university are equal, they don't all go into the same jobs or get hired by the same companies. They didn't all graduate with identical GPAs and accolades, they didn't all use the same internships. They may have chosen their work, or their work may have chosen them, but there's a sorting that happens which is independent of "gender." There's too many other factors to call that a "Gender pay gap."
It then includes this sentence:
Rather than viewing women's reticence to take on higher paying jobs that provide relatively low value to society as a symptom of rampant sexism, we should celebrate women's freedom to choose what career path they want.
HOW THE FUCK are you deciding whether a job provides more "value to society" than others? Maybe you should try advertising that job on the free market to see what it's paid? How does being some bureaucratic aid for $30K a year compare in value to a plumber making $120K a year? Is a doctor at a non-profit hospital more valuable than a primary care physician who owns their own office? How could we possibly measure such a thing.
It was better when this author used the phrase "personal fulfillment," but then she suddenly went into a weird space where she declared that women have a tendency to shun work that isn't valuable to society...even though it somehow pays really well (seeming to indicate that it probably IS generating some value, right?!) I mean, money isn't given out arbitrarily, it's usually an indication of value, isn't it?
There may be a "pay gap," but one could easily argue there is also a "social value gap," with women being more likely to gravitate towards non-profit and public service work.
Why, again, is non-profit work more socially valuable than for-profit work? I mean, the non-profit workers still get paid, so that means someone out there has to be making PROFIT that they then can disburse toward the non-profit work, right? If there's so much value in non-profit work, we could all do it, but then where is the funding coming from? It seems there's perhaps an inconsistent understanding of what value is.
Then she chooses to end on this quote:
"My fear, when we don't carefully handle the wage gap discussion and put it in the right context, is that women will perceive that this is normal, that discrimination is normal, and that being treated less than is something they should just accept."
Where's the evidence that women are being discriminated against? Nobody offered any evidence that women operating in the same capacity as men are being paid less. It almost sounds like women in less-well-paying job situations should just demand more pay even if it's not providing as much monetary value, according to that woman. Which makes no sense if you're a free market libertarian.
I may need to bookmark this one just to remember the idiocy.
this article is the result of taking marxist principles repeated in academia at face value.
"Social value" is a nice new moniker for the same marxist principles we have seen over and over.
Fails to take into account a woman can only be defined by a biologist. So how can they be singled out for pay discrimination?
Wages, like other prices, are determined by supply and demand for labor. If women earn less then men it's because their supply of labor in their fields is higher or the demand for their labor is lower.
Let's take a job like elementary school teacher. Wages for it are lower because almost anybody is qualified to do that job, so supply is very high. Furthermore, since unionization has eliminated differentiation based on quality, pay is based on the worst performers. Women tend to choose jobs that are less competitive, and hence there is a larger supply of labor for those jobs and the wages are lower. That's the entire mystery of the "wage gap".
The idea that there are jobs that are "socially valuable" but aren't paid very much is bullshit. Being an elementary school teacher isn't particularly "socially valuable" (in fact, the most socially valuable thing to do would be for a mother to dedicate her time to teaching her own children). Being a good elementary school teacher is socially valuable compared to being a bad elementary school teacher, but unionization has eliminated the possibility of rewarding good elementary school teachers. And most elementary school teachers are bad.
Men are whores.
Supply and Demand isn't sexist....
And yes; I believe their is a difference between man and woman.