Main Page Contact Register Log In


Think of piles of men and women, with the most competent at the top; the employers pick starting at the top. If the piles are the same size but women ask for less money, the employer would then find the men at one point in the male pile equivalent to women at a deeper point in the female pile.

At any given point, employers will have taken a smaller portion from the top of the male pile, and a larger portion from the top of the female pile. The portion from the female pile will have lower salaries, but since it extends deeper, will be composed of less competent workers overall.

In other words, preferential hiring won't make the salary gap disappear--it will make the overall worker quality gap disappear, because hiring more women from the top than men means that they will be less competent than men (reducing quality) but also demand less salary than men of equal competence (increasing quality).

Also, professions that women prefer would be even more extreme. The pile would be made up of mostly women to begin with, and in addtition, people demand lower salaries for jobs that they prefer. You'd expect to see female-appealing professions full of mostly women with low salaries, something that actually happens.






At any given point, employers will have taken a smaller portion from the top of the male pile, and a larger portion from the top of the female pile.

This model requires unemployment among males to be substantially higher than among females. If that really happened Id expect men simply to lower their salary demands until there is parity between genders.
You'd expect to see female-appealing professions full of mostly women with low salaries, something that actually happens.

Willingly choosing professions with low salaries is not the same as being paid less for the same job. I would not call the former discrimination.
69%
melian
stars0
Replies (1)