There is obvious areas that need investigation for example my wife starting out at Chic fil a making 75 cents less than a male starting. It is a obvious job where both can compete on a level ground. No sense in that.
In general, a lot of the inequality in pay between men and women goes away when they control for other variables in the equation. Men tend to work more hours, and there tends to be a big bump up in pay for those who have to work more than 44 hours a week (in on study.) In the US, at least, there is a pay premium for dirty and dangerous jobs, and women tend to not take these jobs. There are also a disproportionate number of women in college choosing low-paying fields like teaching and social work when compared to higher paying fields like engineering. Governments can push women to take jobs they wouldn't naturally choose, but there is a social cost to that.
Let's say you owned a general store in the old west. You have a few employees. One employee is a man who is the sole breadwinner for his house. He has another baby. He's a good worker and older than your other two employees. You decide to give him a raise so he can have more money to support his children. Should you be penalized for doing that?
This is another sort of thing that can lead to income inequality. If homes that have one breadwinner tend to have the man working, and the boss gives raises to sole bread-winners with families, this can also lead to men making more money.
- 1
- 1
- Show all