5 ms·

Your points are encompassed in hypotheses #2 & #3...

• zaroth 10y ago
  Not at all! Married men are certainly not more productive because they are married -- marriage, and kids in particular, are a massive drain on productivity. And being married certainly isn't a signal of being more productive, if anything the opposite. I think the OP is assuming far more rationality in wage-setting than actually exists. A single man in his 20s or 30s will be way more productive than the married man with the same experience. But the married man will be paid more "because he has a family to support."
  • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    You want stereotypes? OK, I'll give you stereotypes. A single man in his 20s is a slacker. He works hard enough to not get fired, and not much past that. A married man of the same age works hard enough to try to get promoted so he gets paid more. Which is going to be more productive? (Yeah, I know, you say the married man has a lot more distractions - but the single guy is hitting Tinder every minute his boss's back is turned. That single guy is less distracted? I doubt it's an unambiguous win.)
    • zaroth 10y ago
      I think the ambiguity is between productivity as a result of feeling compelled to work, versus productivity as a result of being more competent. I think people confound competency into the so-called "marriage penalty" and think along the lines of "more competent workers are more suitable mates and therefore more likely to be married". But I think it's more likely the increased productivity (if there is any, as there are clearly countervailing forces) is a result of being compelled to work harder because there's a family to support. So it's not at all clear to me that there's some positive signal to employers from being married. Certainly in the end the married guys get paid a lot more though!