3 ms·

"It is logical for couples to decide that the person who earns less, usually a woman, does more of the household chores and child care, Ms. Kerr said. But it’s

"It is logical for couples to decide that the person who earns less, usually a woman, does more of the household chores and child care, Ms. Kerr said. But it’s also a reason women earn less in the first place. “That reinforces the pay gap in the labor market, and we’re trapped in this self-reinforcing cycle,” she said."

bpodgursky 9y ago
Hmm. Does that make sense? If wages are fair, a (particular) woman's wage shouldn't drop until _after_ she drops out of the workforce, at least temporarily. Which means there shouldn't be a bias in who is earning less, at least for the first child.
- KMag 9y ago
  If companies are investing wages, training opportunity cost, and other resources into having a productive workforce some time in the future, it would be rational (though not fair) to invest less in those workers who were less likely to be in the workforce in a couple of years. That is, one can view a wage not as a reward, but as a retainer. If companies aren't paying you to be nice to you for what you've done in the past, but are paying you on past performance as in indicator of what you'll do for them in the future, then it would be rational for them to take more factors into account when estimating your future output. Estimators of your probability of leaving the workforce would be one such factor. It's not fair, but it might be rational.
- aaronblohowiak 9y ago
  The article suggests that the initial pay gap is due to a flight risk adjustment based on the expectation of "motherhood" (but what they really mean is becoming a primary caregiver)
harry8 9y ago
There's a social norm thing going on there too. Regardless of what laws say there's what you can get from your employer. Employers are more flexible with women than men when children arrive. At a cost, sure, but if for whatever reason you want the man in the relationship to go part time to devote more time to kids, it's hard to be taken seriously in the face to face negotiation. Women are almost always taken seriously when making such a request. This expectation of the norm reinforces the norm too.

bpodgursky 9y ago

Hmm. Does that make sense? If wages are fair, a (particular) woman's wage shouldn't drop until _after_ she drops out of the workforce, at least temporarily. Which means there shouldn't be a bias in who is earning less, at least for the first child.

KMag 9y ago
If companies are investing wages, training opportunity cost, and other resources into having a productive workforce some time in the future, it would be rational (though not fair) to invest less in those workers who were less likely to be in the workforce in a couple of years. That is, one can view a wage not as a reward, but as a retainer. If companies aren't paying you to be nice to you for what you've done in the past, but are paying you on past performance as in indicator of what you'll do for them in the future, then it would be rational for them to take more factors into account when estimating your future output. Estimators of your probability of leaving the workforce would be one such factor. It's not fair, but it might be rational.
aaronblohowiak 9y ago
The article suggests that the initial pay gap is due to a flight risk adjustment based on the expectation of "motherhood" (but what they really mean is becoming a primary caregiver)

harry8 9y ago

There's a social norm thing going on there too. Regardless of what laws say there's what you can get from your employer. Employers are more flexible with women than men when children arrive. At a cost, sure, but if for whatever reason you want the man in the relationship to go part time to devote more time to kids, it's hard to be taken seriously in the face to face negotiation. Women are almost always taken seriously when making such a request. This expectation of the norm reinforces the norm too.