3 ms·
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.
by bpodgursky 10y 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 10y agoIf 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 10y agoThe 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)