> But doesn't the gender pay gap come from choosing lower-paying jobs Not entirely: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm >

> But doesn't the gender pay gap come from choosing lower-paying jobs Not entirely: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm > rather than explicit discrimination? Why does it need to be explicit? Most discrimination is due to unconscious biases, both in our responsive to negotiation tactics from men v. women, and in our initial "gut feeling" about how valuable an employee someone will be. Humans aren't rational logic machines, as much as we like to pretend we are. > if it were an act of discrimination, every boss would have to be in on it a la Nash Equilibrium. Prima facie, this seems like it should be true, but there's also a positive correlation between height and income. The Nash Equilibrium hasn't solved this. Why? Even if you have no answer, denying the fact because you can't explain it isn't a great option. The usual explanation, which seems bared out by the data, is that subtle, unconscious bias (not explicit, conscious bias) is pervasive enough that in an imperfect market with transaction costs. If someone could choose to be immune to this bias, and thus be 100% non-discriminatory, that would be an advantage, but it's not as simple as just choosing not to be biased, nor is it simple to then demonstrate that fact to the entire labor market.