Why women are paid less than men?

It has been a long accusation of the feminists that women are paid less compared to men for doing the same job because of sexism. Most of the men out there know it for a fact that we don’t have a secret pact amongst us men to pay women less wages, nor we actively discriminate against women in that regard. Yet statistically speaking women are paid less than men in many aspects.

2005 US Census Statistics show males 25 and older had higher yearly income than females 25 and older among all races.

As you can see above that women above 25 earn about 70-80% of the salaries of their male counterparts. Why do women earn lesser than men for supposedly doing the same job?

Before going into the reasons for that, let me explain you this logic. Lets say pawn broker had two slabs of gold for trade in front of you(as shown in the illustration below). According to the pawnbroker both the slabs weigh 100 oz(consider price of gold in market to be $1000/oz).
The slab 1 which is covered with a black sheet can be purchased for $100,000, and the slab 2 which is covered with a white sheet can be purchased for $85,000.
If I ask you which slab would you wanna buy, what will you say?

Clearly any profit seeking individual would perform the calculation and realize that if they buy the white slab, and if it really contains 100 oz it will sell it in the market and make $15,000 profit on it.
But then, if the slab covered with white cloth did have 100 oz of gold in it then it would also be sold for $100,000. This means that either the white slab did not have 100 oz, and had only 85 oz, or else there is an amazing business opportunity for anyone who buys the white slab.

Now lets say all the people who come to buy those slabs have an aversion towards the white color. They hate white color, so they keep on buying the black slab. Any individual who now buys the white slab will make $15,000 over every transaction, so soon he will be able to drive the discriminatory people out of the business.

Soon there will be so much demand for White color slab, that the prices will soon drive up to $100,000 per slab. This means that if women and men are doing the exact same job, and somehow women can be hired for less than men, then every profit-seeking individual will end up hiring women, and soon the wages will come up and both the wages will be equal. If the market was discriminatory against women and had some sort of conspiracy to pay women less because of their prejudices due to sexism, and was paying them less for the same work then soon the profit seeking non-discriminators would have ended up making more profit than sexist employers and kicked them out of business.

But since we know it for a fact that women are not paid as much as men are, what does that mean? In our black slab-white slab example, the white slab is continuously bought for $85,000, and the black leather covered slab is bought for $100,000, this means that the white cloth covered slab is actually having less gold than the black leather covered slab.

This means that the pawnbroker’s claim that both the slabs have same amount of gold is not true, the white cloth slab actually does have lesser gold than the black leather cover.

Similarly, if in the market women are paid less than men for the same job, then everybody would wanna hire women and make more profit off them than to hire men. The only logical explanation which makes sense on why women are continuously paid less than men is that they must provide lesser labor than men. The women do not work the same as men, and that explains the lesser wages.

Now I understand if someone told me that Indian men are paid lesser wages because they work less than White men, then I would get offended too. But there is nothing to be offended here for women, because there are perfectly valid reasons on why women work less than men.

First of all let me make it clear, women under 25 years of age are paid the same(or even more) wages than men. Similarly, never married women also are paid almost the same wages as never married men. But suddenly the difference between the wages of married women and married men is very high. Why is it that merely a change in status from never married to married causes such a big difference in wages(and henceforth their labor).

The answer lies in the concept of relative specialization. Michael Jordan(the Basketball Star), is not a very good pianist, because he is a basket ball player and he spent most of his time playing and specializing basketball. Now he could be very well a piano enthusiast, and may practice playing Piano in his free time as much as he can, yet his Piano skills will not come nowhere near to even a high school music teacher. In simple words Michael Jordan has to sacrifice Piano skills in order to achieve mastery in Basket Ball.

Similarly, women have to sacrifice the work output in order to be able to fulfill their marital and biological duties. Even in a marital setup where a guy takes care of the same amount of duties as his wife, he simply cannot bear the baby for 9 months, nor he can breast feed his kids. Biologically the women have to take more duties than men, and because of this they have to sacrifice their work output.

If women feel like the society has been setup to keep women at home and men into the work field, then there is a pretty good evolutionary reason for that too. Take for example during World War 2, Germany and Russia decimated each other’s population. There were almost no men left in Russia between the age of 15 to 65. Yet only after one generation the population ratio came back to normal. There were same amount of kids born as in a generation before. Reason is simple, you only require one male to impregnate thousands and thousands of females among mammals. Just like a farmer keep only one bull for 100s of cows, because that’s all he need. Consider if we sent women on a war front, side by side with men, or on all the hazardous work conditions as much as men. Our society would have been reduced and even extinct by now while hunting one Mammoth.

Professor Walter Block1 makes an amazing explanation for why the wages of men and women differ.

  1. Walter Block, Loyala University, New Orleans []

21 comments for “Why women are paid less than men?

  1. GP
    June 19, 2009 at 7:56 am

    But sometimes its exactly opposite! Some people do get paid much more than their other colleagues just because they are simpley best in the art of manipulation and I think generally women are very good at it.

    But yeah I do agree rather than sexism the most important part is productivity. Women do have constraints. As a result, most of the times they could not give due justice to their professional life so naturally they will be paid less than her male counterparts working in same position with less personal constraints.

  2. Joe
    June 19, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.
    A pattern of more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions and other statistical mischief. To illustrate, let’s assume that men and women are on average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at both extremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws up the data to make men and women seem significantly different.
    Consider grade point average in college. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get A’s and B’s, but a few range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, the high-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males will pull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades than men — again despite no difference in average quality of work.
    The opposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum. Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while the low-achieving ones can’t pull it down. The result? Men will get higher average salaries than women, even if there is no average difference on any relevant input.
    Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.

    From the paper “Is there anything good about men?” http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
    I buy his argument best, as studies often show men on a wider bellcurve, and women on a tighter bellcurve in terms of performance with respect to tasks. But the fact that there is a minimum wage would “push” the extreme-end lower wage earners (more men than women) up to minimum wage.

  3. June 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    this is one of the best analogies I’ve heard when it comes to explaining wafe inequalities. Often I get asked this same question “Why do women make less? How is this even legal” And despite my best efforts, people still really don’t understand. I like the psychology in this article – very interesting. I will use the gold bars with black / white coverings in the future to explain this. Thank you very much!

  4. renegade_division
    June 23, 2009 at 10:34 am

    Thanks Single for your appreciation.

    I first thought of it when in my college a lesbian feminist came to criticize our club magazine’s anti-feminist approach. Her stress was on the fact that women are doing the same amount of job, and they are making less money. So I took her hat, covered a candy bar with it, and then took my hat and used it to cover another candy bar with it and I offered her the bar(with her hat) for half the price of what I offered the one underneath my hat, and continued to do the same thing what I described in the article. She had no rebuttal for it, and she agreed to it.  A month later I met her again and she told me that she is not with her feminist club anymore because they rejected her after she couldn’t agree with them on the wage issues.

    Overall what I am saying is that actually using props to explain your point works pretty well than just explaining it through words.

    The real trouble is to explain the difference between the black and white wages. I mean if there is a difference between black and white wages, then its true that the black guy has to offer less, or else blacks will be hired much more than whites, and the market will drive their wages up. My understanding is that because of the wage protection, minimum wage laws, and Affirmative action laws, although both the gold slabs have same amount of gold, but its difficult to sell the one covered in black leather. If you have to buy or sell a small quantity(like 1 oz) then you cannot pay only $1,000 per oz, you must pay a minimum of $5,000 for that gold piece.

    Similarly, whatever reasons might be for the black leather slab having less gold,  if the govt forces you to pay the same or minimum price and buy a minimum number of Black leather gold slabs, (which are less in quantity and more in price) then you try to buy the minimum requirement of black slabs, and try to write the difference as “operation expenses”, and since this money is only cutting your profits, you never bother to hire more black workers than the one required by the law(and it is called ‘Affirmative Action’ lol).

  5. June 26, 2009 at 10:53 am

    Woman can’t give 100 % to the job as males can give,they have to be time bound and also takecare of household works.They gossip/chat more and are not physically strong as man are

  6. Joe
    June 26, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    In a pre-weighed white or black bag, the amount of gold is fixed, but you can never tell about the extent of talent in a person on the basis of that person’s sex.

    That’s the lesson in the article. Watch the linked series of videoclips. His arguments invalidate all the arguments put forth by sexists.

  7. renegade_division
    June 26, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    @Sanjs too

    They gossip/chat more and are not physically strong as man are.

    You are a moron, you didn’t get the point. If women gossip/chat more, then why unmarried women are paid the same as unmarried men? Do women become gossipy after they get married? @Unpretentious Diva said

    Your logic is as a waste as this article is, totally insane with no credibility in it. Sexism is the worst kind of collectivism. You can see many women much physically stronger than your own self in your own surroundings.

    You are just pissed at this point. ‘Sanjs Too’ up there is an outright sexist, and he is using the logic to reaffirm his sexist bigotry, that’s why he totally missed the fact that women under 25 or never married women are paid same(or even more sometimes) salaries as men.
    Similarly you are on the anti-sexist bashing mode, (which I have experienced before too). All I am doing here in the article is explaining the statistics. I would be a sexist if I had said following in the article:
    1) Called for paying women less salary.
    2) Irrationally talked about how women are the weaker sex and they cannot work as hard as men.

    But the fact is, I am merely explaining the accusation of feminists which I have experienced in real conversations. They bring these statistics and shove in my face telling me that how free market discriminates against women, and without the govt and laws preventing this discrimination, women will always be suppressed by men.
    Most of the women I know are really hard working, but same cannot be said for men. Some of the men are really really really hard working and brilliant, some of the men are really really lazy and dumb, some of the men are average.
    In numbers if we take 100 men and 100 women, you will find that about 60-70 women achieve good grades, as compared only 40-50 men achieving good grades. Also some 30-40 women be not too much duffers, but only as bad as average. But the duffers among men are really bad, and they score so low that they drag the male average down. That’s why you find women outperforming men in a scale where 0 to 100 rating is being given. The dumb men drag down the average, because the genius men are unable to go beyond 100.
    In Bell Curve distribution it comes out as this: This is a frequency distribution curve, showing the number of men and women achieving a specific score.
    Lets take IQ which has no upside cap. Lets say that the average IQ of both men and women is exactly the same 100. If you drew the frequency distribution curve, you will realize that most women are around 100. That is about 90% of the women have IQs between 90-110. On the other hand, 90% of the men have IQ between 50-150(the average comes out to be the same). There are very small number of men whose IQ is way up, into 160s-170s. Similarly there are small number of men whose iq is 20-30(demonstrated by the fact that almost all the people in a mental institution are men).
    Yes in the field of Nobel Prize, most of the prize winners are men, but then in the mental institutions most of the patients are also men.
    When you look at the wealth created by people, most(about 99%) of the billionaires are men, but then 98% of the homeless people are also men. When you start averaging, the number is distorted by the billionaires, because the homeless men cannot drag that number down too much.

    In a pre-weighed white or black bag, the amount of gold is fixed, but you can never tell about the extent of talent in a person on the basis of that person’s sex. Humans are marked with variability and that is why Liberty and Individualism is essential, we are not the same bricks in the wall.

    Its true that you can never tell the extent of a talent of a person by his sex/race/appearance, but as I said, if there are white sheet covered slab, and the market is undervaluing you at $85,000 and you are totally 100oz worth of gold, then soon your value will start appreciating and it will normalize to $100,000.
    I never said that there are NO WOMEN who are married and paid the same salaries as men. Yes there are. But the average says that most women who are married work less than the men in the same position.
    If tomorrow someone makes a study on the men who have six packs of abs and men who don’t have that, and they average out and find out that men without six packs earn more than men with six packs. Does that mean there is bigotry and discrimination against the six pack Joe, because all the bosses and managers do not have six packs? The truth is, obviously not. To maintain that six packs, the six pack Joe had to achieve lesser efficiency at work, OR the chubby Jacks, gave up the desire for six pack in order to have that extra efficiency.
    I do not have sympathy for statistics and averaging. But if people repeatedly bring out statistics against Liberty and libertarian arguments then we must answer them using the logic and human action axioms.
    Mises’s book Human Action has a chapter on ‘Uncertainty’ where he makes a case against class probability(or class generalizations) and case probability. Its a very short chapter, must read.

  8. July 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Ages before the wages were discriminated because of the physical strength but in today’s world where the work force has to work with the power of brain, this discrimination is really bad. The women can now prove their excellence at every front of life. So we should try to lessen the discrimination to give them the equal chance of life.
    .-= Jason´s last blog ..How Much is Car Insurance for a 16 Year Old? =-.

  9. vera
    September 13, 2009 at 3:21 am

    Even in US women don’t have equal righst with the men.
    In every place i worked, I got paid much less than the men for the same job but worked 2 times harder then my lazy male colleagous. Because my bosses were men. Many bosses are men. Men support men because they do tricky business. Women are mostly honest. There are not many female bosses. But unfortunately when women are the boss they also hire or pay more to the men because women don’t like women.
    Male bosses pay women high only if they flirt.

  10. Lacy M
    December 16, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    I am continually amazed by how much absurdity can be hidden behind classical economics. No, those in managerial positions are not getting together in some sort of secret summit and conspiring to pay women less. And no, my professional expertise are not an 85-ounce bar of gold compared to your 100-ounce, you inflated bag of hot air! Managers are doing what they always do: Seeking to keep as much of the profit for themselves as they possibly can. They know women will settle for less pay, so they pay less. That is the fault of everyone in our society, and will take many generations to eradicate.

    Not only do managers value a male contribution more, male value themselves more. Their egos have been inflated by sentiments that imply that “if I don’t provide for my family, no one else will.” That helps to explain why men with children in the US earn, on average, 2% more than men without children. One of the great tragedies of our time is that women actually settle for less than they’re worth.

    All of that Economics 101 prattle about the market “normalizing” prices due to increased/decreased demand is a fairytale, and anyone with any insight knows it. Sellers charge whatever they think their buyer will actually pay, which is a complex set of real-world factors unrelated to simply supply or demand. In this case, the sellers of the good, women, are made to believe that they should fall down on their hands and knees and be thankful that they have a job, rather than feeling entitled to charge what they’re actually worth (i.e. the full $100,000 of the gold bar).

    By the way, women under 25 do earn less than men their age, averaging just 92.1% of what men earn (in the US). The gap increases with age, for a variety of reasons too complex to mention in this little comment.

    As for the commenter who took an inordinate amount of time to discuss IQ test variations, please do more research on IQ test normalization. How a demographic body performs on a standardized test depends on how it is normalized.

    This article is an academic, heady waste of time, with a whole lot of knowledge and little insight. I’m dismayed at all of this offensive old-world sexism can still be ginned up, like a pre-Galileo explanation of the movement of the heavenly bodies. And I’m still dismayed that people still believe it.

    If you’ll excuse me, I have to get to work.

  11. liz
    February 1, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Wow. This is the most absurd attempt at logic I’ve ever heard. So what you’re saying is that beyond the externals of what distinguishes a man from a woman, the woman is paid less because she inherently IS worth less on the job market because she **might** have babies? If this doesn’t stink like good’ole’fashioned “”women are best in the home, while men are best at paid work”" I don’t know what does. At every company I’ve worked for, most men left work by 5:15pm, just like most women. When a hot project was behind schedule, women were just as likely to stay late as men. The white collar working world offers set vacation/personal days that EVERYONE takes whether they take them for sick kids, vacation, or working on the house. The whole “men make more money because they work more hours” is pure nonsense.

    Lets say a hiring manager has 120K to allocate as an annual salary for two employees and hires both a man and a woman, both of whom are equally qualified based on their education and background. Common wisdom is that they both should get $60 as salaries for their jobs. More often than not, the woman will get $55K while the man will get $65. How can this be? Is it *assumed* because the woman is a woman, that she will eventually take maternity leave and never offer to travel or stay late at the job? NO, it is the veiled assumption that a man should be paid more because he **should** be the primary breadwinner of the family that **needs** more money. The lesser paid woman may have kids already in high school (or no kids at all) and might be married to a firefighter or science teacher that earns way less than she does. The higher paid man might be married to an attorney that works 70 hours a week with no intention to ever have kids.

    Paying women less is a relic from our ugly past that won’t die because it can be well hidden, due to social rules of decorum where we look down on discussing salary and can even get fired for it. I’m actually all for 100% transparency in salary with full explanations as to why who gets paid what.

    If the boss says employee A gets more than employee B because of superior typing speed, employee B should be allowed to increase their typing speed to get their salary on par with employee A. If employee C gets paid more because they put in longer hours and travel more than employee E, employee E who bails at 4:50 every day should at least know why. All of these discussions will be eliminated if that can be the case.

  12. Renegade Division
    February 1, 2010 at 11:48 pm


    So what you’re saying is that beyond the externals of what distinguishes a man from a woman, the woman is paid less because she inherently IS worth less on the job market because she **might** have babies? If this doesn’t stink like good’ole’fashioned “”women are best in the home, while men are best at paid work”"

    No what I am saying is that women are paid less because they have less marginal productivity. That’s the rational fact. Now WHY they have lesser marginal productivity that answer is an educated guess, which is that married women bear children so their marginal productivity goes down.

    And please don’t confuse statistical averages and medians with individual salaries, not all women with babies are paid less, not all women are paid less than men, not all women without babies are paid the same as men. The income disparity is merely a statistics, that most women are paid slightly less than men. And I’ve made an attempt to explain the income disparity.

    All you have to say is rhetoric. I don’t care about rhetoric(rhetoric is when you say things like “are you saying black people don’t work as hard as white people, you are such a racist, you wanna suppress the racial minorities”).

    The whole “men make more money because they work more hours” is pure nonsense.

    I wrote men make more money because they give higher productivity for the same job than women, because other wise that means hiring women for that smaller pay makes you earn more profit, which means market will rush and bid up the female wages. What I am trying to say is that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains however improbable, must by the truth.

    You didn’t bother to deal with one fact which was raised in my post, and that is why are women under 25 get the same salary as men under 25?

    Similarly the proponents of racist-sexist market cannot explain why black people get less salaries, but asians and south Asians make higher salaries than whites in America, what kind of weird racism is that? I believe that the United Rhetoric Association of America has not figured out the rhetoric to explain higher salaries for Asians yet.(Just in case if you are wondering nobody I know who is not white and gets out of office by 5:15, nothing exactly to do with race, its just that they are all immigrants, Russians, Turks, anyone with a weird accent).

  13. John
    March 30, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    This article is based on a naive understanding of economics. Please read about the Nash equilibrium:


    After doing so, you will understand how the presence of even a FRACTION of employers discriminating results in wage inequality. The economic system will not reach an equal-wage equilibrium by whatever magical process you are speculating, but will instead reach the well-documented Nash equilibrium value, in which the discriminated against party receives less money even from the “profit-seeking employers” you spoke of. This can most obviously be understood from realizing that the profit-seeking employer is aware that the female employee has fewer competitive job opportunities, due to the discriminating employers, and thus the profit-seeking employer knows full well that the female employee’s services can be obtained for less. Thus, to maximize profit, the female will be offered a lower salary due to the reduced number of competing offers.

    This is basic economics, and has been understood for more than 50 years.

    • Renegade Division
      March 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm

      The economic system will not reach an equal-wage equilibrium by whatever magical process you are speculating.

      I have no idea what are you talking about. Seriously! My article is titled ‘Why women are paid less than men?’, and you are arguing why my equal-wage equilibrium point is wrong. Seriously please read it again.

  14. Sophie
    May 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Hiring women for less will NOT help close the wage gap. Women have been payed less for a long time, but since 1963 the wage gap has been closing by half a cent per year. It will take 34 years to fully close at this rate.

  15. Kara
    May 2, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    One thing I fail to find in your article is the definition of “productive”. It’s no secret in our society that women are less valued for their accomplishments than men are. When a man does something he is more likely to be acknowledged, than if a woman does.I think that women are taken for granted for their efforts more than men are, so of coarse their “gold bar” will be “less”. When womens efforts and accomlpishments are more noticed and they are given credit for what they offer, it will be plain to see there is no difference in the amount of “productivity” attributed to each sex. Paying women less for the same jobs and offering lame excuses such as “more maternity leave” and whatever else is used is a cop-out. Unfortunately, most women seem to hate other women. Is it up to us few women who actually support other women to break through the glass ceiling? It sure feels like I’m fighting an uphill battle! Women have been oppressed for 3500 years. Men do not even have to do it anymore..the women do it for them!Cudos to those women who stand up for what they’re worth and empower other women.

  16. Duncan
    October 24, 2010 at 7:08 am


    Nash equilibrium is not applicable here unless you are positing a monopsonistic labor market (which is reasonable on a local level). If, however, the market is highly competitive, there will be entry of new firms as long as there is pure profit to be made. If women are receiving less than their marginal revenue product, which seems to be the assumption, there will be these pure profits assuming the other factors are obtained from competitive markets. And so discrimination will end. There are other theories of labor market discrimination of course.

    I myself think that there is very little discrimination once you realize that men and women make different life choices leading to different Human Capital endowments, such as having babies for women, and having a higher labor force participation rate for men.

    For example, when you take into account all factors that affect salaries such as Experience, education, field of work etc, you can explain a large percentage of the difference.

    Even if we only hold one characteristic constant, such as occupation, we find that women make between 77% and 98% that men do. This ranges across all income levels, not just female majority fields.

    Anyway, this topic has been discussed in much greater detail than this blog may(?) be aware of. It is in fact one of the central research points of labor economics.

    Further reading on the topic is “Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy
    by Ehrenberg and Smith.

    The source of my stats is BLS, Employment Earnings 53 January 2006 table 39

  17. David
    January 10, 2012 at 5:52 am

    I’ve learned to never argue with a feminist because it’s basically like arguing with a brick wall. Feminists are so irrational and illogical you will never change their idiotic mindsets. Theres a reason why feminism in the US isn’t taken seriously anymore and why no one pays attention to feminists these days..because feminism in the US doesn’t exist. Old school feminists would roll over in their graves if they saw how feminism is exploited and abused in the modern day.

  18. June 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    They gossip/chat more and are not physically strong as man are

    Your logic is as a waste as this article is, totally insane with no credibility in it.

    Sexism is the worst kind of collectivism.

    You can see many women much physically stronger than your own self in your own surroundings.

    You can see many women much worthy and earning much more than your own sad ass in the market while working the same as you are doing and earning.

    You can see many women much thrifty and senseful while speaking/expressing than your fucked up senseless mind and mouth.

    Its the most ridiculous article of this site because it tries to confirm the collectivist mindset.

    A market doesn’t work on such generalized versions of corrupt thinking. A human (be it man or woman) cannot be compared with bags of gold.

    In a pre-weighed white or black bag, the amount of gold is fixed, but you can never tell about the extent of talent in a person on the basis of that person’s sex. Humans are marked with variability and that is why Liberty and Individualism is essential, we are not the same bricks in the wall.

    The author of this article is as collectivist as Stalin was.

  19. June 27, 2009 at 2:41 am

    I have no problem with your intentions about writing this article.

    Problem is with the inability of the article to clearly put forth your intentions.
    That was the reason why that person commented like that.

    In simple words, this article could have been a much better piece.

  20. renegade_division
    September 13, 2009 at 3:59 am

    You just did not read the article did you? What I am trying to explain here is that if women work same(or more) than men then profit seeking bosses will pay women more than men. This is all I am trying to explain here.
    If you are not getting paid more why don’t you try to get a job somewhere else?

    Men support men because they do tricky business. Women are mostly honest.

    That simply means that men provide employers more utility than women. Even through dishonesty. You cannot call this sexist discrimination then.

    But unfortunately when women are the boss they also hire or pay more to the men because women don’t like women.

    OR, that explains and further supports my logic, that men DO have more marginal productivity than women and any woman boss who prefers women over men will be thrown out of business.
    We can all make one reasoning over the other to support our belief(that market is sexist) but merely having reasoning does not mean they are necessarily logical reasons.

    The supporters of Affirmative Action in America who support ‘equal pay for equal work’ laws and claim Market to be racist against minorities(blacks and hispanics) fail to explain why is a racist market paying Asians more than whites? What kind of racist whites are there who pay Black people less, but Asians more then other white people?

    Vera there is a logic behind lower wages of married women(because apparently never married women are paid the same) and married men, and that is because the marginal utility of an hour’s work of married woman is less than marginal utility of an hour’s work of a married man. This is because a married woman takes more responsibilities at home and because of that she gives up some output in her labor. This is not a suggestion or desired situation or anything, this is just explaining things as is.

    And please if you skimmed over the article, then I suggest you please read it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *