One way to adjust for choice of occupation is to compare earnings of men and women in the same occupation with the same or similar schooling. Ms. Goldin, Mr. Katz and Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago made that comparison in a 2010 study, which found that the primary factor behind long-term differences in earning was child-rearing. For M.B.A. students who graduated from the University of Chicago’s business school between 1990 and 2006, the authors found almost no gender gap in employment or wages just after graduation. But 10 years later, women had taken an average of one year off from work, while men had taken off only 1½ months.
[Paragraph missing.]
It makes sense. In a 2010 study, Ms. Goldin and Mr. Katz pointed out that women often receive a wage penalty for demanding a job that’s flexible enough for the woman to be the “on-call” parent. Men are more apt to receive a wage premium for being willing to be the “on-call” employee.
This is from David R. Henderson, “Claudia Goldin Deserves That Nobel Prize,” Wall Street Journal, October 9, 2023 (October 10 print edition.” I’m allowed to publish only 2 paragraphs until 30 days have passed. Thus the missing paragraph.
There was so much more I wanted to write, but I was given an 800-word limit. I actually thought that Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz deserved the Nobel.
Claudia wrote the article “Gender Gap” for David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
READER COMMENTS
TMC
Oct 10 2023 at 9:25am
“women often receive a wage penalty for demanding a job that’s flexible enough for the woman to be the “on-call” parent. Men are more apt to receive a wage premium for being willing to be the “on-call” employee.”
Stating it this way is a bit misleading. Women want ‘on-call’ to conform to their needs. The ‘on-call’ men get the wage premium for is conform to the employer’s needs.
David Henderson
Oct 10 2023 at 10:48am
Doesn’t seem misleading to me.
steve
Oct 10 2023 at 11:42am
Agree with Dave. Could have been better by adding “Since men value income over parenting women need to be more willing to be the on-call parent.” It is slowly changing. We have come from the woman always being the one who has to do child care instead of career to this sometimes being a joint decision about how to divide things. In another generation or two joint decision making will become the norm. I would bet women still end up doing most but maybe by not such a large margin.
Steve
Mark Z
Oct 10 2023 at 6:12pm
Men haven’t had the ability to unilaterally impose an arrangement on women for a very long time, so it’s already a joint decision and has been for quite a while. Just because most couples have opted for an arrangement where the husband works more and the wife does more domestic work doesn’t mean it isn’t a joint decision. Preferences themselves change. Economic work, for example, has gotten much less unpleasant (I’m not convinced a woman in the 70s who did childcare instead of working in a steel mill was getting the raw end of the deal) and less physical, reducing men’s previously near-universal comparative advantage at economic work, so it makes sense more women would prefer to (and find it worth it economically) to opt for more economic work today than 50 or 60 years ago.
MarkW
Oct 11 2023 at 9:08am
Just because most couples have opted for an arrangement where the husband works more and the wife does more domestic work doesn’t mean it isn’t a joint decision.
Yes. And in my experience, where the decision isn’t entirely mutual, it’s the wife who’s decided not to work (or part time rather than full time) even when her husband might prefer that she work (and earn) more. This seems especially the case with couples whose children reach school age but the wife doesn’t get around to returning to work. My view may be skewed, though, by living in an area of generally upper middle class families.
TMC
Oct 11 2023 at 11:29am
‘Misleading’ may not be exactly true. I think using the same term ‘on-call’ makes the reader believe that women receive less for the same feature that increases a man’s pay. The opposite it true though. ‘On-call’ is a negative to men and a positive to women at he same pay rate.
Might just be my reading of it though because being ‘parent’ is not the same as ’employee’. Being a parent is a choice one makes to enjoy having children. Being the employee is the need to pay for being the joy of being a parent.
Jose Pablo
Oct 11 2023 at 7:23pm
Women want ‘on-call’ to conform to their needs. The ‘on-call’ men get the wage premium for is conform to the employer’s needs.
No, Goldin’s argument is that women avoid the “greedy” jobs that require to be “on-call” to conform to “the family” needs, more frequently that men.
This is, in no minor part, the result of “cultural and social” pressures. To say that this is fully due to “individual preferences”, is only true if you hold the tautological view that everything that you do is an “individual preference”. But some preferences sure are more “individual” than others.
For a significant percentage of professional women, the choice of not engaging on “greedy” jobs has traditionally been a “not-so-individual preference”. Somebody in the couple has to do it and they were the ones “expected” to do it. And we do tend to conform to social expectations.
That’s a very compelling explanation for the pay gap. Close to what can be observed in the real world, and that cannot be “closed” by a “Beckerian” behavior from employers.
Thomas Strenge
Oct 13 2023 at 3:35am
Wow. I think reading this thread, it’s obvious who is married and who read about marriage in their gender studies class.
robc
Oct 10 2023 at 10:33am
Does the WSJ have a paragraph size limit or could you have written two 400 word paragraphs do dodge their reprint restriction?
I realize you would only get to do this once, but just curious.
David Henderson
Oct 10 2023 at 10:49am
No paragraph size limit, but they always rewrite somewhat. They would never keep 2 400-word paragraphs. And even if they did, I wouldn’t want to write a bad op/ed.
Also, as I think you recognize, I would just annoy them.
Bill Conerly
Oct 10 2023 at 3:57pm
Good job. I always look forward to your Nobel articles. Disappointed that the print edition had only an excerpt; the entire article worth reading.
David Henderson
Oct 10 2023 at 9:10pm
Thanks, Bill.
Yes. I just got home and saw my print edition. I was stunned.
Herb
Oct 21 2023 at 1:47pm
I look forward to reading the whole, on-line version.
Comments are closed.