The absurdity of enforcing statistical "equality"

[meep]

I came across this WSJ article today, about the Canadian McGill University taking over a decade to close the gender gap in pay among its own workers.  It sounded reasonable, until I got to this paragraph:

Another conundrum involved a mostly female team of assistant cooks and a mostly male team of executive cooks. McGill's pay analysis called for

Comments

[kwokj]

Your remark about women losing out when men become attracted to previously femal dominated jobs reminds me of a series of articles I read on TSN a while back about coaching in women's college basketball. Prior to Title IX, all coaching positions were pretty much exclusively held by women, there have been more men every year since due to the salary bump and perceived prestige of the sport. Throw in a dose of homophobia where an all female coaching team prompts competing teams to insinuate to the families of student player-recruits that those teams are a hotbed of lesbianism, and you have female headcoaches hiring more likely to hire male assistants, thus, fewer women are mentored at the lower levels, as well as sexism that sees male coaches who lose jobs to be easily rehired at comparable jobs at other colleges, while female coaches losing a job will likely never get back in the field, and you get fewer and fewer women coaching.

[meep]

The research I'd like to see is how often people make job changes due solely to salary.

Thing is, my own circle of acquaintances is very skewed, so it's hard to make a fair comparison, but I've far more often seen men switch jobs only for salary considerations (as opposed to career growth, nicer working conditions, etc.) Those who put salary considerations above all else unsurprisingly tend to make more money.