This is an exceedingly interesting essay, a book review of a chapter of “Discrimination Against Caregivers?” by Erin Kelly. It breaks out the various pieces and parts about differing gender roles that lead to the gender pay gap and comes tohte same answer that I think most of us are now. That said pay gap is not about direct (or taste) discrimination, but about the way in which men and women choose to do different things with their lives.

But it’s also interesting in the way that the different influences are given a different weight than they might be by a less, say, feminist author. For example:

II. Theories Explaining the Economic Consequences of Caregiving

1. Human Capital Theory

This puts the responsibility of the consequences on the women: differential investment in occupational attainment results in differential economic returns. Women are more likely to leave the workforce; work fewer hours, invest less in education and training; expend less effort when working; and choose occupations or jobs that have lower penalties for working less and greater possibilities for part-time work, jobs that tend to be lower-paid. I am not persuaded by these theories, and Kelly cites a number of studies that refute the proposed explanations for economic differentiation.

Until that last sentence I would agree absolutely. A simple look at the world around us would show that these things do indeed happen. As this piece in The New Statesman says (a left leaning UK magazine):

It is important to be clear what the problem is. Is it bad news that women want to spend time with their children? Surely not, given the evidence for the importance of parental engagement in the early years of a child’s life. Are these women “forced” into part-time work, and now just grinning and bearing it? No - the overwhelming majority say they positively chose part-time work, and their job satisfaction is higher than that of mothers working full-time. Most men and women, according to the British Social Attitudes Survey, think that a conventional division of labour is the right one, with mothers taking on the bulk of responsibility for childcare.

Quite how one can be “unpersuaded”by such theories when they are clearly and obviously true as an explanation of at least part of the pay gap is beyond me.

Where I really disagree though is in th ideas for solving this “problem”. For the author seems to have missed something very important here.

Still, changing anti-discrimination law to address the economic marginalization of caregivers would achieve the following:

1. Recognize the marginalization of caregivers as inefficient and a legal liability

2. Re-evaluate the meaning of work and how work is rewarded

3. Ensure that caregivers are not economically penalized for taking advantage of family-friendly policies

4. Create enforcement mechanisms for ensuring meaningful compliance with the new redefined anti-discrimination law in the form of sanctions.

We’ve seen what happens when such anti-discrimination laws are put into place. For example, many European businesses will simply not hire young women presumed to be fertile, or likely to have a child. The costs of employing someone who does then take the extensive maternity leave on offer simply makes them too expensive. If we add to the possible expense of hiring women, by stating that caregivers should be given extra (and expensive) rights, then we’re simply paving the way for businesses to employ fewer of them, or for offering lower wages to those that they do hire.

Quite how this is going to narrow the gender (or caregivers’) pay gap I can’t really see.