The results indicate that the prescription that women should earn less than men plays a role in marriage rates, the labour market supply of women, and marital satisfaction.
As the graph indicates, there is a strong correlation: the more the public wants to get tough on crime, the more the incarceration rate increases.
Kind of interesting because it infers a strong responsiveness of government. I wonder how that mechanism works and why it’s faster sometimes and sometimes not? Is it correlated with some specific events (at peaks and lows)? Maybe I’ll read the research article.
They have causality backwards. Jobs are rising fast because wage growth is moderating, just as the sticky wage/natural rate hypothesis predicts.
Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed. That is madness.
There’s also this FAZ article which says income inequality between females and males is only about 8% when adjusted for other variables. I had always assumed this would be the case for any calculation. Weird. On another note I always wonder how people want to negate structural inequality by changing the manifestations after the fact (f. e. via a quota). Wouldn’t it be better to change the structure first? Although a similar case could be made against redistribution via government welfare. Hm. In the end it’s a complex topic, I guess…