Women's Wages Relative to Men's

     Pres. Obama has been talking recently about equalizing men's and women's wages. As I recall the discussion, the complaint seems to be that women receive on average only 70% of the wages received by men for the same jobs.
    The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
    Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
    When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
    Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
    Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.