The purpose of the article is to refute the claim that "women get paid significantly less for the same work as men". It does not try to prove that there is no discrimination in hiring or promoting. Most people think that the pay gap is as simple as managers deciding to pay women less, which is wildly inaccurate and nearly never happens, as the article shows. It is up for debate what has the larger impact on what jobs women take and how far they advance: their personal preferences or discrimination.

But the article didn't say you have to discount "all the things." The title did, but it was a poor title. The article notes many of the same reasons as you as contributing to the overall pay gap.

The point is to focus on the right thing: if pay within roles is more or less equal, then focusing on negotiation tactics, salary disparity and so forth is not going to accomplish much.

Language is funny.

The term 'meritocracy' entered the popular lexicon with the publishing of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy, a satirical work that lampooned the idea. But the term was adopted seriously and has persisted.

I think it's self-evident that the notion accomplishes nothing, rather just kicks the can to a debate over what you consider meritorious.

That's still a much simpler debate, at least morally. As far as pay is concerned merit is how much money you are paid in a competitive, free market.

I think it's best to focus on two types of merit. There is potential merit ( how much you could be making ) and capturing merit ( how good you are at capturing your potential merit ).

let's take an example. If there are two hotdogs sellers on the street and they sell the exact same hot dogs at the exact same location but one charges two dollars and the other charges four dollars - and the guy who charges more ends up making more money. does the guy who gets paid more have more merit ? yes. they have the same amount of potential merit but the guy who knows the correct price to charge has more capturing merit.

Or have different goals. Both are reasonable explanations.

Then why don't you go start a company and employ minority women for half the price of the competition and leave them in the dust?

In a competitive free market, people are paid according to their worth. And their worth is what they are paid. Arbitrages are naturally found and eliminated.

Except that's not true in the least. They're not paid according to their worth; they're paid according to what they can negotiate. These are two entirely separate things. I guarantee you that at least half the people on this board have a story of someone at one of their jobs who was paid quite handsomely, but was extremely incompetent. TheDailyWTF is filled of stories of "Highly Paid Consultants" who write some of the most WTF-worthy code ever seen.

This blind, religious-like faith in the "free market" you exhibit doesn't serve to help anyone.

What does "women pay no taxes" mean? On its face, that's trivially false.

More people sharing a larger total benefit doesn't imply that the average individual receives a larger benefit.

Raising a child alone is a privilege?

"More people sharing a larger total benefit doesn't imply that the average individual receives a larger benefit."

I may have taken one more probability class than you, but the expected value for a woman's taxes over her life is 0. There is no such thing as "the average woman", so whatever point you are trying to make is entirely lost.

As a group - in the exact same way that they is a wage gap, there is a taxes gap.

And women wouldn't have it any other way than to raise a child alone, but that entirely is besides the point.

Supported by research FYI http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-a...

Holy shit is that reblog of a blog post facetious. Have you looked at the original research cited?

Curiously enough, that blog post doesn't bother to post the charts of the immensely high market income gap and consumption gap between men and women in New Zealand. Those wholely explain the tax gap, because well, men are earning and spending much more, 50%-75% more for most cohorts.

As for the income support gap, the authors themselves explain that the gov income support is for poorer women who need the money to supplement their own or their spouses' incomes, especially during child-rearing years.

You seem to be correctly noticing some symptoms, but you're misdiagnosing all the problems at hand.

There's actually a complete set of research showing that men as a group pay all taxes in the US and women as a group pay no taxes and receive all benefits. I've read it all before, I just couldn't find it.