Perhaps employers are actually valuing jobs based on the scarcity of candidates with the ability and willingness to do the work?

But that's not how that works. Your pay is "market rate" aka what your alternatives are, not theirs

Employers engage in cartel behaviour to suppress wages, regardless of scarcity

Are jobs that nerds prefer well-paid because society has a widespread bias towards valuing and supporting nerds?

Or is it just that the work itself is valuable (to someone), and also that's how much it takes to get someone to do it?

Another factor is that men have an incentive to seek higher paying jobs because some significant fraction of women want a partner who earns as much or more than they do.

This is the reason I joined tech. I could’ve done other careers but I wanted a job that could support a family and allow me to still be present with them. (And offer really good growth in income if family didn’t work out)

I think we'd already be a lot better off if the type of work you did was the only thing deciding how much you earn.

> This would be great, but the question remains what to do if the jobs men prefer are being paid more than jobs women prefer. Is sexism why that's the case, or is there some other driving factor why society is valuing male preferred jobs higher?

Yes, supply and demand is generally the driving factor for how things are priced.

The obvious hypothesis is that men are in general more geared towards providing competitive value

> ... the jobs men prefer are being paid more than jobs women prefer. Is sexism why that's the case ...?

Obviously, no. Which sexist entity, or group, do you propose to be the culprit behind price-fixing entire industries?