How Game Theory Explains Gender Pay Gap

Last weekend, libertarian Walter Block spoke at the Mises Institute event in Seattle titled House of Cards: Has the US Economy Recovered? His speech concerned the gender pay gap myth.

I thought it would be worth noting the unwitting connection he made between economic truths and the Chateau Fundamental Premise: sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.

In his lecture, Block explained that there is indeed a pay gap between men and women, but the reason for that gap is not sexism or workplace discrimination. As many other economists have noted, other factors come into play, such as women leaving the office to give birth and raise children.

I won’t rehash them here, but one point Block highlighted was particularly insightful.

The argument was this: Discrepancies between men and women are due to a bell curve effect regarding IQ. Women are more or less clustered in the center, while men compromise the extremes. Most CEOs and bigwig business leaders are men, but men also make up the vast majority of the mentally ill, the homeless, the criminal population, and workplace deaths.

This gender inequality is absolutely necessary for the stability of civilization, Block argued, because if not the population would collapse. Instead of marrying and/or having children, far too many women would die childless due to homelessness, mental illness, workplace deaths, or criminal activity and imprisonment.

It’s very possible an ancient civilization tried to impose a form of gender equality and fell apart either from internal strife or severe depopulation.

Whether it’s game theory confirming economics or economics confirming game, it’s proof that have a wide-range understanding of the world is important if you’re going to accurately interpret reality.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in economics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How Game Theory Explains Gender Pay Gap

  1. Magus says:

    We’re the experimental half of the species. We’re where mother nature tries something new.

    What’s curious to me is that some percentage of men fall on the lower end of whatever bell curve. Whether it’s intelligence or income or whatever. Women tend to cluster around the middle. So why is it then that these women, who cluster to the middle, end up having children with the guys on the left-hand side of the bell curve, given that women don’t like to date-down?

    It relates to something else I’ve been thinking about, very related: if women want a man that ranks well in the social ladder, why do the lower-ranking men end up with kids at all? I mean, 90% of men *do* end up becoming fathers. If 40% of them are Grade-D or below, why do precious, normal, average eggs end up wasted on these less-than-average sperm?

    One possible explanation is that a good chunk of these children aren’t actually being raised by their biological fathers (AlphaFux/BetaBux), and so the higher status man’s seed is spread further. Certainly, looking at how we tend have 2x maternal ancestors as paternal ancestors, that seems more likely.

    Wondering if you have any thoughts on that though?

    Like

    • The Question says:

      So why is it then that these women, who cluster to the middle, end up having children with the guys on the left-hand side of the bell curve, given that women don’t like to date-down?

      What women find arousing or attractive in men often has nothing to do with IQ; feral women easily fall for morons and imbeciles who display dark triad traits.

      if women want a man that ranks well in the social ladder, why do the lower-ranking men end up with kids at all?

      See above; felons, convicts, and other Harley McBadboys offer the alpha fux that women want, and often that results in offspring. Women aren’t necessarily interested in a man’s social status; it’s his status among women that she cares about. If other women are trying to outcompete each other for a man’s attention, it adds to his attractiveness to her.

      I mean, 90% of men *do* end up becoming fathers.

      I’m not sure about that. But it’s important to differentiate the circumstances in which a man becomes a father.

      One possible explanation is that a good chunk of these children aren’t actually being raised by their biological fathers

      I think the rate of cuckoldry is higher than we want to believe, but even if a man isn’t raising another man’s offspring directly, he’s paying for it via the state in the form of welfare, WIC, health care, public education, etc.

      Like

  2. Gunner Q says:

    Oh, where to start…

    “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.”

    This argument is meaningless when neither men nor women breed to reproductive capacity. History shows that in practice, it’s male provisioning that is the bottleneck for reproduction. Notice the world’s current demographic winter is coinciding with the world’s peak gynocentrism, at a time when (at least in America) women can get pregnant, give birth and hand the kid over for adoption at literally no cost to her.

    “Discrepancies between men and women [in the workplace] are due to a bell curve effect regarding IQ.”

    Testosterone more than IQ, for both a body that can do hard work and a brain wired for math. Perhaps businesses are actually paying more for high-T workers? The women they end up hiring certainly tend to be man-jawed.

    “but men also make up the vast majority of the mentally ill, the homeless, the criminal population, and workplace deaths.”

    I think the reason for this is simple white knighting. Women can practically murder their kids and not go to jail; the disparity in homeless services for women over men is massive; and of course women don’t die in workplaces when they can get a free ride through life by rubbing her boobs on a rich nerd’s face. IQ got nothin’ to do with that.

    I have trouble believing women are less mentally ill than men while possessing brains wired to process emotion over reason. If anything, men are simply more honest about being batspit crazy.

    In closing, I suspect the gender pay gap should be much larger than it currently is. In fact, the rational business decision is to never hire a woman when a man is available regardless of price. Why pick the couch-crashing entitlement queen who excels at pretending to be sane when you could have a producer instead?

    Like

    • The Question says:

      In closing, I suspect the gender pay gap should be much larger than it currently is. In fact, the rational business decision is to never hire a woman when a man is available regardless of price. Why pick the couch-crashing entitlement queen who excels at pretending to be sane when you could have a producer instead?

      I completely agree with your conclusion, but remember that the gender pay gap persists despite incredible government efforts to eliminate it even when it would normally exist due to personal preference. Feminists and Co. claim this is due to deeply entrenched sexism and discrimination. Block’s point is that biological realities about men and women explain the gap, and that gap is necessary to prevent a societal collapse.

      This is why Murray Rothbard called egalitarianism a revolt against nature – they are literally warring against the natural order of things.

      Like

  3. Gunner Q says:

    I did a comment that hasn’t shown up yet. Should I resubmit? [The Question: For some reason your comment got sent to the spam folder; I’ve fished it out. Not sure for why it did that.]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s