Is accounting the only job you've ever heard of? Most people have heard of construction jobs, warehouse jobs, farming jobs, etc., where physical strength contributes much to productivity.

The vast majority of entrepreneurs work for companies they own or are major stockholders in. I'm betting their skills DO "benefit the companies they work for".

You're assigning a very limited definition to "aggressive", sounds like a clear-cut case of marginal literacy level. Check out related terms such as 'motivated'. But, if you prefer wimpy surgeons performing your life-saving procedures, don't let me dissuade you!

If you require "studies" to recognize facts that most rational people assume fall under the heading of 'common sense/common knowledge', you'll have to get them from somebody else. Not worth my effort.

Sorry, your Old Testament reference passed right over my head, but I actually type with TWO hands, although with only two fingers, those being my index fingers, which leaves both middle fingers free to salute your pusilanimous bullshit.

I can only assume you typed that entire post using only one hand based on the amount of self-loving, ego-stroking bullshit that gushes from each line.

What does physical strength have to do with accounting?

And “entrepreneurial” characteristics in employees typically do not benefit the companies they work for.

I don’t know if I want my surgeon to be overly aggressive when having to perform life saving procedures.

I would ask for links to the studies that support your macho, Onanistic swill, but I am guessing they’ll just be links to one of Trump’s books.

No word yet as to the make and model of her astral plane. I'm sure it's a nice one.

I believe I recall hearing that she got her husband's permission to go to Hell. :)

Of course you prefer neilm's version of economics, because economics can get extremely political, you share neilm's political ideology, and you both happily let political ideology outweigh and overwhelm economics.

The "Three women" who disagree with me can cite random statistics all day long, but in the end, the facts of (economic) life as they pertain to productivity, compensation etc, are and always will be:

1) Men are ON AVERAGE, physically stronger than women.

2) Men are ON AVERAGE more entrepreneurial than women.

3) Men are ON AVERAGE more agressive than women.

4) Men are ON AVERAGE more genetically endowed with
talents and skills (especially STEM stuff) that
promote productivity, than are women.

5) Men don't get pregnant.

Sorry if I seem "smug", sorry that you understand principles of economics too a lesser extent than I do, sorry that you and your fellow Dems/Libs elect to not live in the world of reality, but I cannot remedy any of those things.

Really? Three women who would beg differ with you and have the economic chops to back it up.

https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-and-is-it-real/#epi-toc-42

Where is the data to back up what you say? Adjusted for age, education and profession.

"I'm not saying pay differentials don't EXIST, I said they do not exist because of any legal mandate."

If you get rid of the double negatives in your statement you can re-frame you argument (excuse) as:

Pay differentials exist because of a lack of mandated protections against sex based bias. Implied: so what? How comforting that is to the economically inflicted!

CRS you are very smug, but for the life of me I can't see why. Your reasoning skills are purely rhetorical tricks. When it comes to economic discussion around here I much prefer the comments of neilm.

I'm turning on the damn comment (noise suppression) filter again.

I'm not saying pay differentials don't EXIST, I said they do not exist because of any legal mandate.

Pay differentials almost invariably reflect/represent productivity differentials. It's a fact of life that biological differences create productivity differences. Maybe it ain't "fair", but it is an undeniable fact of life.

"So what would be the practical effect of passage/adoption? Is "equality of rights under the law" currently being "denied or abridged" anywhere "on account of sex"?"

YES

Google, Microsoft, Uber, and Walmart have all faced recent lawsuits by their female employees alleging discrimination.

The Trump administration also rolled back Obama regulatory rules that banned forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.

That doesn't even begin to include what the Education department under Betsy Devos is doing regarding rolling back civil rights claims and Title IX funding, etc.

So yes, an actual amendment to the U.S. constitution would help to put a check on all of that and give some actual teeth to legal standing that is currently subject to the whims of any one particular administration.

Excellent column. A few months ago I tried to figure out just where in limbo ERA was. The task proved to be complicated and daunting. Other complicated and daunting tasks intervened. Thanks for clearing this matter up. :)

You seem to assume your review from CW would be positive. AKA be careful what you wish for.

"Phyllis Schlafly is dead."

"No, no she's outside looking in."

No word yet as to the make and model of her astral plane. I'm sure it's a nice one.

Schafly's life as a very rich and influential woman can be summarized as :class trumps sex.

Those 3 words time travel beautifully to 2018, in a slightly different, orange hued context.

Surely nobody's dumb enough to think that it would eliminate pay differentials between men and women? Far as I'm aware, the law doesn't mandate wage levels based on anything at all, and certainly not on sex.

Seconded.

My mother always says to say something good about the dead. Phyllis Schlafly is dead. Good.