I don’t understand. According to their (England et al) argument all nurses should now be making more as more men are doing that job. The link doesn’t say anything about that. Not disputing the existence of pay gap or discrimination. I just don’t think their results support the stated mechanism.

I don’t know why the article says that (assuming that’s where the quote comes from). I skimmed the study in moderate detail and didn’t find any evidence for that claim, nor can I see how they would make it given their approach. They don’t differentiate, as far as I could tell, from a change in proportion due to women…

Let me preface this by saying I in no way doubt the presence of a pay gap due to gender discrimination. But I don’t think I buy their exact interpretation. As I understand their claim: women start doing more of a type of work, which then causes that type of work to be less valuable relative to work still done mostly…

Even if that extremely unlikely event should come to pass. . .

yeah, astronomy is not the same as biology it turns out.

That sounds fun! And thanks for the extensive description! ;)

Despite the many words in your description, I have absolutely no clue what your style looks like.

This alienation narrative doesn’t seem to be borne out by the data. Clinton is absolutely crushing Sanders in terms of black votes. Something like 80% yesterday?