naged by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated

Establishment of the society of equal rights for everyone depends a lot on individual choice of most people in such issues as education and selection of future profession, assignment of domestic chores, and organization of child care. On the other hand a lot depends on the political decisions made regarding all the mentioned issues. This leads to distribution of responsibilities and obligations among men and women. There jobs that are believed to be only women’s as well as particularly those for men only.

The gender wage differential has been attributed to differences in productivity as a result of human capital differences, discrimination and choice of occupations. The differential exists as a result of differences in productivity, termed ‘explained’ and termed ‘unexplained’ as a result of discrimination.

Wage differentials caused by human capital differentials are justifiable as long as they represent the value of their marginal product. In the case of gender discrimination, females may receive lower monetary rewards than their marginal product would otherwise suggest and consequently receive less than their comparable male competitors.

Some economists believe that part of the wage differential is caused by rational choices made by women. Females tend to have interrupted work as a result of childbearing and family upbringing and consequently are likely to have a shorter working career and invest less in education and training. Additionally, women tend to retire earlier relative to men - Sixty years old and sixty five years old (UK) for women and men, respectively. Expected net earning for comparable females may be lower than that of males as a result of shorter female labour market presence. This may result in lower rates of return for females in terms of human capital investment and consequently make such investment less attractive to women leading to a lower demand for higher education. Absence from the labour market may deteriorate the female stock of human capital previously acquired, therefore it can be expected that females acquire less education and training and consequently are less productive and attract a lower relative wage.

Productivity and hence wage differences may also occur because of higher rates of absenteeism and turnover of females compared to males, absenteeism is only slightly higher for females without children or with school-age children but is seven times higher for females with pre-school children in addition to causing lower wages, higher absenteeism and turnover may be the result of low wages: cause and effect work in both directions, reinforcing each other.

Firms may experience higher turnover costs associated with hiring females rather than males and to offset this extra cost, females should be paid relatively less to compensate higher turnover costs. Maternity leave and sick children may for example increase turnover costs as short-term replacement of female labour may be required along with possible firing of existing females and recruiting of new labour. Dolton and Waldfogel found that married women significantly earn less than that of married men and that employers gauge women to have poorer motivation at work relative to men that are married.

The wage gap may be caused by females choosing jobs that require less effort, shorter commuting times and safer jobs that bear relatively lower compensating differentials to that of jobs occupied by males. Differences in career goals by females and educational choices may contribute to wage differentials. Brookes found that males have a better ability to capture economic rent along with better success in promotions which may explain part of the reason why men enjoy higher earnings. The better success in terms of male relative to female promotions may not be justified if is purely as a result of discrimination.

There is also evidence that females on aggregate work relatively less than males and usually work part-time and consequently are likely to earn less. They are thus likely to accumulate relatively less job experience, job training and firm-specific skills and receive lower earnings and weaker promotion prospects. This can be attributed to females bringing up families and running the household which gives them less time to work outside. Ermisch and Wright found that female part-time workers have a relatively lower elasticity of labour supply function and at best would their wages would be equal to male full-time workers, but usually lower.

In the past, it was in certain societies unusual for females to enter higher education, for example universities which would have reduced the extra productivity and hence wage they would attract. However, there has been a reversal and women enter higher education just as much as men do therefore this is an invalid explanation to gender differentials. Discrimination against females may result because males have a preference for working with and being managed by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated o

ional choices made by women. Females tend to have interrupted work as a result of childbearing and family upbringing and consequently are likely to have a shorter working career and invest less in education and training. Additionally, women tend to retire earlier relative to men - Sixty years old and sixty five years old (UK) for women and men, respectively. Expected net earning for comparable females may be lower than that of males as a result of shorter female labour market presence. This may result in lower rates of return for females in terms of human capital investment and consequently make such investment less attractive to women leading to a lower demand for higher education. Absence from the labour market may deteriorate the female stock of human capital previously acquired, therefore it can be expected that females acquire less education and training and consequently are less productive and attract a lower relative wage.

Productivity and hence wage differences may also occur because of higher rates of absenteeism and turnover of females compared to males, absenteeism is only slightly higher for females without children or with school-age children but is seven times higher for females with pre-school children in addition to causing lower wages, higher absenteeism and turnover may be the result of low wages: cause and effect work in both directions, reinforcing each other.

Firms may experience higher turnover costs associated with hiring females rather than males and to offset this extra cost, females should be paid relatively less to compensate higher turnover costs. Maternity leave and sick children may for example increase turnover costs as short-term replacement of female labour may be required along with possible firing of existing females and recruiting of new labour. Dolton and Waldfogel found that married women significantly earn less than that of married men and that employers gauge women to have poorer motivation at work relative to men that are married.

The wage gap may be caused by females choosing jobs that require less effort, shorter commuting times and safer jobs that bear relatively lower compensating differentials to that of jobs occupied by males. Differences in career goals by females and educational choices may contribute to wage differentials. Brookes found that males have a better ability to capture economic rent along with better success in promotions which may explain part of the reason why men enjoy higher earnings. The better success in terms of male relative to female promotions may not be justified if is purely as a result of discrimination.

There is also evidence that females on aggregate work relatively less than males and usually work part-time and consequently are likely to earn less. They are thus likely to accumulate relatively less job experience, job training and firm-specific skills and receive lower earnings and weaker promotion prospects. This can be attributed to females bringing up families and running the household which gives them less time to work outside. Ermisch and Wright found that female part-time workers have a relatively lower elasticity of labour supply function and at best would their wages would be equal to male full-time workers, but usually lower.

In the past, it was in certain societies unusual for females to enter higher education, for example universities which would have reduced the extra productivity and hence wage they would attract. However, there has been a reversal and women enter higher education just as much as men do therefore this is an invalid explanation to gender differentials. Discrimination against females may result because males have a preference for working with and being managed by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated

on to causing lower wages, higher absenteeism and turnover may be the result of low wages: cause and effect work in both directions, reinforcing each other.

Firms may experience higher turnover costs associated with hiring females rather than males and to offset this extra cost, females should be paid relatively less to compensate higher turnover costs. Maternity leave and sick children may for example increase turnover costs as short-term replacement of female labour may be required along with possible firing of existing females and recruiting of new labour. Dolton and Waldfogel found that married women significantly earn less than that of married men and that employers gauge women to have poorer motivation at work relative to men that are married.

The wage gap may be caused by females choosing jobs that require less effort, shorter commuting times and safer jobs that bear relatively lower compensating differentials to that of jobs occupied by males. Differences in career goals by females and educational choices may contribute to wage differentials. Brookes found that males have a better ability to capture economic rent along with better success in promotions which may explain part of the reason why men enjoy higher earnings. The better success in terms of male relative to female promotions may not be justified if is purely as a result of discrimination.

There is also evidence that females on aggregate work relatively less than males and usually work part-time and consequently are likely to earn less. They are thus likely to accumulate relatively less job experience, job training and firm-specific skills and receive lower earnings and weaker promotion prospects. This can be attributed to females bringing up families and running the household which gives them less time to work outside. Ermisch and Wright found that female part-time workers have a relatively lower elasticity of labour supply function and at best would their wages would be equal to male full-time workers, but usually lower.

In the past, it was in certain societies unusual for females to enter higher education, for example universities which would have reduced the extra productivity and hence wage they would attract. However, there has been a reversal and women enter higher education just as much as men do therefore this is an invalid explanation to gender differentials. Discrimination against females may result because males have a preference for working with and being managed by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated

nings. The better success in terms of male relative to female promotions may not be justified if is purely as a result of discrimination.

There is also evidence that females on aggregate work relatively less than males and usually work part-time and consequently are likely to earn less. They are thus likely to accumulate relatively less job experience, job training and firm-specific skills and receive lower earnings and weaker promotion prospects. This can be attributed to females bringing up families and running the household which gives them less time to work outside. Ermisch and Wright found that female part-time workers have a relatively lower elasticity of labour supply function and at best would their wages would be equal to male full-time workers, but usually lower.

In the past, it was in certain societies unusual for females to enter higher education, for example universities which would have reduced the extra productivity and hence wage they would attract. However, there has been a reversal and women enter higher education just as much as men do therefore this is an invalid explanation to gender differentials. Discrimination against females may result because males have a preference for working with and being managed by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated

naged by males, customers having a desire for being served by males, employers having erroneous information on the labour market worth of females; for example, they may underestimate the productivity of females, information on individual workers is costly to obtain and employers may judge individual females on the basis of the average performance of all females. The demand for female labour may be reduced relative to the demand for equally productive male labour thus bidding down female wages comparable to male wages with equal marginal physical products. For reasons of job security, males may try to protect their high-wage jobs from low-wage female competition.

Gender discrimination may cause females to erroneously underestimate their own labour market worth and have a lower reservation wage relative to comparable male workers. As a result, females are more likely to accept lower wages and a wage differential is likely to occur. Most secretaries, nurses, and primary school teachers are women while most engineers, surgeons, computer programmers, and chemists are men. The "crowding" hypothesis suggests that low wages received by women in these occupations is due to a relatively large supply of labour in these female-dominated occupations. If women voluntarily select these low-paid occupations then the lower wage is the result of voluntary choice and not discrimination. This part of the wage differential is the result of discrimination, if women are crowded into these occupations as a result of barriers to their entry into higher-paying male-dominated professions. It can also be argued that these choices are made due to female preferences for certain types of occupation and their important uses that can be transferred to the house.

As women tend to segregate into service sector-like occupations that are relatively more labour intensive than manufacturing sector-like occupations, they are likely to have a lower marginal revenue product. Services sectors are more competitive than manufacturing firms which are usually oligopolies. The higher competition in services, results in relatively lower services prices. Even though a female may have equal marginal physical product, their marginal revenue product will be lower due to the competitively low service sector prices. As the firms demand for labour is equal to the marginal revenue product of labour, service sector wages are likely to be lower relative to capital intensive firms where competition is relatively more imperfect. Blau-Kahn found that two thirds of this wage gap is as a result of occupational choice, experience and industry. The wage gap has been falling as a result of a rise in relative female productivity and a fall in female discrimination which is the ‘unexplained’ component of the wage differential. It is expected, however, that as the proportion of women in male-dominated occupations continues to increase, the wage differential is likely to narrow. More females are entering higher-paid occupations such as accountancy and law and delay birth or use childcare to look after their children allowing them to prolong their labour market presence.

Gender discrimination is partly a cause of the gender wage gap but with time is declining, helping to reduce the gap. Discrimination may result in females acquiring less education and training, reducing their productivity and consequently the wages they attract. If gender discrimination fell, more women are likely to invest in education and training for jobs that are more male-dominated, such as surgery, politics, vehicle mechanics and engineering. This may increase aggregate female earnings and reduce the wage gap. I strongly believe that discrimination is what causes women to acquire less education initially, and training suitable for limited occupations. If gender discrimination against females dramatically declined, females would have more of an incentive to train and educate for a wider and higher occupational choice.