Just read @JoMicheII crystal clear post on the pay gap (spoiler *it exists!*): Strikes me how, regardless of the evolution of the size of the pay gap itself, the same *type* arguments are pushed forward across centuries. 1/n medium.com/@jomicheII/the…
eg Sidney Webb (EJ, 1891) who, while confessing his incapacity to properly weight the different factors — customs, conventions, nature, choice, discrimination — which according to him, explain wage diff, he nevertheless emphasize one - the general inferiority of women’s work 2/n 
To which Millicent Fawcett (yes, the one that gave the name to the Society the IAE is attacking in the note) answered in 1892: discrimination (including formal marriage bars and laws) explains both the level of wage and occupational segregation 3/n
While arguing against the Fawcett’s society method for not taking into account all factors, the IAE’s note put forward one major factor and *seems* to deny the existence of others. Or to push for the "motherhood factor" as the major one. 4/n
Historically, supply-side explanations have dominated the debates on wage diff (=it’s women’s « nature », labor supply « characteristics » and then « personal choices ») before scrutiny of the demand-side of the labor market get some attention. 5/n
And the way we measure the pay gap is in itself not well suited to come out with the demand-side aspects beacuse it is an indirect method of measurement with no observation of actual (employee/er) decisions. 6/n
And ultimatly interpretation depends on what you choose as "given" in your analysis (every variables you choose to put in a multiple regression analysis *can* reflect pre-market discrimination, and also feedback effect, autoselection...) and also, "choice".... 7/n
Anyway, the pay gap is useful to see a lot of things. And defending the status quo based on inferences on "choices" without data is unsatisfactory. Sorry for the trolling. Have a great day. 8/n
