評論
打印
Even if the distribution of women's occupations matched that of men—"if women were the doctors and men were the nurses"—she calculates that at most a third of the pay gap would disappear.
即使女性的職業分布與男性相同——“如果女的當醫生、男的當護士”——她計算出至多只能減少三分之一的工資差距。
The most important cause is that women curtail their careers as a part of a rational household response to labour markets, which generously reward anyone, male or female, who is willing to hold down what Ms Goldin calls a "greedy job".
最重要的原因是，女性縮減了自己的職業生涯，這是家庭對勞動力市場做出的一種理性反應的一部分。這個市場慷慨地獎勵任何愿意堅守戈爾丁所說的“貪婪的工作”的人，無論男女。
These are roles, such as those in law, accountancy and finance, that demand long and unpredictable hours.
這些領域，比如法律、會計和金融行業的工作，需要很長且不可預測的工作時間。
Parents need somebody to be on-call at home in case a child falls ill and needs picking up from school, or needs cheering on at a concert or football match.
父母中需要有一個人在家里隨叫隨到，準備著孩子生病需要從學校接回，或是需要到音樂會或足球比賽上為孩子加油鼓勁。
That is incompatible with a greedy job, which requires being available for last-minute demands from a client or boss.
這和貪婪地索取精力的工作無法兼容，因為這種工作要隨時待命，滿足客戶或老板的緊急需求。
No one person can do both.
沒有一個人能同時做到這兩點。
The rational response is for one parent to specialise in lucrative greedy work, and for the other—typically the mother—to prioritise the children.
理性的反應是，父母中的一方專門從事有利可圖的貪婪工作，而另一位家長——通常是母親優先照顧孩子。
Ms Goldin writes that "couple equity has been, and will continue to be, jettisoned for increased family income."
戈爾丁女士寫道，“為了增加家庭收入，夫妻平等被舍棄了，而且以后仍將如此。
A gender pay gap resulting primarily from the choices of households is a thorny problem for liberals who prize freedom of choice.
對于崇尚自由選擇的自由主義者來說，主要由家庭選擇造成的性別收入差距是個棘手的問題。
It is also tricky territory for economists, who often emphasise the "revealed preference" of those they study, and the resulting efficiency of market outcomes.
對經濟學家來說，這也是一個棘手的領域，他們經常強調研究對象的“顯示性偏好”，以及由此帶來的市場效率。
True to her membership of the Chicago school of conservative-leaning economists, Ms Goldin does not offer the confident prescriptions for the expansion of government that could have easily followed her compelling diagnosis of the problem.
戈爾丁的態度符合她所屬的傾向保守的芝加哥學派，在對這個問題做出令人信服的診斷后，卻并沒有自信地指出需要擴大政府干預這一原本已是順理成章的方案。
Some parts of her book suggest she supports more subsidies for child care, like those proposed by President Joe Biden.
書中部分內容流露出她支持對兒童保育提供更多補貼，就像美國總統拜登主張的那樣。
But speaking to The Economist she was more circumspect, pointing out that among Mr Biden's proposals she would prioritise cash transfers to parents (a policy that makes no attempt to change households’ choices).
但在接受本刊采訪時，她顯得更為謹慎，指出在拜登的主張里，她會優先選擇向父母提供現金援助（這項政策無意改變家庭的選擇）。
The book is about "what happened and why", she says, rather than solutions.
她說，這本書是關于“發生了什么以及為什么發生”，而不是解決方案。
For love or money
為愛還是為錢
Another theme of the book, however, is just how much progress for women is a result of technological change and innovation.
不過，這本書的另一個主題是，女性的進步在多大程度上是技術變革和創新的結果。
Could similar forces disrupt greediness?
類似的力量會破壞工作的貪婪程度嗎？
For some jobs it is hard to see how; little can stop the self-employed pouring hours into their businesses, say.
對于某些工作來說這難以想象，比如沒有什么能阻止個體經營者在自己的事業上投入大量時間。
But firms have an incentive to make jobs less greedy, because hiring and promoting mothers means drawing from a bigger pool of talent.
但是企業有動力讓工作變得不那么貪婪，因為雇用母親、給她們升職意味著從更大的人才庫中吸取人才。
Ms Goldin points to pharmacy as an example of an industry that has made the transition.
戈爾丁女士指出，制藥業是一個已經實現轉型的例子。
Many pharmacists used to be self-employed, with customers expecting personal service.
許多藥劑師過去都是個體戶，因為顧客希望得到個人化的服務。
But computers and consolidation have led to pharmacists becoming more substitutable for each other, making the job less greedy without a loss of status or pay.
但計算機和業內整合讓藥劑師工作變得具有可替代性，使這份工作變得不那么貪婪，同時也不會失去地位或工資。
Perhaps remote work or artificial intelligence will do the same for other professions.
也許遠程工作或人工智能對其他職業也會起到同樣的作用。
Like a radical, Ms Goldin has identified a structural feature of the economy: "It isn’t you, it's the system," she reassures the reader.
戈爾丁像一個激進分子那樣，指出了經濟的一個結構性特征。“不是你的問題，而是體制的問題，”她向讀者保證。
But she has the liberal's hesitancy about disrupting a system that is built on choice.
但她和自由主義者一樣，對于顛覆一個建立在選擇之上的體制仍猶豫不決。
