The ‘Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ is not one of the original 5 prizes established by Alfred Nobel. It was set up over half a century later by a bank.
Wage inequality research gets you a Nobel these days.
Seriously, this economic theorists suggests nefariousness for employers willing to give more of them self for the companies bottom line, a free choice at that. Instead, it is a plot against women especially. Like men dying in war and it is pronounced that women suffer more……you cannot make this crap up.
I really despise that they added this prize.
According to her research, the bulk of it comes down to choices:
“Acknowledging the “persistent frustration” about the pay gap’s durability, Goldin pointed a finger at structural inequities, bias and sexual harassment, but she also argues that “greedy work” was a major factor. Greedy work “is a job that pays a disproportionately more on a per hour basis when someone works a greater number of hours or has less control over those hours.” Hence, the gap persists “not so much [because] men and women go into completely different occupations,” she explains, but that women are financially “penalized” for choosing work that allows flexibility within that occupation.”
Falopa
what a useless prize
These kinds of awards keep Alfred Nobel turning in his grave at a steady 14000 rpm. If they attach a generator to his coffin they would get free energy, but that would be good for the world, so they’re not even willing to do that. Nobel Prize trolling all the way.
For mankind to move forward Economics must evolve.
Economists create theory more than discover truth. We need to appreciate that many ‘norms’ of economic measures are manmade constructs and we, humanity, can decide to change what we value.
Nobel prize for the gender pay gap? something that doesn’t exist
Oh, somebody won the fake nobel funded by the banks and created exclusively to”economic sciences” legitimacy .
World economy is in shambles, here’s a Nobel prize for knowing what almost everyone else does and has experienced.
How is anybody winning a prize for economic study while there are still people living on the street and hungry? My mom’s rent back in the ‘70s was $90.
Screw everyone involved in this.
Great to hear.
Goldin is the third woman to win the Nobel, and the first to win it solo. She’s also the first economic historian to win the Nobel in 30 years.
She won the Nobel for “having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes”. She’s the leading scholar on women in the labor force. She’s collected and analyzed over 200 years of data on women’s career and family decisions- and how often one must be sacrificed for the other.
She also has excellent papers on the effects of the birth control pill on women’s employment and family decisions, women’s surnames after marriage, and, my favorite, “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Effect of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians”, which shows that female musicians benefit more from blind auditions (where judges can’t see the performer).
Unusual for a Nobel laureate, Goldin came into her main area of research relatively late in her career. She spent much of her early career studying the economy of the antebellum south.
Goldin is a “third generation” laureate. Her dissertation advisor Bob Fogel won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for his work in economic history (Fogel himself was a student of Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets). She was the first woman to be offered tenure at Harvard’s economics department. She also keeps an [adorable blog](https://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/pages/pika) of her golden retriever Pika.
Look the Nobel committee found it’s DEI with this horse squeeze nomination… “first comprehensive account of women’s earnings and labour market participation through the centuries… Her research reveals the causes of change, as well as the main sources of the remaining gender gap.”
The committee awarded an economics award for a history regurgitation and an explanation for something which has been known for over 30 years leaving only 3% estimated for gender bias.
“Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Ludvig Nobel.[35] Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family’s name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[36] He explained that “Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society’s well-being”, saying that “There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize”, and that the association with the Nobel prizes is “a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation”.[35]
According to Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times, both former Swedish minister of finance (Kjell-Olof Feldt) and Swedish former minister of commerce (Gunnar Myrdal) wanted the prize abolished, saying, “Myrdal rather less graciously wanted the prize abolished because it had been given to such reactionaries as Hayek (and afterwards Milton Friedman).”[33] Relatedly, it has been noted that several members of the awarding committee have been affiliated with the Mont Pelerin Society.[37]
In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet, Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would “have decidedly advised against it”[33][38] primarily because, “The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. … This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.”[38]
Critics cite the apparent snub of Joan Robinson as evidence of the committee’s bias towards mainstream economics,[39][40] though heterodox economists like Friedrich Hayek (Austrian School) and Ronald Coase (associated with new institutional economics) have won.[dubious – discuss]
Milton Friedman was awarded the 1976 prize in part for his work on monetarism. Awarding the prize to Friedman caused international protests.[41] Friedman was accused of supporting the military dictatorship in Chile because of the relation of economists of the University of Chicago to Pinochet, and a controversial six-day trip[42] he took to Chile during March 1975 (less than two years after the coup that deposed President Salvador Allende). Friedman himself answered that he never was an adviser to the dictatorship, but only gave some lectures and seminars on inflation and met with officials, including Augusto Pinochet, in Chile.[43]
Four Nobel Prize laureates – George Wald, Linus Pauling, David Baltimore and Salvador Luria – wrote letters in October 1976 to The New York Times protesting Friedman’s award.[44][45]
The 1994 prize to John Forbes Nash caused controversy within the selection committee because of Nash’s history of mental illness and alleged[by whom?] anti-Semitism.[46][47] The controversy resulted in a change to the rules governing the committee during 1994: Prize Committee members are now limited to serve for three years.[32]
The 2005 prize to Robert Aumann was criticized by the European press[48] for his alleged use of game theory to justify his stance against the dismantling of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.”
We had the War on Drugs to divide people, but that’s mostly dried up. Then we had race to divide people, but that’s peaked. I expect the latter half of 2020s/early 2030s will be using gender to divide people. It’s already begun with LGBTQ, but that’s not widespread enough. Just straight to the point male vs female division. It’s already begun in places like Korea and Japan. But America will eat it up.
There is a ton of money to be made here. More division between men and women mean less children. Less children means less chances of wealth being passed from one generation to the next, resulting in an enormous increase in money liquidity.
Great reporting reuters what did you snap that pic off your TV
This is a great research how can people not see this and just say silly jokes
21 comments
Will Ben Shapiro debate her?
The ‘Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ is not one of the original 5 prizes established by Alfred Nobel. It was set up over half a century later by a bank.
Wage inequality research gets you a Nobel these days.
Seriously, this economic theorists suggests nefariousness for employers willing to give more of them self for the companies bottom line, a free choice at that. Instead, it is a plot against women especially. Like men dying in war and it is pronounced that women suffer more……you cannot make this crap up.
I really despise that they added this prize.
According to her research, the bulk of it comes down to choices:
“Acknowledging the “persistent frustration” about the pay gap’s durability, Goldin pointed a finger at structural inequities, bias and sexual harassment, but she also argues that “greedy work” was a major factor. Greedy work “is a job that pays a disproportionately more on a per hour basis when someone works a greater number of hours or has less control over those hours.” Hence, the gap persists “not so much [because] men and women go into completely different occupations,” she explains, but that women are financially “penalized” for choosing work that allows flexibility within that occupation.”
Falopa
what a useless prize
These kinds of awards keep Alfred Nobel turning in his grave at a steady 14000 rpm. If they attach a generator to his coffin they would get free energy, but that would be good for the world, so they’re not even willing to do that. Nobel Prize trolling all the way.
For mankind to move forward Economics must evolve.
Economists create theory more than discover truth. We need to appreciate that many ‘norms’ of economic measures are manmade constructs and we, humanity, can decide to change what we value.
Nobel prize for the gender pay gap? something that doesn’t exist
Oh, somebody won the fake nobel funded by the banks and created exclusively to”economic sciences” legitimacy .
World economy is in shambles, here’s a Nobel prize for knowing what almost everyone else does and has experienced.
How is anybody winning a prize for economic study while there are still people living on the street and hungry? My mom’s rent back in the ‘70s was $90.
Screw everyone involved in this.
Great to hear.
Goldin is the third woman to win the Nobel, and the first to win it solo. She’s also the first economic historian to win the Nobel in 30 years.
She won the Nobel for “having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes”. She’s the leading scholar on women in the labor force. She’s collected and analyzed over 200 years of data on women’s career and family decisions- and how often one must be sacrificed for the other.
She also has excellent papers on the effects of the birth control pill on women’s employment and family decisions, women’s surnames after marriage, and, my favorite, “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Effect of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians”, which shows that female musicians benefit more from blind auditions (where judges can’t see the performer).
Unusual for a Nobel laureate, Goldin came into her main area of research relatively late in her career. She spent much of her early career studying the economy of the antebellum south.
Goldin is a “third generation” laureate. Her dissertation advisor Bob Fogel won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for his work in economic history (Fogel himself was a student of Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets). She was the first woman to be offered tenure at Harvard’s economics department. She also keeps an [adorable blog](https://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/pages/pika) of her golden retriever Pika.
Look the Nobel committee found it’s DEI with this horse squeeze nomination… “first comprehensive account of women’s earnings and labour market participation through the centuries… Her research reveals the causes of change, as well as the main sources of the remaining gender gap.”
The committee awarded an economics award for a history regurgitation and an explanation for something which has been known for over 30 years leaving only 3% estimated for gender bias.
“Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Ludvig Nobel.[35] Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family’s name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[36] He explained that “Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society’s well-being”, saying that “There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize”, and that the association with the Nobel prizes is “a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation”.[35]
According to Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times, both former Swedish minister of finance (Kjell-Olof Feldt) and Swedish former minister of commerce (Gunnar Myrdal) wanted the prize abolished, saying, “Myrdal rather less graciously wanted the prize abolished because it had been given to such reactionaries as Hayek (and afterwards Milton Friedman).”[33] Relatedly, it has been noted that several members of the awarding committee have been affiliated with the Mont Pelerin Society.[37]
In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet, Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would “have decidedly advised against it”[33][38] primarily because, “The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. … This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.”[38]
Critics cite the apparent snub of Joan Robinson as evidence of the committee’s bias towards mainstream economics,[39][40] though heterodox economists like Friedrich Hayek (Austrian School) and Ronald Coase (associated with new institutional economics) have won.[dubious – discuss]
Milton Friedman was awarded the 1976 prize in part for his work on monetarism. Awarding the prize to Friedman caused international protests.[41] Friedman was accused of supporting the military dictatorship in Chile because of the relation of economists of the University of Chicago to Pinochet, and a controversial six-day trip[42] he took to Chile during March 1975 (less than two years after the coup that deposed President Salvador Allende). Friedman himself answered that he never was an adviser to the dictatorship, but only gave some lectures and seminars on inflation and met with officials, including Augusto Pinochet, in Chile.[43]
Four Nobel Prize laureates – George Wald, Linus Pauling, David Baltimore and Salvador Luria – wrote letters in October 1976 to The New York Times protesting Friedman’s award.[44][45]
The 1994 prize to John Forbes Nash caused controversy within the selection committee because of Nash’s history of mental illness and alleged[by whom?] anti-Semitism.[46][47] The controversy resulted in a change to the rules governing the committee during 1994: Prize Committee members are now limited to serve for three years.[32]
The 2005 prize to Robert Aumann was criticized by the European press[48] for his alleged use of game theory to justify his stance against the dismantling of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms
We had the War on Drugs to divide people, but that’s mostly dried up. Then we had race to divide people, but that’s peaked. I expect the latter half of 2020s/early 2030s will be using gender to divide people. It’s already begun with LGBTQ, but that’s not widespread enough. Just straight to the point male vs female division. It’s already begun in places like Korea and Japan. But America will eat it up.
There is a ton of money to be made here. More division between men and women mean less children. Less children means less chances of wealth being passed from one generation to the next, resulting in an enormous increase in money liquidity.
Great reporting reuters what did you snap that pic off your TV
This is a great research how can people not see this and just say silly jokes
Fake.