A Woman Just Won the Nobel Prize for Discovering Something Decades After Thomas Sowell
Few figures in conservativism are more revered than Thomas Sowell. A free-market economist, social theorist and philosopher, Sowell’s work has spanned decades and influenced generations.
Sowell wrote a nationally syndicated column, authored dozens of books and dazzled television audiences time and time again with his common sense, anti-intellectual approach to political and cultural issues.
The following story is part of The Western Journal’s exclusive series “The Sowell Digest.” Each issue will break down and summarize one of Sowell’s many influential works.
On Oct. 9, Harvard professor Claudia Goldin won the 2023 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for “having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes.”
It turns out, however, that in 1981, Thomas Sowell reached the same conclusion Goldin did, though he did not attach her meaning to that conclusion.
In sum, when it comes to earnings from labor, Goldin, an economics professor at Harvard University, found that “the differences among men and women in the same profession widens after the birth of the first child,” according to USA Today.
Men, in other words, begin to earn more money relative to women once they become fathers. Women, on the other hand, earn less by comparison when they become mothers.
The only surprising thing about any of this is that Goldin found it surprising — and alarming.
“Quite frankly, it’s the most disturbing part of this,” she said of the supposed “fatherhood premium” in a phone interview with USA Today. “Why is it that fathers are doing better [than non-fathers], even though they have kids? Why is the fatherhood premium growing over time?”
Goldin added that “the price of being a woman stays constant [due to social norms around gender],” which she also found “somewhat disturbing.”
To complement this “social norms around gender” claptrap, USA Today cited “the American notion of masculinity” as an explanation. Apparently, fatherhood makes many men believe they should work harder. Perish the thought.
As one would expect, many years ago, Sowell offered a more sensible take on the same phenomenon.
In a 1981 appearance on William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” Sowell fielded questions from lawyer and feminist activist Harriet Pilpel.
Using the same basic script that today’s liberals employ, Pilpel cited differences in average incomes between white and black people and men and women as “clear” evidence of “discrimination against blacks and against women in our present system.”
Sowell rejected the premise. In fact, he argued that when comparing people with similar educations in similar professions, the numbers favor blacks and women.
Above all, however, he objected to single-factor analyses based on skin color or sex.
“I’m saying that you cannot say that numbers collected at the employers’ place of business reflect simply their employers’ policies. Those numbers reflect underlying conditions in the whole society, just as numbers collected at a hospital do not show you that the people are sick because they’re in the hospital,” Sowell said.
Pilpel conceded that point but then insisted that Sowell “would also have to agree” that women “generally” receive less pay for the same work.
“No. I would not. I would not agree with that,” he replied.
Here Sowell explained that women who remain in the workforce continuously often make more than men. Moving in and out of the workforce, he added, accounts for variations in earnings.
“The differences with women is between married women and everybody else,” he said.
Pilpel then cited U.S. Census Bureau statistics showing, she thought, that the same differences prevail among single men and women. Again, Sowell exposed the lack of nuance in such arguments.
“When I did my study I didn’t use ‘single.’ I used ‘never married,'” Sowell said.
And this, of course, made all the difference.
“You see, a woman who is single at age 40, having spent 10 or 20 years raising children, is really not quite the same as a man of age 40 who had been working continuously for 20 years,” he explained.
Indeed, when he studied academics, for instance, Sowell found that “never married” women earned more than men. The same held true for women who had worked since high school. By the time they reached their 30s, they earned more than men.
“So the difference,” Sowell reiterated, “is between married women and everybody else.”
Here, however, he added that married men do enjoy a compensatory advantage. This is what Goldin supposedly discovered — and for which she received a Nobel Prize.
“Married men get an extra bonus because their wives take care of many things,” Sowell said.
And there we have the “fatherhood premium” that Goldin found so “disturbing.”
Note that Sowell offered none of the hand-wringing over compensatory differences between married women — he did not say so explicitly, but here he assumed motherhood as well — and everyone else.
Readers who wish to view the entire “Firing Line” episode may do so here:
In short, Goldin won the Nobel Prize not for “groundbreaking work” but because her conclusions fit the preferred liberal narrative.
This is by no means meant to disparage her scholarly effort. After all, according to USA Today, she gathered and analyzed two centuries’ worth of data. No doubt she learned a great deal from which others might benefit.
The problem, however, involves both the novelty of her findings — Sowell said the same thing — and her judgments about them.
Whereas Sowell found nothing unexpected or alarming about the so-called fatherhood premium, Goldin found it not only “disturbing” but “the most disturbing part of this.”
That attitude should sound strange to anyone who has ever married, befriended or even met a woman.
For instance, imagine telling a young woman that the hardworking man she has considered marrying will, when he becomes a father, work even harder and earn even more money.
Now, imagine telling a young man the same thing about the hardworking woman he has considered marrying — that when she becomes a mother she will work even harder and earn even more money.
Never mind what each young person has a “right” to do with his or her life and career. No one disputes that. How would each young person react? If they would react differently — as they almost surely would — might this signify something?
To Goldin and USA Today, it signifies something like “social norms around gender” or “the American notion of masculinity.”
To conservatives, however, it signifies something rooted in our natures.
Thus, expressions of shock and dismay at the “fatherhood premium” make little sense to those who understand the differences between men and women.
None of this, of course, means that men and women must think A or B about marriage and careers. It means that in general they do think those things.
Finally, we also should find it suspect that at times when a man misses his child’s first recital or game-winning goal, no one ever mentions the “fatherhood premium.” In later years, when he reflects on the work he did instead of witnessing such milestones, ask him which memory he would have preferred.
In short, when it came to factors that determine married women’s earnings, Sowell knew better than to make harsh judgments.
And for that, he will never win a Nobel Prize.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
