When I saw the news that Harvard University professor Claudia Goldin had won the Nobel Prize in Economics, I was just taking my first sip of black coffee.
“That’s well-deserved,” I thought, reading that although she was the third woman to win the prize, she was the first to win it solo. Then:“I should write about this.”
My still-caffeineless brain lurched into action, with a few gray cells beginning to outline a draft while the rest catalogued everything about my morning that could be shifted (meetings, laundry, my own breakfast) and everything that could not (diaper changes, daycare drop off, my toddler’s breakfast).
Goldin is best known for her work on women’s careers and how they can be derailed by marriage and motherhood. I felt hyperaware, in that moment, of my competing devotions: Working and mothering. How quickly could I write this piece? Only as quickly as my maternal duties would allow. The irony tasted as bitter as the coffee.
It is an especially apt time for the Nobel Committee to recognize Goldin’s work. In the US, a post-COVID-19 pandemic rebound in the women’s workforce participation rate has narrowed the gap between the genders to the smallest on record. This has come as a pleasant surprise after a steep decline in 2020, when the female-dominated service sector was hammered by COVID-19 closures, and schools and daycare centers sent children home.
Women’s workforce resilience can be attributed in part to a strong economy (despite constant prognostications of a coming recession), schools and daycare centers reopening (the latter in part due to government aid that has just expired), and rising wages (which compensate for high daycare costs).
Also vitally important: The greater flexibility offered by employers. Women have always needed a bit more wiggle room to earn a living outside the home because most of the responsibility of running a household and raising the next generation falls to them.
Goldin’s work has long illustrated the importance of flexibility to mothers’earning power. She has studied women’s labor on a sweeping, epic scale — scanning decades of history like a drone camera surveying the Okavango Delta in a wildlife documentary. She has also zoomed in tight, like a microscope, on individual professions.
We know from her research that what we now call “remote work” has long been a key part of women’s ability to contribute to the economy. When the industrial era called workers into factories and offices, women’s involvement in the formal economy started to decline. Pre-19th century, when more work happened at home, more women participated. Seen that way, the remote work of the COVID-19 era is not an “ aberration” as some chief executives have labeled it, but a regression toward the mean.
Other research by Goldin has found that women’s wages have increased when the work is redesigned to offer both flexibility and substitutability. Her classic example is pharmacists. Back when more pharmacies were independent, the pharmacist had to always be on call and most pharmacists were men, but the rise of chain drug stores meant that pharmacists could work in shifts, subbing in for each other as needed. The result is that today, pharmacists have one of the smallest gender-wage gaps among high-earning fields. It is also a field that is now majority female.
Given that so many jobs have long denied workers both substitutability and flexibility, couples have had to make difficult decisions. Here, Goldin has shown that it is usually wives who are willing to sacrifice their careers for their husbands’ jobs. The reverse is not often true.
“We’re never going to have gender equality until we also have couple equity,” she told the New York Times.
That is among the reasons I and so many other writers keep coming back to the gender gap in household labor and caregiving. There are many ways that work can shift around a child’s schedule, and not nearly so many ways that a child can shift around a work schedule.
As Goldin told the Harvard Business Review Women at Work podcast in 2021, the highest-paying jobs today tend to be time-greedy; they require work on evenings and weekends, often on an unpredictable schedule.
In such jobs, “doubling the number of hours more than doubles the earnings,” and often leads to even larger deferred earnings — “you make partner, you get tenure, you get that important first promotion.”
Many time-greedy jobs are still dominated by men, often enabled by wives who handle the home front, but Goldin argued that managerial innovation could allow workers to substitute for each other to make these jobs more mother-friendly.
“The firm, given the incentives, can always find a way to have good substitutes,” she said.
The problem is that so many senior executives simply do not see it that way.
That has become depressingly clear this year, with so many leaders wresting back the flexibility that so many people, and working mothers in particular, have come to rely on to preserve our earning power (not to mention our sanity).
Who knows why the Nobel Committee awards these prizes when they do. Goldin’s work was worthy long before this year, but there is perhaps no better time to recognize her body of work than now.
Sarah Green Carmichael is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and editor. Previously, she was an executive editor at Harvard Business Review. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS