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.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s