| As others have pointed out, 2.4% is within the margin of error. The "accounting for job, industry" is very rough, so "social science" lumps together economists (66% male, $70k median income) and social workers (68% female, $40k median income). "Hours worked" is also almost certainly not accounted for properly, as that is not a linear relationship of you get %x more for %x more hours. Instead, being willing to put in extra hours is seen as a token of submitting to the dominance hierarchy and key factor towards advancement. Saying something like "I structure my work so I get everything done in 40 hours" is not the correct answer when asked about your willingness to put in extra hours, because that's not what this is about. And men are generally more willing to do this than women, and men that are not are shut out of promotion just as much (or probably more) than women. Also there is risk-taking. A study reported on in the Süddeutsche Zeitung[1][2](German) shows that even in controlled laboratory conditions, women chose low-risk strategies even when the "risk" is almost entirely theoretical and the advantages of a higher risk strategy clear. As the high-risk strategies on average lead to greater rewards (as in real life), the authors report there was a 23% gap in male/female earnings within that study. Finally, it turns out that the lives of the top earners actually aren't all that great. They more or less suck. Women are more savvy about this, and have more alternatives, whereas men are much more motivated to stay in such negative environments for the status/money rewards[3]. When you put these factors together, they actually appear to over-explain the gender wage gap, and of course that isn't entirely unlikely[4] [1] https://allesevolution.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/frauen-risik... [2] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/gleichberechtigung-das-g... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gddjMm3Q3l0 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Women_are_wonderful%22_effe... |