[bschne]

If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for.

Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.

[remarkEon]

Ehh I'm not exactly convinced of this. There's a lot more factors to consider than raw earning potential, and I'm a little more inclined to be suspicious of trying to redirect people away from what they actually like to do.

[repolfx]

How could it be otherwise?

I naturally strive to stay in bed in the morning and do a lot of hobby projects. That's what I'd like to do, but I'd never argue that other people should be forced to pay me some sort of "bed bonus" to ensure that my natural strivings don't disadvantage me.

At a company like SalesForce, most of the most skilled employees will be developers and most of them will be men, because women, by and large, do not find computers interesting. Anyone who's ever tried to engage women in an enthusiastic conversation about programming languages knows this is true. The resulting "pay gap" isn't a pay gap at all but an earnings gap: it's correct and as it should be.