[wahern]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease, which is an example of a phenomenon whereby increased wages in one industry pull up wages in other, seemingly unrelated industries. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_elasticity_of_demand and, most generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Those things show how prices/wages could be linked across industries through opportunity cost of the laborer. It doesn't suffice to explain how a sex pay gap could emerge. If hiring men were more expensive (because they have greater opportunity costs), then just don't hire them--hire the women, or whomever is willing to accept the wage you're willing pay for the particular labor services desired.

[michaelt]

You wouldn't expect a supermarket to pay male cashiers more because the men could become miners.

But they might have to pay more for the people who haul heavy boxes around in the back, which might be male-dominated, leading to a pay gap for 'supermarket worker' if not for 'supermarket cashier'.

[Thorrez]

Yes, but that would only be at the low end of the pay scale. At the middle or high end this wouldn't explain a pay gap.

[Thorrez]

>It doesn't suffice to explain how a sex pay gap could emerge. If hiring men were more expensive (because they have greater opportunity costs), then just don't hire them--hire the women, or whomever is willing to accept the wage you're willing pay for the particular labor services desired.

Yes exactly. It would only explain a pay gap at the low end of the pay scale. It wouldn't explain it in the middle or high end.