[HarryHirsch]

Yet meanwhile, women entered the legal profession in the 1920's but wages did not catch up until the 1960's when the Equal Pay Act was passed. Economics 101 would say you could snap up competent female lawyers for a little more than they were paid at their current firm and thus wages would creep up, yet this would not happen.

[KingMob]

Not sure why you're being down-voted. Efficient markets for talent shouldn't tolerate racism/sexism/etc, but all the historical evidence is to contrary. It's almost as if rational _homo economicus_ is a bad foundation.

[mattmaroon]

I don’t think so. It’s not that law firms intentionally passed up on bidding a little more for women because they were as good as men but cheaper. It’s because they thought the women were simply less good.

It takes awhile for people to change their view. If you come from a society that has for thousands of years said women couldn’t do jobs like be a lawyer as well as men, it’s not crazy that it would take you 40 years to figure out that wasn’t true.

It’s not a bad foundation when it comes to something like what we’re discussing, allocation of capital by professional investors in the medical space. They’re pretty close to homo economicus, but they’re still human so they still err.

[HarryHirsch]

It's not a surprise that especially at elite college it's classical economics that is taught in the gen. ed. courses. Its models are simple, and plainly visibly wrong.

If behavioural economics or political economics were taught instead, anything with models that have explanatory power it would be viewed as lefty and revolutionary, and that would really upset donors. Consequently we are stuck with homo oeconomicus.