The primary earners of minimum wages are not single-earner heads of household.
Selections from the Preface through Chapter 2.
There's an inverse (and perverse) relationship between Medicaid provision and household income.
Sex has a non-zero impact on the educational outcomes (and, by extension, career choices) of boys and girls.
Edwards and Bourne do a deep dive into the literature and find that worries about economic inequality are overblown.
Fortunately for that inertial part of me which is loath to go to the trouble of organizing the relevant data and arguments, Cambridge PhD candidates Vincent Harinam and Rob Henderson have done yeoman's work in this area already.
[I've written essays in semesters past that I've been meaning to post here. This is the longest of them. For ease of reading, I've removed the in-text citations and inserted the references as hyperlinks. In addition, I've made some (mostly minor) revisions in language in a few places. Otherwise, what you're about to read is what my professor graded me on.]
Especially reassuring is the Census Bureau's finding that the ratio of annual income between the top and bottom quintiles falls from 17:1 to 3.2:1 when comparing the incomes of individual earners in those quintiles.
This citation bias toward "favor men" studies seems to indicate a preference among social scientists for the "women are victims" narrative that is quite prevalent on the political left. At the very least, it suggests a predilection for the career-advancing attention garnered by such findings.
Though he spends much of the letter emphasizing the organization's commitment to "equal pay for equal work," Mr. Cordeiro indicates that the disparity in pay between the U.S. Men's National Team (MNT) and U.S. Women's National Team (WNT) is not what it seems at first blush.