Well, economic speculation in the absence of actual data is always fun. So following Becker's theory, I should presume that by guaranteeing equal pay for male and female teachers in Jewish schools, I will reduce the incentive to hire "cheaper labor" in the form of female teachers, and so the "irrational discrimination" against women will instead express itself with a lower hiring rate.
I'm sure this would have some sort of validity to it if there were male teachers lining up around the block to take those cushy teacher jobs, frustrated by the endless supply of cheaper female competition.
Otherwise it's inconsequential.
The reality is that women are paid less because they can be paid less(within limited parameters) with little consequence. That isn't irrational discrimination. It's using sexist norms to balance a school budget. If it stops being an option, either
1) average make salaries will drop to match the increase in female ones, such that budgets are roughly unaffected
2) budgets will be altered to account for a more expensive labor force (the more female teachers on staff the more this is the case), with attendant rises in tuition or decreases in spending
3) the new labor market will cease to reflect the distortionary effect of lower female wages (beckers claim), but the only way that market correction will shut out women is if there is a non-financial reason males would be preferred, and if there are enough males to meet that irrational demand.
At which point good old labor law steps in, and Becker has to account for the impact of the EEOC on his model. Since statistical evidence of hiring discrimination is admissible evidence, a sudden downturn in female hiring would be a great way to expose schools to massive fines.
Somehow, absent some actual data, I'm not worried about the negative consequences of paying women for all their work, instead of just 80 percent of it. And I can identify some nonfinancial benefits to the statement it makes to our students as well. What percentage of a single teacher's salary is it worth to impress upon a classroom of students that none of them are entitled to more or less by mere virtue of their second chromosome?
