<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Christian Moser | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/christian-moser/</link><description>Christian Moser</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/christian-moser/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Gender Pay Gap: Micro Sources and Macro Consequences</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/the-gender-pay-gap-micro-sources-and-macro-consequences/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/the-gender-pay-gap-micro-sources-and-macro-consequences/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This paper uses linked employer-employee data from Brazil (RAIS, 2007–2014, covering 267 million worker-years, 56 million unique workers, and 607,000 employers) to document that the gender pay gap of 13.3 log points is overwhelmingly driven by women sorting into lower-paying employers — 78.7% of the gender gap in employer pay fixed effects is attributable to between-employer sorting, not within-employer discrimination. To interpret this sorting, the authors develop an equilibrium on-the-job search model (extending Burdett and Mortensen 1998) with endogenous firm pay, amenities, and hiring, and provide a constructive proof that all model parameters are point-identified from linked employer-employee data. The estimated model finds that amenities explain approximately half of total compensation for both genders (mean amenity share 48.8% for men, 52.2% for women), that compensating differentials account for roughly half of the gender pay gap (reducing it from 13.3 to 4.6 log points in total-compensation terms), and that higher-ranked employers offer women higher amenities rather than higher pay — resolving the puzzle that women disproportionately work at large employers despite a flat employer-size-pay gradient for women. Eliminating gender differences in employer preferences (gender wedges) would raise output by 12.9% but pull women into low-amenity firms, reducing their welfare, while equal-pay and equal-hiring policies close part of the pay gap but lower worker welfare through adverse incentive effects on firms&amp;rsquo; compensation and hiring decisions.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>