This article is behind the times. By the time most professional women have learned to ask for raises like some men do in 2011, those men will have moved on to a more advanced strategy to make more. It's similar to how an expensive university degree is becoming less useful just as women are earning more than 50% of them.
My point is that these men are competitive and they have momentum and the current salary-negotiation-education strategy won't result in parity. I don't see any reason it has to be that way, of course.
"... those men will have moved on to a more advanced strategy to make more."
Yes, I think it will go this way. A perfect fit is also the article about
the neuroenhancers on hacker news. If you don't want to get behind, you
will have to take them.
But what kind of life is this, or will it be in a even more competitive
future?
If your self-worth is mostly based on making money or your career, than
you will have to go this way.
But is this really the best possible life, the best spend life time?
Yes, it's acedic to measure the worth of oneself and peers by money alone. But given that men and women are both in it for money, competing for equality/inequality measured by sex, it's necessary for the runners up to aim for the leaders as moving targets.
I expected this to be downvoted because it's so awkward. It's hard to think about what will be the winning strategy five, ten, twenty years from now, a lot harder than complaining, but it's important for a group to do if they want to catch up with another group.
My point is that these men are competitive and they have momentum and the current salary-negotiation-education strategy won't result in parity. I don't see any reason it has to be that way, of course.