[euyyn]

No, you really don't. The following isn't true:

> But in order to arbitrage this, you have to be willing to pay women and men differently.

A very simple way to arbitrage it without discriminating is to set your wages somewhere between what others pay men and women. Women will flock to you, as you pay better than elsewhere, while men will tend to leave to the discriminating jobs. You pay everyone the same, but the result is your cost in wages is lower than your competitors'.

[mattnewton]

So you are banking on there being enough women who leave discriminating employer in your field to fill all available positions. In that case there is just a lot of labour - I don’t see why employer 1 isn’t lowering their wages of new recruits anyways.

Also, the discriminating employer is presumably not discriminating openly, or they will be sued. So there is limited information on your part to find the right pricing for just women.

Wages are also sticky, it is hard in many industries to blanket cut them across the board without a real cost to morale and the quality of the labour you attract.

In practice I cant imagine a real firm that could execute on this strategy.

[jldugger]

Well, this assumes you advertise your wages, and are willing to let them walk when an employee receives a counteroffer, or when a candidate mentions an offer from a competitor.