zlacker

Wikipedia is not a authoritative source. When it work perfectly it is a proportional description of what third-party sources write in regard to a topic, and at worst it is biased opinion based on a few authors. With political topics the most commonly written opinion might not be the most scientifically correct one.

The main criticism of equal compensation is listed in the Wikipedia page in the first sentences under the title Criticism: the methodology by which the gap is measured.

For example, a common argument is that together with a pay gap there is a similar gap in worked hours, about 1hr on average for full time employees in the same workplace for the same job. Then people tend to dip into discussions about gender roles and bit by bit move the discussion further into the realm of politics.

Equal compensation is thus politics. Not because people disagree on the principle, nor because we don't have a data, but because people will disagree on the interpretation and then jump into political topics in order to support their interpretation.

>>belorn+(OP)
No imperfection in the Wikipedia page supports either of the notions that systemic compensation issues are an inappropriate topic of workplace advocacy or that equal compensation has anything to do with economic outcomes for siblings (???). Both of these are in nigh non-sequitur territory.