Differences in the value that workers attach to working conditions contribute significantly to pay inequality in the labour market (Mas & Pallais 2017; Maestas et al. 2023). These different preferences may also help to explain the persistent gender gap in pay.

Previous research shows that longer commuting times are associated with lower satisfaction with both work and personal life, higher stress levels, and poorer mental health (Clark et al. 2020). Recent studies have also highlighted how the costs of commuting can contribute to gender pay disparities (Farre, Jofre-Monseny, & Torrecillas 2023). For instance, evidence from France, shows that women are willing to accept lower wages in exchange for shorter commutes (Le Barbanchon, Rathelot, & Roulet 2021). Similarly, Nagler, Rincke, and Winkler (2024) find significant gendered differences in people’s willingness to avoid commuting, with women valuing shorter commutes more highly than men.

Moreover, flexibility in scheduling working hours and location is widely seen as an important factor for people who wish to balance work and personal life. Goldin and Katz (2016) find that women are more likely than men to choose jobs with family-friendly characteristics such as part-time or flexible schedules. However, experimental studies on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for these working conditions have not found substantial gender differences in preferences, suggesting that the relationship between flexibility and gender outcomes in the labour market may be more complex (Mas & Pallais 2017).

An important contribution of our work is to estimate the willingness to pay to avoid sexual harassment among victims. Sexual harassment remains a significant issue in the labour market with 1% of male and 3% of female workers in the EU reporting having experienced unwanted sexual attention in the workplace in recent months (European Working Conditions Survey 2021). Sexual harassment in the workplace represents a serious negative working condition, causing significant costs both for victims and the broader workforce. Folke and Rickne (2022) find that sexual harassment is a key factor contributing to persistent gender segregation and pay inequality in the labour market. They show that workers avoid occupations where they are in the gender minority because of a higher risk of harassment. In their survey experiment, men in female-dominated occupations were willing to give up about 30% of their wage to avoid jobs with a risk of sexual harassment, while women in male-dominated occupations were willing to give up about 20%. Their results reveal that applicants are less willing to accept jobs with a higher risk of harassment for their own gender, but exhibit less aversion when the opposite gender is at greater risk.

To understand the value that men and women attach to different aspects of jobs, in May 2024 we conducted an online survey among 8,000 people in Spain aged 24 to 50. The participants were weighted to be representative of the population in terms of age, gender, and education.

The survey included 74 questions divided into different sections, covering participants’ background information (such as age and education), family circumstances (including marital status and children), and their views on which behaviours qualify as sexual harassment, such as sexist comments, unwanted advances, threats, or physical contact. Furthermore, the survey collected information on respondents’ labour market status, the characteristics of their current job, and, importantly, whether they had experienced different types of sexual harassment in the past. In particular, we asked about exposure to offensive jokes or comments, inappropriate sexual advances, unwanted physical contact, threats of negative job consequences for rejecting sexual proposals, and situations where respondents felt their opinions were dismissed solely because of their gender.

At the core of the study, participants were presented with a job choice experiment. They were repeatedly shown pairs of fictional job offers that differed in aspects such as monthly wage, commuting distance, schedule flexibility, possibility of working from home, and the overall atmosphere at the workplace (including scenarios involving conflict or harassment). Participants then had to choose which job they would prefer. By analysing these choices, we could infer how much pay people were willing to give up (or would need as compensation) for specific job features.

In line with previous research, we find that people attach substantial value to non-salary aspects of jobs. One aspect to which the respondents of our survey attached significant value is the option to work from home. On average, they indicated that they would require a 19% higher wage to accept a job without any possibility of remote work. Conversely, many are willing to give up a similar share of their income in exchange for the ability to work remotely every day.

Similarly, commuting time has a strong impact on job preferences. Compared to a short commute of 0 to 15 minutes, workers would require their wages to be 2% higher for a 15–30-minute commute, 10% higher for 30–45 minutes, 23% higher for 45–60 minutes, and 35% higher for commutes exceeding one hour.

Another important aspect influencing people’s job choice is flexibility over working hours. Whereas workers seem to attach little value to having complete freedom over their working hours (“free scheduling”), they are prepared to accept wage reductions of over 20% to avoid jobs that provide no flexibility at all.

Equally important is the social environment at work. Respondents from our survey are willing to give up 20% of their pay to secure a job with a positive atmosphere. Similarly, conflict with managers is strongly disliked and workers would forgo 33% of their salary to avoid it. Relatedly, risks to workplace safety weigh heavily in workers’ decisions, with respondents indicating they would accept a wage 43% lower to avoid jobs where sexual harassment might occur.

While we find no significant differences in how the different genders value aspects such as remote options, flexibility, commuting time, positive work environment, or conflicts with their manager, there is a substantial difference when it comes to sexual harassment and consequent workplace safety. While women are prepared to accept a 50% drop in their wage to avoid a job with the risk of sexual harassment, men attach less of a negative value to such risks, being prepared to accept a drop of around 36%.

Moreover, our study indicates that both genders are more sensitive to harassment when the victims are women. Female respondents show a strong aversion to jobs with a higher risk of sexual harassment against their own gender, equivalent to a 39% reduction in wages to avoid them. In contrast, their aversion to jobs where men are victims corresponds to a 17% wage reduction. Consistently, men exhibit a greater aversion to jobs where women are victims of harassment, equivalent to a 28% lower wage, compared to jobs where men are victims (6% lower wage).



Furthermore, we find that experiences of harassment seem to further reinforce these preferences. Women in our sample who have been victims of sexual harassment in the last 12 months would require a wage 87% higher to accept a job where women are at risk of being exposed to sexual harassment. In contrast, men show no significant differences between victims and non-victims, and both groups display greater aversion to jobs where women are the victims.
 

Our survey experiment sheds light on how differences between men’s and women’s job-attribute preferences can reinforce existing gender disparities in the labour market. While both men and women attach significant value to non-wage aspects such as remote work options, flexibility, and work atmosphere, women show a substantially higher willingness to pay to avoid jobs where they risk being exposed to sexual harassment. These findings highlight the economic burden of unsafe workplaces and support previous research suggesting that harassment risks contribute to occupational segregation and enduring gender wage gaps. The results also show that women, particularly those with past harassment experiences, disproportionately bear the costs of avoiding unsafe workplaces. This dynamic may discourage women from entering certain fields, which in turn could limit how talent is distributed and reduce overall productivity.

In conclusion, the lack of significant gender differences in most job attributes, except for the risk of sexual harassment, suggests that policies that expand flexible work options are unlikely to widen gender pay gaps. Rather, the findings suggest that flexibility can enhance job quality and work–life balance without worsening wage inequality. Furthermore, the results of our study stress the importance of tackling workplace harassment. Policies aimed at better enforcement of anti-harassment regulations, monitoring, and promoting respectful behaviour at work could help improve gender equality and support a more efficient labour market.

•    Clark, Ben et al. (2020). “How commuting affects subjective wellbeing”. In: Transportation 47.6, pp. 2777–2805.
•    Farré, Lídia, Jordi Jofre-Monseny, & Juan Torrecillas (2023). “Commuting time and the gender gap in labor market participation”. In: Journal of Economic Geography 23.4, pp. 847–870.
•    Folke, Olle & Johanna Rickne (2022). “Sexual harassment and gender inequality in the labor market”. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics 137.4, pp. 2163–2212.
•    Goldin, Claudia & Lawrence F Katz (2016). “A most egalitarian profession: pharmacy and the evolution of a family-friendly occupation”. In: Journal of Labor Economics 34.3, pp. 705–746.
•    Le Barbanchon, Thomas, Roland Rathelot, & Alexandra Roulet (2021). “Gender differences in job search: Trading off commute against wage”. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136.1, pp. 381–426.
•    Maestas, Nicole et al. (2023). “The value of working conditions in the United States and implications for the structure of wages”. In: American Economic Review 113.7, pp. 2007–2047.
•    Mas, Alexandre & Amanda Pallais (2017). “Valuing alternative work arrangements”. In: American Economic Review 107.12, pp. 3722–3759.
•    Nagler, Markus, Johannes Rincke, & Erwin Winkler (2024). “Working from home, commuting, and gender”. In: Journal of Population Economics 37.3, pp. 1–23.