Caitlin Clark makes less money than LeBron James. About 700 times less if my figures are right. That’s not good, right or fair.

Then again, it’s also not bad, wrong or unfair. It’s what happens when you let people decide for themselves how to spend their money.

Similarly, female athletes earn less than male athletes, even when playing the same sport. That’s not good, right or fair. Nor is it bad, wrong or unfair. It’s what happens when you let people decide for themselves how to spend their money.

Going further still, women earn less than men. That’s not good, right or … you get the idea. Allowing people to peacefully trade among themselves and then decide for themselves how to spend the results isn’t guaranteed to give some preconceived outcome that talking heads, religious leaders or political ideologues say is better. That’s not how freedom works.

Caitlin Clark’s success has once again brought the “gender gap” into the headlines. But what about gaps among female basketball players? Clark is expected to sign an endorsement deal with Nike worth $28 million, far and away more than any of her WNBA colleagues.

What about that gap? Is it “unfair”? Of course not.

The problem with believing that James and Clark are doing the same work is that people aren’t paid solely based on the work they do, particularly when it comes to spectator sports. Athletes are paid based on revenue. What kind of a draw are you? How about your team? How about your league? How many tickets do your games sell? How much merch? All these factors go into compensation calculations.

It’s easy to imagine a world where women’s games are packed to the rafters, where their jerseys sell like hotcakes, while male players play to smaller crowds and don’t sell as much swag.

It’s just not the world we live in.

If the status quo upsets you, watch more women’s sports. Persuade enough people, and your new utopia will be a reality. I’ll be right beside you, defending the results of your economic choices.

Let’s not forget dollars aren’t the only things people value. They might prefer shorter hours, more flexibility, or different benefit packages. They might make different work-life trade-offs.

And guess what? (Here is where I lose all my liberal friends). The evidence says those trade-offs tend to be made disproportionally by women.

Some of you might recall Hillary Clinton’s “76 cent” gimmick from back in the day. Supposedly women earned 76 cents for every dollar men get. If Hillary had bothered to read any of the studies that took these trade-offs into account, her button would’ve read “95 cents”. I’d be happy to debate that last nickel with her, but she hasn’t returned my calls.

Does the liberal left believe those evil, greedy, profit-mad capitalists can get the same value by paying women less than men for the same work? They’d have to be pathologically stupid to hire men at all.

People are unique individuals with their unique preferences, both for how they spend their money and how they earn it. In a free society, they express those preferences through the marketplace. That freedom of expression is just as important as freedom of speech and religion.

Caitlin Clark and LeBron James make way more money than I do. That’s just fine by me. I believe in personal, political and economic freedom. I want the complete package, the whole trifecta.

I know that inequality of outcomes is part of the deal.

That doesn’t bother me. If it bothers you, well, freedom isn’t free.

Barry Fagin is the senior fellow in technology policy at the Independence Institute in Denver, and the author of The Radical Center. His views are his alone. Readers can contact Fagin at barry@faginfamily.net.