When the current employees reach retirement age and start leaving the fields (nursing, education, etc.) in droves, one of three things will happen:

1. Enough people will step forward to fill those jobs under the existing pay scale. This may not be likely but it could happen if you have enough people who're willing to trade job security over higher pay.

2. Not enough people will be available who'll want to work for that pay. As a result, the employers will have to either:

a) Increase the pay to attract enough applicants (the market works), or

b) Learn to do without the jobs because there aren't enough people to do them. This would mean cutting services.

My wife is a nurse. She works very hard at her job. After more than 12 years of nursing, she was offered a position last week as a clinical nurse manager for an out-patient surgery center. In that capacity, she'll make roughly 2/3rds the pay of a starting dental hygenist. Dental hygene is also a profession that's almost exclusively female but it pays very well. The reason is simple - starting dental hygenists typically make $45 an hour in our area for a cleaning but the dentist charges $60-80 for the work. In short, dental hygenists are a profit center, not overhead like nurses, so they earn more even with only an Associate's degree. Hell, they make more than I do as a software engineer in this area and more power to them. Envying others for their paycheck is a game I refuse to play because it falls into the Democrats' class warfare game plan.

The mistake you're making, and it's a very common one, is to assume that jobs like teaching, librarians and nursing are traditionally low paying primarily because they're historically female dominated professions. That may well be part of the reason but the bigger reason is that those jobs aren't revenue generating, they're overhead. Women in revenue generating jobs quite frequently make as much or more than most men. Jobs that make money instead of costing money are more likely to be high-paying.