Will it spur the job search for pregnant women ?

from the article "such as getting more women to go into math and science fields that pay better."

If pay were a motivator for women, they would be entering STEM fields of study instead of flocking to Education, Psychology and Sociology. A good predictor of your future earnings is whether or not you attended a Women's Studies class.

Vincent Denali: They controlled for that and other things in this particular study. Furthermore, this study was looking at the wage gap as soon as they left undergrad (many women aren't pregnant when they leave undergrad - many women wait until later to start a family).

When the results are presented as 82 cents on the dollar, such as the headline graph as well as the AAUW conclusion, major and job choice are not considered. For 82%, all men and women are compared in one of two groups of full-time workers. Not even the hours are compared, for which shorter weeks for women is the norm.

Strangely, a college woman's male counterpart is considered to be a college man. Is a male STEM major's female counterpart also an STEM major ? There is a huge difference between the level of difficult in earning a degree in an STEM major and one of Education, Psychology, Sociology or English. That's why you never read about student's dropping out of psychology and switching majors to chemical engineering.

"(many women aren't pregnant when they leave undergrad - many women wait until later to start a family)."

But eventually most of them do start families, which results in additional costs for employers. Women also tend to miss more work than men do costing employers even more. Over time female employees cost more than the 7% differential between male and female employees.

When the results are presented as 82 cents on the dollar, such as the headline graph as well as the AAUW conclusion, major and job choice are not considered.

I take it you did not read the article in its entirety? From the article:

"So the researchers controlled for factors such as what graduates majored in, where they went to college, what field they were working in, how many hours they worked and even their grade point averages.

They found that even after accounting for all those things, the female graduates were still earning about 7 percent less than their male peers."

btw, as a woman who has a STEM degree, and pursuing a medical degree (I'm a 3rd year medical student), I can tell you for a fact that women in these fields still earn less than men when the factors you've mentioned and factors mentioned in the article are accounted for. In fact, there was a recent study that concluding in medicine, women in the same specialty, with the same qualifications, etc., etc. earned less than their male counterparts (except for in ob/gyn - in this specialty, there was no gender gap) by even more than this study found. In fact, the gender gap in pay is larger in medicine than it is in almost any other field out there.

But eventually most of them do start families, which results in additional costs for employers. Women also tend to miss more work than men do costing employers even more. Over time female employees cost more than the 7% differential between male and female employees.

So, that's a reason to automatically start them out at less pay? What about women that choose to never have children - do they deserve less pay simply because their employer thinks they might start a family someday?

Admittedly anecdotal - but still worth thinking about - I had both of my children before going to undergrad, and after I got divorced. I am still in school (as I said above, I'm a 3rd year medical student). I am never, ever having anymore kids - I have taken steps to surgically prevent this. My kids will be out of school and in high school by time I am done with my residency (residents get paid the same within any given program regardless of gender - so there is no gender gap for residents). There was recently a study that showed in medicine, the gender gap in pay is even larger than what is reported in this article, even when factors such as specialty, experience, awards, research, extra duties (such as being on boards, etc., etc.), time off for having children, etc., etc., are all accounted for. The only specialty this is NOT true for is ob/gyn - in this specialty, there is no gender gap. So, tell me, why should I - a woman that will not be having more children, ever, nor will have any children that require me to take off time from work for sickness, etc., etc. - be paid less than a man that has the same qualifications as me?

The fact remains, there is a gender gap in pay even once things are accounted for - this has been well documented. If it's equal work, it needs to be equal pay. And, yes, when I say equal work, I am speaking about experience, hours, etc., etc. - which HAVE been accounted for in many of these studies. Some of the older studies that did not account for all of these showed a larger gender gap than some of the better studies. I'm willing to say the gender gap isn't as huge as once reported. I'm not willing to say that it's ok for there to be a gender gap when these factors have been accounted for.

Summer wrote "I take it you did not read the article in its entirety?"

I did. An 18% gap (100-82= 18) was for the average. The 7% gap was when some but not all factors were controlled for.

"pursuing a medical degree (I'm a 3rd year medical student), I can tell you for a fact that women in these fields still earn less than men"

Remarkable. Does an independent female pediatrician pay herself less than an independent male pediatrician pays himself? Still, if Kaiser hospital is able to pay female doctors or nurses less than a male doctor or nurse, don't you think that they wouldn't hire any male doctors or nurses ?

In the end, we all know what the 7% will be : men are more valuable as workers . Some of the 7% is cultural, but since women have something to sell that men want to buy, I doubt the cultural component of 7% will change much.

I did. An 18% gap (100-82= 18) was for the average. The 7% gap was when some but not all factors were controlled for.

The 18% was BEFORE the factors were controlled for. The 7% were after the factors were controlled for.

. Does an independent female pediatrician pay herself less than an independent male pediatrician pays himself?

I should have clarified by above post - the gender gap is for those physicians that are employed. Which, btw, many physicians in a private practice are actually employee physicians - meaning they don't actually own their practice, they are employees of the owner physicians of the group. Now, the owner physicians SHOULD make more than the employee physicians because we aren't talking about equal work at this point.

Still, if Kaiser hospital is able to pay female doctors or nurses less than a male doctor or nurse, don't you think that they wouldn't hire any male doctors or nurses ?

No, because, as the article points out, much of the gender gap is subtle and even sub-conscious. For example, when I'm on rotations with a male student (who, btw, got lower board scores than me, lower grades than me, has done less research than I have, etc., etc.) - many people (and not just patients) assume I am a nurse or in nursing school. Heck, where I'm on rotation right now, there are nursing students rotating - one of the nursing students is a male. There are many people that will assume he is a medical student or resident, and I am a nursing student. It's only after we clarify that I am the medical student and that he is the nursing student do they realize that they played into the sterotypes about jobs that are acceptable for women and acceptable for men.

men are more valuable as workers .

I disagree. I think that women and men are equally valuable workers. When the factors have been accounted for - and they have in that 7% difference - then the gap can only be explained by subtle discrimination. Which is wrong. IMO, it's just as a wrong for boys to have to automatically pay more for car insurance than girls (which does happen); I think it's wrong that a man has to pay the exact same amount for health insurance as a female employee (as if often the case). Why is it so hard for you to admit that there is bias against women in some ways; just as there is bias against men in some ways (and all of it is wrong)? Anyone that is being honest with themselves and others would be willing to admit that there is discrimination based on gender - both against men and women (if just depends on the area being discussed) - and they will also say that it is all wrong.

Fact woman take off more time - They say the study took that into account. Where is the data for it. You can not simply say that it took it into account. Any Stats class 101 will tell you that you should always see the data before assuming what they say is true. Period.

Also did we compare mechanical engineers to other mechanical engineers or did some of these jobs have specific certification beyond that? Lets put it another way in the trade industry. Would I pay a journey man plumber the same as a master plumber - NO. The master plumber has more experience and is licensed in more areas than a journey man. Same goes for college degree graduates. In the IT field that man may have just graduated but he may also have several certifications under his belt like MCSE, A+, etc.

Then lets look at the cost of health care which in an job BOTH men and woman pay the same amount. Who goes to the Dr more? Women do. Period. Society trains men all their lives to not go to the Drs. In fact most of the time it is the wives that drag the husband in because of something she notices. Men all know that women get better healthcare than men. THere is more research in it and why men do not live as long.

Next - if men can get the same benefits as woman like lower car insurance, 2 months off after helping their wife have a baby, and other perks then I would be okay with pay being equal. But everything better be equal than. We get everything you get.

I can see the confusion among patients or hospital staff between nurses and doctors. I see the case for that type of person-to-person discrimination because it's the workplace complement of valuing women more than men outside of the workplace. But I can't see the business case for paying more for the same performance based on the recommendation of an informed supervisor. Competition for raises is brutal in every industry. "Businesses pay men more just to have dudes in the hallway" doesn't make any sense to me to explain some pay gaps, but I'm all for fair pay, regardless of the sex of the employee. And with fair pay, I'd like to see a reduction in hypergamy - the female-specific behavior of marrying up in which a woman's social equal is a man that makes at least 20% more.

As for cars, men as a group do pay fairly more for car insurance, primarily due to miles driven and the typically higher cost of the car they drive. There may be some subsidy for women involved as well.

For health insurance, male payments heavily subsidize women's health care even when pregnancy and delivery costs are not included. If a business is required by law to charge men and women the same rate for health insurance in a group plan, but women use more services and thus cost more, I can see the business case to pay women less because the cost of employing a woman is more.

Jay Mooser: On the studies regarding physician gender gap - I have seen the data and methodology. There is a gender gap when these factors are accounted for - period.

Then lets look at the cost of health care which in an job BOTH men and woman pay the same amount.

As I said above, I think this is just as wrong as the gender gap in pay. Same with the car insurance issue. Men should not automatically have to pay equal or more for health insurance and care insurance, respectively, just because they are men.

As far as men getting time off when their wives have a baby - many larger employers are already doing this (it's called paternity leave), and for companies that aren't providing this (but are sufficient in size) a man can utilize FMLA for this. Keep in mind, maternity leave is NOT paid time off - the only way women get paid for this is if they use their PTO/sick time/vacation time. Paternity leave (for companies that provide this) and FMLA are also non-paid time off (again, a man can use PTO/sick time/vacation time to be paid for this time off, just like a woman can). I also think that paternity leave should be available for men - just as maternity leave should be available for women.

Again, yes, there is a gender gap in pay - and this is wrong. There is also discrimination against men in other ways - and this is also wrong. Instead of trying to justify a gender gap in pay, why don't you advocate for true equality - in pay, in insurance premiums, paternity leave, etc., etc.?

I can see the confusion among patients or hospital staff between nurses and doctors

In some cases, I agree. However, there is no reason for that confusion to be based on gender. Typically, in the hospital, there are differences in what they wear. Attendings and residents typically wear long white coats. Medical students wear short white coats, and often wear dress clothes (we aren't allowed to wear scrubs unless we are on surgery, ob/gyn, or an ER rotation - but residents and attendings might be in scrubs even on services other than this). Nurses typically wear scrubs - but do not wear white coats at all. Nursing students typically have a uniform from their school that they wear, sometimes it includes a scrub jacket that looks similar to a short white coat - but they never wear a long white coat.

The time I don't get it is when they assume that a male nursing student is the medical student (or resident) and the female medical student is a nursing student or an aide - simply based on gender.

And with fair pay, I'd like to see a reduction in hypergamy - the female-specific behavior of marrying up in which a woman's social equal is a man that makes at least 20% more.

Hmm, well I can say this - I don't want a man that makes at least 20% more than me, and I honestly don't know any women that would fit into this sterotype (but that's probably more because of the circle of people I associate with). Not saying it doesn't happen - I have no reason to believe it doesn't happen. I don't care if a man I'm dating makes more or less than me - however, I do want a man that I can carry on an intelligent conversation with, a man that has his own interests, allows me to have my own interests, a man that we share some interests, a man that will understand that in my chosen career, I will not be there all the time or even on a normal schedule, and I want a man that is happy in his carreer. Currently, I am dating a man that just retired from the Navy - yes, right now, he makes more than me (because I am in school and technically don't have an income); however, we initially began dating when I made more than he did (prior to me quitting work and going to school). Neither of us ever cared who made more money - instead, we just cared that the other one was doing what we wanted to do for a career. Eventually, I'll be making more than he makes again - doesn't bother either of us.

As for cars, men as a group do pay fairly more for car insurance, primarily due to miles driven and the typically higher cost of the car they drive. There may be some subsidy for women involved as well.

I don't have any reason to think there is a subsidy for women. However, I do agree with your reasons why men pay more for car insurance - not that I think it's ok that men pay more for car insurance. Persoanlly, I think that gender shouldn't be considered when it comes to determining car insurance premiums. Look at the cost of the car the person is driving, the length of their driving experience and their proven driving history.

male payments heavily subsidize women's health care even when pregnancy and delivery costs are not included.

This is wrong, imo. Men should have lower premiums than women.

If a business is required by law to charge men and women the same rate for health insurance in a group plan, but women use more services and thus cost more, I can see the business case to pay women less because the cost of employing a woman is more.

I disagree with this logic, under the current way insurance premiums are charged. Here's why - a business subsidizes the employees health insurance the same regardless of the gender of the employee (just like they are charged the same for the insurance regardless of the gender of the employee). Essentially, it doesn't cost the business more to insure a female than it does for them to insure a male. For example, say it costs $600/month for an employees health insurance plan and the business agrees to pay 40% of this - the business is paying $240/month for this employee's health insurance regardless of whether that employee is a man or a woman. Under current discrimination of health insurance premiums - it has nothing to do with the employer, rather it has to do with the insurance company. There is no gain or loss to the employer when it comes to premiums based on gender.

Now, say in the future, the discrimination against men when it comes to health insurance premiums ends and men are charged, say, $100/month for their insurance, and the woman is charged, say, $900/month for their insurance - and the employer again says they will subsidize 40% of the plan. In this case, the employer would be paying $40/month to insure a male employee, but $360/month for the female employee. In this case, then yes, a woman's salary for equal work, could be justified to be less than a man's salary for the same work - since the employer is paying more for the benefit package for the woman.

Summer, I wonder if your own experiences match up with what you purport, in terms of wage disparities? Do you know of men who are in your same position that make more than you, or were offered more than you for the same position with the same experience?

The article/experiment performed here is interesting, in that it does control for experience as well as possible (e.g. the person enters the workforce with no experience). What it cannot control for, however, are other externals - participation in extracurricular activities, for example. Other prior life experience. One specific example would be the achievement of the Eagle Scout award in Boy Scouts. The military will start Eagle Scouts off at a higher grade than non-award-winning individuals. Is it possible to control for that? I don't know, it seems to be it would be extremely difficult.

The second control would be the representation of that skill during the interview. Is it possible that men represent their background more confidently, or positively? That men are willing to point out, or take credit for, things women wouldn't? Is it possible that men, in general, hold more part-time jobs before and during college that produce work experience, not necessarily in the chosen field, but work experience that creates a lack of parity with the female applicant? I am not asserting an opinion in either direction, but they are questions I've come up with while reading the responses here.

From my own experience, which includes ~20 years of hiring and being hired within the telecommunications field, non-union, I have never hired a person under the premise that 'the position pays X'. I know this is probably different than many jobs available. In my case, it was typically that I wanted to pay in a given range, say $75-$125k. Upon getting far enough in an interview to decide that I would consider offering employment to the individual, the next question is 'how much do you want/need to make?'. It is and has been up to the individual to respond in a way that benefits them. I've seen people ask for money higher than the range that I had considered; it's up to me to decide if they are worth it. In other cases, I've seen people leave potentially up to $20k on the table, simply by undervaluing themselves. Simply viewing the reaction of the interviewee to that question reveals a lot of the underlying psychology of the applicant. In any case, the applicant is being paid the market rate - an offer was made and accepted, not under duress.

Studies like this I find to be tail-chasing exercises that are designed to prove the hypothesis, and tend to leave a lot of relevant data points and/or controls out simply because they don't prove the intended point of the study, which is unfortunate. I state this because the survey leaves us with questionably actionable data.

For example, one would take the result of this study to mean that there is some social injustice being done, and that we should take action to resolve it. Of course, the suggested action is legislation to resolve it. However, we cannot legislate fairness. In this case, as stated, experience is experience - and even if you took a man and a woman, side by side, who took exactly the same curriculum at exactly the same time, at exactly the same location, their life experience leading to and including that curriculum prepares them differently not only for the interview but for their ability to discharge the position they've been hired for, and no amount of legislation will ever change that.

I wonder if your own experiences match up with what you purport, in terms of wage disparities? Do you know of men who are in your same position that make more than you, or were offered more than you for the same position with the same experience?

I am a medical student. So, in my current position - absolutely not (none of us have income). However, I do know of several female physicians that do make less than their male counterparts (do the same work) and were offered less than their male counterparts. In my previous job, this wage disparity absolutely did exist (I would say it existed at the much lower 7% disparity than the 18 + % disparity that is so often reported - in other words, the gender gap is there, but not as much as often reported).

What it cannot control for, however, are other externals - participation in extracurricular activities, for example

In some fields, this is probably very true. In others, not as much. I know many female physicians that have equal (or more) published research as their male counterparts doing equal work, but the female physicians are still paid less when other factors (time off, hours worked, patients seen, etc., etc.) are accounted for.

Is it possible that men represent their background more confidently, or positively? That men are willing to point out, or take credit for, things women wouldn't? Is it possible that men, in general, hold more part-time jobs before and during college that produce work experience, not necessarily in the chosen field, but work experience that creates a lack of parity with the female applicant? I am not asserting an opinion in either direction, but they are questions I've come up with while reading the responses here.

Again, this probably varies field to field. I know that in medical school, we are ALL taught about negotiations. Also, due to the competeition for residencies (which DO impact where you can go for your actual practice, and thus, DOES impact pay) - we ALL are directly asked about these things and NONE of us are shy about talking about them. Now, in other fields that the competition is perceived to be less, that may very well be true. Let's put it this way - when it comes to medical school, less than 10% of people that apply get accepted to medical school - we are trained from the time of being in undergrad (and earlier depending on prior experience) NOT to be modest about our achievements when we talk to people that are deciding to admit us to their programs (whether it be school or residency programs) or hire us. Yes, we are always talked about not being arrogant to patients, nurses and other staff - but we area also trained to be rather arrogant about our accomplishments when it comes to applications (unfortunately, many of us apply this same arrogance in areas that it's not appropriate - but that is an entirely different topic).

I've seen people leave potentially up to $20k on the table, simply by undervaluing themselves.

This probably does happen in many fields. Based on my experience in medicine, this is NOT happening in medicine (at least not at the physician level in modern times) - but, it very well could be happening in other fields. Admittedly, this probably DOES account for some of the gender gap. I would like to know if these studies do ask about negotiation differences between men and women. Like I said, in medicine, at the physician level in modern times, this doesn't seem to be a factor as we ALL are fairly aggressive negotiators. Basically, the gender gap in medicine, appears to NOT be related to negotiation skills of the physician.

I should add, that sometimes a female physician will negoiate for a larger benefit package than a male physician will - in this case, then the actual pay being lower for a female is justified (as long as the overall package is equal in monetary terms). However, even when this was accounted for, the overall compensation for female employee physicians is less than for male employee physicians that are performing equal work (again, except in ob/gyn).

However, we cannot legislate fairness. In this case, as stated, experience is experience - and even if you took a man and a woman, side by side, who took exactly the same curriculum at exactly the same time, at exactly the same location, their life experience leading to and including that curriculum prepares them differently not only for the interview but for their ability to discharge the position they've been hired for, and no amount of legislation will ever change that.

But the question is, does a man's life experience leading automatically mean they should be paid more than the woman for the same work (obviously assuming they can both discharge the position they are hired for)? Of course, I'm also assuming equal negotiating skills.

An interesting article/statistic I read a few years back was that independent practicing female physicians who own their own practice on average earned about ~15% less than their male counterparts.

The reimbursement rates, staff pay, and usual and customary fees were all on average the same across genders. The biggest difference was that the male physicians tended to work more hours (from memory around mid 6o something for male vs low 50 something for female) and offices ran by male practitioners tended to pursue bills owed more aggressively than offices ran by female practitioners (both typically had female office managers).

From research on salaries in general men tend to ask for raises more often than women and tend to be more aggressive in pursuing higher salary over job satisfaction. Women tended to pursue job satisfaction and more favorable working conditions with lower salary.

All of that said and politics aside, because we know the goal of this article is to energize the voting base, women who do the same job at the same level should be paid the same as a man!!!!! I've seen the gender pay gap between medical providers in public hospitals tend to be pretty narrow these days as top ends on pay scales have flattened with budget cuts.

Vincent Denali, many other studies have confirmed that, these days, married women are earning, on average, more than their husbands. The men earning the most money aren't married. The men earning the least amount of money are. The women earning the most money are married and the women earning the least aren't. So women are carrying their husands, these days, and still earning less money than men. Still want to attribute the gender pay gap to pregnancy?

Exasperated737 wrote "Vincent Denali, many other studies have confirmed that, these days, married women are earning, on average, more than their husbands. "

You're making that up. Are able to post a single study that married women make more on average than the men they are married to? Good luck.

Forbes magazine published an article that divorce rates spiked at the point when wives made 20% more than their husbands. The lesson for men : avoid relations with women that are interested in executive positions. A formula for a stable family is to select for a woman that is more interested in nurturing children than earning a large pay check and booting the father of her children out of the house. Women file for 70% of divorces.

Summer wrote "As far as men getting time off when their wives have a baby - many larger employers are already doing this (it's called paternity leave),"

The reason (including myself) most fathers do not take this is because it is made possible with male sick leave and accrued vacation time. What happens later in the year when sick leave is needed for sick leave?

After that, it is the state that covers the expense. For upper middle class workers, this is typically at a lower pay rate, and with new expenses, a substantial pay cut is not a choice a man will make, and his wife will not encourage him to take it if the result is a lower income flow into the household.

Overall, the average amount for paternity leave among my friends is 1 week of vacation time. Longer stretches carry the risk of exclusion from important work projects. A cheaper and more effective solution is to fly grandmothers to the household, though in my experience, both were out of childcare practice despite their expertise in raising their own children and less motivated to help their daughters in a time of need. Anecdote.

Vincent, more than half of married women are now the breadwinners. You haven't seen the reports on this? They're everywhere! I'm not your gopher. Google it.

Ugh! Chalk it up to my life of babysitting little boys who call themselves men and just love to shoot their mouths off - Prudential Financial conducted one of the studies, and it was confirmed by several others, okay? Do you know how to use Google?

Of course, I'm also assuming equal negotiating skills.

Summer, you're also assuming that women who try to negotiate for a higher salary will be treated equally with men who do so, by male bosses. You're assuming that the male boss won't get offended or call the woman a "feminazi" or "female supremacist" or some other such stupid thing, since the male boss's ego is offended by an assertive woman. Perhaps women don't argue with their bosses because they've so often found they can't assume the same thing.

Would you agree with me that teaching girls from early childhood to be more aggressive and assertive would be wise for their future careers? Do you agree that society can only be fair if we start expecting women to be more assertive than society currently expects women to be? As in, we don't get offended when women are assertive? We respect them the same way we respect assertive men? That would certainly be an improvement!

An interesting article/statistic I read a few years back was that independent practicing female physicians who own their own practice on average earned about ~15% less than their male counterparts.

Yes, this is true and for the reasons you state. It's also true for female employee physicians (I talk about this in other posts). Though the reaons appear to be for different reasons (also addressed for other reasons).

The reason (including myself) most fathers do not take this is because it is made possible with male sick leave and accrued vacation time.

Women must also take accured sick leave and vacation time if they want to be paid dueing maternity leave. There is no requirement for maternity leave to be paid.

you're also assuming that women who try to negotiate for a higher salary will be treated equally with men who do so, by male bosses.

I addressed this in other posts.

It is NOT discrimination. EVERY business tries to get a worker for the lowest possible price. That price is based on three things: The salary range the business has set prior to looking for a candidate; how much the candidate asks for, or is willing to accept; and the actual value of the candidate.

If a woman makes less it is usually because she either accepted the first offer, or is unwilling to negotiate, or poor at negotiating a reasonable salary. To negotiate effectively, you need to know the range you want to ask for, and SHOULD be asking for.

Instead of making a big deal of this aspect of it, before they get out of college, there should be more training for women on how to get "their price", which would naturally lead to a leveling off of the difference.

Id really like to know how women are so discriminated against in pay when HR departments are ALWAYS women. Are you screwing yourselves?? I really doubt senior management is telling the female HR employees to pay females less. I work for a Fortune 500 company, theres not one man in HR. I used to work for a College, not one man in HR. Used to work for a grocery store chain. Guess what...not one man in HR there either.

While the study took various factors into account that reduced the gap from 18% to 7%.

I believe that if they dug further into factors that effect pay, they would find the gap reduced further or completely eliminated.

Some additional factors not considered:

1. All engineers are not equal. Biomedical Engineers are the predominate choice of women - close to 50%. The problem is that there are very few jobs in this industry and the starting pay is the lowest among engineering disciplines. Electrical, chemical and mechanical engineers receive the highest starting pay (up to 50% higher on average than biomedical engineers) and are generally more than 90% men. This is also true for doctors - the highest paying jobs - neurosurgeons, cardiologists, orthopedics, etc. have a higher proportion of men compared to general practice.
2. Women do take more unpaid time off of work than men. Nothing wrong with that. In my company, our women engineers take significantly more unpaid time for their own activities - mostly extended vacations.
3. Women are less willing to move in order to take the highest paying job. Even though it seems stereotypical, the wife or girlfriend often find a job in a location that is secondary to that of the spouse. This often leads to "settling" for the best job they can find in an area rather than the highest paying or best job.

Speaking from personal experience I know a lot more people with fathers that have scored better paying job under the bosses nose then quitting than mothers have. I think woman IN GENERAL have a more sedentary attitude when it comes to occupation. Did it control the variable of whether it was a first job or not?

Exasperated737 wrote "Summer, you're also assuming that women who try to negotiate for a higher salary will be treated equally with men who do so, by male bosses."

Or simply, women don't ask because they don't feel comfortable doing so. The same is said to occur in negotiations for automobiles and shoes, regardless of the sex of the sales representative. Since negotiation on the job is an important skill, lower negotiation skills imply lower job qualifications in the candidate.

Exasperated737 wrote "Vincent, more than half of married women are now the breadwinners. You haven't seen the reports on this? "

No, I haven't seen that in a single report. Which one are you citing ? What I have seen is that women are increasingly the breadwinners of their households, and this reflects the surge of never-married and divorced women. 70% of divorces are filed by women.

This is a sample of this year's results states that nearly 25% of married women earned more money than their husbands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/more-than-half-american-women-breadwinners_n_1668140.html

"Of the more than 1,400 women surveyed -- 40 percent of whom were single or divorced -- 53 percent were the breadwinners in their households. Nearly a quarter of married women surveyed said they earned more money than their husbands."

Allison Linn wrote "because a single head of household would obviusly be a primary breadwinner."

But not a married one. The topic at hand is about women marrying up which translates to a woman's equal is a man that makes 20% more.

On the issue of women being paid more poorly by male bosses, I've actually found in my professional and corporate experience and through experiences of my wife (who is also a dr) that female bosses tend to be much harder on female employees and give lower pay increases to women than male bosses. Not sure if there is any research on pay disparity amongst employees based on whether or not one has a female or male boss. I do know that some research has shown female bosses to be more demanding of female employees with the excuse of "it's harder for women to make it to the top" so they view themselves as toughening their subbordinants up.

female bosses tend to be much harder on female employees and give lower pay increases to women than male bosses

Excellnt point. I honestly don't know if there has been any research on pay disparity amonst employees based on whether there is a female or male boss. That would be a good thing to know :)

Women are choosing these engineering fields as well, but the bias doesn't begin until after you graduate from school. At school, your grades are what defines you.... no bias. But often times, women graduate from school and go to look for a job and finds out that some guy, who didn't go to college but "learned on the job", is trying to assess your skills in engineering.

Then.... he starts treating you like all the other woman in his life who know nothing technical, as if your degree meant nothing. And he won't accept your answers even if you know he is wrong.

More woman have left the engineering field because of this more than anything else. Why should anyone want to work where there is less pay, you are not respected for your hardwork, and passed over for promotions? We might as well have gone into a different field for more pay and less crap from employers.

Uh yeah, Hehwood, they controlled for that. These studies have actually been reported repeatedly, always clarifying that women and men who went to the same schools, had the same majors, got the same GPAs, and work the same jobs, are still paid differently beginning with their very first job! This article discusses each and every one of these variables, and how they controlled for them and got the same findings. You might try reading the article sometime. To quote from the article, "the data has shown that women tend take home less money each week even when they are doing the same job as a man. For example, the median weekly earnings of a female medical scientist was 77.6 percent of the median weekly earnings for a man in the same field, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2011."

Perhaps women choose jobs that are more likely to pay them fairly. Technology and science have some of the worst records of fair pay for men and women, as even this article mentions. You guys look pretty pathetic when you keep repeating the same tired old arguments that have been debunked decades ago.

Unhappy wrote "Women are choosing these engineering fields as well, but the bias doesn't begin until after you graduate from school. "

The bias begins at age 5. Boys populate the Lego, Chess and computer clubs and activities. "Smart" women are encouraged to enter STEM at the high school level with few hours of logic, systemitization and computer programming behind them. They skipped a decade of building because they honestly had zero interest.

Women experience female-only grade inflation and graduate with honors in STEM programs. When they apply for jobs, they do not have thousands of hours of development behind them. They never wanted to build a mouse trap, fix a sink, program a computer, or anything requiring technical depth. This is precisely the reason why corporations need to "hold" positions for qualified women. The holding process translates to massive discrimination against male employees that put in tens of thousands of hours. These women in turn spend hours in sex-positive (sexual discrimination against men) initiatives in public relations and conference panels instead of spending thousands of hours doing actual research or work. Major corporations can afford wasting profits for PC public relations. Start-ups and small businesses would be eradicated by similar waste.

Women experience female-only grade inflation and graduate with honors in STEM programs.

I never recieved grade inflation in my STEM degree that I graduated with honors with. I did do more research, presented and published research more than anyone else (male or female) that I went to school with. I worked in the biology department where I went to undergrad doing many things - incuding teaching an intro to biology class, I never inflated grades for anyone for any reason.

There is a problem with the discussion in the article. They say they are talking about a wage gap as if they are talking about equal pay for equal work. Then they talk about men who study engineering and then work in engineering and women who study engineering and work in clerical jobs. IF the women are not hired in engineering due to prejudice against women then the gap in this case is real and the industry has a problem that needs fixing. But if a woman chooses not to go into engineering then the gap they focused on is not an industry or employer problem. IT is the woman who made the decision causing her own problem. So the author of the article didn't no focus on the underlying cause. Merely pointing to the diff between and engineer and a clerical job is incorrect. It wouldn't matter if men were in both, there would be a pay difference.

If we have these ill thought out fair pay laws I see companies avoiding hiring woman altogether...

Summer wrote "I never recieved grade inflation in my STEM degree that I graduated with honors with. "

If women are earning better grades in school but are hired less often than men with the same academic background, wouldn't subtle "sex positive" grad inflation be an explanation for that?

Examples of grade inflation include post-exam negotiation for higher marks (office hours are dominated by female students despite lower representation in STEM classes, in my experience), grading research papers and exams with a subtle bias towards the sex of the student, and including women in math and science classes in high school with lower potential to pursue STEM degrees while grading them higher. The measurable indicator continues to be the SAT math section.

Even overly-positive letters of recommendation for school applications for women is grade inflation. There is no way anyone can state that they did not receive grade inflation because there is no way for a student to know all instances.

Of course, there's the other side of that coin, Vincent. I graduated college with a female engineering major who, when she achieved a perfect score on a test in one of her physics classes, was given a 98%, because, as the professor told her, "No woman aces one of my exams." In high school, the only people who seemed to receive inflated grades were jocks, from only one teacher that I know of, who also happened to be the wrestling coach. He told my brother, who wrestled, that his passing math grade was a "gift".

How about we consider that more men being hired than women in engineering fields, even with the same grades, might just possibly be due to remaining sexist attitudes toward women?

Times have changed. Girls with some promise are overpromoted into upper math classes. In turn, they are accepted to participate in STEM fields of study. Grade promotion includes them.

Anecdotal evidence is cute. Here's mine. In high school AB and BC calculus, the girls would charm me into letting them copy my homework. At an Ivy League college, some girls would charm me into corrected or completing their computer science assignments. No man ever tried that.

Sandy wrote "How about we consider that more men being hired than women in engineering fields, e"

Since men receive engineering and computer science degrees at a ratio of 4:1 when compared to women, there should indeed be greater hiring of men in engineering fields. At every company I've worked for (3 Fortune 500), there is a HUGE gap between the male and female engineering candidates. Positions are held open for women, which translates to massive discrimination against more qualified male candidates.

Vincent Denali: I am a non-traditional medical student; I was a non-traditional undergrad. I was 28 when I entered undergrad. I went to school during a time when girls were not encouraged in STEM fields (at least in elementary school - high school). I was told that girls don't do math and science when in these grades. I was interested in these areas, as didn't let what I was told about girls in these fields stop me from becoming well versed in these areas.

You're right - anecdotal evidence, including my own, doesn't really prove anything, I would add that your anecdotal evidence is some women cheating - and you going along with it. That is not women-specific grade inflation (as that implies that women were given a boost in grades by instructors). Who's fault is it that you agreed to allow women to copy your assignments? Yours. Just as it would've been my fault had I allowed the men that requested to copy my work would've been my fault (and, yes, I was also asked by men to copy my work; and yes, no woman ever asked me the same thing).

Also, positions being held for women does not automatically translate into discrimination against more qualified male candidates. Perhaps the woman given the position was just as qualified as the men that applied for the same position, perhaps not. If a less qualified woman was given the job, that is wrong.

Ditto on the anecdotal evidence, including it being your experience that office hours are dominated by females arguing for higher marks.

Unlike Summer, I was fortunate enough not to encounter such bias in my education. In fact, most of my high school honors/advanced placement classes in every subject had a female majority. Pretty much all of those female students did well on the ACT and SAT, so I have no reason to believe grade inflation was a factor. This was not considered remarkable in our school system - girls were never told they couldn't perform academically as well as boys.

Summer wrote " positions being held for women does not automatically translate into discrimination against more qualified male candidates."

Yes, it does. Many men are passed over only to fill a position with a woman. That is literal sexual discrimination against men. I can't tell you how many positions have been filled after 20-40 interviews of male candidates only have a "parallel" position filled by a woman that has only been interviewed by the hiring manager to the exclusion of his staff.

Sally Ride, the astronaut, represent discrimination against men at a ratio of 200:1. Later, the near absence of female candidates coupled with political pressure to find one resulted in the inclusion of a female, but not male, civilian school teacher by the name of Christa McAuliffe.

Vincent: Explain to me how giving a position to a woman that is equally qualifed as a man applying for the same position discrimination against a man. Just because more men apply for a position, doesn't mean that hiring a woman for that position means the men were discriminated against - as long as the woman hired was equally qualified for the position.

Women consume more health services but pay the same insurance rates as men in a group plan.

Especially, that free birth control, Sanda Fluck, keeps talking about!

So the bias is okay as long as you are in a group? I don't see this writer on her megaphone on that issue. Costs are costs. It don't matter what or where they come from in a comparison. Its all fair game. If you get maternity leave or other benefits than you add it in. You also need to add in replacement staff when the person is on leave and also the 15% tax rate on the additional money.... I would bet the total is very close. This lady can have her soap box, but then she needs to buck up and follow through on the numbers. right now, this is fuzzy math.

That is a good point jolly, I always wondered about the intangible costs and if these studies take that into account. A friend of mine works for the state and he complains that he only makes 55k a year but his benefit package and pension are rather nice and to be equivalent I'd have to be making close to 120k a year which he doesn't seem to realize.

If business take intangibles into account and deliberately pay less to women there should be some sort of a paper trail detailing that. I haven't heard that smokers get paid less when I've read many times that on average they accomplish 6 hours of work in what others get done in 8 due to smoke breaks and in my experience is generally true.

Your salary is your salary. Health care wouldn't factor into it for a research study, just as taxes don't. Oh, but you're just a "jollyjoker", so no wonder you're changing the subject. In order to make a living, I've always turned down health coverage and simply maintained a healthy lifestyle in order to stay healthy. Considering how little we're paid, I'm sure most single women do the same. But, you have a point - a vasectomy is much less expensive (and creates far fewer health complications) than a tubular ligation, yet married couples almost always choose the latter, for some reason.

Exasperated737 wrote "Health care wouldn't factor into it "

For women, it does.

" Considering how little we're paid, "

Women are paid properly for the value of the work they do. Why pay a man more for the same work ? No business would make that choice.

"But, you have a point - a vasectomy is much less expensive (and creates far fewer health complications) "

Women overlook paternal uncertainty, but the primary reason for the prevalence of tubal ligations is their inclusion with the trendy convenience of C-sections. In America, fathers have the uncertainty of being booted out of the house and forcefully separated from their biological children. At some point, fathers will being to speak up for their reproductive and family rights. Currently, that is increasingly the monopoly of the woman.

Before men can speak up for their "paternal rights" they'll probably have to stop abandoning their children so much more often than women.

Men with zero or low paternal certainty have every right to avoid a lifelong lie by a mother guilting him into supporting her baby. A typical woman's story is that a man abandoned his children. The man's side is that he was never really there and was not informed of a pregnancy and certainly given no say in the outcome of a pregnancy. 33% of births to low income mothers are estimated to involve paternity fraud with an overall fraud rate of 11% - meaning 1 of 9 children are calling the wrong man Daddy. Families can be strengthened with mandatory DNA paternity tests as a qualification in the birth certification process. If an infant is given a slew of blood tests, what's the harm or cost in paternal verification ?

Exasperated, mayble women should treat their men better and theyll stick around? ;P

In many cases, the man was never around, so child abandonment isn't the case. Women are able to conceal a pregnancy for months or completely and a birth for months, years or a lifetime. A woman may offer a child for adoption without notifying the sperm donor. When a father is given no say in a pregnancy, he is reduced to a sperm donor and should have similar obligations.

Low paternal certainty for men also includes low paternal certainty for women. Some estimates place female paternal uncertainty at 5% of births with conception occurring from co-resident sperm deposits from two or more men.

Why would a business hire any men at all if women did the same work for 7% less ?

HA! That is a creative way to think sir.

Why would a business hire any men at all if women did the same work for 7% less ?

Bigotry. The same thing that has them paying women 7% less in the first place. The belief that women belong in the home, and that men need a financial edge over women. However, we can test your theory by making all of the hiring managers women and seeing if the 7% pay gap remains. Shall we do this? Or do you think their personal biases might play into their decisions? Personally, I'm all for making all of the hiring managers women, so we can all sit back and see if they still offer men higher salaries (or if they even hire men at all).

Why do you suppose Muslim countries don't try to hire only women, since you can beat them or even kill them, and the government will do little? Now, those women are hard working, and for very little pay! Guess that's why Muslim countries are filled with companies hiring primarily women, eh?

Exasperater737 wrote "Bigotry. The same thing that has them paying women 7% less in the first place. "

Nonsense. What business wants to pay 7% more in labor costs?

"ersonally, I'm all for making all of the hiring managers women, "

In a business, a hiring manager is usually a functional employee.

"Why do you suppose Muslim countries don't try to hire only women, since you can beat them or even kill them,"

Classic female supremacy. What Muslim countries employ their women in hard manual labor and recruit them for combative purposes in the military? Women in Muslim countries live much safer lives than their male counterparts. The US is motivated to war from a picture of a woman with her nose cut off on the cover of "Time" magazine. A picture of a dead 15 year-old boy or a 30 year-old man wouldn't stir a single emotion.

Vincent, that's a strawman argument. My point was concerning how the companies aren't hiring women in Muslim countries. Why not? They could pay them less. You're the one who claimed that's what the companies would do. Now, defend your own position.

But, since we are talking male stupidity, yes, Muslim men live dangerous lives because they blow themselves up. That's stupid. They also stone women to death, which is dangerous for the women.

It's all about women, isn't it ?

State of Pennsylvania hiring practices in the last 15 to 20 years due to affirmative action have heavily skewed every state office that I have personally entered to a much greater percentage of female employees. Having had two parents, an uncle, an aunt, and a brother all employed in state offices and having visited those offices is anecdotal evidence, but my brother is still one of 3 men in an office cubicle space of 25. Also, 2 of the five men in my family were veterans which was part of how they got hired, stayed employed, and advanced in their careers during the affirmative action years.

vincents first comment here hits the nail on the head. Why do owners pay men more? There are as many reasons as stars but one shines brighter than the others. ON a different day, when wages are not the subject, you can read articles about how men and women think differently, behave differently. When money isn't the focus people will allow as how there is a difference and it's real. So if a woman is the supervisor/owner and communicates to her women staff she may have an efficiency of style that translates into higher production rates and high QC than if men were involved. Same for Men bosses and crew. But mix the genders, and the communication and style difference becomes a contentious issue and people take their eye off the ball of production and effectiveness and start squabbling about the peripheral issue of gender. But if the men employees submit to the woman boss and adopt the attitude of trying to make it work the job can be a successful place. Same if the women employee adopt the attitude of employee to boss. IF the boss doesn't gratuitously throw their weight around and insult the crew it can be a success no matter the gender. There is more to all this than just women are simply victims all the time and men are monsters and need to be attacked.

How is it possible for women of child-bearing age pay more in health insurance premiums when it is illegal to charge men and women differently in a group plan ?

Life insurance charges more for men. Auto insurance costs more for men because men drive more miles and usually purchase more expensive cars. Why doesn't health insurance separate costs by sex ?

"Women's systems are far more complex than men's - it's not their fault."

True. Still, women should be able to cover their own costs. When discriminatory pricing is directed at women, women speak up.

"Auto insurance costs more for men because men drive more miles and usually purchase more expensive cars." Even when you control for those variables, men are more likely to have accidents. That's not to say I approve of charging men more, just a point of clarification.

OU812-2018811 wrote "Even when you control for those variables, men are more likely to have accidents."

Incorrect. Per mile, men have fewer accidents. This information has been around for a long time :

As reported in the June [1998] issue ofEpidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles.

Vincent: Your last post hit my funny bone - what if the 5.1 crashes by the men were not-at-fault accidents because they got hit by the women? ;) The reverse could just as easily be the case.

I wonder how many of these crashes were caused by men who were under the age of 25? Were they included as well? I believe that is why the rates start out higher for men and my belief that they tend to bottom out as the men get older. Whereas women's rates stay constant.

Unhappy-1583758, there are more men on the road at any hour of the day. It shouldn't be a surprise that men are better drivers per mile with more experience on the road. The usual take is that men are stupid and riskier, but the truth is that men are on the road all hours of the day. Men drive nearly all of the trucks, be they large or small, for industry. When a $500k rig crashes, it's an expensive proposition.

Men also drive more miles in pursuit of a higher salary. This commute costs more money and is NEVER factored into the AAUW (Feminist organization that makes its money from government programs and suing universities) sex pay gap.

The reason men die well before women do, is because they want to. Discussions such as this explain why.

vincent: maybe the reason why all these women are the bain of your existance is because, well, THEY ACTUALLY WORK! hmmmmmm.....every heard that one before??? you've been on this comment section for a very long time this morning. do you actually DO real work or just sit there, complaining about some woman stealing your slice of American pie? Be realistic, all women quitting the workforce at once so you can have a "better" job, is never going to happen. Time only marches forward. You seem to want a return 19th century values. there are plenty of other countries on this planet that will give you that, but not America under our current constitution.

Nice vodka-powered essay, Wiktor...

Umm actually they are kinda beneath you when they pay less than it costs you to live. Is it too much to ask to not have to live in your parents basement after achieving a college degree?

Combining all workers in large classes makes for better press. When women receive 50% more college degrees than men (women earn 60% of college degrees or 6 for every 4 men earn), it's because men make different choices, right?

I didn't hear Obama or Romney talk about closing the education sex gap.

Vincent Denali, the reason people go to college is to increase their pay, but men apparently don't need to! If either Obama or Romney had brought up the education gender gap, they'd look awfully foolish and sexist when women pointed out that they must go to college much more than men in order to still earn 7% less!

Here, let me put this in persepctive - what would you think if whites went to college more than blacks, but blacks still earned more than whites? Is that an equal amount of racism going both ways? Does that even it all out? Use your super intelligent manly brain, and show off those male-only critical thinking skills and logic, buddy!

Exasperated737 wrote "If either Obama or Romney had brought up the education gender gap, they'd look awfully foolish and sexist when women pointed out that they must go to college much more than men in order to still earn 7% less"

No. Presidential candidates would have to answer why boys are the majority of high school dropouts and are less able to enroll let alone graduate college. It's about opportunity, not outcome, right?

Still, the 7% reflects female choice of jobs. If women made the same choices and sacrifices that men do, 7% would be 0%. It's difficult to compete with men in the workplace, even for men.

Still, the 7% reflects female choice of jobs. If women made the same choices and sacrifices that men do, 7% would be 0%. It's difficult to compete with men in the workplace, even for men.

No, men make 7% more than women when the men and women attended the same school, got the same GPA, had the same major, and work the same job, according to the article. I knew you hadn't read it! Read the article before making stupid comments, buddy boy! Doing so much less is just leaving you a bitter, misinformed, sexist illiterate. Not every researcher can afford to do their own radio show, like Rush Limbaugh. They are dependent on you to read, though I know how much men like you hate science (yet, oddly, you get paid more).

Exasperated737 wrote "o, men make 7% more than women when the men and women attended the same school, got the same GPA, had the same major, and work the same job, according to the article. "

The article was about a yet-to-be-published AAUW report. How do you know that it compared the same GPA or school? The article didn't mention either of those. If they did, please quote the lines.

Neither of us have read the AAUW report. Though, if the AAUW article, written by a Feminist activist organization, is similar to one they published only three years ago, you'll learn that other significant initial salary factors are excluded. Which Fortune 1000 corporations publish their wage rates ? Past AAUW didn't report any specific companies, and I'll be very surprised if this report includes any.

From the article:

So the researchers controlled for factors such as what graduates majored in, where they went to college, what field they were working in, how many hours they worked and even their grade point averages.

I'm through doing your homework, Vincent. Time to finally read the article.

Somehow, I glossed over that particular sentence. You're right.

Right. The gap is between an Arts degree and a Science/Technology degree.

Such as the choice whether or not to actually read the article before making stupid comments? FAIL.

Or read the AAUW report which is not yet published. If the Oct 24, 2012 report is anything like earlier AAUW reports, it will exclude crucial salary factors such as hours/week, overtime, commute cost and distance, flexible work hours, fixed day-time schedule, no night or weekend hours, minimal travel, no relocation and other such factors that women shun as a group.

Of course, there is no mention of the nearly 100% male dominance of workplace injuries and deaths. Why don't women share those 50/50 ?

Of course, there is no mention of the nearly 100% male dominance of workplace injuries and deaths. Why don't women share those 50/50 ?

Because, if they did, you would claim they were faking the injuries. But sure, men have all the bad backs. Men also bring the vast majority of personal injury suits for injuries sustained OFF the job. And don't ask me to cite this. You never cited your silly claim.

Why do guys like you always claim ignorance of the fact that the 7% statistic is for the same skills, same school, same degree, and same job right out of college? You STILL haven't read the article and, therefore, have no clue what we are even talking about. The wage gap only begins at 7%, and grows substantially over time. I think they should remove all nonsense comments that demonstrate the person never even read the article they are supposedly commenting on. Who needs a bunch of irrelevance to swim through?

Also, you claimed earlier that men drive as safely as women, and the wrecks are caused by women crashing into them. Is that also where men get all of their injuries? Women being careless, and impulsively taking unnecessary risks around cautious, safety-minded men? And I suppose men's higher crime rates are due to women constantly setting men up, as well? Dude, if you were a woman, you'd be the biggest "female supremacist" around, because you only see things from your own perspective, no matter what the facts are, and you'll twist things to a ridiculous extent to justify the "right" of any group you belong to for oppressing any other group. I'm afraid the world can't revolve around you, Vincent, any more than it already does.

The study doesn't take into account salary negotiation. In most cases men negotiate salaries more aggressively than women. It seems to me much if not all of the 7% wage gap is the result of more aggressive negotiation on the part of men. Naturally, if you start out with negotiating a lower starting point out of college the gap will widen over the years, and it is very hard to make up for that bad initial negotiation.

Salary negotiation is probably the most important factor when comparing first year earnings, followed by a merit-based pay increase at the end of each year. In future studies, it will be interesting to see 2nd and 3rd year earnings as corporations tend to class employees and pay them similarly. If one employee "starts high", successive raises are lower.

Erin, I know a lot of men who also work long days and weekends, including me, so don't feel like you are bearing that cross all by yourself. I'm a teacher, and I guarantee that I'm not getting any more pay than a female teacher doing the same job with the same number of years' experience. It's a fixed pay scale.

I'm not saying that there is "no gender discrimination" but a lot of the pay differential is due to women's choices to have children or to adopt a "support" role in their family. Women who make those choices will end up making less money over their lifetime, and that will affect the overall statistics. That's not necessarily a bad thing--we need more parents of both genders who put their kids ahead of their careers. However, other women who do put their careers first are still being held back to some degree, and that's what we need to work on improving.

I just wonder why you chose to let it "make you so mad". If you deserved a promotion and didn't get it, but some less-qualified man got it because he was male, then get mad over that. But not over some statistics in a report.

Erin wrote "This just makes me so mad. Our daughter's pay the same for that degree but get paid less. "

Your daughters didn't pay for the same degree.

" I know many women who work long days and weekends to get the job done--including me."

But you know many more men working more hours, taking less sick leave, less vacation and, TADA, working for more years in longer career spans.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in full-time jobs (35+ hrs/week), women work 5% fewer hours and earn fewer overtime hours.

I'm not saying that there is "no gender discrimination" but a lot of the pay differential is due to women's choices to have children or to adopt a "support" role in their family. Women who make those choices will end up making less money over their lifetime, and that will affect the overall statistics. That's not necessarily a bad thing--we need more parents of both genders who put their kids ahead of their careers. However, other women who do put their careers first are still being held back to some degree, and that's what we need to work on improving.

Agreed. This article is specifically about a pay gap men and women as they graduate from college. Most women just graduating from college have not started families, and many are several years away from that (many, in fact, want to establish a good career before they have a family). Also, the researchers controlled for many other factors. So, at least some of the pay gap is not due to families or other factors that should be accounted for. As you say, this is what we need to work on improving.

Summer wrote "Also, the researchers controlled for many other factors."

The UUAW reports don't control for commute time/distance, relocation and some other factors that affect salary. They do not control for job performance, and most notably, initial compensation (salary + stuff) negotiation skills.

Vincent Denali: Did I say I was talking about the UUAW reports? No, I didn't - I was speaking about THIS article in the above post.

The new report by the AAUW (sorry, I mistyped UUAW previously) is not cited by name in the article. I believe the purpose in that omission was to mislead readers that the US government and not the same-op Feminist activist organization conducted the analysis.

The entire article is written about the results of the AAUW and quotes AAUW researcher Christianne Corbett. It will be a surprise if it is different from AAUW reports written a couple of years ago.

"On October 24, 2012, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) will release Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after College Graduation."

http://www.aauw.org/GraduatetoaPayGap/index.cfm

Graduating to a Pay Gap explores the earnings difference between male and female college graduates working full time, one year after graduation using the latest nationally representative data available. The report compares “apples” to “apples” by looking at the pay gap after controlling for various factors known to affect earnings, such as occupation, college major, and hours worked. The report also looks at one immediate effect of the pay gap for many women, high student loan debt burden.

The new report by the AAUW (sorry, I mistyped UUAW previously) is not cited by name in the article. I believe the purpose in that omission was to mislead readers that the US government and not the same-op Feminist activist organization conducted the analysis.

First, no need to apologize for a mistyping that, we all make mistakes once in a while :). Second, I can see what you are saying here.

The report compares “apples” to “apples” by looking at the pay gap after controlling for various factors known to affect earnings, such as occupation, college major, and hours worked.

If they are truly comparing apples to apples, then I see no reason to doubt the gender gap exists. But, I do see why you are hesitant to believe they are truly comparing apples to apples - based on the origin of the research. Not to say groups like this can't put out non-biased research, they can and many groups (whether it be this group, a pharmaceutical company, etc., etc.) - but they have to be very careful at double checking and having non-biased peer review to (just like any researcher), to ensure that bias doesn't unintentionally (or intentionally) creep into the research.

The report also looks at one immediate effect of the pay gap for many women, high student loan debt burden.

I'm not sure why high student loan debt burden would affect actual pay. It definitely affects your buying power. If two people get paid $50,000/year, and one has $35,000 in student loan debt and the other has $20,000 in student loan debt, the person with $35,000 in debt isn't being paid less, their income simply doesn't go as far as the other person that makes the same amount, but has less student loan debt. I also don't get why women would have more student loan debt than men - if anything, I would expect it to be the opposite (mainly because there seem to be a lot of scholarships for women).

There are nearly zero male-specific scholarships that don't have something to do with dark skin color or sexual orientation. There are TONS of scholarships for women in engineering, science and just about every field of study. Would a lack of access to male-specific scholarship have something to do with male under-representation in higher education ?

Erin, if this article makes you mad, wait until you find out that girls out-scored boys on the SATs until the mid-70s, but then the test was revised to add more questions about sports so that boys would out-score girls. ETS was only recently sued, and they finally changed the tests again to balance things out, but you likely took one of the biased SATs. Wait until you also find out that girls out-score boys in both reading and math in Iceland. The reason the girls out-score boys in math is because girls in Iceland have more confidence than American girls. The higher the gender equality in a society, the higher girls math scores are, until the girls even out-score the boys.

Vincent: You stated: The report also looks at one immediate effect of the pay gap for many women, high student loan debt burden.

I stated that high student load debt burden has nothing to do with wages. An employer doesn't determine how much they are going to pay you based on what you student loan debt it (regardless of your gender) What does your comment (11.8) have to do with this?

I didn't write that comment. It is a sentence in the description of the AAUW Oct 24, 2012 report.

http://www.aauw.org/GraduatetoaPayGap/index.cfm

But I disagree with you. Debt load and other financial obligations are factors in choosing employment and thus affect wages through job selection and motivation.

Exasperated wrote "Wait until you also find out that girls out-score boys in both reading and math in Iceland. The reason the girls out-score boys in math is because girls in Iceland have more confidence than American girls. "

Why not suggest school bias (sexual discrimination) against boys ? If men and women are born with equal mental facilities, why does Iceland produce girls and that exceed boys ? Are girls innately smarter than boys despite smaller and lighter brains ?

Negotiation skills are useful in any job and , evidently, count as a higher job qualification.

Here is the fix :

1) Increase pay for jobs that women like but don't increase pay for jobs that men like.

2) Enact a law that prevents other men and women to apply for those nearly-pay-bumped jobs to prevent an increase in the supply of workers for that job.

Vincent's clearly another one of those "likes to make a bunch of stupid comments before reading the article" types of guys (there sure are plenty here, tonight). Vincent, how do you propose we solve this problem where women who went to the same college, had the same major, got the same GPA, and enter the same job as men are still being paid 7% less than men, right out of college? You know - the problem the article is discussing? FOCUS now.

Exasperated737 wrote " women who went to the same college, had the same major, got the same GPA, and enter the same job as men are still being paid 7% less than men"

You're incorrect to assume there is a 7% difference due to sexual discrimination because even the AAUW can't measure this. How many pairs of men and women from the same college, same major, same GPA are hired in the same job at the same employer from the same hiring manager in the same year? ZERO.

The AAUW is a Feminist Activist organization that will produce a report to show the results they intended. They will never produce a report that shows women are less productive or cost employers more.

The AAUW is unable to compare apples to apples because they don't have enough apples to make a meaningful comparison. They need hiring records from most of the Fortune 500 companies, and so far, those are not available.

And then, there is COST to the employer :

If female employees cost more (health insurance usage, more sick days, more unpaid time off), should men and women in the same job description receive the same pay when women have more benefits ?

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that women work 5% fewer hours in full-time jobs. If women work fewer hours and are paid the same, they are valued more.

Nonsense. If a business could save labor costs by 7% in hiring only women for the job, why don't businesses hire only women ?

Vincent you are riding the line between a forum troll and a thought provoking debater rather expertly, I have enjoyed your contribution on this topic. =)

J-birdman: While I don't always agree with Vincent, I have to say he's always a thought provoking debator. I also enjoy reading his comments (usually).

Yes, Vincent, Birdman, and Summer are such shining examples of the genius of men. Extending their logic, why don't companies in Muslim countries hire only women? They'd hardly have to pay them anything. Just beat them. Muslim women are used to it, they put up with it, and they'll keep working. It's clear Muslim countries don't treat women unfairly becausee the companies still hire primarily men. In fact, Iran has recently banned women from 77 percent of college courses, which proves Iranian companies have discovered that women are incapable of those skills. Any other explanation would be bad for business, and is therefore impossible.

Here's a good way to prove that only business sense is going into these decisions - make all of the hiring managers women! Vincent, Birdman and Summer are betting that, even if we do this, the 7% pay increase men enjoy over women will remain, since all business decisions are based only on what is best for business, and personal biases never play into the choices.

Summer and Vincent are providing a very Socratic sort of communication without attacking other people which I find to be rare in normal conversation and truly a diamond in the rough on the internet. I want to say thanks to you Summer for enriching this discussion through critical thinking and for telling me I wasn't getting trolled. Love the profile pic as well Summer, it gave me a good laugh.

Exasperated737: I am female. If you had read my comments in their entirety (and they are long, so I apologize for that), you would see that I would like to reduce the gender pay gap to nothing. I acknowledge that there is one - there are various reasons for this. I mention that subtle, and often sub-conscious level, bias must be accounting for this 7% - once factors are truly equalized so that we are comparing apples to apples. Many of these reasons for have been accounted for within many of these studies, and still there is a gender gap. I also acknowledge that there is gender bias against men in some areas - this is wrong also.

J-birdman, Thank you :)

Thanks, Summer and Birdman. Good to write to you as well. Ad hominem attacks on other posters are both a measure and self-admission of a writer's inability to author a counter. So, I don't use them.

You're welcome Vincent. I may not always agree with you, but I always enjoy our debates :)

Summer, your proposal to separate costs and equalize pay for similar jobs is unique and fair. I think it's a good idea. I'm not here to promote sexually-discriminatory pay. You offer much to the debate, so let's continue.

slodon, you are a one-note troll. Clicking on your name shows a long list of posts all over the newsvine, all slamming Obama. This article has nothing to do with Obama.

I wonder who is funding this anti-Obama propaganda campaign.

another example of the hypocrisy of this administration. Gee, how surprising that the media has not checked this out? LMAO

"That should be a thing of the past. No?"

Yes, it should be. But remember, the Republicans still control the House, and the Senate is not filibuster-proof. Until that changes (hopefully in two weeks with a Democratic House and 60% Senate), change for the better will be a long, uphill road as it's been the last four years.