"women are “paid 77 cents on the dollar"

[Leifer]

(women are) “paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men."

​

That’s not true. The ad falsely states that the pay gap is for doing “the same work.” It also implies that discrimination by employers is responsible for the difference. That’s an exaggeration..

(above) http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-77-cent-exaggeration/

True, women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, but certainly not for doing the same work. Common sense says this defies logic. Otherwise, wouldn't any sensible businessman -- or businesswoman -- hire only women to do the same work for less -- and pocket the difference in their salaries?

(above) http://www.kabc.com/article.asp?id=2435110&spid=41533

Larry Elders points out the dilemma with that quote. If women are actually being paid about 30% less than men for the same work, then why don't smart businesses hire more women ? ....to save ~30% on labor costs ? Same work, for less pay. If the quote was true, it would make good business sense to hire more women.

The confusion in the stat comes from the difference between the word(s) "earn" and "paid".

​

 

[Leifer]

The ad cites the most recent annual Census Bureau findings on median annual income, released last September. And indeed, Census concluded that in 2010, “the earnings of women who worked full time, year-round were 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round.”

But that’s the median (midpoint) for all women in all jobs, not for women doing “the same work” or even necessarily working the same number of hours. Furthermore, the raw gap for all women is not quite as large when looking at weekly earnings rather than yearly earnings.

Last year, looking at weekly earnings, the Labor Department put the figure at 81 cents on the dollar for 2010. It found that the median weekly earnings for women working full time at jobs paying a wage or salary was $669, compared with $824 for men. And although all these workers had normal work weeks of at least 35 hours (the minimum for “full time”), the Labor Department study noted that, for whatever reason, “men were more likely than women to have a longer workweek.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-77-cent-exaggeration/

An analogy would be that "men are stronger than women" (muscle strength).
At the highest top of the scale, men are indeed stronger.
At the lowest end of the scale, women are the weakest.
But the majority (the biggest swath of the scale in the middle, the overlap), both sexes are near the same, strength-wise, in the largest percentage.

Perhaps not the greatest analogy, but the idea here is... not to take an upper or lower end of a stat/scale, and use it as evidence of an overall truth. It avoids the bulk of the matter.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

There are lots of reasons. Gender segregation comes to mind. I work on ships, good high paying work, some do, but very few women seek out jobs on board ships.
Some guys would love to have more women working on ships, and they certainly wouldn't be refused, in fact, they are so under represented they are almost assured of being hired.

Another is that women tend to not stay in the workforce long enough to rise in pay level by accruing tenure raises.

 

[TWCobra]

The current number of female airline pilots, in my company at least, is less than 5% of the total. The main factor contributing to that would probably be the amount of time spent away from home and the lack of predictable hours of work. Maternity leave is available and used, but only a few seem to stay in the job for long once children arrive on the scene and few get to the rank of Captain as a result.

Of those that do, none in my company have applied for the higher paid training captain positions, for reasons I cannot explain. Consequently the average pay for airline pilots would be heavily skewed towards males, even though there is no pay differententiation on gender. It is a microcosm of the real world I suspect.

 

[MikeC]

Yes much as it may be an unfair burden, god has decreed that women will bear the children and have the maternal instincts, and men will be most of the a-holes.

Hence beating your wife is allowed in many religious societies (including sub-groups within larger societies where it is not allowed shame on them).

And just because the 'net does not truly allow tone to be conveyed, anything above attributed to god is seriously sarcastic/ironic/cynical.

It is actually the FSM's fault!