Just to preemptively deal with the amateur statisticians, here's the important line: "Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the research indicates that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained and is likely due to sex discrimination. Over time, the unexplained portion of the pay gap grows." However, this does suggest that 75% of the pay gap can be explained, probably mostly by occupation and work-gaps due to parenthood. Those are more of a socialization problem.

Norbizness, I'm a little confused by your reasoning.

The quote you mentioned:

"Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood"

and then you said:

"However, this does suggest that 75% of the pay gap can be explained, probably mostly by occupation and work-gaps due to parenthood.

The study is already accounting for parenthood---did you mean something else?

Though I do agree that the choice of career has a lot to do with socialization.

No, I think we're on the same page. I think the Reuter's article broke it down thusly: an average woman can expect, controlling for all other factors, a 5-12% pay cut in her twenties and early thirties by virtue of the fact that she's a woman. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of money coming out of my East Austin Shaved Ice Emporium paycheck.

Has anyone reviewed the study? As someone who works in sales for instance, I see men earning more than women based on higher output. They perform more aggressively and doggedly by personality, and that is what is needed to succeed. Even the better female sales reps lack some of that and their earnings - based on a straight commission scale that everyone participates in - reflect it. I'm curious if the study breaks down industries and job types where the gaps are most prevalent. Does anyone know?

My immediate reaction would be that the wage gap is due to choice of majors -- women pick lower paying majors than men. But apparently the study controls for occupation? So depressing.

Maybe the gap can be attributed in part to women's reluctance to bargain for higher salaries when they get hired. A lot has been written on this subject -- apparently even Harvard MBA women bargain for less than their male peers.

This may sound like a tangent but bear with me, it relates to the point.

My oldest son has severe ADD. Keeping him on-task during household chores is a chore in and of itself. My oldest daughter, who is a year and a half younger than him, is a star performer -- gets decent grades, qualifies for special gifted programs, is hard-working when she's not looking to her brother for "fairness", and very motivated by money. But lately, she hasn't been doing much around the house, due to the entirely reasonable complaint that it is unfair that because she works harder and faster and better than her brother, she gets assigned more chores.

So we asked her what kind of compensation she would want from us to balance this. Nothing can change the fact that her brother can't/won't do the work she can, and with two babies, house renovations and a home business, I need the help. They already get an allowance, and it's the same; we asked her how much more, either in terms of actual money or in terms of special privileges or both, she would consider fair to work at the level she *can* rather than the level that would balance her with her brother.

She responded, tearfully, with "I don't want to ask for more money because I don't want to be greedy!"

And this, I think, is a major reason why women make less. I think about my own salary, how I wouldn't demand as much as other employees because it was "fair" that a mother of three should make $2K more than me after just coming in to the job I had been doing for two years, because I was single and had no family to support. Or how it was not "reasonable" to ask for $60K after I'd been making $50K because that was a huge jump, never mind that it was a jump to where my pay would be normalized to the expectations of my industry.

Women don't ask. (Well, unless we're my coworker, the aforementioned mother, but we could all learn from Cecilia and her confidence.) We're worried about seeming greedy. We want everything to be fair. And if the world was run by women, maybe it would be a better place -- maybe we would work harder to ensure fairness. But the world is run by sociopaths who are only out for what they can get, most of whom are male, and men at least get training in competing with the sociopaths. We don't.

BTW, I told my daughter about the pay gap and basically insisted that she come up with something she considers fair and reasonable for what she deserves, that she is not greedy, she is hardworking and she deserves fair recognition for that. And if she won't take it, I'll give it to her. But it's hard, seeing a smart, ambitious child automatically put the needs of others first, and to know that in a sane world, that would make her a good person, but I need to teach it out of her and make her more selfish or she'll be a victim of the world we live in.

It's worth noting that if you're not valued as much as the next person, then pushing harder for a higher salary may mean you don't get hired, or, if you're asking for a raise, that you simply don't get it.

There's no simple way to analyze this, but I would highly doubt that women's different salary requests are ALL due to women's reluctance to ask for more.

teddy10, the thing is that controlling for parenthood/career choice accounts for 3/4ths of the wage gap, according to the quote. So the 70/100 reduces to 30/100 *1/4 = 7.5/100 meaning females in the same positions/same career are apparently making 92.5 cents on the dollar, the other 27.5 cents come from choices that females seem to be socialized to make.

Barb - there's no simple way to analyze it at all, but it's been my experience that you're only worth what you demand. No one will ever offer you as much as they can afford to pay you.

the flip side of course is that if there's 9 other people waiting to do the same job for less money, then you won't be hired. Not a simple matter, to be sure.

I don't have the study right now, but I do believe that I read somewhere (Ms. Magazine, maybe?) that there had been studies done that show when women DO ask for more money or try to negotiate their salary in job interiews, they are much more likely than men to not get the job or get let go. Because they're seen as being "pushy" or "bossy" or "bitchy" whereas guys are just being "assertive."

I think that your comment was great, though, Alara.

This is probably the study you were looking for Cara:

Study shows women who haggle over salary won't land the position

"A subsequent study, recently completed and with the working title "It Depends Who is Asking," revealed that should a female candidate negotiate for a higher salary before a job offer is formally extended, it's likely she won't be hired. But that doesn't hold for male counterparts -- haggling to up the ante has no impact on hiring, Babcock found."

Predictably, all the men interviewed in the article denied that their companies do this or that the research is true.

This is probably the study you were looking for, Cara:

Study shows women who haggle over salary won't land the position

"A subsequent study, recently completed and with the working title "It Depends Who is Asking," revealed that should a female candidate negotiate for a higher salary before a job offer is formally extended, it's likely she won't be hired. But that doesn't hold for male counterparts -- haggling to up the ante has no impact on hiring, Babcock found."

Predictably, all the men interviewed in the article denied that their companies do this.

But we find that women already earn less – even when they have the same major and occupation as their male counterparts.

Why did you not bold this? Typically, we're told that we don't earn as much as men because we don't go into tough professions. As a woman engineer/lawyer, I'm pretty sure that I'll still earn less than my equally educated and hard-working male colleagues.

That's it, ponies and rainbows! Thanks!

No problem, Cara -- if anybody wants to read the full study, it's here. One interesting (and infuriating) finding that wasn't highlighted in most of the media articles was that it was mostly men who penalized women for demanding a higher salary:

"Men only penalized female candidates for attempting to negotiate whereas women penalized both male and female candidates. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness mediated these effects."

And, it would appear that women know on some level who they can and can't negotiate with:

"In Experiment 2, participants adopted candidates’ role in same scenario and assessed whether to accept the compensation offer or attempt to negotiate for more. Women were less likely than men to choose to negotiate when the evaluator was male, but not when the evaluator was female. This effect was mediated by women’s nervousness about negotiating with male evaluators."

You know, I frequently tell my mom that my college job is the best job I'll ever have. There's good pay, we get reimbursed for everything, and we're always fed at meetings. And this is another reason; all pay is standardized to position and experience. You start at $9.17 an hour, after a year's experience you get a $.25 raise. If you're promoted, you get $1.00 raise with each promotion. Anytime minimum wage in FL goes up, everyone's pay goes up the exact same amount. Obviously in the real world all jobs and salaries aren't as cut and dried as a dorm security job on campus, but still, I just love the policy. It's all equal, everyone knows the conditions for raises, and there's no inequality due to gender or anything else.

Makes me sad that I only get to enjoy this for another year. *sigh*

Warning: Free Market Rant Ahead

Genny's story makes me really sad. Ideally, we shouldn't standardise salaries, because some people are smarter or more industrious than others, contribute more to the company, and therefore are worth more.

When the best that women can hope for is something that REFUSES to value people for their own worth (save by experience), our society is in serious trouble. Nothing against Genny - I can totally understand why she loves her current pay structure.

She shouldn't, though. She's probably smart and hard working and should be making MORE than the average person. We should live in a society that rewards her - and every other woman! - not one that ignores half its talent and (these days) more than half its educated workers.

Rant over.

Personal experience: when I was an engineering intern, I made more than my male colleagues. (FYI: engineering salaries are relatively standardised; it's a good place for women.) I also worked harder than they did and my boss negotiated on my behalf for my pay raises beyond the normal scale - I didn't even have to ask.

I say this to underscore the importance of (when possible) working in jobs with really supportive, feminist bosses (of either gender). Kudos to anyone who turns down a job on account of an anti-woman boss - and tells Human Resources about it.

Interesting, oenophile. In big law firms, those that are "lock-step" (fixed salary and bonus structures based on seniority) are usually considered better places to work because there's less incentive to compete with others in the firm. Clients also get better services because there's less incentive for partners to pay greater attention to the bigger accounts, as there would be in an "eat what you kill" system.

And even firms that aren't "lock-step" have a fixed salary structure for associates based on seniority only.

Anyway, I guess everyone in big law firms gets a ton of cash no matter what, so there might not be that much marginal utility to the extra amount a hard worker might get in a merit-based system.

RE:
"I find it interesting that they never choose to do these studies across race and class,".

Mee too.

But if they did, they would discover that white women get the top jobs over all other women, as well as most of the face time. Feminism, especially white feminism, is not ready for that reality yet, or ready to give up female priviledge as well. Yet.

As in all issues, white feminism isn't ready to deal with or police its own excesses. like the fact that womens sexual behaviors with children are just as harmful, but in different ways, than males who actually grow up to be rapsists. Instead they posit that these behaviors are normative.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume13/j13_1_2.htm

It is fairly impossible to do these type of class/race studies, chiefly because the feminist lobbyists of the late eighties ( ala MacKinnon, et al, ) lobbied to disclude certain race and gender facts from the domestic violence stat reporting, as well as the child abuse reporting, with the direct (negative) result that all other stat generators picked up that trend.

I guess I see at least part of that "unexplained" portion of the pay gap as a "potential mommy penalty" (i.e. if you're a woman, you may someday be a mom, and that will eventually cost the company money.) Which isn't fair as many women now are delaying or choosing not to have children, yet all women are being penalized.

With regard to the "women shouldn't negotiate" phenomenon mentioned in that study above, I had a friend who recently experienced that as well as a sort of reverse "potential mommy penalty".

My friend is in her mid-40's and has chosen not to have kids. Last year, she was the partner who brought in the most business for her financial services firm, and asked for a bigger split to reflect this. They (all men) told her when they refused her request "Perhaps you should have had kids, and then you wouldn't be so invested in your career."

On a related note, I actually released some research this week and wonder what you all think about it. In the Downtown Women's Club's April 2007 survey (Women in the Workplace: Generationally Speaking), 650 businesswomen were asked if they were currently affected by the wage gap. Only 50% of Boomers; 40% of Generation X; and 38% of Generation Y businesswomen responded "Yes, they were affected by the gender wage gap."

Do you think that the wage gap really only affects less than half of all working women, or that it affects more, just that many don't recognize it?