Elect Elizabeth Warren and re-elect Pres. Obama.

I don't think re-electing a hypocrite like Obama or electing Elizabeth Warren is the answer, Robert. Even Obama has a gender pay gap within his administration. We all need to do our homework before we vote. We can't just latch onto catch phrases that take on a life of their own and hope they help propel our candidate over the finishline! Obama is guilty, too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

put women in charge of hiring.

Put them in chrge of cooking and laundry and double the pay. (Just kidding)

Go to any university and you will see men gravitate towards engineering, math and sciences programs and women graviate towards accounting, pyschology, and liberal arts programs. That is probably what the 'gap' is reflecting.

This is not an issue we should look to our government to solve.

One thing is certain, the exponentially increasing level of federal debt needs to be addressed - or all the econmic issues we have now will only be magnified in the near future.

We should be concerned with the 'real' government issues in this election season.

RIGHT ON unclebuck!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/women-in-obama-white-house-earn-less-than-men-amid-equal-pay-debate

Most employers base professional pay on 'experience'. I believe that if a woman is doing the same job a man with more experience (hence more pay) can do, then she should get the same pay. The pay should depend on the job done. That would quickly even up some of the professional pay issues.

I think there are complex factors involved in accounting for any differences, which are not terribly amenable to government actions to close any gaps. Maintaining a women's right to choose, obtain insurance coverage for all her heathcare needs (including contraception) and keeping the government out of private decisions by women (or men) is more important. The only way to assure the latter is to vote for democrats.

As a women, I would love to see the pay gap close immediately. However, this is not a perfect world, and as a result, the pay gap will not close as fast as we like. Yet there is good news! The pay gap is closing, in fact in recent years, young women are earning more then men of the same age group. This is because women have been outpacing men in earning college degrees. From these statistics, it is clear that the most effective way to close the gender gap is to help young women succeed in school.

The real reason men and women work round the clock 24/7 is because your money is worth less, and less, and less, and less, and less. And, more less. Please consider Gary Johnson of the Libertarian ticket this election. Be Libertarian for one election.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

In my 30 years of working, I have never worked at a company that had pay grades that were gender based. Each pay grade had the exact same salary regardless of gender. You get paid based on your education. If you get your degree in English, obviously you dont get paid at the level of an engineer. So my answer would be that if you feel you are getting less, maybe you need to improve your job skill set.

Unless one is the head of payroll, CEO, VP of Finance at every company they have worked at, how could one know everyone's salary & benefits? So my answer would be if you feel there is no gender gap in salaries, read the research.

Scott Brown has been lambasted by Ms. Warren et al for not voting for equal pay. In fact, he voted no because at least three FEDERAL laws are on the books. Some go back to the '50's and '60's. Enforce the laws. As far as job skill levels that's a different story. Some of your correspondents already pointed this out.

There are 2 ways to close the gap: raise the pay for women or lower the pay for men. If the government forces companies to do one or the other, which do you really think they'll choose? They will lose, but they'll win. Americans will win, but we'll lose.

Coleen M, you are entirely correct.

"The gender gap has closed substantially in recent years. In recent decades women have attained more education, gained more experience, and shifted towards higher paying occupations. As they have done so, the gender gap has narrowed. Such data indicates that employers indeed provide equal pay for equal work."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/paycheck-fairness-act-unfairly-burdens-employees-and-employers?query=Paycheck+Fairness+Act+Unfairly+Burdens+Employees+and+Employers

The reasons why Senator Scott Brown didn't vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act can be found in the link below. It would have hurt small business owners, many of whom are women. Don't let Elizabeth Warren convince you that because Scott Brown didn't vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act, he is not truly for women and their issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scott Brown carefully reads all the bills he votes on, and this bill was deeply flawed. Don't allow Elizabeth Warren to distort his record!

"In the name of protecting women from discrimination, the Act (Paycheck Fairness Act - PFA, H.R. 1338) permits the government and the courts to micromanage employers, tying them up in a sea of red tape... The PFA will hurt the very workers it is meant to help.
"http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/paycheck-fairness-act-unfairly-burdens-employees-and-employers?query=Paycheck+Fairness+Act+Unfairly+Burdens+Employees+and+Employers

THANKS Kira.

So there's a lot at play here.

First, legislate it. I mean, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that companies are going to maximize their profits at the expense of workers so long as they can get away with it. This has happened throughout history, and still happens today. Make it illegal to pay lower wages for equal work, and give the law some teeth.

Hold legislators accountable to this - if somebody votes against equal pay, vote against them.

Some of this discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that women (as a class, not as individuals) spend less time in the workplace as they take time off to raise children. By changing culture to make custodial parenting more equal - providing paternity and maternity leave, and encouraging stay-at-home fatherhood as much as stay-at-home motherhood, we will close the "experience gap" which is often cited as a reason for the pay gap.

Finally, hold employers accountable. When interviewing, insist that your pay be no less than any other employee in the same position with the same experience. Do not roll over for a paycheck.

Ben – You want to dictate to employers through mandate, by govt legislation and potential employer demands. So your solution is more govt involvement in our lives and govt regulations on businesses. Do you think this encourages businesses to grow, or even adjust to the ever changing supply and demand and competition in an industry? At best, this leads to stagnation, not growth.

The only thing that should matter between an employer and (potential) employee is the intersection of how much an employer is willing to pay an employee and how much an employee is willing to do a particular job for the employer, and this should be based on the value an employee provides to the employer as dictated by the demand for the employer’s goods and services.

That's great, Jim, rail against *business* having to go thru the pain. The free market, through the demand for its goods and services gave us childhood labor in the mills of Lowell, 12 hour workdays, unsafe coal mines, Love Canal, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, contaminated medications and on and on. Profit is good; abusing the workers is not.

Linda, are you talking to me? I am not Jim, and if you insist on this, The Patch knows, and I will have them reprimand you - there is no need for this nonsense.

Now to your point - I've always said that govt's role is to prevent extremes, and most of what you indicated are extremes. We are way past these extremes, and now the proposal is that govt make the rules for compensation. There is no end to inequities, so there would be no end to govt involvement. It is well within the ability of individuals to understand their industry and the compensation for various jobs within their industry, and to work for a company that is willing to pay them their perceived value. If there is no company that is willing to do that, then may be their work is not worth as much as they think.

So, you propose the easy solution to get big govt to mandate for employees what their value should be to a company, rather than having the individual do that woirk, of which they are very capable. And the more govt imposes on business, the less effective and motivated business will be - wonder whether that will lead to more jobs or fewer jobs (not!).

FindBalance, When you locate that "invisible hand" please let us know where its been hiding.

Yes, I believe in the invisible hand, as did JFK ("a rising tide lifts all boats"). Where's it been - it's been oppressed by the over-regulation of the Obama Administration and the Democrats. Instead of incentives for businesses to grow, there are an over-abundance of disincentives and penalties, creating uncertainty and fear in the business environment.

You heard it here first ladies... "work for a company that is willing to pay them their (your) perceived value." And if of course, that "perceived value" just happens to be less that that of a man's just keep trying' and remember, "may be their work is not worth as much as they (you) think."

Nice.

TBH - Thank you for giving us your mis-interpretation of what I said - not!

What I am saying is the job market should dictate what employees' salaries are, and will work fairly because workers have the ability and responsibility to move to another company if they so desire.

You seem to be saying that women don't have the ability or desire to evaluate their job market, and move to a company that will pay them what they (the employee) believes they are worth.

FindBalance, Take a moment to read some corporate 10Ks. The last thing businesses want is being left to fend for themselves in a truly free market. Subsidies to business, aka corporate welfare, dwarf any disincentives and penalties. Go alphabetically by industry, airlines, broadcasting, construction, defense, energy,... etc. Find me an industry that doesn't receive corporate welfare. Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire& Rubber. Where would the American tire industry be without government subsidies and protections? Yet you would leave Lilly Ledbetter and other women in her position without any legal protection from unfair practices because, after all, the free market must not be impaired. Nonsense.

Jim, you say "Subsidies to business, aka corporate welfare, dwarf any disincentives and penalties."

So you believe there are disincentives and and penalties (which in this administration are crushing business; sorry to disagree), *and* govt subsidies (like $500B to Solyndra). You are confirming my fear that govt is just too involved in private business already.

One step in the right direction would be to have a more competetive global tax on corporations, and eliminate loopholes (i.e., exceptions targeted for only specific companies) - oh wait, that's the Romney/Ryan Plan.

But back to women's pay - maybe Lilly Ledbetter should have understood her job market and relative pay better, then she could have brought this up much earlier in her career, and if she did not get satisfaction from GY, then if she really provided that much value (which I have no doubt that she did), she could have gone to another company in the industry and made more money; maybe she would have even risen up the ladder to much higher positions, and had an even more successful career! But the responsibility and decisions should be hers. At every place I've worked for the past 20 years, you are always told that it is your (the eployee's) responsibility for your career, man or woman.

And I believe that most career women these days are doing just that - keeping track of compensation in their field, and moving to other companies if they feel they can get more (see Concerned Citizens links).

FindBalance, So in the case of a 52 year old woman who has worked for 20+ years for the same company and who suddenly discovers that she has been (illegally) paid less than her male counterparts for nearly all of those 20+ years, who has a mortgage, 2 kids in college, and hopes of retiring at age 65, your remedy for her would be that she quit and move to another company?

My remedy starts with maybe she should have understood her job market and relative pay - and taken action - much earlier in her career. As an older worker, I can see this being taken on a limited, case-by-case basis, but anyone who is 45 or younger has been in a much different work culture their whole careers and should know better. On a case-by-case basis, it should be limited to difference in compensation only.

I say lower the pay-rate for men, so women can catch up. All the training and schooling (minus all the money used on college courses) can never make up for the 17 cent a hour diffence. (As, every 1 dollar a man makes, a woman on average makes .83 cents.) I may be wrong. But I do not think it is fair that men make more money for the same exact job, especially when women work so hard, and are probably raising these (mens) children to boot. It's just not fair!

You may be implying that men work harder than women do. I don't agree. But men still get paid more money on average than women do, and it shouldn't be that way.

Shouldn't all metrics that are important to the value an employee is to a company be considered in the analysis; not just that "for the same or similar job, men are paid more on average than women"? Could there be other factors in determining pay for the "same job" other than a person is a man or a woman? You never hear what all the factors are in determining pay for the same job, only the factor that it's a man or a woman.

And you would have a govt beaurocrat or lawyer determine what pay is "fair", rather than people taking responsibility for themselves? That's a big can of worms if law dictates this "equity". If it should be that way, then the person who feels slighted should do something about it themselves.

'scuse me - If it *shouldn't* be that way (that men get paid more than women, or that anyone of any sex gets paid more than any other person of any sex that does the "same job"), then the person who feels slighted should do something about it themselves.

Easier said than done.