Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside, on Jan 25, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Another absurd bill written by people that don't understand economics. If women are unjustly underpaid, then why don't you start a company entirely consisting of women, and outcompete the rest?

Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jan 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm

'Another absurd bill written by people'

Another absurd comment. Written by a man.

Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside, on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm

What does that have to do with it? Absurd, counterproductive measures are equally so, regardless of who comments on them, or proposes them.

Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm

"If women are unjustly underpaid, then why don't you start a company entirely consisting of women, and outcompete the rest?"

And if we pay black folk less, we can start a company with all the cheap labor and out compete the rest?

If some refuse to serve blacks at lunch counters, then the free market will open up a lunch counter for black folk and be really profitable.

Libertarians: please feel free to move to a libertarian country. Try the government-free paradise of Somalia.

Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside, on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Indeed, I think that's what would happen, under both scenarios you posit.

Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm

"Indeed, I think that's what would happen, under both scenarios you posit."

Big fan of Rand Paul, aren't you?

Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:59 pm
CrunchyCookie is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Wait a sec, I thought the long-quoted "77 cents for every dollar" (isn't it 79?) thing was understood to be a raw, unadjusted figure encompassing ALL salaries -- a gap that isn't all that vast once you account for women working fewer hours and disproportionately coming out of school with unmarketable horsecrap degrees.

Which is it? Anyone know?

Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm

LMGTFY

Web Link

"unmarketable horsecrap degrees"

Unlike your horsecrap degree, which apparently keeps you from googling the info yourself.

Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm
CrunchyCookie is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

A quick Google search wouldn't supply an answer, since I've read plenty of articles from legit news sources that state the contrary.

And sorry, I really don't care enough to sift through a 95-page report. I just thought I'd throw the question out there to invite some fun discussion.

Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Interesting report. Looks like the biggest factor for income has nothing to do with gender -- it's whether you are Asian. (Can I say that here?)

Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2013 at 8:35 am
CrunchyCookie is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

You can, as long as you make a footnote that after adjusting for household size and educational levels, all minorities (including Asians) lose compared to whites. Replace "median" with "mean" and I'll bet it becomes a matter of multiples.

Also, I was bored and browsed the report after all. My suspicions were mostly right: the 77 cents thing came from the numbers on page 7 stating women earned $36,931 against men's $47,715. But the only criteria was being a "full-time worker", so we have one pool loaded with $100,000 engineers and financiers and another pool largely skewed by $40,000 K-12 teachers and $30,000 social workers. Weak journalism on the PA Weekly's part for assuming "equal pay for equal work".

Proper discussion of discrimination entails having the right facts first.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 7:53 am

Oh give me a break. There is no wage disparity between men and women who do the same jobs. The only 'disparity" comes from women who choose careers that pay less, and/or drop out of careers to stay home and raise kids and lose time/experience, and/or choose less demanding jobs with same degrees in order to be with our kids.

That is our choice, don't make it harder to choose those routes by stupid laws.

Please stop trying to "help" us, you hurt us every time. This will just make it harder for women to find the kind of work they want to do and still have kids.

Posted by Young Jose, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:58 am

I don't believe that there is wage disparity. I just thionk that uneducated people believe there is

Posted by Old Mary, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm

If there is no wage disparity (despite evidence to the contrary) then, no harm, no foul.

But if all we have to go on is Young Jose's "I just thionk that uneducated people believe there is" then, all I can do is say:

Thank you Rep Eshoo!