And the current economy has led to much greater male unemployment than female unemployment (scroll through Mark Perry's "Carpe Diem" blog for the numbers). This doesn't exactly support the continuing complaints of female victimization in the workplace. Which may be the reason such information is not being reported in the mainstream media.

There is also the working conditions of the job to consider. Compare an accounting clerk and a garbage collector. The accounting clerk has to have some training and aptitude for the job. A garbage collector has to be able to lift a garbage can and dump it into a truck. On that basis, the clerk should probably make more.

I live about 500 miles north of Minneapolis. In the winter, the garbage collectors are walking benind a truck for 8 houre in -30 degree temps. In the spring and fall, it is sometimes 2 degrees above freezing and raining.

You would have to pay me a lot more to be a garbage collector than to sit in an office entering figures into a computer, but I doubt that is taken into consideration in deciding "equal value".

Actually, I believe garbage collectors in New York City make a very good living.

Our city contracted out the garbage collecting and I know the workers don't make as much as the unionized city workers used to make.

I was thinking in terms of the Fair Pay Act. Some group will have to decide on what equal value is and I'm betting the "pink collar" jobs come out a winner.

What was said above pretty much sums it up. If an employee and employer agree on a certain amount of pay, it is no one elses business.

This actually would make for a decent scam. Get someone to hire you by asking for peanuts, thus surpassing some of the competition in value per dollar. Then sue them.

Add that to the list of financial incentives provided to women by making men villians. Will go nicely along side "oops, I'm pregant" and "take him to the cleaners."

"many women make less money than men because they are more likely (in general) to just take what they're offered instead of negotiating"..I personally haven't found this...few of the women working for me have ever been shrinking violets as far as asking for raises or promotions.
(These are generally people who are considerably past entry-level)

"I mean, what kind of ass voluntarily pays more for the exact same item?"

Some of the most successful self-made multi-millionaire businessmen I know.

The first few times I questioned that seeming bit of foolishness, they (quite generously) explained themselves to me, though they certainly did not have to: they pay more to bank goodwill that, they hope, will later pay back much more than they had to spend.

These same men would often drive the same 15 year old rustbucket vehicle and stay in their 1500 square foot home with old carpet. So they were not in the habit of throwing away money.

It is the difference between price and value. All of us can see the price. Only a relative few can spot value.

""I mean, what kind of ass voluntarily pays more for the exact same item?"

Some of the most successful self-made multi-millionaire businessmen I know.

The first few times I questioned that seeming bit of foolishness, they (quite generously) explained themselves to me, though they certainly did not have to: they pay more to bank goodwill that, they hope, will later pay back much more than they had to spend."

I would argue that these businessmen are not getting the same item. By paying more, they are less likely to have the employee trained and then spilt for another job. As you inferred, they are paying more, but getting more value. (and it's their freely made choice, not mandated by law.)

the whole thing is meaningless on the ground... what you are worth to an employer changes a lot with experience. take yourself out of the labor pool for a while, and expereince changes. if you look at how hard this will be to prove, only stupid people will run afoul of this law. not that they aren't out there... but.

the most important outcome of this, is that it's a poison pill. why would you hire a woman and open yourselves up to possible litigation, perhaps decades later? laws like this kill the value of individual people, and devalue a whole group. unintended consequences, table for one.

The Lily Leadbetter law is more about limitations periods in which to bring a claim. The Equal Pay Act has been in effect since around 1963.

But wait 'till you get a load of the "Paycheck Fairness Act" which Mr. Obama promised to sign -- the federal govenment is going to decide which jobs are "equal" to other jobs, and force employers to pay accordingly.

Anyone want to bet that, once again, wealth will be transferred from men to women?

"And if women can really be hired more cheaply to do the same job, why wouldn't every business be solely populated with them? I mean, what kind of ass voluntarily pays more for the exact same item?"

In addition, any employer that paid men more than women for the same work would not only lose out in terms of paying more money for the same work. They would also risk costly legal action. So they would effectively lose out twice.

On the other hand, it might well be rational for an employer to perhaps hire a few more women or pay the women slightly more than they are worth in order to avoid vexatious legal action. Indeed, the real agenda here is to basically force employers to pay women more relative to their productivity.

In Warren Farrell's book on the earnings gap, he actually found that among younger workers with the same qualifications women were earning significantly more than men. Of course, this does not conclusively prove discrimination as there may be other variables that haven't been factored in. But it is food for thought.

"But wait 'till you get a load of the "Paycheck Fairness Act" which Mr. Obama promised to sign -- the federal govenment is going to decide which jobs are "equal" to other jobs, and force employers to pay accordingly."

That's right. Women would be able to continue doing the most safe and easy jobs, but get the same paycheck as a man who is doing a more dangerous, difficult or demanding job.

This kind of nonsense has already been implemented in other countries. In Australia we have long had a system of centralized wage fixing where various tribunals determine legal wages for different occupations. A few years back the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission decided that pay in female-dominated occupations should be increased relative to male-dominated occupations in order to increase equality of pay outcomes between the sexes.

Among other things, they decided that librarians should be paid as much as geologists. WTF? Someone who gets to work in a nice air-conditioned building sorting out books, and with no qualifications other than some soft sciences should get the same pay packet as someone with greater skills and qualifications working out in the elements on a dirty excavation site?

Does the Paycheck Fairness Act mandate that government employees get no more than the rest of us? Does it apply to Congress?

I didn't think so.

While people should certainly get paid well for truly DANGEROUS jobs (and being a garbage collector would qualify, I can imagine), that's not the same as a job that's simply dirty, such as being a janitor.

Leon Festinger's theory, as any psychology student knows, will tell you that if you pay one person a certain amount for a menial, dirty job, and the second person twice as much for the same job, the latter person will NOT be any happier on the job or perform better.

I.e., let's not go overboard on justifying how much a man earns.