The Labor Statistics people classify full time work as 35 hours a week or more.

$0.77/$1.00 = x*.77 = 35

35/.77 = 45

So, if a man were to work 45 hours in a week and a women were to work 35 - AT THE SAME HOURLY RATE - feminists would have you believe that the woman is earning less money for the same work week.

Because any thing OVER 35 still only equals "35"

This wage gap bs drives me crazy. I'm a programmer and female, no wage gap, you know why because of the field I'm in. I don't have kids and if I need to work crazy hours I do and that gets reflected in my raises and bonuses. I'm also an immigrant, patents came here from the Soviet Union when I was 6, plus I'm Jewish on my father's side, and yet I've had no problems getting employment, making a great living, living the American dream in general. Maybe the problem is that I'm not looking hard enough for something to bitch about lol. Ok rant over.

I've said this before and I'll keep right on saying it.

Say you're an employer about to spend a substantial amount of money training a new hire. You're choice is narrowed down to two candidates, young people the same age, both fresh from college, a man and a woman. Their qualifications are equal, so who do you hire?

Before you answer, ask yourself, which one is more likely to quit the job to start a family? Which one is more likely to leave early to pick up the kids? Who's more likely to call in when the kids are sick? Who's more likely to need to miss work for doctor's appointments when a kid is on the way?

Oh, and please spare the garbage, "I would hire the woman because it's a known fact that women have to work ten times harder to the same place that men do."

Yeah, right.

I work for an equity partner in a law firm. He is the "Land Use" department in the office and he takes on a lot of eminent domain cases. He also likes the ladies, so he will always choose female associates to work on his cases, especially if there's one who has nice boobs. Every effing one of them has gotten married and pregnant within a year. The latest female associate is 34 weeks pregnant and getting ready to go out on maternity leave, which means I have to get whatever new associate he chooses and their secretary up to speed on the cases. I asked him yesterday if he could please consider assigning a male associate to the cases.

Oh, I'd hire the woman. Mostly because I know I can pay her $0.77/$1 that I'd pay a man.

Of course, that's why the unemployment rate for men is astronomical, and the same for women is as low as it can go.

Wait...it's not?

Many women I know push their husbands to earn more, then these same women go to work and push their employers to close the wage gap. They don't consider that the men with bigger checks than them also have wives pushing them to make more.

I make and work significantly more than I do when I married precisely to take care of my family. My wife makes and works significantly less than she did when we married precisely to take care of our family.

As long as people have freedom to choose what's best for them and their families, there will always be disparities in the numbers. But the numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

Good post, Trust. If this were Facebook, I'd give you a "like."

The Clayman Institute may be getting their wish, courtesy of the ACA. Coyote Blog has a post this morning about part-time Staples employees being subject to termination if they go over 25 hours in a week. The posted letter at his link refers to "recent changes." Interesting that ACA penalties for non-coverage for employees kicks in at 30 hours.
So the Clayman Institute for Gender Studies has a solution ready to hand for those workaholic males - categorize them as part-time, split the workload up, and everyone will be happy. No?

Well, I don't recognize myself in any of these comments! I work similar hours to my male colleagues (60+ per week), and have no kids (nor will I). My career requires at least 10 years of post-high school education and training, and most of my female colleagues who have kids did so during this time. So, by the time they even got on the career ladder, their kids are relatively self sufficient. Depending on the industry, I think that it is a big mistake to discriminate against women because there may be a few years where they work slightly less to take care of a family. In the 40 or so years of a career, I don't think cutting a women some slack for childbirth is a big deal. But then again, I work in a country where you can still keep a job for life, if you are so inclined.

Liz,

Women are only 'discriminated against' when they don't work the same hours as their male colleagues in the US. Incidentally those same male colleagues are 'discriminated against' when they don't work the same hours and aren't as productive as their female or other male colleagues.