"That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear."

But it doesn't. You can talk about "should" all you want but ultimately you need to look at the world.

I don't have answers to all of your questions. Certainly some companies are being hurt by this, and others take advantage. That doesn't eliminate the problem unless you believe in perfectly efficient markets with no friction, barriers to entry, etc.

Those are all questions that naturally follow from the assumption that men (women too?) are discriminating against women against the best interests of the companies they work for because .... well I'm not sure you've spelled out the motive... but essentially "sexism"? It doesn't sound plausible when everywhere you look you have people shouting on the rooftops about how women deserve equal pay. So who the hell isnt paying them equally?

They're great questions, and important questions. But if you're asking them rhetorically to argue that sexism doesn't affect pay, you've got things backwards.

Start with the data. See how men and women's pay stacks up. Once you know the outcome, then start asking questions about how it happens. (Note that I'm not saying what answer you'll find, only that you need to find the answer by looking at what happens, rather than making basic economic arguments.)

There are only two possibilities here. Either there is a wage gap, or there is not. If there is not, then you're being awfully strident about something where you could instead just point out "hey, this doesn't actually happen, here are the numbers." And if there is a gap, then your rhetorical questions don't eliminate it, so either the implication is wrong or there's something else going on.

I find arguments from economic efficiency and profit motive to be highly unconvincing. If stuff actually worked that way then you wouldn't have, for example, store brand products next to identical name brand products selling at a higher price, or a million other economically inefficient human behaviors we see.

Have you looked at the data? Here's a sympathetic-to-the-cause article, one that fully endorses the issue that there is some problematic pay gap:

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap

What do we make of this statement, buried somewhat deep in the article (I would have made this the first line of the post):

"Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men."

I've seen similar from other studies, including a Harvard study that gets cited often.

I'm strident because I 100% think this is a political issue. It's gender politics. It's perhaps a lot of things. If the issue doesn't exist (certainly to the extent of "77% gap oh my!"), why do so many people get caught up in proclaiming the issue is a crisis?

I think it is a purposefully divisive issue who's propagation has serious consequences for women who are instilled with the idea they are being actively discriminated against, and who are lectured constantly that the only way they can be respected in modern society is by joining the workforce and being equally as career minded as the average ambitious man.

This social advocacy is perfectly fine. People can have a position on what they think the ideal role of women or men or whoever in society is. But be honest about it. And be tolerant of other viewpoints (namely, that perhaps many women would be happier at home, and those who otherwise would not be highly motivated to move up the corporate ladder shouldn't be shamed into having to do so.)

And damnit, be explicit about what you mean by "gap". Equal job, equal experience, equal "apples to apples" the gap is 2%.

If you don't see the obvious fact that people not explicitly stating the actual gap instead of disingenuously fooling people into believing it is 23%, then you won't understand why I'm strident about the issue. Those pushing it are without question strident about it, are they not?

Why not just post that study and be done? I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that making these vague economic arguments is completely pointless. They tell us nothing about what's actually happening. If you want to point out that the wage gap isn't very big then say it's been measured and isn't very big.

I don't mind that you're strident about it, I mind that you're strident about pushing a bad argument.

Suppose I have two equaly good candidates for a job with only two differences.

1. Gender (man vs woman)

2. salary expectations (man wants 10% more than woman)

I could hire the woman and pay less because "sexism" or because it increases my profit (nobody knows for sure). My competitor will hire the man because the woman already has a job. Next time my competitor is faster and hires the woman and I'm left with the man and have to pay him 10% more.

Why would the man in this scenario want more than the woman? Isn't this whole argument predicated on women wanting money they aren't getting? If the women don't want the money then what are we upset about?

We're (I assumed) talking about companies mandating lower wages for women. If the whole argument for some presumptive gender pay gap is that women demand less money, this would:

1) Be fixed by directing all of the ire and heat associated with this topic at the message:

"Women. Demand more money. If there's a gap, this explains it and therefore the power is in your hands." Is the "pay gap" politicized as a "Women aren't asking/expecting to get paid enough money in negotiations. They need to do this. We will work to get women to demand what they are worth."

Or, is it framed as: "America business is sexist. Our modern economy is sexist. Women are ---getting paid--- less than men as a result, and we need to change this." ?

2) Not the responsibility, or "fault" of companies paying wages the market will bear... or if you think it is, you're banging your head against a wall thinking you're going to get economic actors to act against their self interest when the path of least resistance is to get the other side of the transaction to act in theirs.

But since it's a contradiction to think equally qualified, motivated women don't want more money, then we can assume women want to get paid what they can get.

So we're left with the company being the one pushing wages down only on women, but not men. Because they're all sexist. Even the people in this thread who oppose the pay gap.. when it comes time to take part in hiring decisions they put their sexist hat on and line up for the patriarchy.

I leave you with this:

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap

^Here's a strongly sympathetic post in support of the issue of "gender pay gap". They are true believers. Yet, lets look a little closer shall we:

Note how far down the page this little gem is placed:

"Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men."

98, my friend. Did you realize this whole controversy is over a 2% gap?

The pay gap (as popularly understood) does not exist. The data shows this. It is a political issue, as well as a cultural one, taking a stand on what certain people believe women should do with their life. They should not have to bear the burden of child rearing, and should want to have professional career ambitions equivalent to that of the average man. This is the position taken and pushed by activists concerned with the gender pay gap. One can be open to the viewpoint, like I am, that women should absolutely be encouraged to have a professional career, if they think that is right for them, and be compensated commensurate with their value. I'm not in support of socially mandating that path as the only acceptable, respectable one. I'm certainly not supportive of politicizing the issue of gender differences as it relates to family, career, and relationships etc by fooling people into believing that since "the average per person salary for all women across all jobs across all levels is 77% of the avg for all men across all jobs across all levels" is some economic and social crisis we have to politicize and legislate away. Its a wedge issue to create division.

>98, my friend. Did you realize this whole controversy is over a 2% gap?

I'll mention two things: the first is that other studies find that the 2% is closer to 5 or 7%. Still not 23 or 25%, but more significant. The second is that even that 2% number, over a lifetime and with interest is very likely something like an extra year's worth of income. That means retiring a year earlier, which I'd say is very significant.