A report of the Washington free beacon in April says that the white house annual report on so why does obama pay women less? White house staffers reveal that the median annual salary of female white house employees was 18 percent less than male employees - $60,000 compared with $71,000.

Wrong, Mitt romney is going to rape you and force you to keep the baby

This is offensive; I can understand if you don't like his policies, but statements like these are just over the top.

Anonymous wrote:if you are a woman you will die under a romney administration.

Wrong, Mitt romney is going to rape you and force you to keep the baby

Yes, it is an issue. Even in high paying, high education jobs. When you find out and demand a raise, it will usually work in my experience. Until next time. Unbelievable this is 2012.

Maybe being in DC has clouded my outlook, but it seems to me that women are the ones getting the education and getting the high paying jobs.

We're living in a bubble here. I come from one of the deeply red states and there's is certainly a wider discrepancy there. However, it is amazing at how most of the women who grew up in that environment will accept or even reinforce the status quo, so I wouldn't be so sure that female HR employees can be relied upon to buck the system.

My mother still lives in that same state and recently found out the man she trained at the health food store was making more per hour while she was training him! She of course demanded an increase.

In white collar environments, it seems DC is better than average. However, it is also my experience that when I first came to DC I worked at a department store while I interned. One day, we stated comparing hourly wages and I was incensed at how all of the guys made $3-7 more per hour! I immediately asked for a raise and persisted until I got one.

if you are a woman you will die under a romney administration.

Anonymous wrote:it's not a real issue. Any laws that would be put in place would result in frivolous lawsuits and a situation similar to affirmative action which is a failed and reprehensible mandate which actually denigrates the people they are trying to help.

I agree that the law is not the way to fix any inequalities that are there. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

The fact that Mitt had to consult a Binder full of women that was foisted upon him (i.e., the idea of hiring more women never occurred to him) should tell you all you need to know.

it's not a real issue. Any laws that would be put in place would result in frivolous lawsuits and a situation similar to affirmative action which is a failed and reprehensible mandate which actually denigrates the people they are trying to help.

I think both sides have a point.

People who claim women are being paid less are not taking all factors into consideration.

People who claim it's a myth that women are paid less are denying that sexism is still strong and well in our workplaces.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Women ARE still discriminated against in many ways and some women make less because of their personal choices.

It can be an issue but I for one find it hard to sort through the propaganda to see how much of an issue.

To engage me you have to show that the men and women are doing the same work, not someone's idea of equivalent work. So two people at McDonalds or two people with the same title who have worked the same years at Target, etc. (assuming that Target doesn't have bonuses for performance, which it might).

Many law firms have gone lockstep pay for associates but then bonuses differ. And male associates with families tend to work more hours than female associates with families, so their bonuses may be bigger. I blame the male associates for working too many hours but I don't think the firm needs to change its bonus structure.

Good Lord, are you really asking this question? You live in a bubble indeed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-21/equal-pay-plaintiffs-burden-of-proof

http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/simpletruthaboutpaygap1.pdf

http://www.pay-equity.org/

Seems to me these "women issues" have been fabricated for this campaign. I'm sure these are issues for women, but to suggest that in this economic and political climate these are actually priorities for the USG is, to me, obvious pandering to women. On the equal pay for women issue, is this really a problem? Maybe being in DC has clouded my outlook, but it seems to me that women are the ones getting the education and getting the high paying jobs. Moreover, most of the people I know who work in HR are women themselves and I find it unlikely that they would participate in the systematic discrimination of the female sex by their employers. Even if they did, I doubt they would keep it to themselves. So, if Obama and his trade union supporters really cared about this, why don't they identify an offending organization and go demonstrate in front of it? The preferred solution of this perceived problem appears to be federal legislation that authorizes women to bring suits against employers they allege are discriminating against them by paying them less than their male counterparts. I doubt this would resolve anything and would probably just serve to enrich the lawyers who would bring such suits and would likely just end up hurting women and independently owned businesses.