"An individual woman can request higher pay and be denied. The woman can either a) stay and deal, or b) quit. In quitting, she allows her boss to higher a younger woman to replace her—who the boss can pay still less (unless she can somehow convince no other woman to take the job). Unfortunately, many companies place a higher value on cheap labor than on experience, even when the pricier, more experienced worker would be more valuable over time. The company is just thinking about this year’s financial reports and the salary to revenue ratio. It isn’t that simple.

Also, salaries are kept so secret—who knows what the person in the next cubicle is making? How do you know you’ve been offered less than a comparable colleague? Maybe every woman should assume that whatever salary she is being offered, it is at least 5% less than what a man would be offered and factor that amount further into negotiations."

-- mizbinkley

All of this is equally true for the man who makes the same demand. He just weighs his options and takes the risk, perhaps he is sent packing, or perhaps he makes a lateral move to his company’s competitors, or perhaps he is paid more by his company to avoid just such a loss of capital.

In the end it is always an individual affair. If person A is charismatic, witty, and a "good interview" they will be more in demand than person B. Perhaps one can say that these esoteric notions are gender influenced, but even then you are discussing the perceived value of the acquisition and not a gender based presumption. An equally witty, charismatic, good interview who is also a woman would be just as likely to receive the same opportunity to demand a higher wage as her male counterpart. Which is why such analyses invariable fall flat. There are too many other factors involved in the final decision to presume a cause for the outcome. The existence of even a few males earning x and females earning y disproves a general theory of sexism in pay, as presumably gender was not a factor in their cases.

In the end economics dictate that a corporation will hire the most efficient acquisition, meaning the most and best work at the lowest cost. One can argue that companies may devalue what a woman might bring that is different than a man, but on a point by point comparison there is little evidence of a direct gender bias in pay scales.

"I believe if employers paid women less than men for any reason having to do with women, (I.E. tendency to accept less pay) rather than an inherent systematic discriminating climate, wouldn't that be reflected in the market place? Wouldn't the complaints be from men complaining they can't get hired because they're not women?"

-- FilthyHarry

Inherent in this question is a presumption that men and women make up equal parts of the workforce.

Essentially, if women get paid less, they will be hired more, and likewise if men get paid more they will get hired less. As we are talking indivudal judgements by employers and not general policy (a general policy would be much more obvious and illegal) it is hard to pin down exact numbers but it is a fair presumption with which to start. However since unemployment is so very low in our country it is hard to judge anything by the employment numbers with regard to the wage gap.

Here are questions that need to be answered 1) the overall unemployment rate of men, 2) the overall unemployment rate of woemen, and 3) the rate at which unemplyment by women is a choice rather than forced situation.

I do not have these numbers, but if a non economic cause for the gender gap were to exist you would find that female unemployment, minus those unemployed by choice, is at a higher rate than male unemployment. If by contrast male unemployment is higher than female unemployment it would uphold the economic theory of the wage gap.

The problem with this type of analysis however is that with unemployment being so low in our country it is likely that those who remain unemployed are so due to other factors beyond simply a lack of jobs. For example the higher male felony conviction rate could easily cause for a higher male unemployment rate, but rather than disproving sex discrimination it simply supports criminal record discrimination theory.

However, in this increasinly complex debate that is where one would start to find answers with regard to the causes of a perceived wage gap. But even when on find those answers you will likely find a dozen more questions to follow it.