My mother's father, who died in the early 1980s, spent his working life in a textile mill. On payday he brought his paycheck home and gave it to his wife, who then gave him a little spending money and managed the balance as best she could. She was what we now call a stay at home wife, and she was an excellent money manager.

I've seen this same theme play out in the lives of clients, with some variation, up to the present. This is particularly the case with regards to “mom & pop” business concerns. Pop is out front talking to customers, managing jobs, hiring workers, etc, and etc. Mom is mostly in the back room keeping the books, managing the office, and advising Pop when she thinks it appropriate. The couples pay commonly goes to him, which she deposits in a joint account, which she also manages.

My point is this: The name on the check may not mean a thing. Unlike Fortune 500 companies, compensation in small business units is largely determined by the quirks of the Internal Revenue Code. Owners, most definitely including Mom, pay themselves in such a way as to benefit themselves and their families, with little regard to “economic reality”.

Also, husbands are commonly “taxpayers” and wives are commonly “spouses”. This is not mandated by the tax code, however it is how most couples choose to do it.

I have nearly thirty years with a Fortune 100 high-tech company. I have held several management positions over the years as well as senior technical and leadership assignments.

As a woman, it never occurred to me to focus on other women specifically (what Bob called subgroup loyalty). I mentored and guided all of my department employees as well as other employees who asked for my advice.

I think one good outcome of increased numbers of female managers (and minorities) is that the idea of "non-white or non-male" folks in management becomes common-place. That improves acceptance of the notion and its ramifications throughout the company.

With over 70 million baby boomers retiring in the next decade, it is likely that any company that does not pay competitive wages to women, minorities, or others for the sake of pure discrimination will not be able to recruit the kind of workers that they need to compete in a global market. Those that use gender as a way to determine compensation are likely to get exactly what they pay for - low quality, unmotivated workers for low pay. Ultimately this compensation strategy will hurt the company as customers go elsewhere for products and services. So the strategy of gender-based wage discrimination is ultimately counter-productive to good business decision-making.

I've been thinking about this one for a while, working as I do in a female dominated sector of the economy, and I suspect that this may be a little less revelatory than it appears at first glance.

There may be less direct causation here than it appears: the kinds of companies that are more willing to promote women into management are also more likely to value and pay women better generally. Perhaps we are seeing the generalized effects of a more enlightened corporate culture, rather than the sisterhood helping each other up. Just saying.

Because in my experience with competent female managers (which is no little amount), they tend to have about as much (ie very little) gender/class/whatever subgroup loyalty as competent male managers, or frankly, often less, being, sadly but truly enough, often rather more competent than their male colleagues in the same positions.

That's interesting. Because he obviously felt that there was plenty of information to draw specific conclusions about how female managers affected the pay of female employees.

He certainly wasn't uncomfortable speculating that male managers had a direct negative impact on the wages of women.

I'd gladly give up 2% or 10% or 20% or whatever of my wages in exchange for having so much sexual attention from the opposite sex that I could afford to complain about it (or file lawsuits) not to mention the ability to have members of the opposite sex kiss my ass all the time, not to mention pay me, for a look at mine.

Given the fact that 58% of college enrollees are women and 42% men, in 20 years or so, the wage gap will reverse for those who work equal amounts of time. Of course feminists will ignore/excuse that the same way they ignore/excuse the unequal enrollments now. Gender equality? Did someone once claim that was part of feminism?

If feminists ever start being intellectually honest, the world will shift on its axis.

I was waiting for the actual data from the study to be posted. It's hard to criticize a study that you can't read. I am pretty suspicious about the whole concept of a wage gap. The 2% wage gap that was documented by Warren Farrell and others, I would surmise, has already been erased and my guess is women make more than men when accounting for all variables. Unfortunately it will probably be 5 years from now until someone documents what the wage gap was in 2007. What's funny is we will still be hearing about the wage gap 5 years from now by these radical left wing nutjobs, when women are demonstrably making more. Just like the continuous false propaganda disseminated about domestic violence, rape statistics, divorce, male education, custody, etc....I have been working in a corporate environment for 20 years and every company I worked for has overcompensated women in salary and opportunities.

I've seen this as true in my own company. We had a lesbian General Counsel who coaxed the company into having 'partner' health care, which actually extended to heterosexuals.

So not only did all heteros gain from lesbians, but hetero and lesbian working class women gained too.

Viva la semi-difference!

I wonder if the more women in management/reduced pay gap will be a self-perpetuating cycle, i.e., women who are paid equally will feel more confident about their value to the company, and by extension about themselves and their careers, and that will make them more likely to continue on in their careers, seek promotions to management, etc., which could lead to even less gender disparity in wages...

I work in an industry that has total transparency in compensation, and I know that I am paid exactly as much as the guy working next to me (if we are at a similar level of seniority). I imagine it would be seriously demoralizing to know that he made more (particularly if I felt I were better at the job than him) simply because he was a man. It seems to me that a demoralized worker has a much lower chance of success and advancement than one who is not demoralized.