@Cow
I completely agree. However, we have reached a point in our society were reality is no longer accepted as reality and instead, the desired outcome of policy is pushed as the 'new' reality. As example, here is an article from The Blaze capturing a screen shot of Piers Morgan's Twitter account where he denies documented, reported on facts because it doesn't fit the policy he desires as the outcome.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/01/piers-morgan-claims-armed-guard-was-not-able-to-stop-atlanta-school-shooting-reality-disagrees/

The question becomes how do you argue with some one who has accepted a reality that doesn't exist?

@Cow

You are correct. Both government and academic studies show that the gap is about 4 cents per dollar. Those studies then claim that the remaining difference cannot be accounted for, so they default to the conclusion that the difference is due to gender discrimination. That conclusion is flawed, however, in that it does not take into account that males have a number of behaviors that make them more inclined do things that draw attention to their ongoing achievements, thereby drawing attention of their superiors to things that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

But, of course, discrimination does exist, and it must be stopped wherever it is found. Male social workers, for example, make roughly 10% less on average than female social workers. Males desiring to enter the private home care for the elderly find that they are nearly unemployable because the elderly not to want males attending to their personal needs.

@Luke
The recent studies show that women are even and in some cases making more then men coming out of college and up to about age 30. At that point we begin to see a gap in wages begin. There is no mystery behind this, as this is the age when women begin to raise a family. Therefore, the gap is created intentionally by those women that decide to place their career on hold for the their family.

Just like murder is, and stealing, and bringing weapons into a school. Liberals use the government for their control of the human race. They are not successful people outside of government.

Proof Piers is an idiot:
http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130201003-dana-loesch.html?s=c

Lyle, how do you define "equal pay for equal work"? The same job title? During my working career, I have had about a half dozen jobs, some part time. Early on I noticed that each employee performed at different levels. In each of those jobs there have been those that put forth much less effort and quality than others, despite being capable of more. Why should they get paid the same as someone who does so much more for the company.

And it's not always the same work. In my current position, a woman and I have the same job title and responsibilities. However, one of use has decided to take on one of the more challenging, more mundane tasks on a daily basis. And yes, because she has done this she gets paid a little bit more.

It's not so black and white. There are many reasons people get paid differently. And it is becoming less and less because of gender!

Female employees have faired much better in this recession compared to their male counterparts. Be careful what you wish for ladies....

@Bren
Here read the following it does a better job at explaining the wage gap then the emotional based arguments listed on Slate.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

As for your other issues, you need to sight some facts beside your own experience in order to claim that this bill should be correcting them. Otherwise this simply plays into a point I made in my article that an employee usually fails to the forest through the trees when it comes to the company they work for.

Craig, I think you've hit the nail on the head on this one. In recession-hit two-parent families where the husband has lost his job, the burden has fallen to the wife. It's in these circumstances where men who previously didn't think about it much have realized that the pay gap is real and impactful.

J.B., you are somewhat mistaking the perspective of a number of experiences from which I have shared. Those I have shared were naturally compared to regional and national data at the time. If one is making recommendation for change, having this type of data is essential.

Of course I am not "speaking" of absolutes, simply from "field" observation and research. Most managers are very good, but the saying "one bad apple" is resonant, in terms of external reputation/profitability, employee morale, etc.

I think the bill is a positive development. In these days when the workforce places additional responsibilities on fewer employees, it's important that business owners do what they can to understand the added stress these workers are under. Work satisfaction is also an issue. If people don't feel they are appreciated or are being fairly, they will move on and that creates opportunity costs for companies in the form of recruitment and retraining. That's why I maintain the position that anti-discrimination laws support business owners and employees.

@Bren
I completely disagree. It the job of the owner is to make the business profitable. It is the job of the employee to understand his limitations. If an employee is not satisfied with the employer, that is a personal opinion. Its the employers right to determine whether he needs to feel appreciated and not the role of the government. Regardless of personnel cost, the government has no right nor ability to determine that for a company. Please read the Paycheck Fairness Act and explain which part is included in supporting a business. The vagueness of bina fide defense clause? The ability for class actions suits that must first be opted out of? Maybe the ability for employees to openly discuss pay with no fear of retaliation? Maybe it is the added burden of re-enacting the Employee Survey that the government itself said was useless in 2007?

Although I will admit the one way that this will help with anti-discrimination is that businesses will stop offering varied pay scales based on merit and big paying all at a lower equal pay. Just like Europe.

@J.B. Schmidt...I don't agree with what you see as the facts concerning inequities. Sexism is far from over as well as the other "isms" that plague our society. Like I said before your perspectives are only one scenario. You certainly are promoting F.U.D., check the definition and you don't have independent facts to back up your contentions and suppositions.

Say you are correct Lyle, and I'm sure there are cases where you are ... how does a law stop sexism? .... racism? ... bigotry? Further, why would you want to work for someone with those attitudes? If you have value, their are many willing to compensate you. Legislation has complicated many things for employers, and in turn, employees. Many are turning to Temp service in order to ensure they will not be unfairly measured in this litigious society. As we continue to contaminate operations with ridiculous legislation we add cost and remove opportunity.

Many that have bought in to intrusive government should start to accept that the result is less than beneficial for most.

@Lyle
You are making the assumption that the gap must be sexism because it is not identifiable. As the Forbes article states, those studies are unable to take true data on a per job basis. Instead they must take industry averages. That is a poor measuring stick as it lacks ability to quantify those jobs that women choose not do do that are higher pay and less desirable. It also fails to take into account that some women choose (against the advice of liberals) to halt their own career in order to raise a family. As this article points out: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

For you and Bren to simply accept that sexism is the cause is lemmingish. I am not saying that in some companies sexism doesn't exist (same as all the other -isms), but to claim that need for this bill when we already have laws in place protecting the rights of women is irresponsible.

For you to continue to insinuate that I am using FUD is the pot calling the kettle black. Considering your lengthy proposals establishing the fear of the war on women. You spreading doubt that women are not capable of having equal existence in the US. Lastly trying to establish the uncertainty that is created when the government doesn't take charge of women's rights. However, in an age were truth is based on ones own perception of reality, I guess your accusations should be accepted.

@J.B. Schmidt....Every business develops its own culture. Those businesses that value the contribution of the employees and treat employees with the respect they deserve are far more successful than those that do not. In the argument leading up to the civil war, where the abolitionists were righteously touting the immorality of forced servitude and slavery, the slave holders countered with the immorality of wage slavery. The slave holders claimed that they treated their slaves better than the Northern Industrialists who treated their workers worse and valued them far less. As bad as slavery was, there was truth in the claims of the slave holders. Unions were formed in order to counter the horrible working conditions and to counteract the draconian styles of business owners attempting to make a profit by exploiting the workers.

You would be amazed how few owners and supervisors have never taken courses in personnel management and leadership. They learn to supervise using the process of OJT and the vast majority learn to supervise in the manner they were supervised and/or parented. There are excellent managers, good managers, fair managers, poor managers and horrible managers. Just because someone owns a company doesn't make them a good manager and vice versa. There is no excuse for abusive owners and managers, telling someone if you don't like it, then quit; is naive under the current economic circumstances. (continued)

@J.B. Schmidt (continued)....Using the current premium on jobs as an excuse to push down wages, increase working hours, etc is not only unethical but just down right immoral. Since we don't have any structure to regulate "bad bosses", then that is the place where the government needs to step in and advocate for workers and allow them some recourse. Remember, just so you own the means of production doesn't mean you have all the rights and your workers are relegated to catching your crumbs as they fall off the table.

@Lyle

I find your argument difficult to defend. If there were a shortage of workers, you would be fine if wages went up. Since there is a shortage of jobs, you should find it equally acceptable if they go down.

@Lyle,

The cost of goods and services will also decline. Or we will buy cheaper goods and services. Goods and services cost more where income is higher. There isn't much hope for the cost of energy going down much more, however.

Also, you premise depends on the assumption that businesses are stockpiling cash. That may be true of Apple, Google and some other companies, but it is hardly true of most.

As Luke said, "The cost of goods and services will also decline. Or we will buy cheaper goods and services." , it is also known as the 'Walmart effect'.

One is not forced to shop at Walmart, yet people beat a path to their door.

Lyle states " My main concern is with many employers lack of ethics and their only focus is on increasing profits without regards to the social impact."

Conversely, my concern is the display of lack of ethics and the focus on cheap prices, by all those that have parked their cars in that Walmart parking lot.

'They' are inside that Walmart, at this very moment, without regards to the social impact!

@Luke & Jay Sykes....This is a classic case of what came first, "the chicken or the egg". Wages and pricing are interdependent. The whole idea of cheaper is better has been a key principle of the "supply side" economic scheme, sacrificing public good for short term economic growth. The inconspicuous consumption culture that business has cultivated for the last 60+ years has finally revealed its true weakness, a long term decline in the quality of life.

Until income and price become balanced, people can expect to see having to spend more for less. The idea that pricing will eventually come in line may be another myth since other nations' consumer demands will continue to keep pressure upward on the price of goods and services. We are now experiencing the downside of our own success.

@Jay Sykes -- No, one is not forced to shop at Walmart. I patronized it a few times in the 90s, when they first came to Waukesha, but I stopped buying from them when they began to censor the books and records they sold and word leaked out about their poor treatment of employees after Sam Walton died.

That said, when you're laid off or under-employed, you don't have much choice about buying from someplace that sells goods cheaply. It IS a vicious cycle.

@Lyle,

The only way to achieve all your goals is to increase the number of jobs, thereby increasing competition for employees. Competition driving down prices is a phenomenon that has existed since time began, and no sectors, goods or services are immune to it, except for government. There is nothing new under the sun, especially the human tendency to bemoan change that affects old ways that are passing away.

On the bright side, the low cost of natural gas in the US and the increasing wages paid to labor in the poorer countries is certain to bring a lot of business back to America. In fact, it has already begun to happen.

@Luke....Adam Smith, the founder of free market economies, warned of the downside to unfettered and unregulated capitalism. He recognized the social cost associated with the ebb and flow of markets. The government is the institution of last resort to help mitigate the negatives of the capitalist economy.

Is having more "stuff" a sign of a good society? Our economy has misinterpreted having more stuff as a sign of quality of life. I refer you to Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs and the government should assure that every citizen has their survival and security needs met. Part of that is the exploitation of labor by unscrupulous and amoral employers.

Lyle,

I understand your complaint, but I don't see you providing a solution. In fact, I doubt that you will come up with a solution that won't drive jobs away to a more competitive country.

The fact is that the jobs will exist. The question we must ask is where they will exist.

I believe you will find that as industries age there is a tendency for them to become more competitive as the technology involved proliferates. New technologies arise to take their place. Passing a Buggy Whip Industry Protection Act is not the solution.

@Lyle

One more thing. You are incorrect when you say that the cost of goods has not gone down. Things, in general, have never been so inexpensive.

@Luke....No one is suggesting passing a Buggy Whip Preservation Act. Your point is that we will all soon be replaced by either technology or cheaper labor? Whether a person is working in the cyber world or some other occupation, there will always be a need to monitor employer/employee relationships and rectify injustices perpetrated by employers.

@Luke....I agree many things are inexpensive, but my concern is things such as true energy costs, healthcare costs, education costs, food costs, housing costs, etc. As long as certain areas are increasing in cost faster than real wages, then they are not less expensive. i.e. healthcare costs

@Lyle,

My point is that if your definition of injustice is merely that wages fall as competition increases, you have to complain about nearly every industry that has ever existed since time began.

New industries replace old ones. The new ones are where the opportunity, risk and the money is. Nothing new under the sun.

@Bottom Line....Necessities are not cheaper, but non necessities are cheaper. If you consider affluence as stuff, then, I agree people have more stuff than we had in the 40s and 50s, but at what cost? You never get something for nothing and what have we given up to have more stuff?

Lyle, you are overlooking quite a bit. Without gov't mandates companies expanded benefits they offered employees, including health insurance, matching 401k contributions, and better vacation packages. You should consider that while we survived without these benefits, I doubt even you consider them "stuff".

We put considerably more into public education. This would not have been possible without compensation allowing taxpayers to afford the considerable expense we are strapped with today. We also pay other public employees and extend benefit packages better than the majority of private sector compensation programs (review per capita income for the proof). Unfortunately, as we improved economically the public sector benefited, now that we are contracting they are unwilling to accept like correction.

Home ownership is another sector that is significantly better than the 50's. Citizens benefiting the changes might argue that you are wrong, if they were not being told every day that the wealthy have not paid their fair share.

I'm not sure why you are unwilling to consider the improvements that could only happen due to companies compensating better.

I agree that "stuff" people accumulate today is a poor measure of our success. Missing is a discipline we sorely lack. I would argue that if we weren't so affluent that missing discipline might find its place in our society.

Maybe you could cite specifics, who are the unscrupulous?

@Young Conservative...By your response I can tell your education is severely lacking. Google: Abraham Maslow and the Hierarchy of Needs.

Mr Ruble, Growing up in Castro’s Cuba gave me insight into the application of Maslov’s hierarchy.

Socialism leads to Communism because it destroys the desire to get ahead and succeed, after all, wealth created by producers is “voted upon” by the majority (non-producers/users) to be disbursed for services they cannot on their own pay for. Once Socialism destroys producers, and gives labor preeminence over industry, government is in charge of resources, industry, and distribution.

That is the classic Socialism-to-Communism model.

I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are.

@Young Conservative....Your argument is flawed on a number of levels. First and foremost, socialism doesn't necessarily lead to communism. Look at all the nations that are social democracies, they wouldn't even consider communism as an economic model. Social democracies take the best of both the free capitalist economy and the socialist economy. Cuba didn't have to go the way of Soviet style communism, but the United States contributed immensely to that direction. The long and ineffective blockade has created the seedbed for communism.

I am old enough and well versed enough to understand the conditions in Cuba prior to the Revolution. Batista, the dictator, was thoroughly corrupt and essentially sold Cuba to the highest bidder. i.e. the American Mafia. I don't support the communist regime, but they have done good things for Cuba, such as a healthcare system that is second to none. In my opinion, if the US would have ended the embargo some fifty years ago, Cuba would be a shining star as a social/capitalist society. BTW, thanks for the ad hominem attack, it just illustrates how lacking you are in education and intellect.

Oh, so you know more about Cuba than me....precious. Say Mr Ruble, how many times have you been to Havana? I can see right through your haughty pseudointellect....

@Young Conservative....I didn't say that I know more about Cuba than you. However, I am unbiased about Cuba and a student of history. Are you denying the sins of Batista and the causes of the Revolution?

To accuse me of pseudo intellectualism is a hoot since I never claimed to be an intellectual in the first place.

@Angry White Dentist....You have a rich and vibrant fantasy. The PFA doesn't funnel money to the unions in any way shape or form. It has been introduced to close several loopholes in the 1963 act. If you read a little and became better informed then you wouldn't make such unfounded statements. BTW, Bob Menendez is going down, as he should.

@Lyle
While funnel (as in the union dues funnel) might be a little extreme; the vagueness of this law could give the union significant ability to strong employers.

However, the Dentist fails to point out the other buddies of the Dems, the trial lawyers. Based on the unrestricted access they have to class action suits, this could be a windfall.

@J.B. Schmidt...A little more FUD.

@Young Conservative....The Equal Pay Act of 1963 has holes in it big enough to drive a semi through. Do some more investigation before shooting your mouth off.

@Lyle
If discrimination is made illegal by the Equal Pay Act, what is the loophole?

@J.B. Schmidt....It is the fourth provision of "factors other than sex" which has proved to be the loophole because of its vagueness and open to wide interpretation and abuse.

@Lyle,

Yes, Lyle, but the issue is the lie that is being perpetuated by the left that won't fool you, but fools the intellectually vulnerable people, like Bren. The lie involves comparing two groups of people (men and women) who tend to be attracted to different careers and have different values concerning work and performance over a lifetime. The second step of the lie is to blame men for the choices women are making, and then to protect the women so that they can both maintain the benefits resulting from their present choices and also get the benefits they would have gained if they had made alternative choices.

In sum, the political ploy is an attempt to appear to give women something no one (not even the liberals) will ever be able to give them. That thing is the pay for a job they did not apply for, at a job they never showed up for.

The lie is only partially refuted here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/