Bf Stabbed For Eating Thanksgiving Meal To Early

link, from page 9
Mil:*Note*References seem to have lost their [], which accounts for the apparent random numbers after a sentence.
======= (( Start Segment )) =======

The gender wage gap remains substantial today. Women working full-time, year-round earn only
77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the
gap since 2001.26 In 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, median annual
earnings of women ages 15 and older working full-time, year-round were just $36,278 compared
to $47,127 for their male counterparts. New calculations from the JEC show that the gender
wage gap is even greater for older women. In 2009, median weekly wages for women over 50
were just 75 percent of their male colleagues’ earnings.
The gender wage gap persists across a wide spectrum of occupations.28 Female attorneys earn
just 80.5 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts, and female physicians and
surgeons earn 64.4 cents on the dollar. Women in retail sales earn 70.6 cents for every dollar
earned by men in retail sales, and female truck drivers earn just 76.4 cents on the dollar. A recent
Government Accountability Office (GAO) study requested by Chair Maloney and Representative
John Dingell examined the pay gap amongst women and men employed in management
occupations, and found that full-time female managers earn 81 cents for every dollar earned by
their male manager peers.29 This figure accounts for many observable differences between male
and female managers, so the remaining 19 cent gap between men and women may be attributable
to discriminatory practices. The gender pay gap amongst managers remained persistent between
2000 and 2007, the most recent year of available data.
The pay gap is not limited to the private sector. Even within the federal government, which ought
to be a model employer, a substantial unexplained pay gap persists. In response to a request by
Chair Maloney and Representative Dingell, the GAO examined the gender pay gap in the federal
government and found that women federal employees earn 89 cents for every dollar earned by
their male peers.30 After accounting for observable differences between men and women
(including education, experience, and occupation), that gap narrows to 93 cents on the dollar.
The remaining 7 cent pay gap may be attributable to discriminatory practices.
Women earn less than men across all educational levels.31 In 2009, female high school graduates
earned 69.6 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts; median earnings amongst
female high school graduates is $22,468 compared to $32,272 for male high school graduates.
Amongst college graduates, the gender wage gap is similarly substantial, with female college
graduates earnings 70.9 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts; median earnings
for female college graduates is $40,098 compared to $56,566 for men. The gender pay gap for
workers with a professional degree is the largest across the education spectrum: professional
women earn 57.9 cents for every dollar earned by professional men, or $67,245 as compared to
men’s $116,136.
The pay gap amongst college graduates grows substantially over the course of a woman’s
career.32 Just one year out of college, women earn about 80 percent of what their male classmates
earn. Ten years after graduation, women have fallen further behind, earning just 69 cents for
every dollar earned by their male classmates. Similarly, recent research suggests that the pay gap
between male and female professional degree-holders grows steeper over time. For instance, a
study tracking the earnings of graduates of the University of Chicago’s MBA program finds that
the gap between male and female MBA’s earnings grows from 11 percent at graduation (i.e. 89
cents on the dollar) to 31 percent at five years out (i.e. 69 cents on the dollar) to a whopping 60
percent at ten years or more (i.e. 40 cents on the dollar).33 A second study tracking male and
female MBA recipients found that women averaged $4,600 less in their first job, even after
controlling for job level.34 Women started at lower levels than men and were outpaced in salary
growth, even after controlling for career aspirations and parenthood status. The salary growth
gap intensified over time. While women and men step off the corporate track at equal rates,
women pay a greater penalty in terms of compensation and position than do men when they
return to corporate life.
Mothers face an additional wage penalty, on top of the basic penalty paid simply by virtue of
being a woman in the labor force. Much research has shown that working mothers earn less than
non-mothers.35 Even after accounting for differences in work experience, job characteristics,
human capital such as education, and other individual attributes, mothers pay a 7 percent wage
penalty per child, relative to non-mothers.36 A GAO report requested by Chair Maloney and
Representative Dingell found that while mothers incurred at 2.5 percent earnings penalty for
each child, fathers enjoyed a 2.1 percent earnings boost for each child.37
Other studies provide detail on the depth of the motherhood wage penalty. A GAO report
requested by Chair Maloney and Representative Dingell found that mothers who are managers
earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by fathers who are managers, and that pay gap has not
budged since 2000.38 The pay gap for mothers is larger than the pay gap for childless female
managers, who earn 83 cents for every dollar earned by childless male managers. While the pay
gap for childless women narrowed slightly between 2000 and 2007, the pay gap for “manager
moms” remains stuck at 79 cents on the dollar. These figures compare full-time workers, and
account for many factors that might explain the discrepancy between men and women, including
age, education and other variables. Another study sent out over 1,200 fictitious resumes to
employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were
significantly less likely to be hired (and, if hired, were offered a lower salary) than identical male
applicants with children.39 In no uncertain terms, a preponderance of evidence suggests that
women are penalized in the workforce when they have children, despite no evidence that their
productivity suffers.
As detailed above, full-time, full-year female workers earn less, on average, than full-time, fullyear
male workers. This problem persists across occupations and industries, and is particularly
pernicious for mothers. Yet the problem does not stop there. The wage gap for part-time workers
exacerbates the existing problem.40 The “part-time penalty” means that part-time workers are
paid an average of 58 cents on the dollar compared to the hourly wages of their full-time peers.
In other words, while the part-time employee and the full-time employee are likely doing the
same work, the part-time worker faces a wage penalty simply for being a part-timer. Women are
far more likely than men to be employed part-time – nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of part-time
workers are women, and one in four (26 percent) of all employed women work part-time.
Therefore, the part-time wage penalty is an additional factor exacerbating the gender pay gap.
The cost of the pay gap to women and their families is enormous, particularly when measured
over the course of a career.41 In the first five years of her career, between ages 25-29, the average
woman loses $8,510 to the pay gap. Because the pay gap widens as women progress through
their careers, her losses grow progressively larger. By the time she retires at 64, she’s lost over
$430,000 to the pay gap.42 When individual women’s losses due to the pay gap are aggregated
across all working women for a generation, the results are staggering – for instance, as a group,
young college-educated women who entered the workforce between 1984 and 2004 have lost
$1.7 trillion.
The gender wage gap comes at a cost to the economy as a whole. Women’s phenomenal
purchasing power and critical role as financial decision-makers for their households means that
when a woman is cheated out of a portion of her paycheck, the whole economy suffers. Fewer
take-home dollars means fewer purchases, which in turn means a more sluggish economy and
slower economic growth. Closing the gender pay gap therefore has the potential to have salutary
effects not only for women and their families, but for the nation’s future economic health as well.
Underrepresentation in Corporate Leadership
Despite the clearly demonstrated economic rewards that accrue to companies with women in
corporate leadership, women remain dramatically underrepresented in corporate boardrooms and
executive suites.43 While women comprise 46.4 percent of all employees in Fortune 500
companies, they make up just 15.7 percent of board seats, 14.4 percent of executive officers, 7.6
percent of top earning executive officers, and 2.4 percent of chief executive officers (CEOs).
Women lag men in Fortune 500 leadership across all industries, including female-prevalent
industries. The percentage of women-held board seats and corporate officer positions are quite
similar across industries, even in fields such as retail and finance, where women represent a
greater share of total employees. The only fields where women’s leadership is markedly lower
than average are utilities, mining, and quarry extraction and oil and gas extraction, where
women’s overall representation is much lower.
Women’s representation in Fortune 500 leadership has remained stagnant over time. Women
have made little progress in representation as CEOs, corporate officers, or board members over
the last several decades.44 The last five years have been particularly flat periods for progress. For
instance, between 1996 and 2003, women’s representation on corporate boards increased from
10.2 percent to 15.2 percent, but it has remained stalled at 15.2 percent for the last six years.
The underrepresentation of women in corporate leadership – in the boardroom and the executive
suite – may mean that U.S. companies are not reaching their full potential. Corporate
performance correlates directly with women’s representation in corporate leadership. Companies
with the most women on their boards of directors outperform those with the least women on their
boards on myriad key economic performance measures, and the link between women’s
representation on corporate boards and firm performance holds across industries.45 Fortune 500
firms with the best record of promoting women to senior positions, including their boards of
directors, are more profitable than their peers.46 A lack of gender diversity in corporate
leadership may be hindering corporate profits, and holding back future economic growth.