> So instead of indicating a level of inequality in pay for doing the same job, the data might indicate a level of sexism in the type of jobs people have (or nu

> So instead of indicating a level of inequality in pay for doing the same job, the data might indicate a level of sexism in the type of jobs people have (or number of hours worked, or number of years people are in the profession, etc). That still demonstrates there's a significant problem. The graph alone doesn't tell us a whole lot, other than women are almost always compensated less than men. There seems to be quite a bit of variation across job functions, which might be unexpected. Understanding why that variation exists might be useful in addressing the perceived problem, and avoiding corporate policies that accidentally make things worse. For example, if the bulk of pay gap is years of experience, it would be foolhardy to increase starting salary for women; you'd be giving equally qualified men a competitive advantage in hiring they don't need. Similarly, the situation could be understated -- if I'm reading the methodology correctly, CPS data doesn't include independent contractors, since they buy health insurance separately, I expect a number of men forgo insurance entirely and pocket the difference, a gamble few women of child bearing age dare take. Corporate policy here could try to prohibit independent contractors, but that would substantially reverse the trend. Better, IMO, would be single payer health care, or at least an end to the tax subsidy we give employer paid health care. More dimensions will give us a more nuanced view of reality, and a better grasp on the degree to which the gap is systemic vs personal.