Screen Shot 2014-03-21 at 12.20.25 PMWe still earn $0.77 to our counterpart’s dollar. Shameful.

President Obama kicks off his campaign to close this gender wage gap and simultaneously push for a higher minimum wage.

Women with college degrees may earn hundreds of thousands of dollars less over the course of her career than a man at the same educational level, and that’s wrong.” Obama said Thursday at Valencia College in Orlando. “This isn’t 1958 – it’s 2014.”

The POTUS is pushing to potentially decrease the wage gap by 5 percent by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Other stops in the campaign include Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco as the administration discusses women’s issues such as affordable child care and early education programs in addition to the gender wage gap .

President Obama also adds Congress would get more done if it had more women.

Tags: ,
Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • Me

    FIVE percent? that’s it? we 23% behind. minimum wage is the best he could do? really? he need to make it mandatory that jobs make people’s pay public to other employees so they can challenge hr.

  • cbmts

    if corporations could hire women to do the exact same job as men for 23% less, why would they hire men? in a capitalist society, that makes zero sense. there must be something else contributing to the wage gap other than gender and the sooner we can start having honest conversations about it, the sooner we’ll get to closing it. maybe this can help:

    • Me

      so you really think dudes got some kinda super power that women don’t? that’s lame. & if dudes really believed they were doing something unique then i know they would be the 1st to put it on blast instead of hiding the numbers & the facts

    • cbmts

      no, i’m not saying/implying that at all. i’m only question the president’s stance, which he made in his last state of the union address, that women gets paid 23% less for doing the same work. what i’m asking is if corporations (that are all about making profits) could pay women 23% less for the same work, why would they hire men? in other words, would you pay someone 23% more to cut your lawn if you can get someone to do the same for less? it doesn’t add up.

    • Me

      but the thing is most people don’t go into interviews with price tags on them. what i think happen is they are less likely to accept a woman negotiating for a higher starting salary than a dude, and then when raises come around they reward dudes more than women. so over time you could have the same 2 employees working in the same dept doing the same job & the dude is making more than the woman. hell. i remember when i was a kid working at old navy i got hired with a guy friend & one day during our lunch break we found out minimum wage was going up 50 cents or something around there & he was like that’s only 20 cents more than he was already making but it was the full 50 cents for me. he wasn’t doing nothing different than i did. same hrs, start date, etc. but he got 30 cents more than me out the gate.

    • cbmts

      that’s possible but it still doesn’t account for that fact that companies wanna make profit. the idea that they’ll give away their money to guys simply because they’re men doesn’t add up. here’s a study from times that says that childless women under 30 makes more money then their male counterparts:,8599,2015274,00.html
      it’s not hard to imagine why that is. also, you need to look at how they got 77 cents on a dollar figure. they compared average salary of all men to all women in the workforce and found that on average men make 23cents more. it doesn’t mean that if you and i applied for the same job, you’ll get paid less just because you’re a female.

    • Me

      i think the problem is a lotta companies only hire women when they need to “cut costs” but not b/c they actually hiring the talent that those women have. if it wasn’t for that i bet when times are good they’d be just happy to roll in dough w/the fellas

    • Jenn

      Corporations dont usually hire women at 23% less. You see the largest of the wage gap occur in the first five years after hire. Also,

      Did you even read that study? The conclusion is that there are such a large number of variables involved in determining the cause of the gendered wage gap that finding definitive cause(s) is/are not possible through current research methods and that numbers we come up with to explain the gap are restricted by available data pools. Thirty odd pages of data to conclude with; we did our best but this is really hard.

      If we *want* to roll with statistical analysis your study says that 5-7% (What the president is proposing to fix) could not be accounted for in any investigated control (time away for family care, hours worked, ect). So roughly $13,000 of wage lost over a working lifetime, even considering other factors, is likely from pure gender bias.

      If your argument is “the problem isn’t *that* bad” it’s still bad.