If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.

How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

"In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

but why are SOME paid less for same job. my years of over seeing construction project. i probably hired a dozen women to run equipment. had one already could run 3 different pieces equipment. every newbie female, always gave above prevailing. guy were way less gruntle, would get stupid in front of a girl. always made sure each girl could run at least two pieces by the time job was over. only had two that followed to next project. women on construction jobs, gives everybody better attitude. but didhear obama apologized for his figures. going see if can find anything on it. every article i read anymore, i wonder how much is being edited by editor.

I can't speak to your experience all I can do is relate to my own experiences which people were compensated according to their performance, I had plenty of women working for me that I really felt that losing them would be a large setback in our business so I damn sure took care of them... I also see that as a very simple reality in the market place, if a woman performs well and is an asset to her employer if he does not take care of her then there will be plenty of other employment opportunities where the management is a little more enlightened than the people who did not properly value her contribution as they should have. I worked with large corporations in both general management and multi unit management positions and was never aware of gender discrimination. I have encountered women which had difficulties caused by outside factors maybe outside of their control that would reflect on their evaluations and although that may seem unfair to some it is certainly not their employer's fault.

I think that the reports highlighted in Huffpo article which I linked point to and explain these contributing factors.... Business in this country is becoming more and more difficult for the small guy, it seems like it would be better for our economy and for everyone if the government would be more of a partner when it considers legislation and regulation than a political opportunist who would damage small business for political gain.