Obama's Equal Pay Play: What Are the Facts?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

April 8 (Bloomberg) -- AEI Scholar Mark Perry and Bloomberg’s Phil Mattingly examine President Obama’s equal pay play. They speak with Trish Regan on Bloomberg Television’s "Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Females.

They do not ignore the opportunity because it does not exist.

Women are not paid $.70 on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

Is the president trying to make an issue out of something where there is not an issue?

The issue here is that when the president talks about a 23% pay gap between men and women, people understand and are led to believe the entire 23% pay gap is caused by discrimination on behalf of employers and when the target corporation are hiring people and they pay 77,002 women , economists know that is not the case.

The 23% a gap can be explained by a lot of variables and factors besides discrimination.

When there is a three or four percent pay gap and maybe that is because of discrimination, but the 23% cannot be because of discrimination.

Tell us the reaction to the news that mark put out today and other economists are talking about.

They did not this unit.

That is the key issue here where mark hit the nail on the head.

What mark put out in terms of undercutting the $.77 argument is something jay carney was not going to say is incorrect.

What i think the most interesting part mark put out, the political aspect of this.

It is undeniable democrats are moving into midterm elections and women are a key constituent and a need to rally their support.

This equal pay issue is something the white house have been pushing since they have been in office.

The push is tightly ported with senate democrats, democratic campaign committees on the senate side, and landmarks research comes out and starts to undercut some of the numbers they use, the white house is worse to address the political implications of what they're putting forward.

It is logical.

If you are a business and you can get an employee so cheaply, i suppose you can only have women working for you.

Let's go back to this pastor session.

There were a lot of concerns men were being displaced by women and part of that was maybe because women were making less.

What do you say to that?

It is true men were disapproved -- disproportionally affected but that is generally because they have a disproportionate number of jobs in industries that got hit the hardest, including manufacturing and construction.

That is where the disparity came in in terms of a higher unemployment rate for men and women and more job losses for men and women is because women tend to work in more stable industries like education and health care and men tend to work in more industries like

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change