Women still get paid less than men for the same work.

1. Why the headline gap keeps showing up: the raw numbers that won’t go away

Multiple national and international data series report that women’s aggregate earnings remain below men’s, with the U.S. unadjusted ratio repeatedly clustered in the 82–86 cents on the dollar range in recent years. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded women’s median weekly earnings at 83.6% of men’s in 2023, a figure echoed by Pew’s 2024 analysis showing women earned about 85% of men’s earnings ^{[4] [1]}. Global compilations produce wider variation — equalpaytoday estimates a global average near 77–83 cents per dollar and projects long timelines to parity — underscoring that the raw gap is a persistent, measurable phenomenon across datasets and countries ^[5]. These unadjusted numbers capture the overall lived reality of pay inequality even before explanations are applied.

2. Behind the numbers: adjusted analyses find partial explanations but not full clearance

Analysts who control for occupation, hours, experience, education and other observable factors reduce the measured gap, but they do not eliminate it. Our World in Data and IWPR note that when researchers adjust for such variables the gap narrows, yet a residual differential persists, which many studies attribute to factors that are harder to measure such as discrimination, promotion trajectories, and negotiation outcomes ^{[3] [2]}. The IWPR occupation‑by‑occupation study from April 2025 explicitly documents that women earn less than men inside the same occupational categories in the 20 largest shared occupations, with striking variation from near parity in some frontline jobs to large shortfalls in managerial and financial roles ^[2]. That pattern indicates that compositional explanations are important but insufficient to fully explain observed disparities.

3. The motherhood penalty and career interruptions: where the gap widens

Multiple sources highlight parenthood and caregiving as central drivers that reshape career trajectories and pay trajectories differently by gender. The Pew, BLS and Our World in Data work point to a consistent motherhood penalty: mothers are more likely to work part‑time, take career interruptions, or accept roles with greater flexibility and lower pay, while fathers often see a wage premium ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Economists who emphasize choice and hours argue these behavioral differences account for a large share of the gap, and some policy analyses frame solutions around childcare, parental leave and flexible scheduling to close gaps driven by caregiving ^[6]. Even so, the persistence of within‑occupation pay differences and racialized gaps suggests that caregiving alone does not fully account for disparities ^[2].

4. Race, ethnicity and occupation: the gap is not uniform

The gender pay gap intersects strongly with race and occupation; aggregated figures mask severe heterogeneity. IWPR’s 2025 report shows Latina and Black women face much larger shortfalls relative to White men—Latina women earning roughly 59.2 cents and Black women 65.8 cents on the dollar—while gaps within occupations can range from nearly parity to large deficits ^[2]. Global datasets likewise show national variation where social norms, labor markets and policy environments produce very different outcomes: some countries record minimal gaps, while others show persistent double‑digit gaps ^{[5] [3]}. This heterogeneity matters for policy: a single national median hides concentrated disadvantage in particular demographic and occupational groups.

5. Conflicting narratives: discrimination vs. choice — what each side highlights

Two competing frames dominate the literature. One emphasizes structural and discriminatory mechanisms — hiring, promotion, pay negotiation, and biased evaluation — pointing to residual pay differences after statistical controls and within‑occupation shortfalls as evidence ^{[2] [3]}. The other emphasizes choices and constraints — occupational sorting, hours worked, and caregiving responsibilities — arguing much of the unadjusted gap reflects these patterns rather than same‑job pay discrimination ^[6]. Both frames rely on valid empirical signals from the same datasets; the result is a mixed consensus that both mechanisms contribute, but their relative share depends on the dataset, the controls used, and the population examined.

6. What the evidence implies for the original claim and for action

The weight of the evidence in the provided analyses supports the statement that women still get paid less than men on average, and it also shows that a nontrivial portion of that gap remains after accounting for observable job and worker characteristics, implying that same‑work pay disparities persist in important contexts ^{[4] [2] [3]}. Closing the gap will therefore require both policies that address caregiving, occupational segregation and labor‑market choices, and measures that target pay transparency, anti‑discrimination enforcement, and advancement pathways within occupations where women are systematically underpaid ^{[5] [2]}. Different sources emphasize different levers; a combined approach follows directly from the empirical picture these reports collectively present.