Stossel’s big mistake is assuming that if sexism is behind the wage gap, then it must be entirely a matter of women being paid 25% less than men for identical jobs.

The CEOs issue is fuzzier, since the board has some conflicts of interest. Still, one presumes they would prefer to pay their CEO $100k rather than $1 mil ceteris parabas.

Actually, I could find plenty of CEO candidates who could do what CEOs did to Enron or WorldCom. In fact, from what I've seen, CEO pay has very little to do with their record in past jobs or even with present performance of their companies, except on the margins. And getting fired is the ultimate perk, because they get massive buyouts.

As for quarterbacks who can take their teams to the Super Bowl, that's a little bit misleading as well.
Rich Gannon,
Jim Plunkett
Tony Eason
Mark Rypien
Neil O'Donnell
Brad Johnson
Jake Delhomme
Trent Dilfer
Kerry Collins

Any of those names ring a bell? They all went to the super bowl. None of them I'd classify as super star quarterbacks. And then there's the Ryan Leaf factor to consider.

And as for Hollywood, somebody should be punished for some of the crap they put out (like, say, Ishtar, half of Adam Sandler's movies, and Steven Seagal).

So many women don't.

hln

That's a new definition of justice to me, and no doubt to about 99 percent of the rest of the world. What is "justice" without a moral component, McGehee?

Anyway, the point stands. The demand for CEOs would stand regardless of the obscene salaries they are given. Ditto athletes and movie stars.

Seen in those terms, Stossel is right -- but it's an understanding of the word most people aren't familiar with. Maybe he should have put it differently, but the point stands.

I agree that the market isn't hostile to women, but it damn sure isn't "just," either. That wouldn't explain the obscene salaries paid to CEOs, star athletes and hollywood actors.

Undoubtedly, the distinguished gentleperson is upset she makes $118,575 and her male colleagues make $158,100.