A new report by the Credit Suisse Research Institute shows that businesses with women on their boards outperformed comparably sized companies with all-male boards by 26 percent, suggesting that a mixed-gender board provides an important boost for a business. According to the study:

Our key finding is that, in a like-for-like comparison, companies with at least one woman on the board would have outperformed in terms of share price performance, those with no women on the board over the course of the past six years. [...]

In the middle of the decade when economic growth was relatively robust, there was little difference in share price performance between companies with or without women on the board. Almost all of the outperformance in our backtest was delivered post-2008, since the macro environment deteriorated and volatility increased. In other words, stocks with greater gender diversity on their boards generally look defensive: they tend to perform best when markets are falling, deliver higher average ROEs through the cycle, exhibit less volatility in earnings and typically have lower gearing ratios. We can therefore conclude that relative share price outperformance of companies with women on the board looks unlikely to be entirely consistent, but the evidence suggests that more balance on the board brings less volatility and more balance through the cycle.

When it comes to the upper echelons of U.S. business, many barriers to women still exist. In one specific example, women make up more than half of the financial industry’s workforce, but fewer than 3 percent of U.S. financial companies employ a female chief executive. Overall, 36 percent of U.S. companies have no women on their boards of directors. Moreover, a female CEO makes only 69 cents for every dollar that a male CEO makes.

– Steven Perlberg

According to data compiled by Bloomberg News back in March, the largest gender gap in terms of pay occurs on Wall Street, where women earn 55 to 62 cents for every dollar that men earn. But that’s not the only way in which Wall Street leaves women behind.

According to research highlighted by the New York Times, women make up more than half of the financial industry’s workforce, but are executives at barely any firms:

The figures tell an alarming story. Women make up more than half of the work force in the financial industry but are chief executives at fewer than 3 percent of U.S. financial companies, according to Catalyst, a New York-based global research and consulting nonprofit focused on women’s career advancement.

Why is Wall Street so slow to promote women? Is that a reflection of U.S. society in general or is there a peculiarity to the Wall Street experience?

Of course, even reaching the upper echelon of corporate America doesn’t guarantee women equal pay, as a female CEO makes 69 cents for every dollar that a male CEO makes. But perhaps Wall Street is shooting itself in the foot by failing to promote women to positions of power, as “several studies have shown that women are more profitable investors, money managers and hedge fund managers, and they incur less risk in the process.”

A new report from National Journal shows a huge pay disparity between men and women on Capitol Hill — a disparity that is far larger in Republican offices than it is in Democratic ones.

The real-dollar disparity, on average, between male and female Republicans working in the House of Representatives and the Senate is about $10,000. National Journal offers the key findings from the report:

• For all House staff, women made on average $5,862.56 less annually than men.
• Female Republican House staff made on average $10,093.09 less annually than male Republican House staff.
• For all Senate staff, women made $7,277.69 less annually on average than male staff.
• Female Republican Senate staff made on average $9,805.85 less annually than male Republican Senate staff.

Off the bat, it’s easy to conclude that women are paid less than men for doing the same job. But it’s actually more complicated than that: Republican women don’t make as much, on average, because they tend to hold lower-paying positions than the men in their field.

Men and women are paid roughly the same amount in government. That means, particularly for Republicans, there are more women in administrative roles and fewer female Legislative Directors or Chiefs of Staff, for example:

And it’s not as though there is a lack of experienced women: Women are earning more graduate and bachelors’ degrees than men, make up nearly half the workforce, and are a majority of DC residents.

But women in Washington politics will be the first to tell you that discrimination exists. Fifty one percent of women polled for the National Journal report believe they have been discriminated against based on their gender, including being passed over for promotions, and 73 percent said men have more opportunities in DC.

Gilles Simon, the 13th ranked mens tennis player in the world, said this week at Wimbledon that he believes women tennis players should be paid less than men, because the men’s game is “more attractive.” He added that he thinks equal pay is “something that doesn’t work in sport“:

Simon, the world number 13, had criticised the move towards equality, insisting that the men’s game has more to offer spectators.

“We often speak of equal money, but I think it’s something that doesn’t work in sport,” said Simon.

“Tennis is the only sport today where we have parity even though men’s tennis remains more attractive than women’s at this time.”

Simon is a member of the Association of Tennis Professionals’ player council, which helps advise the tour’s Board of Directors. It was only five years ago that Wimbledon began paying male and female players the same amount, using the fact that men play five sets to womens’ three as justification. Both the U.S. and Australian Opens have been paying equal wages for years.

Even with Wimbeldon’s decision, women tennis players make substantially less than men. As Collin Flake, Mikaela Dufur, and Erin Moore of Brigham Young University found, “Women make $337 less per [tour] point than men, as well as “$27,620 less per singles title won.” Overall, women “are paid $31,337 less per year.”

In a statement, the CEO of the women’s tennis tour, Stacey Allaster, said, “tennis, including the Grand Slams, is aligned with our modern, progressive society when it comes to the principle of equality. I can’t believe in this day and age that anyone can still think otherwise.” Other players have responded similarly. “Over the whole year, we are a long way from winning as much as the men — only in a few tournaments and Grand Slams,” said Marion Bartoli, France’s top women’s player. “We are fully-invested as much as them. The physical demands, training, investment on a personal level are the same as theirs.”

Back in 2007, tennis great John McEnroe said, “I think when you’ve got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay. It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize money.” Evidently today’s players have yet to catch up with his views.

Title IX, which was enacted 40 years ago this week, ensures that publicly funded schools give similar opportunities to all students regardless of sex. The law is widely credited with boosting women’s participation in sports, which as economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers note in Bloomberg Views today, has boosted incomes and education levels for women:

High school athletics confer substantial economic benefits that last throughout participants’ lives. When one compares people with similar educational opportunities, family backgrounds, measures of intelligence and self-esteem, the annual wages of former athletes are, on average, 7 percent higher than nonathletes. Similarly, athletes get almost half a year more education than nonathletes. The gains occur equally for girls and boys. [...]

In those states where Title IX led to the greatest expansion in female sports, the post-Title IX generation of women enjoyed more education, employment and higher wages than their pre-Title IX forebears. They were also more likely to enter previously male-dominated professions such as law, accounting and even sports.

This chart shows the increase in women’s participation in sports since the law was passed:

Fears that the law would hurt men, meanwhile, have turned out to be unwarranted. But still, women today earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, a disparity that exists even in highly-paid, highly-educated professions. On average, women hit their peak wages at the age of 39, while men see their pay continue to rise for another decade.

Despite this persistent problem, Senate Republicans filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act earlier this month, which would have strengthened important protections for women against pay discrimination.

A new study released by the the American Medical Association shows that the gender wage gap applies even to highly educated women in well-paying professions. Specifically, researchers calculated that over her career, the average female doctor will make about $350,000 less than a male doctor doing similar work.

Dr. Reshman Jagsi, the lead author of the new study and a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, controlled for work hours, area of specialty, and all other career and life choices. Her team’s research indicated that women still made about $12,000 less each year than similarly qualified men doing the exact same type and amount of work:

Disturbingly, even after we controlled for all those other factors, we found that male doctors were paid more than female doctors for doing the same work.

This study is the latest in a number of research projects that have produced stark findings on gender inequality in the workplace. By no means is the gap restricted to only the medical profession or low-paying jobs. In recent months, studies have shown that the gender pay disparity extends to women in other lucrative and high-paying positions, such as CEOs, CFOs, lobbyists, and financial analysts.

On average, women make 77 cents less than men. Over her lifetime, a woman loses enough in earnings to feed a family of four for 37 years.

The news comes less than a week after Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act. Despite unequivocal findings regarding the extent of the problem, Republicans have consistently opposed any measure to diminish the pay gap. From framing the Paycheck Fairness Act as a useless roadblock which would destroy small businesses to denying the pay gap altogether, Republican politicians have refused to act to address this important problem.

–Angela Guo

On June 10 1963 — exactly 49 years ago today — President John Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act to prohibit wage discrimination against women. From his remarks that day:

This act represents many years of effort by labor, management, and several private organizations unassociated with labor or management, to call attention to the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. This measure adds to our laws another structure basic to democracy. It will add protection at the working place to the women, the same rights at the working place in a sense that they have enjoyed at the polling place.

While much remains to be done to achieve full equality of economic opportunity–for the average woman worker earns only 60 percent of the average wage for men–this legislation is a significant step forward.

…It is a first step. It affirms our determination that when women enter the labor force they will find equality in their pay envelopes.

Exactly 49 years later, women still earn just 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Over a lifetime, the pay gap adds up to more than $430,000 in lost wages for an individual on women.

Last week, Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act — legislation that would have cracked down on wage discrimination and closed the wage gap.

Despite repeated media inquiries from a conservative-leaning newspaper, Mitt Romney remains stubbornly silent on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would bring up to date the 1970s-era Fair Pay Law.

Congressional Democrats are gearing up for another legislative effort to ensure that women and men receive equal pay for equal work and are renewing their push for the Paycheck Fairness Act. But as with many ongoing political fights, Romney is not taking a decisive position.

Romney was originally unclear about his position on another fair pay bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and he has not spoken about this specific legislation — despite repeated requests for comment from the Washington Times:

His campaign didn’t respond to five messages left over the past week seeking his stance on the Paycheck Fairness Act. In April, when he was fending off questions about his stance on women’s compensation, his campaign would only say he “supports pay equity” but would not say any more about the new legislation.

“Governor Romney only says that he wouldn’t change existing law, raising questions about why he feels the need to parse his words on issues that are so significant to the security of women and families,” said Ben LaBolt, President Obama’s campaign spokesman. “Would he sign a veto of Lilly Ledbetter? Why won’t he express support for the Paycheck Fairness Act?”

The Paycheck Fairness Act would close loopholes in existing pay equity law and give additional funding toward programs that help women close the gender pay gap. President Obama has come out strongly in favor of the legislation, as have several prominent Democrats, but many Republicans claim that it would be a hindrance to businesses.