Why is that the "best"? It's a white paper focusing on the gig economy.

I don't know, I didn't read those links. But I've been a part of the work force long enough; am married to an exceptionally intelligent and well-paid woman; and have formed my own C-Corp and follow all the legal mumbo jumbo to the letter to know that whenever there's money to be saved, corporations will do it, and that negotiating a lower salary with an employee is one easy way to save pennies (often at the cost of attracting or retaining better team members who would likely yield higher profits).

Oh I have no opinion on this. I agree that $0.79 is the figure most often cited, but I've not looked at research closely enough to take any sort of stance on this.

So why are women more vulnerable to low-ball negotiation than men? I don't know if it is true, but if it were, it could have to do with personality traits; men being more aggressive than women in the negotiating process.

I'm serious. It hasn't been peer reviewed, and it's using a new economic sector with an extremely low barrier of entry as its sample set. I'm not saying their findings aren't sound, just that they are narrowly limited and have not been subject to rigorous review. "Best" seems like a huge overstatement.

I'm not entirely confident in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the "good old boys club." My wife is easily one of the smartest and most capable people in her organization, yet she misses out on all sorts of opportunities for networking and project-hopping because she doesn't get invited to play golf or hit the slopes with the other executives.

The "lean-in" movement is probably the best thing that has happened to women with careers in recent memory, because it encourages them to disregard whatever social barriers may exist in their workplace and take a more aggressive role in their own career advancement.

Conjecture.

[Corporations] have an interest in protecting the patriarchy and are prejudiced against women

It comes down to what's their primary interest. If it is indeed to profit, and that's usually the accepted primary motivation, well they would be spiting themselves by underpaying women.

they'd be absolute fools not to take advantage of this clear inefficiency. They could significantly cut their input costs while not hampering output one bit, giving them a huge advantage in whatever they're doing.

This would increase the demand for this equally skilled female labor, driving up their wage while at the same time decreasing the demand for male labor, driving down their wage until the two converge.

As long as there remains any gap there exists the opportunity for some ruthless capitalist to profit by employing more women.

The only way a gap this large could persist then would mean that their love for discrimination outstrips their love of profit, which is of course the thing we've all been taught they love the most in this world. And if that were true there'd be amazing opportunities for some woman or non-women-hating man to start a company and exclusively hire women...again fixing this inefficiency before long.

No more so than your statement.

I don't understand your brain, tragabigzanda.

I can't see that image on my work computer. What is it, what is it?

Can you be more specific?