Wage Gap Calculator: Pay Difference Between Two Groups
Work out the wage gap between two groups — the percentage difference behind headlines about gender, race, and occupation pay gaps.
Adjust the inputs and select Calculate for a full breakdown.
Compare Common Scenarios
How the numbers shift across typical situations for this calculator:
| Scenario | Wage gap | Dollar gap |
|---|---|---|
| $60,000 vs $49,200 | -18.00% | -10,800 |
| $32/hr vs $26/hr | -18.75% | -6 |
| $125,000 vs $105,000 | -16.00% | -20,000 |
| $48,000 vs $46,800 | -2.50% | -1,200 |
How This Calculator Works
Enter the higher-paid group's average wage and the lower-paid group's average wage, on the same basis (both annual, both hourly). The calculator gives the percentage gap and the dollar gap, expressed against the higher figure.
The Formula
Percentage Change
Old is the starting value, New is the ending value
Worked Example
If the higher group earns $60,000 and the lower group $49,200, the wage gap is 18% — or roughly the figure usually quoted for the US gender pay gap on raw earnings. The lower group earns $10,800 less for the same period.
Key Insight
Raw wage gaps mix three different effects: pay for the same work, differences in hours worked, and differences in occupation and experience. The unadjusted gap here is the headline number — useful for the broad outcome — but understanding which share comes from same-job pay versus job mix requires controlled studies.
Unadjusted vs adjusted wage gap — the 16% vs 5% question
The 'unadjusted' or 'raw' U.S. gender wage gap is 16% (women earn 84¢ for every $1 men earn, median full-time). This is the headline number widely cited in policy debates. But the unadjusted figure combines: (1) OCCUPATION DIFFERENCES — women are over-represented in lower-paying occupations (teaching, nursing, social work); (2) HOURS DIFFERENCES — even among full-time workers, men work slightly more hours on average; (3) EXPERIENCE DIFFERENCES — career interruptions for childcare affect women's average experience.
The 'adjusted' wage gap — controlling for occupation, hours, experience, education, and other factors — is typically 4-7% (per Glassdoor, BLS, and academic studies). This is the gap that remains after accounting for measurable productivity and choice differences. The adjusted gap is widely interpreted as a closer approximation of 'pure' pay discrimination, though it can also reflect unmeasured productivity differences.
Both numbers are meaningful in different contexts. The unadjusted 16% captures the FULL economic impact of gender on women's earnings — including the effects of occupational sorting, which may itself reflect discrimination in earlier career stages. The adjusted 4-7% captures discrimination in like-for-like pay decisions. Policy debates often confuse the two; mixing them produces misleading conclusions. The 'gender pay gap' is real but smaller for same-occupation comparisons than the headline suggests.
Why the gap narrowed and then plateaued
The U.S. gender wage gap narrowed from 38% (1979 — women earned 62¢ per male $1) to 16% (2024). Most of the narrowing occurred 1980-2000, driven by: (1) RISING WOMEN'S EDUCATION — women's college enrollment exceeded men's by 2000 and the lead has grown; (2) WOMEN ENTERING HIGHER-WAGE OCCUPATIONS — entry into medicine, law, business management. The gap stopped narrowing after 2005 and has held at 15-18% since.
Reasons for the plateau: (1) PERSISTENT OCCUPATIONAL SORTING — women remain over-represented in lower-paying fields (especially teaching, social work, healthcare support) despite improved education; (2) MOTHERHOOD WAGE PENALTY — empirical research consistently finds 4-7% wage decrease per child for mothers, with no equivalent fatherhood penalty (some research finds a small 'fatherhood premium'); (3) HOURS / OVERTIME — disproportionate impact of mid-career hours flexibility needs on women's wages, particularly in occupations where overtime / weekend work drives advancement.
Policy responses include: pay transparency laws (California 2023; New York City 2022; Colorado 2021 require salary ranges on job listings); paid family leave (federal proposals; expanded state-level programs in California, NY, NJ, RI, WA, OR, CO); equal pay legal frameworks. Empirical evidence on policy effectiveness is mixed — transparency laws appear to reduce the gap by 1-2 percentage points where implemented; paid leave effects are still being measured.
U.S. wage gap by demographic group — 2024 (BLS Highlights of Women's Earnings)
Reference U.S. wage gap measurements by group and dimension. Unadjusted gaps shown; adjusted (occupation + hours + experience controlled) typically 1/3 to 1/2 the unadjusted size.
| Comparison | Unadjusted gap | Adjusted gap (controlled) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Women vs Men (overall) | 16% | 4-7% | Median full-time |
| Women vs Men (same occupation, same experience) | — | 4-7% | Like-for-like |
| Mothers vs Non-mothers (same occupation) | — | 4-7% per child | Motherhood penalty |
| Black workers vs White workers | 24% | 8-12% | Major effect of occupation + region |
| Hispanic workers vs White workers | 27% | 9-13% | |
| Asian workers vs White workers | −10% (Asian higher) | — | Reflects geographic + occupational concentration |
| Black women vs White men | 37% | — | Combined effect |
| Hispanic women vs White men | 42% | — | |
| Workers without college vs college-educated | ~70% | — | Education premium has grown over decades |
Adjusted gaps are smaller than unadjusted because they remove the impact of measurable factors (occupation, hours, experience). Whether the adjustments fully separate 'discrimination' from 'choice' is contested — occupational sorting itself can reflect earlier discrimination, so adjusting for it may understate the cumulative effect of bias. Both unadjusted and adjusted figures are valid; they answer different questions.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is the wage gap calculated?
Subtract the lower wage from the higher wage, divide by the higher wage, and multiply by 100. The result is the lower group's shortfall as a share of the higher group's pay.
What is the difference between unadjusted and adjusted gaps?
Unadjusted gaps compare raw averages — affected by hours, occupation, and experience. Adjusted gaps control for those factors and isolate the pay difference for similar work. Both are valid, but they answer different questions.
How does this apply to gender pay gaps?
Headline gender pay gaps cite the unadjusted figure — full-time women's median earnings against full-time men's. The same math applies: lower median minus higher median, divided by the higher.
Why use median and not average?
Medians are less skewed by extreme high earners. Most official pay gap reporting uses medians for that reason; means can be higher because the very top of the distribution pulls them up.
Can the result be negative?
If the 'lower' group is actually higher-paid on the figures you enter, the gap turns positive in the other direction. Order does not matter to the math — only to the interpretation.
When is this calculator unreliable?
When using unadjusted population-level gaps as a measure of 'pure' pay discrimination — the 16% gender gap includes the effects of occupational sorting, hours differences and experience differences alongside any like-for-like discrimination. Adjusted studies of same-occupation, same-experience workers show 4-7% gaps. Also unreliable for individual situations — broad population averages do not predict any specific person's or company's wage situation; specific factors of role, employer and individual circumstance matter more for individual outcomes.
References & Authoritative Sources
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Highlights of Women's Earnings — Annual Report on Women's Earnings · consulted June 1, 2026 · Authoritative U.S. data on gender wage gap by occupation and demographic
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — Pay Discrimination Enforcement Data · consulted June 1, 2026 · Federal data on pay discrimination cases and remedies
- Pew Research Center — Gender Pay Gap in the U.S. — Annual Analysis · consulted June 1, 2026 · Standard reference for U.S. wage gap analysis
Related Calculators
Embed this calculator
Add this calculator to your website for your readers. The embed includes a neutral attribution link to the original CalcDomain page for methodology, updates, and source notes.
Attribution uses rel="nofollow" by default and is included for transparency, not ranking manipulation.
Suggest an improvement
Found a calculation issue, outdated source, unclear assumption, or missing edge case? Send a short note so we can review it.
Methodology & Review
Wage gap equals (higher group median wage − lower group median wage) / higher group median wage × 100. The calculator returns the gap as a percentage. The U.S. gender wage gap (women's median weekly earnings as % of men's) was 84% in 2024 (BLS) — meaning women earned 16% less than men on a median basis. The U.S. Black-White wage gap was approximately 24%. The Hispanic-White gap approximately 27%. These population-level statistics combine many distinct effects: occupational sorting, hours worked, experience, education differences, and explicit pay discrimination — separating these is the subject of large economic literatures. RELIABILITY: Reliable as a population-level median comparison. Less reliable as a measure of pure pay discrimination because the headline gap aggregates multiple effects: differences in occupations chosen (occupational sorting), differences in hours worked, experience level differences, and unequal pay for same work. For pure pay discrimination, controlled studies (same role, same experience) typically find a 4-7% gender gap — much smaller than the 16% headline gap.
Reviewed according to the CalcDomain Editorial Policy & Calculator Methodology. We document formulas, edge cases, sources, update dates, and correction paths for calculator pages.
Updated