|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left."
Source
|
Maryland is set to become the 17th state to decriminalize marijuana. Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley released a statement on Monday, saying he intended to sign legislation that would mean those found in possession of small amounts of the drug would not face jail time. Governor O'Malley said that the decriminalization bill had majority support in the state, and that under current state laws, few defendants in marijuana cases go to prison as a matter of "judicial economy and prosecutorial discretion."
Violent crime is at its lowest in Maryland in 30 years, and the governor said the new law would allow law enforcement officials to keep their focus on more serious crimes. "I now think that decriminalizing possession of marijuana is an acknowledgement of the low priority that our courts, our prosecutors, our police, and the vast majority of citizens already attach to this transgression of public order and public health," he said in the statement. "Such an acknowledgment in law might even lead to a greater focus on far more serious threats to public safety and the lives of our citizens."
Source
|
On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source
Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it.
Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...?
|
On April 09 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes the laws that are on the books.
Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with its positions on marijuana legalization and criminal sentencing.
Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.
“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and more specifically that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people."
Republicans on the panel grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.
Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.
“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said. source
...was there a point to this post? Or is this just fodder for another disingenuous discussion?
|
On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...?
Yes, a wage gap that is actually 5 to 7 cents an hour is a pressing issue that demands government intervention. They should also look in to 92% of workplace deaths being male. That is clear discrimination against opportunities for women to die working construction or logging or on oil rigs or laying pipe or fishing or whatever.
Women are destroying men when it comes to going to college and getting a degree anyway, our kids or their kids are going to be living in a world (if that world is a Western country) where women are more likely than not going to be earning more than men simply because the number of males educated enough to continue occupying a majority of high-level positions isn't going to be large enough anymore. I hope there is concern for the wage gap then.
Workplace discrimination in compensation because of gender is already outlawed, first prove that this wage gap is caused by gender discrimination and then I'll believe that a more stringent law or more stringent enforcement is necessary. When you're talking about 5 to 7 cents it's much harder to pinpoint the cause of it than if it were 20 or 30 cents when something is obviously out of whack. That's why people talk about 77 cents on the dollar instead of the 93 to 95 it actually is, 77 cents on the dollar sounds much more wrong (because it would be of course). I don't know if it would even be preferable for it to be 100 to 100, I think you'd probably have to overpay some women or underpay some men to achieve it. There's always going to be some jobs that are going to be near-100% male because of their physical risk and are going to pay more because of the risk. That will always skew things even if it's just the tiniest bit. At least until the androids come and kill us all. Then the debate will be over what to do about the humanoid androids allegedly exploiting the non-humanoid ones, or vice versa.
|
On April 09 2014 05:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? Yes, a wage gap that is actually 5 to 7 cents an hour is a pressing issue that demands government intervention. They should also look in to 92% of workplace deaths being male. That is clear discrimination against opportunities for women to die working construction or logging or on oil rigs or laying pipe or fishing or whatever. Women are destroying men when it comes to going to college and getting a degree anyway, our kids or their kids are going to be living in a world (if that world is a Western country) where women are more likely than not going to be earning more than men simply because the number of males educated enough to continue occupying a majority of high-level positions isn't going to be large enough anymore. I hope there is concern for the wage gap then. Workplace discrimination in compensation because of gender is already outlawed, first prove that this wage gap is caused by gender discrimination and then I'll believe that a more stringent law or more stringent enforcement is necessary. When you're talking about 5 to 7 cents it's much harder to pinpoint the cause of it than if it were 20 or 30 cents when something is obviously out of whack. That's why people talk about 77 cents on the dollar instead of the 93 to 95 it actually is, 77 cents on the dollar sounds much more wrong (because it would be of course). I don't know if it would even be preferable for it to be 100 to 100, I think you'd probably have to overpay some women or underpay some men to achieve it. There's always going to be some jobs that are going to be near-100% male because of their physical risk and are going to pay more because of the risk. That will always skew things even if it's just the tiniest bit. At least until the androids come and kill us all. Then the debate will be over what to do about the humanoid androids allegedly exploiting the non-humanoid ones, or vice versa.
To tell you the truth, I think you're partly right.The 77 cents figure is rhetorical and targets low information voters(<--describes most political speech [so I acknowledge it's decaying affect on the discourse to the degree you do for comparable rhetoric from others]). 5-7 cents is definitely the lowest estimates I've seen.
As for preference, it seems reasonable to expect it to fluctuate. But it would make sense if you were to profile 500 random people in identical positions with the most similar work histories possible that the gap would be much closer to the margin of error.
But I'll agree the current bill and rhetoric surrounding it don't really address the problems.
There are a couple common sense pieces in it though like
"Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer."
Source
Yeah all we can do is hope that our robot overlords are programmed by Microsoft, so we know it will only be a matter of time before they all crash. God help us all if we are stupid enough to program them for Linux...
+ Show Spoiler +Shit..... It's too late....As of June 2013, more than 95% of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers run some variant of Linux Source
|
Discussion about equal wages now, during a jobless recovery in which men lost more than women, when women are outpacing men in the accumulation of ornamental certificates from Institutes of Higher Learning™, is really a channeling of frustration and anxiety from women and men about the disintegrating family structure. Perhaps the wage gap exists because women as a whole are using more of their energy in reproductive labors to hold the family together than men are. Women still do the vast majority of housework and child rearing, not to mention the emotional work of supporting their spouses and children, even as they have gone off to work in greater numbers. It's a testament to how much work women are actually doing, in that the wage gap is as small as it is, while the reproductive labor gap in the home is as high as it is. Sadly, this may be the result of women increasingly choosing to live alone, rather than some preternatural talent for labor possessed by the fairer sex.
Marriage has its roots in medieval feudalism, and appropriately, is a feudal economic arrangement. In return for protection and support the wife agrees to provide the surplus value of her labor to the man who appropriates it as a feudal lord would have. This is cemented with feudalistic vows, mingling civil institutions and religious traditions, in which loyalty, love, and dedication are affirmed, a ceremony is conducted, and they are bound together. She cooks for him, cleans for him, provides sex, negotiates for him, socializes, bears him children, and raises his children, without pay, all while doing the labor required to reproduce herself. The man, who experiences wage-slavery at his workplace is the king of his castle at home. The exploited becomes the exploiter.
Back in the 70's, the first time that the United States really experienced a labor glut, due to increasing productivity (i.e. the development of computers), increasing immigration, increasing globalization, and decreased regulations, capitalists were able to push through a series of reforms that have resulted in a stagnant real wage for the last four decades. Women are encouraged to join the workforce, and increasingly families become dependent on two incomes. Yet women are still doing all the reproductive work at home, just in addition to their wage labor in the office. Men who were accustomed to wages going up see stagnation or even decline, as the labor glut destroys job security. No longer can people say that their kids will be wealthier than them. But the rich are still getting richer, corporations are still bringing in money. Women are exhausted from working all day and don't have the energy to properly manage the household, they want someone to provide emotional support and stability to them, because they no longer have the time to reproduce themselves, let alone their spouse. Is it any wonder that divorces start to skyrocket at around the same time? Is it any wonder that the divorce rate for uneducated couples, more likely be working multiple jobs at low wages and long hours, unable to buy services that richer folks might buy, services that essentially pay lower-wage workers to perform some reproductive labor for them (i.e. cooking their meals, washing their clothes, taxiing them around), is far higher than the well-educated upper class? The conservatives talk about the disintegration of families among the poor, all the while ignoring the system that has crushed those families into dust beneath its mighty heft. It's idiotic.
But it's much more preferable that this kind of discussion gets shunted off into "equal pay for equal work" to the powers that be, even if the concept appears ludicrous when contextualized within a social framework that values family. In that sense, it's no surprise that conservatives don't care to fix the gap. They are pro-family after all and someone has to hold the family together.
|
On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...?
There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap.
|
Rand study:
The long-awaited Rand Corp. study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law.
That's a net figure, accommodating all those who lost their individual health insurance because of cancellations. The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.
The Rand study was eagerly anticipated in part because of the dearth of hard information from other sources, including the federal and state governments, which are still compiling their statistics and may not have a full slate for months.
Rand acknowledges that its figures have limitations -- they're based on a survey sampling, meaning that the breakdowns are subject to various margins of error, and they don't include much of the surge in enrollments in late March and early April. Those 3.2-million sign-ups not counted by Rand could "dramatically affect" the figures on total insureds, the organization said.
LA Times
Rand Publication
|
On April 09 2014 08:32 IgnE wrote:
Marriage has its roots in medieval feudalism, and appropriately, is a feudal economic arrangement. In return for protection and support the wife agrees to provide the surplus value of her labor to the man who appropriates it as a feudal lord would have. This is cemented with feudalistic vows, mingling civil institutions and religious traditions, in which loyalty, love, and dedication are affirmed, a ceremony is conducted, and they are bound together. She cooks for him, cleans for him, provides sex, negotiates for him, socializes, bears him children, and raises his children, without pay, all while doing the labor required to reproduce herself. The man, who experiences wage-slavery at his workplace is the king of his castle at home. The exploited becomes the exploiter.
This is intriguing... but completely historically inaccurate. Marriage long predates the middle ages... even that particular vision of marriage long predates feudalism. I don't know where all this historical fiction comes from on the subject of marriage. The right and left seem to peddle these inane ideas equally, out of their respective desires, but they bear no relation to reality.
(I blame the educational system's lack of interest in the span of human history, and myopia with the last thousand years... or in the USA, just the last hundred or so.)
|
On April 09 2014 09:53 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 08:32 IgnE wrote:
Marriage has its roots in medieval feudalism, and appropriately, is a feudal economic arrangement. In return for protection and support the wife agrees to provide the surplus value of her labor to the man who appropriates it as a feudal lord would have. This is cemented with feudalistic vows, mingling civil institutions and religious traditions, in which loyalty, love, and dedication are affirmed, a ceremony is conducted, and they are bound together. She cooks for him, cleans for him, provides sex, negotiates for him, socializes, bears him children, and raises his children, without pay, all while doing the labor required to reproduce herself. The man, who experiences wage-slavery at his workplace is the king of his castle at home. The exploited becomes the exploiter. This is intriguing... but completely historically inaccurate. Marriage long predates the middle ages... even that particular vision of marriage long predates feudalism. I don't know where all this historical fiction comes from on the subject of marriage. The right and left seem to peddle these inane ideas equally, out of their respective desires, but they bear no relation to reality. (I blame the educational system's lack of interest in the span of human history, and myopia with the last thousand years... or in the USA, just the last hundred or so.)
The modern form of marriage takes much from its medieval forebear, and it is quite clearly a feudal economic arrangement in fact, at least as practiced throughout much of the 20th century. The earlier history of marriage and its ancient roots are irrelevant to the analysis.
|
On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap.
Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot'
Also a lot of the measures and data intended to be generated/gathered/measured will be helpful to businesses and people alike.
Also the protections and rights intended would be very helpful to families.
Alterations of the proposed bill make sense, but doing nothing does not.
|
On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot'
Not really. Unless you include things like party image.
|
|
|
On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image.
Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant.
Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself.
And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place.
Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination.
When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option.
|
What did you find interesting?
|
On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option.
Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed.
Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%.
You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on.
On April 09 2014 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:What did you find interesting?
The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights.
|
So in other words, empowering people through regulation of the housing markets and letting them participate in the form of worker unions and representatives in corporations is a way more stable than just letting everyone buy a house and lose it five years later, although they may look wealthier in the meantime. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Edit: But I don't really see this working for the US. Although we have somewhat deregulated our job market during the recent years, it's still heavily influenced and regulated in the 60's and 70's 'industrial way'. Workers participate in unions and the board of directors (1/3 of the board in companies with more than 500 employees consists of workers). The US seems to be really far away from that ideologically.
|
On April 09 2014 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option. Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed. Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%. You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on. The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights.
"Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women."
"Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination."
"Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public"
(Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face)
Source
On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men..
On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic.
What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?
On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)?
|
In short: The main reason that German household wealth is lower than than elsewhere is that less claims on the future output of the housing sector take the form of assets. Housing is just as commodified in Germany as elsewhere (I don’t think public housing is unusually important there). But it is less capitalized.
It’s not a coincidence that Europe’s dominant economy has the least market wealth. The truth is, success in the world market has depended for a long time now on limiting dependence on asset markets, just as the most successful competitors within national economies are the giant corporations that suppress the market mechanism internally. Germany, as with late industrializers like Japan, Korea, and now China, has succeeded largely by ensuring that investment is not guided by market signals, but through active planning by banks and/or the state. There’s nothing new in the fact that greater real wealth in the sense of productive capacity goes hand hand with less wealth in the sense of claims on the social product capitalized into assets. Only in the poorest and most backward countries does a significant fraction of the claims of working people on the product take the form of asset ownership.
The article is advocating for a greater share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few and points to Germany and China as examples of booming economies that should guide toward a more enlightened form of sustained growth. Germany boosts profits for the rentier class by encouraging more people to rent, and "success in the world" is achieved by producing the most for the least cost. I don't argue with the premise and findings of the article. Home ownership through mortgage and the vast expansion of credit in the West, and the countries that supply the demand for Germany's and China's goods are a requirement both to keep the game going and as a political reality. The dream of owning your own home in America is the vaccine that prevents wage laborers from being infected with Marxian ideas, preventing them from looking at inequality through the lens of surplus value and its concomitants. But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, by concentrating power about what to do with society's assets in the hands of the few. Nevermind that without the artificial demand generated by credit-happy, home-owning economies in the US and Europe there would be no one for Germany and China to sell their high-quality, depressed-price goods to.
You said a few pages back Jonny that Germany was lagging, and I expect that to continue. Germany and China and the rest are pursuing a single-minded policy of export-financed growth that pays during a recession but ultimately leads nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
