|
|
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal.
|
On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business.
That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant.
Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:15 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) The fact is that there were very few suits about equal pay laws, but republicans wanted to get rid of them anyway, so that employers could discriminate freely. There was no practical reason to take away the laws. All it does is remove legal options from discriminated women. The other problem with 1Eris1's point is that, while I agree the figure is somewhat misleading, the lifestyle/career choice factors that influence it are also problematic from a feminist perspective. A society that socializes its women to not pursue positions of power within it is worrisome for the same reasons as a society that socializes its women to, say, want to have to be accompanied by a male to leave the house. I'm not sure what you're point is here. If you have a problem with society, change it, don't change business.. Business caters to society/customers, and right now customers generally act more under what we consider "normal" economic patterns than feminist economic patterns.
Yes, my point is somewhat off-topic because equal-pay laws are not the appropriate angle to address these negative effects. My point still speaks to the pay gap being bad regardless of how much of it is the result of discrimination, though.
|
On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business.
No, sorry. I can't find any sources quick or anything. I can look into it later, but we can just drop that line of discussion if you'd like. I don't really need it at all for my argument. Even if women made 99/100 what men make, we should still have equal pay laws. Hell, you could even make a good argument if women made 100/100 what men make.
Just because discrimination is contrary to capitalism does not mean it will right itself necessarily (although in this case it probably will, but it's a matter of how quickly). Almost like you think that people will always act in their own best interest. Personally, I think that's a bit naive and optimistic.
On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal.
Lawsuits involving gender discrimination are even more infrequent. There is no reason to remove legal options from employees.
|
On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant.
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws.
On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
Yes, my point is somewhat off-topic because equal-pay laws are not the appropriate angle to address these negative effects. My point still speaks to the pay gap being bad regardless of how much of it is the result of discrimination, though.
My understanding of feminist economics is limited, but again I'm not sure what you/they want to do about it. Shouldn't we instead be more focused on encouraging women to take higher paying jobs? And if women are truly less prone to higher paying jobs, why should we hinder the economy as a whole to satisfy choice?
|
On July 23 2012 12:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. No, sorry. I can't find any sources quick or anything. I can look into it later, but we can just drop that line of discussion if you'd like. I don't really need it at all for my argument. Even if women made 99/100 what men make, we should still have equal pay laws. Hell, you could even make a good argument if women made 100/100 what men make. Just because discrimination is contrary to capitalism does not mean it will right itself necessarily (although in this case it probably will, but it's a matter of how quickly). Almost like you think that people will always act in their own best interest. Personally, I think that's a bit naive and optimistic. Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Lawsuits involving gender discrimination are even more infrequent. There is no reason to remove legal options from employees.
I think I may have gotten a bit mixed up here. I'm opposed to requiring women's wages to equal that of men's because this allows for women to theorectically get paid the same for less work, or for bad workers to get unfairly rewarded simply for being women, which in my eyes would be a sexist law.
I'm for laws opposing discrimination against women though, as long as the "discrimination" is based on their sex and not their work.
|
On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
Yes, my point is somewhat off-topic because equal-pay laws are not the appropriate angle to address these negative effects. My point still speaks to the pay gap being bad regardless of how much of it is the result of discrimination, though. My understanding of feminist economics is limited, but again I'm not sure what you/they want to do about it. Shouldn't we instead be more focused on encouraging women to take higher paying jobs? And if women are truly less prone to higher paying jobs, why should we hinder the economy as a whole to satisfy choice?
I don't have any specific policy solutions and, as I indicated, I don't think that equal-pay laws are the appropriate approach to this aspect of the problem.
I'm just saying that this would be a better, more equal society, if we didn't disproportionately encourage and glorify low-power roles for women (such as family related roles). A smarter person than I can figure out how to fix that.
|
On July 23 2012 12:46 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. No, sorry. I can't find any sources quick or anything. I can look into it later, but we can just drop that line of discussion if you'd like. I don't really need it at all for my argument. Even if women made 99/100 what men make, we should still have equal pay laws. Hell, you could even make a good argument if women made 100/100 what men make. Just because discrimination is contrary to capitalism does not mean it will right itself necessarily (although in this case it probably will, but it's a matter of how quickly). Almost like you think that people will always act in their own best interest. Personally, I think that's a bit naive and optimistic. On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Lawsuits involving gender discrimination are even more infrequent. There is no reason to remove legal options from employees. I think I may have gotten a bit mixed up here. I'm opposed to requiring women's wages to equal that of men's because this allows for women to theorectically get paid the same for less work, or for bad workers to get unfairly rewarded simply for being women, which in my eyes would be a sexist law. I'm for laws opposing discrimination against women though, as long as the "discrimination" is based on their sex and not their work.
In order for you have any legal case against your employer for equal pay, you have to show that you are being paid less for the same work. That's how equal pay laws work.
The only real argument against equal pay laws is that employers refrain from hiring women from fear of lawsuits, or there are frivolous lawsuits that are wasting employer's money. Neither of these was occurring though.
|
No fucking obamacare.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 23 2012 12:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:11 Romantic wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. No, 5% is an average of all workers when you use a decent list of control variables. No, there is no strong evidence women are on aggregate paid less for the same work aside from a 5% difference that may or may not go away with more controls. Even if they were paid less for the same work it wouldn't be proof of discrimination. First, 5% is not that small amount. Second, it varies very largely from field to field. Thirdly, it really doesn't matter. Equal pay laws should be around regardless. People should have legal recourse available if they are discriminated against. There is even less evidence that employers didn't hire women for fear of lawsuits. Again, there is no reason to get rid of equal pay laws.
The laws have got to be well thought-out though, taking into account factors like experience, weekly hours worked, and making very specific "same job" comparisons in order to be good. If they do that, then I don't have a problem with it in principle.
|
The entire Wisconson equal pay law wasn't repealed - just parts of it. Can't say I fully understand what the problem with the old law was / why the partial repeal was necessary. It doesn't seem to be a huge deal one way or another though.
Employees who decide to pursue their claims administratively will not have the ability to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the WFEA.
Depending on the underlying claims, some employees may choose to pursue cases in federal court. However, employers have the benefit of being able to avail themselves of summary judgment in many federal employment cases.
Administrative claims under the WFEA are not subject to summary judgment and must go to a hearing on the merits of the complaint if probable cause is found.
On balance, the repeal of the compensatory and punitive damages is a win for innocent Wisconsin employers, although employers who engage in most forms of illegal discrimination will most likely suffer the same fate as before in front of a federal jury.
Source
|
On July 23 2012 12:51 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
Yes, my point is somewhat off-topic because equal-pay laws are not the appropriate angle to address these negative effects. My point still speaks to the pay gap being bad regardless of how much of it is the result of discrimination, though. My understanding of feminist economics is limited, but again I'm not sure what you/they want to do about it. Shouldn't we instead be more focused on encouraging women to take higher paying jobs? And if women are truly less prone to higher paying jobs, why should we hinder the economy as a whole to satisfy choice? I don't have any specific policy solutions and, as I indicated, I don't think that equal-pay laws are the appropriate approach to this aspect of the problem. I'm just saying that this would be a better, more equal society, if we didn't disproportionately encourage and glorify low-power roles for women (such as family related roles). A smarter person than I can figure out how to fix that.
I don't disagree, and I as I said before I think this ideal is gradually fading. I'm just not sure how much of it is a society related thing or a fundamental pschcological difference between men and women.
On July 23 2012 12:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:46 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. No, sorry. I can't find any sources quick or anything. I can look into it later, but we can just drop that line of discussion if you'd like. I don't really need it at all for my argument. Even if women made 99/100 what men make, we should still have equal pay laws. Hell, you could even make a good argument if women made 100/100 what men make. Just because discrimination is contrary to capitalism does not mean it will right itself necessarily (although in this case it probably will, but it's a matter of how quickly). Almost like you think that people will always act in their own best interest. Personally, I think that's a bit naive and optimistic. On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Lawsuits involving gender discrimination are even more infrequent. There is no reason to remove legal options from employees. I think I may have gotten a bit mixed up here. I'm opposed to requiring women's wages to equal that of men's because this allows for women to theorectically get paid the same for less work, or for bad workers to get unfairly rewarded simply for being women, which in my eyes would be a sexist law. I'm for laws opposing discrimination against women though, as long as the "discrimination" is based on their sex and not their work. In order for you have any legal case against your employer for equal pay, you have to show that you are being paid less for the same work. That's how equal pay laws work.
Yeah, I think we got mixed up somewhere. I'm not against the idea, I just think it's very hard to determine what actual discrimination is and we have to be very careful with laws regarding it, as they can easily be exploited/misapplied.
edit: and that pay differences are only very rarely due to discrimination
|
Australia8532 Posts
On July 23 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The entire Wisconson equal pay law wasn't repealed - just parts of it. Can't say I fully understand what the problem with the old law was / why the partial repeal was necessary. It doesn't seem to be a huge deal one way or another though. Show nested quote +Employees who decide to pursue their claims administratively will not have the ability to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the WFEA.
Depending on the underlying claims, some employees may choose to pursue cases in federal court. However, employers have the benefit of being able to avail themselves of summary judgment in many federal employment cases.
Administrative claims under the WFEA are not subject to summary judgment and must go to a hearing on the merits of the complaint if probable cause is found.
On balance, the repeal of the compensatory and punitive damages is a win for innocent Wisconsin employers, although employers who engage in most forms of illegal discrimination will most likely suffer the same fate as before in front of a federal jury. Source
There are no known court cases where an employee received compensatory or punitive damages following a finding of discrimination. So Act 20, at most, influenced settlements after an employer lost before the DWD on a discrimination claim.
However, like all forms of discrimination, compensatory and punitive damages are no longer available for WFEA claims.
Both above from your source; it seems like it was a matter of consistency in the law. Nothing too earth shattering
|
On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal.
Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again".
On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws.
Any sources to back up that claim?
|
On July 23 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The entire Wisconson equal pay law wasn't repealed - just parts of it. Can't say I fully understand what the problem with the old law was / why the partial repeal was necessary. It doesn't seem to be a huge deal one way or another though. Show nested quote +Employees who decide to pursue their claims administratively will not have the ability to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the WFEA.
Depending on the underlying claims, some employees may choose to pursue cases in federal court. However, employers have the benefit of being able to avail themselves of summary judgment in many federal employment cases.
Administrative claims under the WFEA are not subject to summary judgment and must go to a hearing on the merits of the complaint if probable cause is found.
On balance, the repeal of the compensatory and punitive damages is a win for innocent Wisconsin employers, although employers who engage in most forms of illegal discrimination will most likely suffer the same fate as before in front of a federal jury. Source
Yes, it simply makes more difficult for discriminated employees to get due compensation (federal court is generally less accessible than state court). Funny how you assume that partial repeal was necessary at all. It was probably just some businesses that told the republicans that they didn't like it for whatever reason.
Anyway, the womens health rights are also a massive target right now like seriously draconian anti abortion laws that disallow abortions unless the woman is under immediate health risk. So even we know the fetus is going to kill the mother it forces doctors to wait before aborting. Or laws that make abortion illegal even with a failed pregnancy, forcing women to wait until they naturally expel the pregnancy. That transvaginal ultrasound thing may seriously swing VA into the blue.
http://www.aclu.org/maps/2011-abortion-access-under-attack-state-legislatures
Edit: oh and there is a similar push against female hormonal treatment and emergency contraception (even for rape victims).
|
|
|
|
|
On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim?
In fairness, the law is generally stacked pretty heavily against the employee when it comes to employer/employee relations unless you live in state that has extra employee-friendly laws above and beyond federal safeguards. Combine that with the fact that there is almost always some dirt on the employee when employer/employee relations go sour, and it quickly becomes apparent why there aren't many lawsuits.
Even so, when I talk with potential clients (employees) about their experiences with "discrimination" at their work places, more often than not they don't understand what the term really means. They confuse "I have a really shitty boss" with "my boss treats me badly because I am X" where X is the protected minority category. Very rarely are the employees able to articulate specific facts demonstrating some kind of forbidden animus or bias.
|
I see a lot of text but very few sources thrown in these debates/discussions/conversations. Seems like everyone has an opinion but they're really not backing it up with anything substantial (which is fine it's a thread) but it just seems so odd people are animate about arguing to the death over things they can't cite.
Anyway, anybody curious as to how this Tampa primary will go with Ron Paul having loads of delegates? Not to say he's running, but it should at least make it a bit more exciting.
|
TBH, Why should their be same pay for same jobs for anyone, if a person willingly accepts the salary/pay, that is their choice, if they dont like it, they dont have to work for said company, or at all. This is Capitalism, not Socialism or Communism... its already bad enough that big corporations will hire x amount of minorities simply because they recieve a "tax break." how retarded is that? The Federal Govt should just STFU about all these equal things in workplaces, States should step in, and make it how they want, if you dont like working in a certain state, move out of that state... pretty much any federal law should be like this, ran by the state, who will do it better and more cost efficient, same thing with the private sector in relation to jobs, the federal govt needs to step back or be more involved (Via Huge tax cuts and breaks for opening new factories, or places of employment in the US). Supply-side economics work very well (Look at consequences of Reagans economic policies throughout the nineties). As far as I'm concerned neither of these canidates deserve a vote. (Obama: Still Follows Bush Doctrine, except instead of formally declaring 'combat' or 'war' he just operates surgical strikes in 20-30 countries all over the world) (Romney: Same Foreign Policy) I could really give a rats ass what either one promises, until there is a major change on US Foreign Policy, we shall forever remain in debt.
(Source: Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto)
Edit:
http://www.factcheck.org
A very great source similar to Politifact, but I feel runs smoother and is a lot easier to come by, they actually post sources that you can read, and breaks down the article to which parts or true or untrue.
|
On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:On July 23 2012 11:44 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 11:29 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 BluePanther wrote:On July 22 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Most people in America are in the middle. Hell, how do you think Romney of all people got the nomination? It's only the crazies that get press coverage, of course. It doesn't help that the republicans have been so batshit crazy recently, especially against women. huh? There are a lot of claims you can make against the GOP, but I'm not sure where you really get this one from. Haven't you been following the recent anti-contraception coverage stance the GOP has been adopting, the more aggressive anti-abortion measures being passed these days, even the steps backwards being taken by Republicans in terms of equality of pay between men and women? I agree regarding the abortion efforts, but the entire equal pay arguement ones is one of the worst out there. You shouldn't get equal pay just because you're a woman, you should get equal pay because you're an equally good worker. Requiring equal pay and higher representation only hurts business and is discriminatory in itself. Also, this entire 75-77 cents per dollar 1 dollar thing is greatly misleading; women don't get paid 25 cents less because of discrimination (there are evidences of slight discriminatory pay, but it's closer to 5 cents than 25 cents), it's because of job and career choices. Democrats like to pump up this issue because it earns them votes among women, but in reality it's not at all what they portray it as. And should a Republican vote against such efforts, they're automatically painted as sexist, when in really has nothing to do with that. http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ No, the equal pay arguments are talking about the same job level with the same pay. The .77/1.00 may not be entirely accurate, as it seems to vary hugely from field to field (5% is only for the close-gap fields, other fields the difference can be as high as 40%), but no matter how you slice it, women are paid less for equal work. And taking away equal pay laws means there is no legal recourse for women treated that way. (Sort of. Federal law says you can't discriminate like that, but going to federal court can be very difficult, so states have separate discrimination laws so that people can go to state court to settle such claims. Still, taking away equal pay laws takes away legal options from women who are discriminated against.) Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year. Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business. That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim?
Read my first post a few pages back. Politicians (mostly Democrats) love to use the 77 cents number as a statement of gross inequality, when I as already discussed, it's more like 95 cents.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/
http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/05/reid-democrats-stand-for-equality-for-every-working-woman-republicans-stand-for-obstructionism/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
