|
|
On July 23 2012 21:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The entire Wisconson equal pay law wasn't repealed - just parts of it.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. 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-legislaturesEdit: oh and there is a similar push against female hormonal treatment and emergency contraception (even for rape victims).
You can still go through state court to get your due compensation (back pay, costs, attorneys’ fees, and employment reinstatement/front pay).
If you want MORE than that you need to go to Federal court and go through a trial - no more compensatory and punitive damages awarded through summary judgement.
|
On July 24 2012 00:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 21:30 DoubleReed wrote: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. 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-legislaturesEdit: oh and there is a similar push against female hormonal treatment and emergency contraception (even for rape victims). You can still go through state court to get your due compensation (back pay, costs, attorneys’ fees, and employment reinstatement/front pay). If you want MORE than that you need to go to Federal court and go through a trial - no more compensatory and punitive damages awarded through summary judgement.
There's no substantive difference between federal court and state court. You can get all of the same damages in state court that you can get in federal court because state courts are empowered to enforce federal laws. The biggest difference between federal court and state court is that federal court judges tend to be self-righteous assholes whereas state court judges are a little more reasonable (though sometimes too reasonable).
|
On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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: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/
The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves.
|
On July 24 2012 00:34 bayside wrote: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.orgA 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.
...we're talking about state laws. In fact, the whole point is that state laws enforce it more efficiently than federal laws which is why we care about it.
And I'm not even going to touch supply side economics or the reagan economic thing. Reagan was when government spending went completely out of control, and supply side economics has been shown to be wrong time and time again over and over but who cares you probably don't even care about that.
|
On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves.
The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons.
|
On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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: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:[quote] 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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons.
I read the article, what's your point?
|
Ruh, roh.
Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source.
|
On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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: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:[quote] 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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point?
It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender.
So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on.
|
On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Show nested quote +Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source.
Who is this Ruh-roh for? Obviously the economy is unlikely to help the president. But sounds like 34% blame Obama, and 41 percent blame congress / former president. Not sure the the political lines are for those that blame congress, but seems like since there has been no active policy from congress for a while due to republican controlling the house / block votes in the senate it's not clear to be bad for the president. Also note that all of those people are choosing not to blame the president on what could certainly be a politicized issue.
Edit: In fact the "congress" question" seems to be specifically republicans in congress after reading more carefully.
|
On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:02 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on.
I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
|
On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Show nested quote +Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source.
What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry,
For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react.
For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".
I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more.
|
On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*.
*Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything.
|
On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
Excellent, took the words right off of my fingertips. That some mitigating factors can explain away a degree of the variance in pay does not mean that gender discrimination in income is some sort of myth, as the authors of that article are quick to point out.
Edit: And damnit, paralleluniverse, you took my other response! Y'all are on point today.
|
On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything.
There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid.
|
On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job.
You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it.
If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit.
|
On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more.
The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck.
|
On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck.
If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups.
|
On July 24 2012 03:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups.
That term is so funny "special interest group". I fully support spending substantially more money on infrastructure, but an awful lot of the stimulus money was either to infrastructure or tax cuts. I could just as easily call the construction industry a special interest group and claim that too much went to special interest groups.
BTW, here's a link to how the money was apportioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_Act
Here's the breakdown by large category:
Tax Incentives: 288 billion
Health Care: 155.1 billion
Education: 100 billion
Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training): 82.2 billion
Infrastructure Investment: 105.3 billion
Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: 27.2 billion
Housing: 14.7 billion
Scientific Research: 7.6 billion
Other: 10.6 billion
There are totally legitimate gripes about the stimulus bill, but your comment is uninformed. It's easy to frame every problem as an interest group problem, but it's not like you could easily divert 300 billion of that spending somewhere else and totally change the landscape of the stimulus. The stimulus is just a ghost that will always be the worst of all evils to some people.
|
On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid.
So?
If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue.
|
On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue.
Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
