15 replies to this topic

[Little Pickle]

See link to the wikipedia discussion of the subject act.  I for the life of me cannot understand how this legislation, which states a company can be held accountable for continued discrimination against women, is burdensome.  Can someone shed some light on how this is "over-regulatory" or a problem for businesses that employ women?

http://en.wikipedia....er_Fair_Pay_Act

[Bedford]

Simple.  It means that if some quota some idiotic bureaucrat wants isn't met, he'll persecute the business.  WHen people beautifus gal and moan about lack of equal pay for women, they don't take account that women lose seniority and opportunities because they often stay at home for awhile taking care of kids or sick family members.

[Overit]

WHen people beautifus gal and moan about lack of equal pay for women,




Now that is a funny statement!

[Dave]

overit, on 13 April 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

WHen people beautifus gal and moan about lack of equal pay for women,




Now that is a funny statement!

You just don't understand genious.

[wanda]

Give it up LP. Obama's regime has made it clear how little they value women. This from The Washington Post:

http://www.washingto...3R4ET_blog.html

It is almost inexplicable to political insiders and likely infuriating to Democrats, but Hilary Rosen, who has done more to solidify the GOP base and chase the Democrats off the “war on women” hooey” than any single person, will be on “Meet the Press” this Sunday. That will ensure that the story, a mini disaster for President Obama, continues on through Sunday and likely into Monday.

There is no good that can come of this for Obama. Even if Rosen is repentant the story gets new oxygen. And if she, as is likely, says, “I am sorry, but. . .” and then continues to claim that Ann Romney, who is a cancer survivor and MS patient, doesn’t understand ordinary voters or that Republicans don’t understand women, the backlash will continue.

[Random Thoughts]

Hilary Rosen is a Democratic supporter. But not affiliated with Obamas administration. And her voice is no more representative of the administrations opinions.... than Rush's reflect the opinions of the GOP party.

They are supporters. Nothing more. Unfortunately in Media positions.. armed with big mouths, and little brains. The Obama administration has no more control over something Rosen says. Than they would about Rush. Or any other media person.

This ultimately will have no more effect on Obama than Rush's off the hook comments had a short time back about Sandra Fluke. Once the sensationalism wears off. Nobody will remember it come November.

[Bedford]

Dave, on 13 April 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

You just don't understand genious.

You don't understand ridiculous automated forum censoring.  

[Bedford]

Random Thoughts, on 14 April 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Hilary Rosen is a Democratic supporter. But not affiliated with Obamas administration. And her voice is no more representative of the administrations opinions.... than Rush's reflect the opinions of the GOP party.

They are supporters. Nothing more. Unfortunately in Media positions.. armed with big mouths, and little brains. The Obama administration has no more control over something Rosen says. Than they would about Rush. Or any other media person.

This ultimately will have no more effect on Obama than Rush's off the hook comments had a short time back about Sandra Fluke. Once the sensationalism wears off. Nobody will remember it come November.

WRONG!  Rosen has made more trips to the White House than even his Energy Secretary, and Rosen is naturally this nasty.  Neither description fits Rush.  

[Little Pickle]

wanda, on 14 April 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Give it up LP. Obama's regime has made it clear how little they value women. This from The Washington Post:

http://www.washingto...3R4ET_blog.html

It is almost inexplicable to political insiders and likely infuriating to Democrats, but Hilary Rosen, who has done more to solidify the GOP base and chase the Democrats off the “war on women” hooey” than any single person, will be on “Meet the Press” this Sunday. That will ensure that the story, a mini disaster for President Obama, continues on through Sunday and likely into Monday.

There is no good that can come of this for Obama. Even if Rosen is repentant the story gets new oxygen. And if she, as is likely, says, “I am sorry, but. . .” and then continues to claim that Ann Romney, who is a cancer survivor and MS patient, doesn’t understand ordinary voters or that Republicans don’t understand women, the backlash will continue.

Again, I did not ask about Hilary Rosen or anything about the war on women.  I asked about the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  I asked you to read this piece and tell me why IT is bad.  There is nothing in the act about quotas and was triggered apparently because the Supreme Court determined that a woman could not have standing in a discrimination case because the statute of limitations had expired because it had been more than 7 years since the first instance of discrimination.

Edited by Little Pickle, 14 April 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[Smokey]

Some of the people working in the White House are contractors from a company owned by Rosen, instigator of the War on Moms.

[Debbie]

Little Pickle, on 13 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

See link to the wikipedia discussion of the subject act.  I for the life of me cannot understand how this legislation, which states a company can be held accountable for continued discrimination against women, is burdensome.  Can someone shed some light on how this is "over-regulatory" or a problem for businesses that employ women?

http://en.wikipedia....er_Fair_Pay_Act

Laws like these are a problem for both the businesses and the women because it takes power away from both parties to conduct themselves as they see fit.

I do not want to wonder if my pay was based on someone pointing a gun at my boss to give me more money. That does nothing to increase my value to the company, nor does it increase the value of the group who takes such actions, in this case women. It creates an additional rift on top of any possible bigotry that may have been there before. And if I was the boss, I would have little incentive to actively go out and look for prospective employees if they are part of a larger group that tends to use such practices.

Most of all, I don't want myself or my daughter or my nieces or any other females I know to think of themselves as victims who need rescuing. That's the most ironic thing about these sorts of laws supposedly meant to help women.

I would much prefer to see women being active, confident participants in the market, negotiating with their employers to find a mutually acceptable pay level, and if that can't be accomplished then understanding that this company is not the best fit and start making plans to move towards a better situation. Because if I'm so confident that I should be paid more, then the best thing I can do to a company that discriminates is leave them and go find or create competition to kick their butt.

[Little Pickle]

Debbie, on 14 April 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Laws like these are a problem for both the businesses and the women because it takes power away from both parties to conduct themselves as they see fit.

I do not want to wonder if my pay was based on someone pointing a gun at my boss to give me more money. That does nothing to increase my value to the company, nor does it increase the value of the group who takes such actions, in this case women. It creates an additional rift on top of any possible bigotry that may have been there before. And if I was the boss, I would have little incentive to actively go out and look for prospective employees if they are part of a larger group that tends to use such practices.

Most of all, I don't want myself or my daughter or my nieces or any other females I know to think of themselves as victims who need rescuing. That's the most ironic thing about these sorts of laws supposedly meant to help women.

I would much prefer to see women being active, confident participants in the market, negotiating with their employers to find a mutually acceptable pay level, and if that can't be accomplished then understanding that this company is not the best fit and start making plans to move towards a better situation. Because if I'm so confident that I should be paid more, then the best thing I can do to a company that discriminates is leave them and go find or create competition to kick their butt.

While in theory I tend to agree with you--being a woman I do not like the thought that I would have to work for someone who doesn't respect me and value my contribution and in an ideal world, the opportunity to create competition to kick butt is a great idea, reality is that there area lot of women who do not have the luxury of being able to go to another place to earn an income.  But I do disagree that a company and for that matter, an individual, can conduct themselves as they see fit.  Of course I know you are an Ayn Rand Libertarian, so any regulation is bad regulation.  I am have trouble seeing how it is ok to pay a man a different wage for the same work performed by a woman, everything else being the same and how the requirement that a company do so--again all other things being equal -- is burdensome.

[Debbie]

Little Pickle, on 14 April 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

While in theory I tend to agree with you--being a woman I do not like the thought that I would have to work for someone who doesn't respect me and value my contribution and in an ideal world, the opportunity to create competition to kick butt is a great idea, reality is that there area lot of women who do not have the luxury of being able to go to another place to earn an income.  But I do disagree that a company and for that matter, an individual, can conduct themselves as they see fit.  Of course I know you are an Ayn Rand Libertarian, so any regulation is bad regulation.  I am have trouble seeing how it is ok to pay a man a different wage for the same work performed by a woman, everything else being the same and how the requirement that a company do so--again all other things being equal -- is burdensome.

I agree that the competition part is not necessarily achievable, I just mention it as a possibility. But the main point is that we all have choices. No one is a slave. Many people have made changes and it had nothing to do with "luxury," it had to do with determination, planning, hard work and making sacrifices because they decided to take responsibility for their own lives. We are not talking about helpless people here, we are talking about women who would define themselves and competent and capable.

If you review my message you will see that I never said it was okay to pay a man a different wage for the same work, everything else being the same. Both parties are in a voluntary contractual relationship with full knowledge that if the relationship no longer works, then either party can end the relationship. If it's really true that an employer is paying a man more than a woman with every single detail being exactly the same, then I support leaving such employers. I support publicly calling those employers out. I support organizing a boycott. I support any non-violent action that might help correct the situation.

But I even question whether or not it's really true that there is a real disparity, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL as you so correctly point out.

Here's an interesting item on the Freakonomics blog about women MBA's and their pay compared to men:

SuperFreakonomics Book Club: Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap

And I also found this from economist Thomas Sowell, which brings up a very interesting point on the economics of hiring women:

    Q: We’ve frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?

    A: There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on. You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

P.S. Just FYI, I don't know what "Ayn Rand libertarian" means. If you want to explain that, you are welcome to pm me so we don't change the thrust of this thread.

[Random Thoughts]

Bedford, on 14 April 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

WRONG!  Rosen has made more trips to the White House than even his Energy Secretary, and Rosen is naturally this nasty.  Neither description fits Rush.  

So has the mailman. But I doubt he speaks for them either. Just because she wants to portray herself as a big wheel. Doesn't make her one. Or mean she represents the administration.  


As far as Rush....

Big mouth - Unquestionable  

Naturally nasty - equally unquestionable    The man has built his business on it.

Little brain -  I will give you that one.... It could be debatable. Part of the time.  

[Smokey]

More trips to the White House than anyone but Geithner.  5 of those trips for meetings with Obama.   I bet the mailman just drops it in the box and leaves.

Little Pickle, the key phrase is "other things being equal."  "Other things" are NEVER "equal.".

[Debbie]

Little Pickle,

I ran into another item about Equal Pay that I thought you'd be interested in. It goes into some detail behind the statistics and does say that some of the difference could be due to discrimination.

Equal Pay Day: Some Thoughts