This. What is so hard to understand about "equal pay for equal work"? And why should it be such an issue?Originally Posted by Ad Hoc
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
This. What is so hard to understand about "equal pay for equal work"? And why should it be such an issue?
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Every law has a cost to maintain. You may not see it, but it is expensive to have laws even if they are not laws that are being used. Leaving a law on the books largely serves to leave open a door to misuse. Any and all government regulation can and will be abused and will create market disturbance. It requires material justification to leave any law on the books. Fraud happens. And when there is not visible fraud, there is always misuse and misinterpretation.
I wish I had a pretty, pretty pony.
Thank you. I do try.
In this example, you compare two items which are fundamentally different. In the first, the US Constitution states that soldiers may not be quartered in a private citizen's home. This is a broad and fundamental limitation to the power of the government. There should never be reason to updated this until we, as a species, shed our human bodies and join each other in harmony as light energy. The item in question in this thread is a very specific set of interventions regarding a specific issue. In your argument you refer to the former's continued existence as a justification for the continuation of other, specific legislation that no longer serves its purpose. The value of such legislation decays much more rapidly, to the point in which it will eventually become counterproductive. As it stands, the law presently requires employers to pay women more than said women, themselves, are demanding. This hurts employers, distorts the market, and provides an additional disincentive to hire women for positions of responsibility.
Additionally, expedience of process is not (at least, not admittedly) a concern of the domain of legislation.
If we could catch the people who were defrauding us, we would not need to worry about it any longer. Suffice to say that giving a large group of people the power to file suit over purely circumstancial evidence lends itself easily to abuse.
Gender pay gaps exist for a number of reasons. The same as there are pay gaps between introverts and extroverts. And pretty people and ugly people. Motivated people and lazy people. It is nearly impossible to prove objectively that a pay gap is arbitrary. Women are different than men and act differently. Hiring practices generally dictate you do not pay someone more than they demand. Women don't demand as much financial compensation and they are less likely to negotiate for a raise; when they do, they tend to negotiate for less. Employers are not at fault for this behavior.
At present, employers have the right to set wages for different employees in the same position for any reason other than explicit discrimination. It appears you're advocating for a government mandate to cement wages at a particular level. A business person would argue that this would not be in the best interest of anyone.
Tangental. Women don't tend to talk about how much compensation they receive at work, but that doesn't make them any less litigious than the average American. The motivations behind someone who files a pay discrimination lawsuit are different than their motivations in the workplace.
Government never was good at advocating for anyone. Government can only force people to play by their rules. Discrimination against many groups in the United States has been on such a steep decline over the past six decades for a number of reasons; be careful not to ascribe too much credit to any particular piece of government legislation rather than dozens of other factors. Anti-discrimination laws attack only the branches of the problem, not the root of them. In this case, the root of the problem was that women had not been not seen as being as valuable as men in the workplace. This is due in part to a history of having provided little of value to the workforce for many thousands of years. There were very few women doctors, scholars, or business persons. They were not lawyers in Roman times or politicians in the 19th century. They did not generally seek to or see it as something they desired to do. If anything, society has done well to accept them in traditional male positions over such a small amount of time. I would feel it prudent to give more credit to the women who made it possible than to a law.
But that's just me.
Because it's wrong.
Last edited by jcfynx; 04-11-2012 at 11:03 AM.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Maybe if women had equal pay then money wouldn't be more important for men.
ಠ_ಠ
If people think it's unfair that men are expected to pay for drinks and meals and stuff, then surely giving women the same pay as men would mean they'd be more able to pay for things themselves. Deeeerp.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
In our generation, in cities, single women do make more than men. So if you're dating a girl, paying is actually quite generous. If you include married women the trend disappears though. Once they get married and have kids their careers go by the wayside.
What this suggests is that women who wait till their 30s to have kids (at the risk of not being able to have kids at all), have some advantages against men in the workforce, probably due to their higher college graduation rates. Women who get married soon have difficulty balancing family life with a career, and they tend to take on more household responsibilities than men will in those arrangements.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
I would consider setting a different wage for the same work solely on the basis of what is between your legs as "explicit discrimination". Same as if the sole criteria was ethnic origin, skin colour, religious belief, political belief or nationality.
Please explain your justification as why an employer is justified in paying two people doing the same job with the same skills in the same time different wages where the only difference is one has XX chromosomes and the other has XY chromosomes.
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Differences in Supply/demand? idk
Students far from done, awake at one, basked in reddening glow
Gone insane from the insomnia that they surly know.
For whom the alarm tolls, time marches on
For whom the alarm tolls . . .
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH" like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoGb2_E-eg8
I agree with you.
NSFW on title.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
People should be paid based on their skill level and competence, not their genitals.
I am skilled as a seamstress. Without me in the shop, it would die. I am integral. I am paid $13/h which is a few bucks above minimum wage in my province. The only male that works in the shop gets $15/h but he has 45 years of experience (I have 22) and can do the things that are a little too hard for me, so it is fair.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Any two given people with the same position at the same company are paid two different wages.
That is a fundamental quality of paying wages to people.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Yes, but because one has been working for longer or is more skilled.
Any time else and it's idiotic.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
You assume that ability to perform is the only factor that should determine wages. In a free market system, wage-earners negotiate for their compensation individually. There are many factors which determine the outcome of any negotiation.
Employment does not seem to be a subject in which you are well-versed.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
Okay one, i had to reply to this specific comment because of your name. i KNOW THAT REFERENCE. One of the best seris evar! First time i read the first one, I cried when the old mouse died...lol its been awhile, i forgot his name. Also sad brain Jaques died....
More on topic: This a touchy subject because it involves ,both genders and potical parties, so please keep my views in mind, but also say your opinion.
Ok, so yes this clearly a backwards going law proposal, it is quite insulting. But hopeful it will be rejected.
Its quite unfair, one gender is just as capable as the other, although that is subjective, at first it should be generally applied.
Its like when women starting to join combat rolls in the army, conservatives didnt want that, 'oohhh no I dont like change!'
Short: The law is not worth two shits...sigh the governments can be stupid sometimes.
Although the whole thing about women buying more shiny stuff then men, is a stereotypical generalization. True, women can sometimes develop shopping habits, even addictions more than men, but it does not apply to all women, another subjective...subject? No more like situation.
Its late im sorryies with hugs for typing stuff that might only make sense to me.
Edit: I just noticed all my mis derps....screw it there staying there!
Last edited by LouyieBlu; 04-13-2012 at 09:53 PM.
“It’s an odd feeling, actually typing ‘qwerty’ as a word; try it, and you’ll see what I mean.” ~Douglas Adams
Avatar done by the amazing ProductMur
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
So in your world it would be perfectly ethical and reasonable for Person A, who has exactly the same skills, experience and work productivity as Person B, to be paid more than Person B for any one (or more) of the following reasons:
* Person A happens to be a relative of the boss.
* Person A is having sex with the boss (either willingly, or though coercion) in return for higher pay.
* Person B is black.
* Person B is Japanese.
* Person A is Albanian.
* Person B is Muslim.
* Person B is female.
* Person A happens to be a drinking buddy of the boss.
* Person A is dating one of the boss's children.
Ethics, have you heard of them?
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."
* Yes
* No
* No
* No
* No
* No
* Yes
* Yes
I hope that clears things up for you.
After all, I'm here to educate.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Don't bother, May.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Women should be paid equally to men. Women are capable of working just as hard as men, they are also capable of doing a "mans" job like building or a mechanic.
Speaking of building our local doctors clinic has just had some huge work carried out with the building of a nice new extension and a revamp of the existing building. anyway the site foreman was a woman.
I don't see why companies can be picky about who they employ. If I was running a business it wouldn't bother me if they were male, female, transgender, gay, straight, bisexual, of some religious faith, tall, short, black, white, asian...All I'd care about is that they can do the job they are applying for.
Awkward moment: When a GPS tells a gay man to go straight.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
If your idea of trolling is making reasonable arguments and being v polite also then I am the king of troll castle.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
You failed at "reasonable arguments" - all you've made is an assertion that nepotism is a valid business practice with nothing to back it up.
So tell us, "I'm here to educate", why is paying someone more for the same job because they're sucking up to the boss or because they're related to the boss ethical, but doing the same based on their ethnicity or nationality is not ethical?
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Guys. We're arguing over something that doesn't affect any of you.
"You know when you're in love when you can't fall asleep, because reality is finally better than your dreams."
- Dr Seuss
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Okay, that is just so much stupidity it is incomprehensible. Saying they would just buy shiny jewels with it is just god damn ridiculous. They have to buy groceries, which can cost 80 dollars for an average family PER TRIP.
I just... am lost for words.
Weird people are like...sprinkles on vanilla ice cream. They are random, bright, and out of place. However, without them, the world would be bland and boring. So embrace your weirdness!
"As soon as you're born you start dying, so you might as well have a good time" Cake (band) - Sheep Go To Heaven
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Well at least I am v polite. ;w;
Paying someone more because you like them more may not be sound business sense, but it is hard to argue that it is unethical excepting in such cases as it violates someone's rights or the agreed-upon rules of an organization. In a family-run business, for example, it should be apparent to everyone that members of the family will hold particular positions.
You are correct that favor due to ethnicity or nationality is discrimination in the same as favor along other characteristics. Western society holds that discrimination along particular lines, such as gender or race, is unacceptable. However, discrimination because of appearance, social graces, or your personal connection to someone is not. There is therefore no precedent for declaring such discrimination unethical.
I would add, as well, that the failure of a party to negotiate on their own behalf for financial compensation does not imply a lack of ethics on the part of the wage-setting party. As previously stated, many factors will influence the outcome of a negotiation, and it's difficult to rule out the role of cultural norms that gender or racial, and other roles will play in the interactions of such negotation. If a woman is less likely to be assertive, which is more likely the case with women than with men, the wage she will receive is likely to be somewhat less than if she were more assertive.
Last edited by jcfynx; 04-15-2012 at 05:55 AM.
Re: "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."
Why are people making the rules always F****** idiots..?
Blue skies... I hate blue skies...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
