Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republicans Block the Pay Equity Bill

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 6:33:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"WASHINGTON — A bill that would pave the way for women to more easily litigate their way to pay equality failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday as Republicans united against the measure for the second time in two years..."

http://www.nytimes.com...

1. What is this bill all about?
2. Why would the Republicans block it?
3. What are the negatives to this bill?

Thanks.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:40:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

The dems. say that there is too much of a wage gap and they need to take control of it (same with min. wage) and what is the correct interpretation?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:51:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:40:09 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

The dems. say that there is too much of a wage gap and they need to take control of it (same with min. wage) and what is the correct interpretation?

No, it makes it harder to discriminate, assuming the discrimination occurs.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

No labor economists actually take it seriously
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:56:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It makes sure that employers pay their workers equally regardless of their gender. Women currently make on average 77 cents every dollar a male makes. Think of the economic benefits!
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As both genders are pretty much unemployed, it makes sure that both sides get employed at the same rate (ish / all else being equal) in order to balance out the system, and stop a gap between the two being capitalised on. Then again, I am not sure of the exact points of the bill (the wording I mean) but rather the intention behind it: and with things like this, the intention may have led to silly levels of affirmative action again..,
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:26:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:56:20 AM, Contra wrote:
It makes sure that employers pay their workers equally regardless of their gender. Women currently make on average 77 cents every dollar a male makes. Think of the economic benefits!

FALSE. Women's lower pay is in the general economic terms, and has to do with the way in which they invest their human capital.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 1:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 6:33:47 AM, Microsuck wrote:
"WASHINGTON — A bill that would pave the way for women to more easily litigate their way to pay equality failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday as Republicans united against the measure for the second time in two years..."

http://www.nytimes.com...


1. What is this bill all about?

Forcing companies to pay men and women the same for holding the same official occupation

2. Why would the Republicans block it?

Because the Republicans tend to stand for economic freedom.

3. What are the negatives to this bill?

It's against freedom and it hurts women. First off, let's accept the premise that women are paid less because they are discriminated against. Which isn't true, but let's say it is. If employers are paying men more than women for the same job because they are bigots, why on earth would they hire women rather than men and only men if they are forced to pay the same? Women won't be getting hired as much as they would if they aren't willing to work for less.

But this isn't true. Men, are on average, paid more because men are able and willing to work in harsher conditions. They are more willing than women to do harder work, more dangerous work, and work longer hours and such. I'm not saying there are no women willing to do the same, but most aren't, and thus they are paid less. And again if this law was passed women would be hired less.

Thanks.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

He's implying a free market does not provide equal wages.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:17:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

He's implying a free market does not provide equal wages.

Lol. We have a resident Adam Sandler here. You ever try out for a comedy job, Wnope?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?

If an employer is discriminatory towards women, even though that is very unlikely to happen, then prompting pay equity will make him hire even less women because if he originally hired them at X, there would be no point in him hiring them at X + 10, instead of men, whom he favours.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 6:15:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?

If an employer is discriminatory towards women, even though that is very unlikely to happen, then prompting pay equity will make him hire even less women because if he originally hired them at X, there would be no point in him hiring them at X + 10, instead of men, whom he favours.

You don't see the problem with this argument? You might as well say it benefits black people if employers are allowed to create wage differentials based solely on being white or not.

The law creates an incentive for employers to not base their hiring decisions on pure, unjustified sexism. They can employ men for higher wages than women, both in starting salary and bonuses, as long as there is some reason other than "because women suck."
Purch
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This seems a bit to political. Remember when the republican congress sent out the extreme Welfare reform bill when Clinton was running the re-election campaign? Bill didn't want to be that harsh on welfare but he knew that if he refused the bill he wouldn't get the support he needed to pull away.

This seems very similar, knowing that the people are tiring of republicans hard ball politics Obama released this bill when the economy weakened knowing that if the Republicans vote it down ( Because they're against anything Obama does right now) it'll secure the gender gap on a seemly straight forward issue. Obama got the republicans to vote down equal pay for women because he understood they'd vote it down simply to oppose him. Good political move.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this but how does this effect Scott Brown? Seeing as he voted against it I feel Elizabeth Warren is goanna use it as the issue to pull her ahead especially among Women. I personally feel she's a political natural( In terms of communicating a message to people) similar to Reagan and Clinton. I honestly don't know why Brown would vote it down considering the kind of gritty campaign he's involved in.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 6:15:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?

If an employer is discriminatory towards women, even though that is very unlikely to happen, then prompting pay equity will make him hire even less women because if he originally hired them at X, there would be no point in him hiring them at X + 10, instead of men, whom he favours.

You don't see the problem with this argument? You might as well say it benefits black people if employers are allowed to create wage differentials based solely on being white or not.

The law creates an incentive for employers to not base their hiring decisions on pure, unjustified sexism. They can employ men for higher wages than women, both in starting salary and bonuses, as long as there is some reason other than "because women suck."

How likely are wage differentials really to occur in a free market though? If a race or sex is systematically being discriminated against, doesn't this give opportunities for others to make of the wage differential and profit off this?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 1:05:01 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 6/7/2012 6:33:47 AM, Microsuck wrote:
"WASHINGTON — A bill that would pave the way for women to more easily litigate their way to pay equality failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday as Republicans united against the measure for the second time in two years..."

http://www.nytimes.com...


1. What is this bill all about?

Forcing companies to pay men and women the same for holding the same official occupation.
Is there something wrong with that? Should it be ok for a corporation to pay blacks less than whites for the same job?

2. Why would the Republicans block it?

Because the Republicans tend to stand for economic freedom.
And against equality.

3. What are the negatives to this bill?

It's against freedom
In the same way banning discrimination in the work place is against freedom.
and it hurts women.
WTF?!
First off, let's accept the premise that women are paid less because they are discriminated against. Which isn't true, but let's say it is. If employers are paying men more than women for the same job because they are bigots, why on earth would they hire women rather than men and only men if they are forced to pay the same? Women won't be getting hired as much as they would if they aren't willing to work for less.

But this isn't true. Men, are on average, paid more because men are able and willing to work in harsher conditions. They are more willing than women to do harder work, more dangerous work, and work longer hours and such. I'm not saying there are no women willing to do the same, but most aren't, and thus they are paid less. And again if this law was passed women would be hired less.
What are you talking about? None of this has to do with paying women less for DOING THE EXACT SAME JOB than their male counterparts. Is filing papers more "harsh" or "dangerous" when a man does it? Unbelievable...

Thanks.
Sapere Aude!
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just another BS AA bill.....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. What is this bill all about?
Forcing every business in America to justify every pay decision in detail to the bureaucracy if someone complains. It also bans certain contractual nondisclosure clauses.

2. Why would the Republicans block it?
See one.

3. What are the negatives to this bill?
Its liberty value is negative.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:56:20 AM, Contra wrote:
It makes sure that employers pay their workers equally regardless of their gender.
That's a goal of the law, not an action of the law. No proposer of the bill argues that it will cause equal pay.

Women currently make on average 77 cents every dollar a male makes. Think of the economic benefits!
What economic benefits? The ones to the people who can threaten to complain, or are you arguing that there's a pareto benefit?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 8:59:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are you talking about? None of this has to do with paying women less for DOING THE EXACT SAME JOB than their male counterparts. Is filing papers more "harsh" or "dangerous" when a man does it?
Doing the same job title and doing the same work are different things. The government has no ability to tell the difference, and trying adds a whole lot of worthless bureaucrats.

Incidentally, I bet if you did a study of the life expectancy of male vs female paper pushers, you'd get results that might surprise you. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:00:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In the same way banning discrimination in the work place is against freedom.
I.e., very.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 6:15:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?

If an employer is discriminatory towards women, even though that is very unlikely to happen, then prompting pay equity will make him hire even less women because if he originally hired them at X, there would be no point in him hiring them at X + 10, instead of men, whom he favours.

You don't see the problem with this argument? You might as well say it benefits black people if employers are allowed to create wage differentials based solely on being white or not.

If the employer is prejudiced towards black people in the sense in which he will give them lower pay than the white counterparts, then it definitely hurts black people with this legislation, as they will have less jobs.

The law creates an incentive for employers to not base their hiring decisions on pure, unjustified sexism. They can employ men for higher wages than women, both in starting salary and bonuses, as long as there is some reason other than "because women suck."

Employers don't change because of one law. The misnomer with all bans is that they actually "ban" something, which is false. Instead, it just forces people to go around the ban to get to their original objective. In this case, going around the ban will result in less employment for women.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:00:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 7:30:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Is there something wrong with that? Should it be ok for a corporation to pay blacks less than whites for the same job?

Yes. It should be allowed....assuming you believe in freedom, which I don't think you do.

And against equality.

No. Equality has nothing to do with this. It's a buzz word idiots like you use to change the context of the issue.

In the same way banning discrimination in the work place is against freedom.

Yes.

and it hurts women.

WTF?!

Yes

What are you talking about? None of this has to do with paying women less for DOING THE EXACT SAME JOB than their male counterparts. Is filing papers more "harsh" or "dangerous" when a man does it? Unbelievable...

Filing papers and other menial office work aren't the only jobs out there. Anyways, in those particular occupations you'll find that women and men are paid either exactly the same and in many cases the women actually make more than men.

However in many other jobs that do often require workers to perform more physical labor, work in harsher conditions, or work longer hours, women get paid less.

Damn moron...

Here's a tip....put the barrel of a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:38:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:53:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 6:15:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:23:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:11:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/7/2012 5:08:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:27:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Pay equity" is what the free market gives you, not the State.

*Facepalm*

?

The Equal Pay Act only applies to women when ALL of the following apply "(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions."

If any of the following can be used as justification, the Equal Pay Act has no effect:
(1) a seniority system
(2) a merit system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
(4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex

4 refers to factors like education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs.

The law even allows for employers to hire men for higher starting salaries than women in order to compete with other employers.

The women have the burden of proof to show prima facie wage discrimination with a comparable male. If a judge does not deem it enough, the employer does not to present ANY defense.

How would getting rid of this bill help women? How would the free market redress the particular cases where all the above factors are satisfied?

If an employer is discriminatory towards women, even though that is very unlikely to happen, then prompting pay equity will make him hire even less women because if he originally hired them at X, there would be no point in him hiring them at X + 10, instead of men, whom he favours.

You don't see the problem with this argument? You might as well say it benefits black people if employers are allowed to create wage differentials based solely on being white or not.

If the employer is prejudiced towards black people in the sense in which he will give them lower pay than the white counterparts, then it definitely hurts black people with this legislation, as they will have less jobs.

The law creates an incentive for employers to not base their hiring decisions on pure, unjustified sexism. They can employ men for higher wages than women, both in starting salary and bonuses, as long as there is some reason other than "because women suck."

Employers don't change because of one law. The misnomer with all bans is that they actually "ban" something, which is false. Instead, it just forces people to go around the ban to get to their original objective. In this case, going around the ban will result in less employment for women.

Employers don't have to change who they are, they remain the same people with a different set of incentives guiding their behavior.

The law raises the cost of sexism for the sake of sexism. Some employers will be willing to take that extra cost (going to court, etc) in order to perpetuate sexism for the sake of sexism.

However, most businessmen who are sexist are businessmen first. If the cost of sexism is too high, any minor tendency toward sexism for the sake of sexism is overwhelmed by the possible cost. If companies have general salary that does not take into account stopping sexism for the sake of sexism, the individual employers within that company have more leeway to let their personal sexism influence the companies corporate structure.

The goal is for salaries to be influenced primarily by economic competitiveness, quality and quantity of work, background, demand, and every other measure relevant to achieving salaries OTHER THAN sexism for the sake of sexism.

I find it fascinating that you adamantly deny this would benefit women in our society.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 8:51:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. What is this bill all about?
Forcing every business in America to justify every pay decision in detail to the bureaucracy if someone complains. It also bans certain contractual nondisclosure clauses.

2. Why would the Republicans block it?
See one.

3. What are the negatives to this bill?
Its liberty value is negative.

Actually, the woman has to have burden of proof of prima facie discrimation presented and allowed by a judge before the defendant even has to answer.

Nice strawman though.