https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/kamala-harris-pay-equity-proposal/index.html This sounds brilliant. No mention of experience, qualifications, time taken off, job type?? 80 cents to the dollar based on a flawed theory that doesn’t take reality into the equation. Considering there is no actual gender pay gap this looks like another promising way to piss more people off in the business world.
Actually there is a gender pay gap. And Harris, a progressive is going up against established Democrats who have done absolutely nothng to change this. Democratic Socialists are tired of the do nothing establishment Democrats. Time for them to go.
There's a pay gap because women won't do the dangerous, dirty, and physically-demanding jobs that men will work for the higher pay they earn. If you pass legislation to get rid of the gender pay gap, are you also going to require the "gender death gap" to be evened out too? Men are 10 times more likely to be killed on the job than women. Our Democratic Socialist overlords will need to eliminate that imbalance too, won't they?
Hmmmmm, so not only does BJ Harris want to create another large government bureaucracy with all the regulations and restrictions that come with it, she seems to want to not take into account that men stay with their jobs longer which means they have more years of raises accrued. Plus what about performance raises? Does an under performing woman get the same raise as an over performing man just so the company can meet some idiotic ideal this nut wants to lay on us? If anything, she's making hiring women less attractive to employers.
We are talking about women who do the same job as men. Women fought for years to get on the front line of combat so please don't tell me women don't want dangerous jobs. Democratic Socialist are tired of waiting around for the established democrats to make changes.
This should be good for wnba salaries, a 9000% increase coming? or should be bump lebron down to 300k?
Far more men in higher paying tech jobs and more women in education and humanities which pay less. Men will generally work harder/longer hours and more women choose to stay home with the kids. And that’s OK. Nothing wrong with putting your career on hiatus to take care of the kids. But you can’t pay that person the same as someone who’s been working nonstop. The statistics used to to come up with the 80cents figure is mind blowing to anyone with an ounce of integrity and logic.
They know, but they don't care, and not one of the posters on this board who supports this stupid idea has the integrity to admit it
i'm reminded of a conversation i had with my daughter-in-law not too long ago. she works for a company that is into the whole gender equality thing, even preferring female employees to male and often paying them at a higher rate. my argument was that women tend to leave the work force more often and must be considered a higher risk when contemplating the investment of hiring an employee. after all, when was the last time a male employee demanded time off for pregnancy and how often are men considered the primary care-givers within the family unit? her response was that each employee must be considered individually. my rebuttal was, of course, that any employer worth his salt is going to go with the averages, as opposed to delving into family dynamics and whatnot. the outcome was that she realized trends matter and an employer must take those trends into account. the supposed gender wage gap is predicated on those trends and penalizing employers for utilizing them is the height of hypocrisy.
Two air traffic controllers: 1) Male, 34 years experience, named "Air Traffic Controller of the Year" twice by the FAA. Salary = $120K per year. 2) Female, 4 years experience, one incident in her permanent file for incompetence. Salary = also $120K per year (???). Kamala Harris is clueless.
OK, you have 20 accountants who work in an office. They all are paid a different salary. Why? Because the owner of the business agreed to a different salary for each employee. They all have varying degrees of experience and some are better than others but they basically do similar work. Are they all now entitled to the same pay as all the others? Or only the women? What if the women make more? Does that mean the men get a raise? Is the business forced to pay everyone the highest salary or the average salary which means lowering half the employee's pay?
Please present the study that demonstrates this. Discuss the inclusion criteria, methods, analysis and conclusions. Thank you in advance
Hehe. We already know their method. They did a simplistic survey that added up the median average salaries of men and women across all industries, came to the .80 cents on the dollar conclusion and called it a day. They couldn't honestly show a man and a woman working at the same company for the exact same amount of time, with the same exact experience and qualifications, yet being paid differently. Then they would have to do it 1000s of times to have any real way to track a pattern. Why? Because it's impossible to find 2 people with the exact same work history. They ignored everything we've already discussed regarding male and female job preferences, experience, aggressiveness when asking for raises, ect. They expect truly stupid people to just take their word for it. And it proves just how STUPID Harris is, if she actually believes the crap she's shoveling.
There is a gap, when you don't account for everything that actually determines what you get paid. But it has nothing to do with a sinister plot to pay women less. Women choose careers that pay less on average. They generally work less hours. They take more time off. They have gaps in their careers when they have kids. The gap is CHOSEN personally by them. Its not men doing it. If a man demands a raise more often and gets it, while the woman doing the same job, never asks for a raise, then how is it the man's fault? But that happens. And you certainly can't fix it by arbitrarily punishing companies for not artificially inflating the salaries of people who technically don't deserve it. All it does is piss off the people who work the hardest and makes a logical case why hiring women could be harmful to your bottom line.
Women don't want dangerous jobs. Women fought to get on the front line in combat, and they got their wish.Three years later, and there are less than 1000 women in combat roles in the US Army, compared to hundreds of thousands of men. Lots of women want THE RIGHT to fight on the front line, but how many women actually want to fight on the front line? Turns out, not many. Hardly any really. My favorite "toughguy girls" are the women firefighters of the NYFD, all 72 of them. 72 out of over 11,000 uniformed firefighters. And that's after lowering standards, and pushing female flunkies through. My favorite female flunkie went out on disability(lifetime) after accomplishing about an entire week of service. She'll have plenty of female company on disability too. GUUUUUUURL POWUUUUUR!