Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Nov 17, 2010.
Here comes that cooperation we were supposed to expect.
But what about Palin saying mean things on FB???!?
This is pretty sad. I haven't heard of this potential lapse until now. What are the problems republicans have with the Act? Other than giving lazy-gay-mexicans free money? Do they have a legitimate argument or is this another case of the elephants being contrary for contrary's sake?
The gap in wages between men and women closes more each passing year. Not to mention:
Young, single, childless women out-earn male counterparts
Also that bill is going to cost $65 Billion. The last lapse in coverage was met with a lump-sum payment when the UI went back into effect.
^^ Does that correct for other factors (e.g. educational achievement?)
I find it interesting that the GOP seems to pull the country in the direction of the third world.
Please, no looking behind the curtain.
The tax cuts for the wealthy are going to cost almost 800 BILLION dollars. What's your point? It certainly is not that the GOP is trying to be fiscally responsible.
no, neither do things that claim Indian household income is highest (Indian households tend to combine multiple families, related of course) or that Indians make more than whites (true except when you adjust for education considering 40% have a Master's or higher)
For once, I agree with you FP. They blocked health care reform that would have been far better than what we got as well.
Don't worry guys, it'll all equal out when we extend tax cuts for the wealthy.
This is one of those rare moments when 5P and I agree on something.
*sniff* ... so touching.
I'm all for equal pay for equal work, but I'm unclear on a couple of things relative to this act.
First, it appears that the act is aimed squarely at addressing wage gaps that exist between women and men (well, gaps where women make less, not the inverse) - including providing for addtional training for women, etc. Yet it also appears that women are attending college at higher rates than men, so training/skills shouldn't be an issue.
It also provides for assisting women in negotiating better salaries, promotions, etc. I don't see myself as particularly adept in this area, so I'd like some help in that, too, as a male.
Also, when I read about pay gaps between men and women I often see very generalized comparisons of salaries, not specific comparisons of women and men who work in the same job classification with the same education in the same geographic area. Looking at sums of pay overall doesn't provide a good measure of "equality".
In my mind, the Paycheck Fairness Act should be just that - something that provides for paycheck fairness regardless of gender, race, age, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Second, why do we think this will (would have been?) more successful than any of the predecessors to this act?
It's difficult to legislate "value" of a resource. I may have similar education and/or experience as someone else (male or female), but may not provide some of the intangibles (ability to work in a team, etc.) that someone else does and therefore may be seen as less valuable or less promotable. How can we dictate to an employer that I should make as much as someone else who may ultimately be more qualified for a position or provide more value overall.
In the end, I think there are too many variables that factor into the equation here to try and legislate "fairness" in pay, especially if the only "fairness" that is considered is that of "underpaid" female vs. "properly paid" male. What about black/white/hispanic/other? What about good looking/ugly? What about Mac/PC?
For the employer; how does the cost of employing women compare to the cost of employing men?
I'm assuming you guys are being sarcastic, but if not... I will clarify. The point of my post was to tie the idiotic thread title to the idiotic comments of Former Rep. Grayson. Hyperbolic partisan idiocy, pure and simple.
Well maternity leave is something that the employer has to consider when hiring females.
Unfortunately that's not a very in depth piece by USA Today. Here is a more well rounded article from The Boston Globe:
Yes I know that when everything is factor in it does screwy things but problem is you that 77 cents to 1 dollar of a man does not factor in kids. When it comes comes to families with kids I tend to notice women are much more likely to cut back on the number of extra hours they work or trying to career advancement than compared to a man. Goes double if they are married. That is just what I have noticed so it does have an effect and you have to get that data include in it and readjusted. Hence the reason why they limited some of it to single women and single men only. Much fewer random factors like kids to screw things up.
It still seems too general. I'll stick with my original point that these types of statistics don't tell the whole story, as others have mentioned. Total salary does not equate directly to wage rate, and it certainly doesn't factor in a items like education, experience, years with a company, overtime, etc.
I just don't see how we can simply legislate fairness based on generalized assumptions. It sounds warm and fuzzy, but isn't likely to be effective.
Hyperbolic partisan idiocy? Coming from you? Wow, I'm not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed.
Has the GOP allowed or not allowed extension of unemployment benefits? If not, then they have blocked 2 million from receiving unemployment (right before the holidays).
Second, has the GOP allowed a vote on the equal pay bill? If not, then they have blocked women from the equal pay protections of that bill.
Where's the hyperbole? How was my posting the links in any way partisan? I only described the two articles I linked to.
The Party of No Continues.
If you don't see it, you never will.
Sad. But you should correct for these things.
While it is a GOP principle there's a time and a place, and right before the holidays isn't that moment.
Because it isn't there. Don't bother saying it is unless you can actually highlight the basis for your accusation.
(edit) hy·per·bo·le /haɪˈpɜrbəli/
noun Rhetoric .
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as to wait an eternity.