Paycheck Fairness Act

[Pantoot]

It would probably be simpler for the government to just tell employers how much they have to pay everyone. Then nobody would get butthurt that somebody else is making $5k more. When everyone is equal, nobody has a reason to be unhappy.

Even better, employers just give all of their money to the government and have the government responsible for giving it to the people. :whiste:

 

[pauldun170]

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

I took time off "to help sustain humanity" while a female co-worker took the bare minimum time off.
If we both start at equal salaries and then on year 4 of our careers (both on equal track) we take time off for "aternity" leave.
I take 2 months
she takes 2 weeks.
while I was out, she handled some of my work while I was at home bottle feeding + catching up on all the movies I wanted to see over the past couple of years.

When I return I pick up where I left off and take my workload off of her plate.

Later in the year during wage increase + bonus+ performance review time,
Should we both get an equal wage increase+performance review?

Should we get an increase based on my performance throughout the year or her performance?

 

[fskimospy]

I took time off "to help sustain humanity" while a female co-worker took the bare minimum time off.
If we both start at equal salaries and then on year 4 of our careers (both on equal track) we take time off for "aternity" leave.
I take 2 months
she takes 2 weeks.
while I was out, she handled some of my work while I was at home bottle feeding + catching up on all the movies I wanted to see over the past couple of years.

When I return I pick up where I left off and take my workload off of her plate.

Later in the year during wage increase + bonus+ performance review time,
Should we both get an equal wage increase+performance review?

Should we get an increase based on my performance throughout the year or her performance?

You need to read my other posts. Not sure why you are asking me this.

 

[Atreus21]

Even better, employers just give all of their money to the government and have the government responsible for giving it to the people. :whiste:

Hell, why give it to the people at all? Government would spend it more wisely.

 

[nehalem256]

Good job at avoiding my point.
This is my last response to you, you are so overcome with hatred of women that you are attracted to every topic involving them where you blindly fight for pages and pages.

I think what you really mean is you are tired of me making you look like a butt-hurt idiot.

Instead of spending all this time hating them I suggest you find one to date. You might like it.

My girlfriend might not like me doing that so much

 

[glenn1]

It would probably be simpler for the government to just tell employers how much they have to pay everyone. Then nobody would get butthurt that somebody else is making $5k more. When everyone is equal, nobody has a reason to be unhappy.

People like Eskimospy and DCal430 would probably endorse this approach, even if it were by an indirect means. Somehow they think this would cause employers to suddenly go around bestowing raises on people, which is never, ever going to happen. They completely shut their eyes to shield themselves from the truth that mandating "equal wages" would mean lowering wages of the high earners until they were equal to the worst performers.

 

[Atreus21]

I think what you really mean is you are tired of me making you look like a butt-hurt idiot.

Ease the fuck up dude. Jesus.

 

[pauldun170]

Meh. I would be fine with regulation against it. It exists in significant part to distort wages.

Oh good, nehalem has showed up to give us his opinions on women again.

Markets rely on the free flow of information, something the company is trying to restrict. I'm fine with government sorting that out.

Markets rely on the free flow of information, something the company is trying to restrict. I'm fine with government sorting that out.

Personal choices that happen to be necessary for the continued existence of humanity.

No, I'm saying that some contributions to society are taken for granted when they shouldn't be.

There is no need to go over your extreme hatred of women again, so don't expect me to play that game.

Possible, but the quote wasn't addressing that. It was basically saying that women can make as much money as men if they just never have children. Considering these people are likely to be among our best and brightest and that children are pretty important to our society continuing to exist, this hardly seems like something we want to encourage.

Good job at avoiding my point.

This is my last response to you, you are so overcome with hatred of women that you are attracted to every topic involving them where you blindly fight for pages and pages. Instead of spending all this time hating them I suggest you find one to date. You might like it.

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

I don't support a heavy handed method of wage regulation like this, but I do believe that federal standards for maternity leave, etc would be very helpful.

Ok...read all your posts

You need to read my other posts. Not sure why you are asking me this.

I asked you because you said this

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[fskimospy]

People like Eskimospy and DCal430 would probably endorse this approach, even if it were by an indirect means. Somehow they think this would cause employers to suddenly go around bestowing raises on people, which is never, ever going to happen. They completely shut their eyes to shield themselves from the truth that mandating "equal wages" would mean lowering wages of the high earners until they were equal to the worst performers.

Oh would we? I'm not sure why you wasted your time typing such a silly post. Why not argue against real positions people hold instead of made up ones?

 

[fskimospy]

Ok...read all your posts




I asked you because you said this

Ok, well if you read all my posts then you would have realized that I do not endorse what you asked me about, and had in fact already given you your answer before you even asked the question. I do not support strict enforcement of equality in wages through that mechanism.

Maybe read all my posts again?

 

[pauldun170]

Ok, well if you read all my posts then you would have realized that I do not endorse what you asked me about, and had in fact already given you your answer before you even asked the question. I do not support strict enforcement of equality in wages through that mechanism.

Maybe read all my posts again?

Your previous posts are not related to my question.
My question was in direct response to the bolded quote only.

If a previous post of yours directly addresses my question could you point it out?
If you simply do not want to respond to my post then just say so.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Just thought I'd interrupt this argument to point out that this bill has been floated twice in the last few years and shot down both times.

It's not likely this effort will end any differently.

 

[fskimospy]

Your previous posts are not related to my question.
My question was in direct response to the bolded quote only.

If a previous post of yours directly addresses my question could you point it out?
If you simply do not want to respond to my post then just say so.

Your question is stupid in light of what I wrote previously, and now you've decided to act like a jackass.

I do not support equality through wages in such a fashion. As already expressed before I support reducing such inequality through greater required maternity leave, etc. Women frequently leave jobs altogether due to maternity requirements, something that contributes significantly to wage gaps.

If you have any other dumb questions that you are unable to figure out using basic reasoning skills and reading comprehension, please collect them in a single post and send it my way. I'm here to help!

 

[glenn1]

Oh would we? I'm not sure why you wasted your time typing such a silly post. Why not argue against real positions people hold instead of made up ones?

That's not exactly a denial. And based upon similar posts in this thread (Phokus' post from earlier about paying everyone the same regardless of qualifications, etc) it would seem at the very least you don't disagree. Of course, we all know President Obama would support lowering all paychecks for "equality" purposes, as he already stated when the subject was lowering capital gains taxes (quoted below),

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not exactly a denial. And based upon similar posts in this thread (Phokus' post from earlier about paying everyone the same regardless of qualifications, etc) it would seem at the very least you don't disagree. Of course, we all know President Obama would support lowering all paychecks for "equality" purposes, as he already stated when the subject was lowering capital gains taxes (quoted below),

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Ahh, so I hold that opinion because someone else said something.

Also, holy shit is that a dishonest quotation of Obama. Not only is the idea that lowering capital gains tax increases revenues wrong (it does so in the short term, not the long term), but Obama has repeatedly stated that he doesn't believe in tax advantaged status for certain types of income over others, which is almost certainly what that quote is about.

If you aren't even going to try to argue honestly, why bother?

 

[glenn1]

Ahh, so I hold that opinion because someone else said something.

Also, holy shit is that a dishonest quotation of Obama. Not only is the idea that lowering capital gains tax increases revenues wrong (it does so in the short term, not the long term), but Obama has repeatedly stated that he doesn't believe in tax advantaged status for certain types of income over others, which is almost certainly what that quote is about.

If you aren't even going to try to argue honestly, why bother?

Again, not a denial. If you disagree with what I implied you said then now is a good time to say so. Would you, or would you not support equal pay if that meant lowering pay for those with higher salaries?

Next, how is a direct quotation of Obama dishonest? I'll include the rest of the exchange (I'll bold what I didn't include previously), but it doesn't fundamentally alter what he said. And given what's actually happened under his watch in the last four years, actually makes him look even worse.


MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...ct-would-allow-employees-to-discuss-salaries/



I echo the first comment I saw: Bite me.

We don't need government to dictate anymore than it already is. The pay gap has been so utterly exposed as a myth that it's a wonder people are either ignorant of it or clinging to some semblance of victimhood for its political utility. Pathetic.

If you consider pay disparity a myth, just what is your problem with people sharing their pay ranges without fear of management reprisal?

 

[werepossum]

Actually I was giving my opinion on the double-think of the Democratic Party as it relates to the proposed law.

And you were exactly right. If men make more, it's not because corporations value testicles.

 

[nehalem256]

If you consider pay disparity a myth, just what is your problem with people sharing their pay ranges without fear of management reprisal?

The problem is a law that is motivated on this myth and whose whole purpose is to bully employers.

 

[fskimospy]

Glenn, I called your post a 'made up position'. How could you take that as anything but a denial? I am absolutely for progressive taxation however. I would support significantly higher taxes on high incomes than we have today. Regardless, nothing in anything I have ever written on this board is even remotely close to mandating equal wages. You just either couldn't or wouldn't argue against my real position.

And thank you for including a larger quote. What Obama said is not really controversial, and as I guessed he was referring to not giving preferential treatment to certain types of income. Regardless, Mr. Gibson was being dishonest in his portrayal of capital gains tax income and rates. It does not increase revenues in the long run.

 

[werepossum]

I'm a man
I took paternity leave twice in my career (2 months for each child)
I have no problem with my peers getting a larger wage increase during the years I took leave, hence I have no problem if my peers now earn more than me now because of that.
If my home life impacts my work life I fully expect my peers who are able commit 100 percent the job to make more. Its up to me to make up the work effort and earn leverage during performance reviews\salary time.

I salute you, sir. You not only made conscientious life choices, but recognized how they affected others and took responsibility for their effect on you. That is vanishingly rare in today's world and you are to be commended.

+1

Just another step toward government assigning employees and setting pay - where private companies are allowed to exist at all.

 

[tcG]

This looks ripe for abuse, costly litigation, and paperwork out the ass. Perfect for big govt types who like to stimulate demand by hiring lawyers to sort out the laws they enact. For business and the rest of us? A nightmare waiting to happen.

All in the name of workers "rights" and equality!

 

[Bowfinger]

And you were exactly right. If men make more, it's not because corporations value testicles.

That's a straw man. While there are many factors that go into a salary including individual performance and business value, there are a lot of intangibles as well. The simple fact is men hold a majority of leadership positions in American corporations, and they're making the salary decisions. Those salary decisions are often based in part on who they like, who they went to school with, who they play golf with, etc. It is only natural that other men have a salary advantage. It's not an overwhelming advantage, but it's real and it has some effect.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And you were exactly right. If men make more, it's not because corporations value testicles.

I think this swings the pendulum too far to the other side.

Much of the pay inequality issue can be explained through life choices and other issues, but there is most certainly still plenty of bias and favoritism out there, in a number of respects.

 

[pauldun170]

Your question is stupid in light of what I wrote previously, and now you've decided to act like a jackass.

I do not support equality through wages in such a fashion. As already expressed before I support reducing such inequality through greater required maternity leave, etc. Women frequently leave jobs altogether due to maternity requirements, something that contributes significantly to wage gaps.

If you have any other dumb questions that you are unable to figure out using basic reasoning skills and reading comprehension, please collect them in a single post and send it my way. I'm here to help!

Having gone though your posts I see what the issue is.

I seem to have caught you in the middle of a hissy fit. I'm not involved with whatever disagreements you have with other posters and simply responded to a statement you have made.
I guess you will not be responding to my question.

no big deal.