Question about the "wage gap"

[acesfull86]

I'm curious to hear from the liberals and independents on this issue since reading through other recent threads I get the sense they agree that:

1 the wealthy/big business have all the power in this country
2 big business is looking to screw the little guy and squeeze every penny it can get out of its employees/customers/etc
3 outsourcing sucks, but greedy businessmen are willing to screw over the American worker to lower costs
4 corporations/the rich exploit the system in place to position themselves as favorable as possible

Let's assume those things are 100% true. Now along comes Obama pusing "paycheck fairness," the left's issue du jour, telling the American people the following: "Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong."

A lot of the people who buy items 1-4 above seem to also be supporting the President on this "issue." My question is, how can these positions possibly be reconciled? How can you convince me that business is squeezing us all for every last dime, then try to convince me that those same businessmen are going out of their way to artificially raise their labor costs by paying a man $1 when they can get a woman for $0.77-$1? Why?!?!

**(I put issue in quotes because I think the gap can be explained almost entirely with rational, economic reasoning that has virtually nothing to do with discrimination...I think the President himself might believe that, but in a midterm year with the Senate in the balance, he probably hopes that pushing a faux issue like this will help get women out to the voting booth in November.)

[Julio3000]

That comparison, oft quoted, is misleading—or can be used misleadingly. So I wouldn't try to convince you of that, at all. Regardless, the research shows that women with the same qualifications STILL get paid less for the same work. The disparity isn't nearly .77-1, but it's real. As to why . . . probably a fun discussion topic.

Yes, the president is going to do whatever he can to motivate women to vote in November. Cynical? Meh, whatever. Sure. At least his party takes an active interest in promoting women in leadership positions all the way down to the local level.

And he might get that turnout. It will certainly happen in '16, when turnout will be higher overall and more people will be paying attention. Republicans have been just about as ham-fisted in this area as they have when they attempt to reach out to minority communities. As of right now, their position of "Hey, our single, monolitic economic idea makes EVERYTHING better for EVERYONE!" doesn't really resonate.

And also . . .

Let's assume those things are 100% true.

Yes, let's.

[weso1]

Because white business men are all soldiers in the war on women. Fight on brothers.

[Julio3000]

Because white business men are all soldiers in the war on women. Fight on brothers.

Bros before hos.

[sturg33]

And also . . .

Let's assume those things are 100% true.

Yes, let's.

Like Aces said, you can't have it both ways. If those things are 100% true, then we wouldn't have the "gap" in wage between women and men. Businesses can save 23% by hiring only women!

[zitothebrave]

Women aren't as jobbed as they used to be. There are issues out there but it's more isolated than it used to be.

[sturg33]

It's not popular to say, but reality is that women aren't as reliable in the workforce as men. When comparing apples to apple (never married women vs never married men), women actually get paid more.

But there are few apples. Statistically, women simply require more time away from the office than men. ESPECIALLY after having children. In addition, it costs employers a bit more money to provide health insurance for women than men.

I know I'm about to get flamed for stating something so bigoted! But ignoring the facts is ignorant.

[57Brave]

You might not get flamed but with that attitude ------------ the 3 B's are out of the equation

[Julio3000]

Like Aces said, you can't have it both ways. If those things are 100% true, then we wouldn't have the "gap" in wage between women and men. Businesses can save 23% by hiring only women!

I think I covered that. The .77-to-the-dollar figure is misleading on its own, but it gets thrown around as shorthand in larger discussions about women in the workplace. I accept your point, and I also think that it's an obtuse and clumsy "gotcha."

[The Chosen One]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...cs&ir=Politics

"At a time when many states and cities are working passing minimum wage increases, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has gone in the opposite direction and signed a law banning cities from passing higher wages. The bill also bans them from enacting paid sick days or vacation requirements."

[Oklahomahawk]

Since this "so-called pay gap" doesn't exist you guys won't mind me posting a couple of the Repubs own spokespeople just to show you how the people you guys defend REALLY think:

Exhibit A:

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don’t have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. [...]

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

Exhibit B:

My own home state governor, and by my governor I mean that in the same way Rush Limbaugh claims Barrack Obama as HIS president: Ladies and Gentlemen Governor Mary Fallin (if only her last name was prophetic)
At a time when many states and cities are working passing minimum wage increases, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has gone in the opposite direction and signed a law banning cities from passing higher wages. The bill also bans them from enacting paid sick days or vacation requirements.

Remember, my home state is the same state that voted a couple of years back to ban Sharia Law from this state (one of our most pressing issues to be sure) and also voted by something like 84% NOT to fund our education system just at the same level as surrounding states, then had a fail-safe over towards the back side bottom of the NY Time sized ballot that said if the initiative to fund our schools just at the same level as surrounding states by voting yes on that separate and hidden initiative they didn't have to fund said initiative (from the previous page even if it passed.

My state's Repub governors back in the 1930's refused to allow any New Deal monies into the state despite the fact that the people were hurting and needed help. Now I'm sure they only did this because they didn't agree with it philosophically, right?

Our Repub State Superintendent of Schools is an avowed hater of public education and owns a few private/charter schools. I'm sure she only cares about the good of the children, right?

Can you people not freaking see what I'm talking about yet?? The Repubs claim to support the right things but all they give two sh!ts about is making the top 5% richer. Are all of you going to have to find your ass living in a ditch and starving before you hold these aholes accountable for using you for your support with one hand then picking your pocket with the other.

[acesfull86]

Since this "so-called pay gap" doesn't exist you guys won't mind me posting a couple of the Repubs own spokespeople just to show you how the people you guys defend REALLY think:

For me it has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Republicans. I think the wage gap is largely a myth and minimum wage laws are more bad than good. I couldn't care less what Republicans think. I'd rather they vote against these bills than for them, even if they're voting against them for reasons that are somewhere between nonsensical and stupid.

[Oklahomahawk]

For me it has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Republicans. I think the wage gap is largely a myth and minimum wage laws are more bad than good. I couldn't care less what Republicans think. I'd rather they vote against these bills than for them, even if they're voting against them for reasons that are somewhere between nonsensical and stupid.

So, essentially you don't care if Repubs feel a certain way about certain things, you just happen to feel that way too and nobody tells you what to think or how to think it's just by sheer happenstance that you just somehow vote in a way that supports the same things they support. Apparently even the Repubs also believe in the "wage gap myth" at least according to Phyllis Schlafly a LONG TIME Repub mouthpiece and it's also ironic that you guys, excuse me you random guys who just happen to share a common opinion though damned if I can figure out how that happened doesn't it ever even briefly cross your mind that these people equate limiting what people at the bottom levels of the pay scale with national security, in fact the only thing that makes them up in arms faster is to not limit those at the top of the pay scale?

[acesfull86]

So, essentially you don't care if Repubs feel a certain way about certain things, you just happen to feel that way too and nobody tells you what to think or how to think it's just by sheer happenstance that you just somehow vote in a way that supports the same things they support. Apparently even the Repubs also believe in the "wage gap myth" at least according to Phyllis Schlafly a LONG TIME Repub mouthpiece and it's also ironic that you guys, excuse me you random guys who just happen to share a common opinion though damned if I can figure out how that happened doesn't it ever even briefly cross your mind that these people equate limiting what people at the bottom levels of the pay scale with national security, in fact the only thing that makes them up in arms faster is to not limit those at the top of the pay scale?

I'm a libertarian, so the answer is yes, I do not care why Reps feel a certain way -- if they happen to vote the way I'd like them to vote because they're just evil, or Jesus told them to vote a certain way, or they're just voting a certain way because the liberals are voting in the other direction, those all work for me. I'd rather they vote against the min wage because they flipped a coin and it landed tails than vote for it on some sort of principled stand. You say they equate " limiting what people at the bottom levels of the pay scale with national security," and I'd agree with you that that is a foolish stance....but I don't believe the absence of these laws DO limit those at the bottom, so why should I worry about the Rep reasoning? My feelings on economic issues come mostly from my own background.

[weso1]

There really aren't any pure modern day republicans on this board, so I'm not even sure why Ohawk and other posters continue to try to pin every modern day republican idea on those on the right side of the spectrum.

[Krgrecw]

There really aren't any pure modern day republicans on this board, so I'm not even sure why Ohawk and other posters continue to try to pin every modern day republican idea on those on the right side of the spectrum.

Wouldn't that be stereotyping conservatives Weso? And I thought the left always said the other guys do that.

[Oklahomahawk]

Wouldn't that be stereotyping conservatives Weso? And I thought the left always said the other guys do that.

Ohh, where to begin??? I guess I'll start with Krg's comment since that's the most recent, playing the victim card, "OMG they're like totally stereotyping us", here's a hint for the right, that doesn't inspire confidence in your leadership abilities, it inspires sympathy from your supporters and pretty much just pisses the rest of us off since you guys used to represent the John Waynes and Ronald Reagans of the world and even though I do take issue with some stuff from both of those men, they're still giants. The sympathy thing pretty much reminds me of Sheldon and Leonard from Big Bang Theory when bullies are after them (not when they're actually being smart). If you guys want to lead then lead and turn off the DAMN talk radio and Faux News that's where the victim stuff comes from. Stand up and be heroes, those sources are just turning you into zeroes and the Dems give us plenty of those.

weso my friend, I guess you're next in line. I'm not sure your line about "no modern day Republicans around here" is true, but I can certainly appreciate why you want to go that route. If you want anybody to take the Repubs seriously then tell the leadership of that party (notice I didn't link you with them this time) to quit running those 3 numbnuts Palin, Bachmann, and Cruz out there and say they're representing what Republicans have become, unless you don't want to win another election until sturg is my age. I actually started to call them the 3 stooges but their estate's attorneys have already warned me about that.

If you really want me to know what to call you (collectively) you need to let me know. I understand you wanting to distance yourselves from the modern Repubs, what about Librtarians?? If memory serves sturg believes Calvin Coolidge (the high priest of greed and the god of big business) was one of the best presidents ever. He basically bent over for any uber wealthy person or corporation of the 1920's so if you're into that sort of thing (I never really pegged you in that light though) that's one possibility and then the way I understand it from aces (and aces please feel free to straighten me out if I misread you on this) Libertarians prefer that their elected officials flip a coin before an important vote rather than muck things up with things like principles or core beliefs. Not sure I see you in that light either but whatever blows your proverbial dress up.

Then there's the fact that goldie claims to be a Libertarian. Not sure which way that would blow y'alls proverbial dresses, but a long as he keeps taking those killer pics from his many travels (how does he afford all those, is he really a Wall Street fat cat in disguise???) he's OK by me, especially if he could get me a large bowl of that lobster bisque soup he had at the Soup Nazi's place a while back.

I will finish up this particular rant by asking you guys (I'll save Hawk's response for his own rebuttal) other than the fact that I absolutely loathe the Republican party of 2014 (and for quite a while now) what makes you think I'm a liberal?? Because I don't believe the few should have everything?? Is it because I believe responsibility should start at the top of the food chain not at the bottom? Is it because I agree with the libs on so many social issues??? No I don't think that's it but you can certainly feel free to ask Steak Sauce or KL or Julio or Meta (if he ever gets back from his exile to BFE) how many of the liberal Soirées I get invited to and just hang on for a few minutes for the laughter.

The fact is I don't have a party, I guess if you add it all up I'm something of a centrist, but since I tend to go pretty far to the left on issues like not letting the top 1% stomp out the American dream for the other 99% and pretty far to the right on issues like same-sex marriage and especially abortion for birth control purposes it would be a pretty zig zaggy kind of center. But yeah, no I don't have a party, none of these parties would have me and to paraphrase a statement from Groucho Marx, I wouldn't join any party that would have me as a member.



EDIT: Wait! What the hell happened to Hawk's post from this morning? Come on dude repost it, it's not going to bother me I believe in free speech, unlike much of this nation.

[Hawk]

EDIT: Wait! What the hell happened to Hawk's post from this morning? Come on dude repost it, it's not going to bother me I believe in free speech, unlike much of this nation.

It's in another thread -- 'The Hammer'

[Oklahomahawk]

It's in another thread -- 'The Hammer'

yeah, I just found and retorted, sorry about that.

[sturg33]

Libertarians prefer that their elected officials flip a coin before an important vote rather than muck things up with things like principles or core beliefs. Not sure I see you in that light either but whatever blows your proverbial dress up.

Not sure you understand what libertarianism is…