Republicans tell women "hey what are you doing out of da kitchen?" VOL. vote against equal pay bill

[rexanglorum]

Some of you are comitting the elementary mistake of confusing intent with content of impending legislation. Most people do not want to see someone get paid less for doing the exact same work as someone else. That is why the Democrats are engaging in smart politics, what decent person could be against equal pay so they make name that implies that it will ensure such. In reality, this bills simply makes it easy for trial lawyers to harass companies and extort them and the reason is because this bill would place the onus on firms to prove that they were NOT engaged in sex discrimination, guilty until proven innocent is a legal norm in other places but not here.

It is popular to cite the "77 cents on the dollars" that women earn but more careful analysis shows a very small gap, when we account for variables like fields of study, what they focus on in college (even within fields of study that are nominally the same women tend towards less demanding, less quantitative subfields. Women tend to study social psychology and men tend towards neuroscience heavy physiology programs. In Business women tend to study human resources and marketing and men study accounting, for instance), race, region, age and of course that most important variable, number of children birthed.

Discrimination based on sex exists but it is small and will not be cured by a legislative goodie bag for trial attorneys.

 

[rexanglorum]

Some of you are comitting the elementary mistake of confusing intent with content of impending legislation. Most people do not want to see someone get paid less for doing the exact same work as someone else. That is why the Democrats are engaging in smart politics, what decent person could be against equal pay so they make name that implies that it will ensure such. In reality, this bills simply makes it easy for trial lawyers to harass companies and extort them and the reason is because this bill would place the onus on firms to prove that they were NOT engaged in sex discrimination, guilty until proven innocent is a legal norm in other places but not here.

It is popular to cite the "77 cents on the dollars" that women earn but more careful analysis shows a very small gap, when we account for variables like fields of study, what they focus on in college (even within fields of study that are nominally the same women tend towards less demanding, less quantitative subfields. Women tend to study social psychology and men tend towards neuroscience heavy physiology programs. In Business women tend to study human resources and marketing and men study accounting, for instance), race, region, age and of course that most important variable, number of children birthed.

Discrimination based on sex exists but it is small and will not be cured by a legislative goodie bag for trial attorneys.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

F Republicans.

this....except i rock with em 100% when it comes to gun rights, and how much of a joke cap and trade is.

if republican or more socially progressive while maintaining fiscal responsibility theyd have more fans..instead that party is run by religious nuts, da chamber of commerce,

and da pharmaceutical & insurance companies.... 

I can crap in a box and tell you it is fiscal responsibility doesn't make it fiscal responsibility all of a sudden.. They are in no way fiscally responsible....

and to respond to your other post Ben Nelson is like Joe Liebermann... A person who would just rather be a republican...

The 2010 election was lost because of Blue Dogs like these jackasses.... They deserved to lose, and will continue to lose... No one wants to vote for people who have no spine or principle.

Starting to realize this, like i was giving them the title just because.  And what's with using "small businesses" as a crutch all the time?

It is a nice code word.... When Americans hear it they get all warm and fuzzy.... But when incentives to create jobs come up for a vote they rejected it.. When extension of unemployment insurance comes up for a vote they reject it..

But let it be tax cuts they are all about small businesses... Because "a tax on monies over $250k is going to hurt small businesses" when only 3% of small businesses have an owner making over $250k. That guy making over $250k will still get tax cuts from $1-$249,999. And there are huge incentives to his company if he hires people.

It is an alternate reality in which they assume everything will happen if they pray for it..

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

F Republicans.

this....except i rock with em 100% when it comes to gun rights, and how much of a joke cap and trade is.

if republican or more socially progressive while maintaining fiscal responsibility theyd have more fans..instead that party is run by religious nuts, da chamber of commerce,

and da pharmaceutical & insurance companies.... 

I can crap in a box and tell you it is fiscal responsibility doesn't make it fiscal responsibility all of a sudden.. They are in no way fiscally responsible....

and to respond to your other post Ben Nelson is like Joe Liebermann... A person who would just rather be a republican...

The 2010 election was lost because of Blue Dogs like these jackasses.... They deserved to lose, and will continue to lose... No one wants to vote for people who have no spine or principle.

Starting to realize this, like i was giving them the title just because.  And what's with using "small businesses" as a crutch all the time?

It is a nice code word.... When Americans hear it they get all warm and fuzzy.... But when incentives to create jobs come up for a vote they rejected it.. When extension of unemployment insurance comes up for a vote they reject it..

But let it be tax cuts they are all about small businesses... Because "a tax on monies over $250k is going to hurt small businesses" when only 3% of small businesses have an owner making over $250k. That guy making over $250k will still get tax cuts from $1-$249,999. And there are huge incentives to his company if he hires people.

It is an alternate reality in which they assume everything will happen if they pray for it..

 

[hollywood james 6]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Minimum wage argument is such bull...

If there is no minimum wage... Do you suddenly think wages will increase???????????? If anyone thinks that you are #%$!@$* crazy..

Minimum Wage was established to force employers to have to pay at least a certain wage, if not some jobs would still be getting $2.95 an hour....

Is minimum wage enough.. In my opinion, no. It isn't even enough on Part-Time.

But to assume that the lower end jobs would still be getting $7+ an hour in 2010 without the minimum wage existing is a fallacy

It is like arguing against Child Labor Laws, and saying it is bad, but neglecting to think what happened before hand.

And consequentially, the prices of everything else have magically gone up. So what was the point of minimum wage when you are still almost paying the same percentage towards commodities as you were when minimum wage was like $6? Also the number of jobs decreases as a result of higher wages. Employers sometimes can't pay everyone at least that minimum.

It's like one big game of tug of war. When one side gets a little tug, it takes the other with it...

For the record, I feel minimum wage is BS.

 

[hollywood james 6]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Minimum wage argument is such bull...

If there is no minimum wage... Do you suddenly think wages will increase???????????? If anyone thinks that you are #%$!@$* crazy..

Minimum Wage was established to force employers to have to pay at least a certain wage, if not some jobs would still be getting $2.95 an hour....

Is minimum wage enough.. In my opinion, no. It isn't even enough on Part-Time.

But to assume that the lower end jobs would still be getting $7+ an hour in 2010 without the minimum wage existing is a fallacy

It is like arguing against Child Labor Laws, and saying it is bad, but neglecting to think what happened before hand.

And consequentially, the prices of everything else have magically gone up. So what was the point of minimum wage when you are still almost paying the same percentage towards commodities as you were when minimum wage was like $6? Also the number of jobs decreases as a result of higher wages. Employers sometimes can't pay everyone at least that minimum.

It's like one big game of tug of war. When one side gets a little tug, it takes the other with it...

For the record, I feel minimum wage is BS.

 

[rashi]

Minimum wage argument is such bull...

If there is no minimum wage... Do you suddenly think wages will increase???????????? If anyone thinks that you are #%$!@$* crazy..

Minimum Wage was established to force employers to have to pay at least a certain wage, if not some jobs would still be getting $2.95 an hour....

Is minimum wage enough.. In my opinion, no. It isn't even enough on Part-Time.

But to assume that the lower end jobs would still be getting $7+ an hour in 2010 without the minimum wage existing is a fallacy

It is like arguing against Child Labor Laws, and saying it is bad, but neglecting to think what happened before hand.
No, the Minimum Wage was established because White union workers were upset that Blacks had "their" jobs because they were getting paid less. So if there was a minimum wage higher than what they were paying Blacks, they knew those companies wouldn't keep those employees with a compulsory set wage higher than what they were being paid.


It's not about increase of wages, it's about a company paying an employee what they are really worth. How does the government know how much an employee is worth? How do they know someone working at McDonalds is worth $7.55 an hour? But why stop at $7.55? Why don't they just make the minimum wage $20 an hour?

Child Labor laws were pointless anyway, the standard of living was going up dramatically at that time, the kids didn't even need to work anymore.

They are in no way fiscally responsible....

I can tell you live at home with mom. The way you are fiscally responsible is to save, invest, and be thrifty. Works all the time.

What does women missing work due to something like pregnancy have to do with them receiving equal pay? If they are as qualified as a man, they should receive the same pay. If they are more qualified, they should receive more money. It's 2010 bruh.

Women are typically miss more work than a man. For reasons varying from pregnancy, to menstrual cycles, to taking care of sick kids, get more sick more often than men, ect. With that in mind, understand when an employee misses work, the company loses money on production. So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same? If they are more prone to miss work and having to lose money because of lack of production? On top of it, women get paid when they are on pregnancy leave. Most States offer disability for women who are pregnant. Ever heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act? Ever heard of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act? I would assume not, because I bet none of you own a business...BRUH.


This is just another way of politicians promoting "social justice" and to do what's "fair". When politicians use the word "fair", they know it ends debate.

Whatever the living standards are for that state. Of course its subjective thats why it's different in every state. But to suggest that it's the "minimum" amount a person can live off is a lie. I live in CA and the minimum wage here is $8.00 an hour. You cant even rent a room in a house for that much. 

It wouldn't work. Standards of living cannot be allocated to State to State, because even then it is still subjective. Because you may have someone who is single and lives by themselves, but then you may have a single mom with 3 kids are their standards of living going to be the same with the same minimum wage? No.

 

[rashi]

Minimum wage argument is such bull...

If there is no minimum wage... Do you suddenly think wages will increase???????????? If anyone thinks that you are #%$!@$* crazy..

Minimum Wage was established to force employers to have to pay at least a certain wage, if not some jobs would still be getting $2.95 an hour....

Is minimum wage enough.. In my opinion, no. It isn't even enough on Part-Time.

But to assume that the lower end jobs would still be getting $7+ an hour in 2010 without the minimum wage existing is a fallacy

It is like arguing against Child Labor Laws, and saying it is bad, but neglecting to think what happened before hand.
No, the Minimum Wage was established because White union workers were upset that Blacks had "their" jobs because they were getting paid less. So if there was a minimum wage higher than what they were paying Blacks, they knew those companies wouldn't keep those employees with a compulsory set wage higher than what they were being paid.


It's not about increase of wages, it's about a company paying an employee what they are really worth. How does the government know how much an employee is worth? How do they know someone working at McDonalds is worth $7.55 an hour? But why stop at $7.55? Why don't they just make the minimum wage $20 an hour?

Child Labor laws were pointless anyway, the standard of living was going up dramatically at that time, the kids didn't even need to work anymore.

They are in no way fiscally responsible....

I can tell you live at home with mom. The way you are fiscally responsible is to save, invest, and be thrifty. Works all the time.

What does women missing work due to something like pregnancy have to do with them receiving equal pay? If they are as qualified as a man, they should receive the same pay. If they are more qualified, they should receive more money. It's 2010 bruh.

Women are typically miss more work than a man. For reasons varying from pregnancy, to menstrual cycles, to taking care of sick kids, get more sick more often than men, ect. With that in mind, understand when an employee misses work, the company loses money on production. So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same? If they are more prone to miss work and having to lose money because of lack of production? On top of it, women get paid when they are on pregnancy leave. Most States offer disability for women who are pregnant. Ever heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act? Ever heard of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act? I would assume not, because I bet none of you own a business...BRUH.


This is just another way of politicians promoting "social justice" and to do what's "fair". When politicians use the word "fair", they know it ends debate.

Whatever the living standards are for that state. Of course its subjective thats why it's different in every state. But to suggest that it's the "minimum" amount a person can live off is a lie. I live in CA and the minimum wage here is $8.00 an hour. You cant even rent a room in a house for that much. 

It wouldn't work. Standards of living cannot be allocated to State to State, because even then it is still subjective. Because you may have someone who is single and lives by themselves, but then you may have a single mom with 3 kids are their standards of living going to be the same with the same minimum wage? No.

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by rashi



So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same?  

You serious?

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by rashi



So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same?  

You serious?

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

republicans do all in their power to make sure they arent taken seriously.

and yet a good chunk of middle class americas that live in the red states eat up that bs their fed by them. unless your making $100,000 or more i can't see how you would vote republican.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

republicans do all in their power to make sure they arent taken seriously.

and yet a good chunk of middle class americas that live in the red states eat up that bs their fed by them. unless your making $100,000 or more i can't see how you would vote republican.

 

[ninjallamafromhell]

In addition, this bill would require businesses to disclose previously confidential salary information to the government, and it relies upon faulty methods for identifying wage discrimination.
So everyone is just ignoring this little tidbit.  The purpose of the bill was good, the bill itself was not.  From the best I can tell the "identification" for wage discrimination would be a case of he said she said, which is just stupid.

 

[ninjallamafromhell]

In addition, this bill would require businesses to disclose previously confidential salary information to the government, and it relies upon faulty methods for identifying wage discrimination.
So everyone is just ignoring this little tidbit.  The purpose of the bill was good, the bill itself was not.  From the best I can tell the "identification" for wage discrimination would be a case of he said she said, which is just stupid.

 

[flasheightzero]

Originally Posted by Budweiser

Does Nt dislike women or republicans more? Not sure on which side the community will fall.

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

F Republicans.

i love women. f republicans

 

[flasheightzero]

Originally Posted by Budweiser

Does Nt dislike women or republicans more? Not sure on which side the community will fall.

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

F Republicans.

i love women. f republicans

 

[jaysrcrak]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Some of you are comitting the elementary mistake of confusing intent with content of impending legislation. Most people do not want to see someone get paid less for doing the exact same work as someone else. That is why the Democrats are engaging in smart politics, what decent person could be against equal pay so they make name that implies that it will ensure such. In reality, this bills simply makes it easy for trial lawyers to harass companies and extort them and the reason is because this bill would place the onus on firms to prove that they were NOT engaged in sex discrimination, guilty until proven innocent is a legal norm in other places but not here.<

To me this just sounds like an excuse that the republicans are using, to say why they voted against the bill. A scapegoat response.
How does this bill make it "easier" for lawyers to harass companies? It's like they always say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.
If you are not in the wrong then it shouldn't be a problem. Simply prove that you are paying them equally and keep it moving

The only ones who should be worried are these compainies that do discriminate. In which case, there is merit for the lawsuit.

br>
It is popular to cite the "77 cents on the dollars" that women earn but more careful analysis shows a very small gap, when we account for variables like fields of study, what they focus on in college (even within fields of study that are nominally the same women tend towards less demanding, less quantitative subfields. Women tend to study social psychology and men tend towards neuroscience heavy physiology programs. In Business women tend to study human resources and marketing and men study accounting, for instance), race, region, age and of course that most important variable, number of children birthed.

Discrimination based on sex exists but it is small and will not be cured by a legislative goodie bag for trial attorneys.







What do variables have to do with anything?
They didnt say "women get paid less, for doing jobs that are similar to those that men have.
They said women get paid less for doing THE SAME job that a man does.
They're not talking about if a women's field of study is social psychology and a man's is neuroscience.
They're talking about doing the same exact job, with the same responsibilities, hours, and getting paid less for it.

 

[jaysrcrak]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Some of you are comitting the elementary mistake of confusing intent with content of impending legislation. Most people do not want to see someone get paid less for doing the exact same work as someone else. That is why the Democrats are engaging in smart politics, what decent person could be against equal pay so they make name that implies that it will ensure such. In reality, this bills simply makes it easy for trial lawyers to harass companies and extort them and the reason is because this bill would place the onus on firms to prove that they were NOT engaged in sex discrimination, guilty until proven innocent is a legal norm in other places but not here.<

To me this just sounds like an excuse that the republicans are using, to say why they voted against the bill. A scapegoat response.
How does this bill make it "easier" for lawyers to harass companies? It's like they always say, if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.
If you are not in the wrong then it shouldn't be a problem. Simply prove that you are paying them equally and keep it moving

The only ones who should be worried are these compainies that do discriminate. In which case, there is merit for the lawsuit.

br>
It is popular to cite the "77 cents on the dollars" that women earn but more careful analysis shows a very small gap, when we account for variables like fields of study, what they focus on in college (even within fields of study that are nominally the same women tend towards less demanding, less quantitative subfields. Women tend to study social psychology and men tend towards neuroscience heavy physiology programs. In Business women tend to study human resources and marketing and men study accounting, for instance), race, region, age and of course that most important variable, number of children birthed.

Discrimination based on sex exists but it is small and will not be cured by a legislative goodie bag for trial attorneys.







What do variables have to do with anything?
They didnt say "women get paid less, for doing jobs that are similar to those that men have.
They said women get paid less for doing THE SAME job that a man does.
They're not talking about if a women's field of study is social psychology and a man's is neuroscience.
They're talking about doing the same exact job, with the same responsibilities, hours, and getting paid less for it.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi


So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same?  

You serious?

sadly. he is.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi


So if a woman is a higher risk at missing work, why should they get paid the same?  

You serious?

sadly. he is.

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by sneakaholic4life

^ wut r u talkin bout?? how has NT proven to dislike either one of the two

You haven't been witness to how NTers (male and females alike) treat other females on this board?

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by sneakaholic4life

^ wut r u talkin bout?? how has NT proven to dislike either one of the two

You haven't been witness to how NTers (male and females alike) treat other females on this board?