• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans Unanimously Block Equal Pay Bill

Women should look at the bright side: when you earn less, you pay less in income taxes. And, of course, you also get hired faster due to your smaller salary.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
77% figure is better than the controlled 90ish% figure and it's not close. The decisions that lead to the 90% controlled figure aren't independent of gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For example, a woman isn't going to have the same level of experience as a man in many cases.
 
94Deac said:
So the conservatives' solution is what, I mean other than denying it exists? Arguing about the size of the crack in the highway seems to have taken precedence over actually fixing it.
Click to expand...
The solution should fit the problem. The 77% is not calculated within job, it's calculated as an overall aggregate and average of all jobs. That's why it's incredibly misleading. If you're trying to solve a 77% within job problem, conservatives will not be on board and frankly....those solutions won't work. That's not the problem. Research has shown that women choose different jobs than men, and those jobs pay less. I read somewhere that out of the top 20 occupations chosen by both sexes, only 4 of them overlapped. Research has also shown that women choose to deal with family more than men, and often chose to get sole custody of children in divorce as well. When looking within jobs, the disparity decreases dramatically and last year IIRC a study came out showing a reverse wage disparity among federal contractors, probably because of the emphasis on non-white males for federal contracts.

So I think it would be better to define an actual problem and then see if it warrants a workable solution instead of throwing the "77%" number around like a hammer and advocating one size fits all solutions addressing problems that don't even exist. Just my 0.02.
 
pourdeac said:
The solution should fit the problem. The 77% is not calculated within job, it's calculated as an overall aggregate and average of all jobs. That's why it's incredibly misleading. If you're trying to solve a 77% within job problem, conservatives will not be on board and frankly....those solutions won't work. That's not the problem. Research has shown that women choose different jobs than men, and those jobs pay less. I read somewhere that out of the top 20 occupations chosen by both sexes, only 4 of them overlapped. Research has also shown that women choose to deal with family more than men, and often chose to get sole custody of children in divorce as well. When looking within jobs, the disparity decreases dramatically and last year IIRC a study came out showing a reverse wage disparity among federal contractors, probably because of the emphasis on non-white males for federal contracts.

So I think it would be better to define an actual problem and then see if it warrants a workable solution instead of throwing the "77%" number around like a hammer and advocating one size fits all solutions addressing problems that don't even exist. Just my 0.02.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone do that on the Tunnels?
 
Didn't Democrats just tout Lilly Ledbetter when they pushed it through a few years back? And yet somehow that bill didn't solve all their woes? It was similarly used to bash Republicans as woman-hating troglodytes.

Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963 and states all have their own statutes to deal with it. This is nothing more than election year posturing just like the campaign finance amendment was, and just like the Republicans voting 100 times to kill Obamacare was.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Didn't Democrats just tout Lilly Ledbetter when they pushed it through a few years back? And yet somehow that bill didn't solve all their woes? It was similarly used to bash Republicans as woman-hating troglodytes.

Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963 and states all have their own statutes to deal with it. This is nothing more than election year posturing just like the campaign finance amendment was, and just like the Republicans voting 100 times to kill Obamacare was.
Click to expand...

Absurd head in the sand post. You could argue the same for civil rights legislation that has yet to solve the entire af-am community's woes. It has made a lot of strides, yes, but the fact that some problems still exist is an example of why it was worthless legislation? You could say this about just about any law passed in the last century. Insanity.
 
TownieDeac said:
Absurd head in the sand post. You could argue the same for civil rights legislation that has yet to solve the entire af-am community's woes. It has made a lot of strides, yes, but the fact that some problems still exist is an example of why it was worthless legislation? You could say this about just about any law passed in the last century. Insanity.
Click to expand...

Which is why we don't need government. Amirite, ELC?
 
TownieDeac said:
the problem does exist in overlapping jobs too, though, even up to the c-suite
Click to expand...

This right here is why Republicans are really in trouble. Long ago what was I going to do go to the library and do some independent research in my free time to combat what Pour said, no id probably just take his word and go with it remaining uneducated.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Didn't Democrats just tout Lilly Ledbetter when they pushed it through a few years back? And yet somehow that bill didn't solve all their woes? It was similarly used to bash Republicans as woman-hating troglodytes.

Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963 and states all have their own statutes to deal with it. This is nothing more than election year posturing just like the campaign finance amendment was, and just like the Republicans voting 100 times to kill Obamacare was.
Click to expand...

and yet it persists in a real and pervasive way across a broad spectrum of industries.
 
TownieDeac said:
Absurd head in the sand post. You could argue the same for civil rights legislation that has yet to solve the entire af-am community's woes. It has made a lot of strides, yes, but the fact that some problems still exist is an example of why it was worthless legislation? You could say this about just about any law passed in the last century. Insanity.
Click to expand...

Only we aren't discussing civil rights legislation. We're talking about equal pay legislation, which was apparently resolved back in 2009 with the Mother Of All Equal Pay Bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Oh wait, you mean it wasn't? Why is that? Because the attorneys want more federal involvement in making their lawsuits easier in federal court. What business do the feds have in telling companies they can't encourage employees to keep their salary info private? Where I come from that's just common sense and manners.

My head is hardly in the sand. Nobody gives a shit about anything in DC right now. Everything, and particularly everything two months from a midterm election, is about motivating the base to vote. If you think those shitheads care more about women because they have a D next to their name, you are sadly mistaken.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
77% figure is better than the controlled 90ish% figure and it's not close. The decisions that lead to the 90% controlled figure aren't independent of gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Eh, you make a compelling argument, but I'm not buying it.
 
It's humorous when Republicans refuse to talk about the forest by focusing on the bark of a single tree. It's been rather clear that the GOP has done what it can to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women.
 
It's kind of difficult to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women without eliminating the 19th Amendment.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Only we aren't discussing civil rights legislation. We're talking about equal pay legislation, which was apparently resolved back in 2009 with the Mother Of All Equal Pay Bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Oh wait, you mean it wasn't? Why is that? Because the attorneys want more federal involvement in making their lawsuits easier in federal court. What business do the feds have in telling companies they can't encourage employees to keep their salary info private? Where I come from that's just common sense and manners.

My head is hardly in the sand. Nobody gives a shit about anything in DC right now. Everything, and particularly everything two months from a midterm election, is about motivating the base to vote. If you think those shitheads care more about women because they have a D next to their name, you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

This reductio ad absurdum makes it impossible to even have debate. Kind of like Republicans refusing to even engage in the discussion in Congress. No bill has even been proposed from the right, though they say they're a party for equal pay.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It's kind of difficult to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women without eliminating the 19th Amendment.
Click to expand...

maac1594.jpg
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It's kind of difficult to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women without eliminating the 19th Amendment.
Click to expand...

yet your party keeps trying

take Bill Burton for example, who has fought tirelessly to protect the rights of birth control for horses, but wants to ban title X protection for human women

or Paul Jensen who wants to add killing abortion providers to the list of justifiable homicides

or Joe Pitts who would make it legal for a woman to die instead of performing a life-saving abortion

or Bobby Franklin who wants to change rape victims to be called "accusers" while victims alleging other crimes of all kinds can still be legally called victims

or Paul Smith and Kirby Delauter who said they voted to cut Head Start funding because women should stay at home and raise their kids

damn that pesky 19th amendment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top