Walker signs bill revoking equal pay for women

[HeavyPetter]

Do you believe that employers want to hire and fire based on race rather than ability? If that is true you and I can get rich and silmultaneously fight racism: I secure the capital for the takeover and you improve the bottom line by making race-neutral HR decisions.

Of course, it is easier to get rich by shaking down companies that haven't been able to meet thier racial quotas. This is an important sector of the race-pimping industry.

Yeah, most wealthy women and minorities got that way by suing someone.

 

[RicoSuave]

I'm not going to read all the posts on this thread, but my question is this: why would a business owner jeopardize his/her own profitability by making hiring and promotion decisions based on gender? Employers want employees who will be most productive and maximize the desirability and profitability of the business. If an employer (for some strange reason) wants a less productive and less qualified employee solely because hes male, then his business will ultimately fail. The government doesn't need to punish him/her for being sexist, because the market will ultimately punish him. I've hired dozens of employees over the years; the employees who most benefit the company have received generous raises and bonuses, while the employees who least benefit the company have not received raises. Its never been about gender, because I'm too concerned with maximizing profits and making my business more desirable for potential clients.

 

[bmoneydeac]

a. people do not always act rationally (i.e. they know they are being discriminatory, but do so anyways). sometimes hiring the person that "looks the part" is the easier decision in terms of backlash from peers.
b. people do not realize that they are discriminating. their perception of who is the best hire is subconciously affected by their established stereotypes.

 

[WakeandBake]

I would love to hear from the board women. I don't know any, but someone who does should see if they can get them to weigh in.

 

[PhDeac]

Do you believe that employers want to hire and fire based on race rather than ability? If that is true you and I can get rich and silmultaneously fight racism: I secure the capital for the takeover and you improve the bottom line by making race-neutral HR decisions.

Of course, it is easier to get rich by shaking down companies that haven't been able to meet thier racial quotas. This is an important sector of the race-pimping industry.

Even if they don't, it makes it easier to start.

Do people make friends based on race? Do they choose where to live based on race? Do they date based on race? Do they choose what churches to attend based on race?

Whether you believe they do or not, the fact is friendships, neighborhoods, dating/marriage, and religious institutions are segregated by race. Why do you think work is different?

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

a. people do not always act rationally (i.e. they know they are being discriminatory, but do so anyways). sometimes hiring the person that "looks the part" is the easier decision in terms of backlash from peers.
b. people do not realize that they are discriminating. their perception of who is the best hire is subconciously affected by their established stereotypes.

a. Do you do this? Most of the people, most of the time, act reasonably and rationally; otherwise there would be no people left to argue about it.

b. Should an employer face lawsuits based on an employee's suspicions of the effects of established stereotypes in the subconsciousness of the employer? How about the stereotypes established in the subconsciousness of the employee by the lucre of lawsuits? Who does the assessment of everyone's subconsciousness?

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

I'm not going to read all the posts on this thread, but my question is this: why would a business owner jeopardize his/her own profitability by making hiring and promotion decisions based on gender? Employers want employees who will be most productive and maximize the desirability and profitability of the business. If an employer (for some strange reason) wants a less productive and less qualified employee solely because hes male, then his business will ultimately fail. The government doesn't need to punish him/her for being sexist, because the market will ultimately punish him. I've hired dozens of employees over the years; the employees who most benefit the company have received generous raises and bonuses, while the employees who least benefit the company have not received raises. Its never been about gender, because I'm too concerned with maximizing profits and making my business more desirable for potential clients.

The entire thought process that the market will eventually punish the employer is a complete fabrication or else you would have had very few companies in existence in 1970 when discrimination was the norm instead of the exception. The reason is the qualified individuals who you are discriminating against aren't being hired by other companies.

If you have Pool A (white men) and Pool B (non-white men), and EVERYONE is just sticking to Pool A for hiring, the market isn't punishing you because no one is taking from Pool B. Everyone is taking from Pool A, so there is no penalty for you to not hire a more qualified member of Pool B.

Now, fortunately that is changing and the workforce is diversifying, but all you have to do is look at the history of this country and corporate America to see your very premise is flawed. We needed laws in place to even get companies to look at the second pool of applicants.

 

[WakeandBake]

^exactly? where was the free market all along? Since the Civil Rights movement? since the women's movement?

The free market utopians conveniently forget or leave out any evidence of the market's failures when it doesn't suit their argument.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Even if they don't, it makes it easier to start.

Do people make friends based on race? Do they choose where to live based on race? Do they date based on race? Do they choose what churches to attend based on race?

Whether you believe they do or not, the fact is friendships, neighborhoods, dating/marriage, and religious institutions are segregated by race. Why do you think work is different?

Should you be able to sue other citizens based on your suspicion of their racism in friendships, neighborhoods, dating/marriage and religious institutions? Of course people wind up with more friends of one color than another, have sex with more people of one color than another, and hire more people of one color than another. But that is not a reason to put them in jail or wreck them financially.

 

[PhDeac]

So if people aren't being hired because they're the wrong color, what's your solution?

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

The entire thought process that the market will eventually punish the employer is a complete fabrication or else you would have had very few companies in existence in 1970 when discrimination was the norm instead of the exception. The reason is the qualified individuals who you are discriminating against aren't being hired by other companies.

If you have Pool A (white men) and Pool B (non-white men), and EVERYONE is just sticking to Pool A for hiring, the market isn't punishing you because no one is taking from Pool B. Everyone is taking from Pool A, so there is no penalty for you to not hire a more qualified member of Pool B.Now, fortunately that is changing and the workforce is diversifying, but all you have to do is look at the history of this country and corporate America to see your very premise is flawed. We needed laws in place to even get companies to look at the second pool of applicants.

Until the first enterprising rich capitalist pig notices this situation and hires from pool B, kicking the other rich capitalist white pigs to the curb. Instant mixing of the pools. Look for other reasons for "discrimination".

 

[RJKarl]

I'm not going to read all the posts on this thread, but my question is this: why would a business owner jeopardize his/her own profitability by making hiring and promotion decisions based on gender? Employers want employees who will be most productive and maximize the desirability and profitability of the business. If an employer (for some strange reason) wants a less productive and less qualified employee solely because hes male, then his business will ultimately fail. The government doesn't need to punish him/her for being sexist, because the market will ultimately punish him. I've hired dozens of employees over the years; the employees who most benefit the company have received generous raises and bonuses, while the employees who least benefit the company have not received raises. Its never been about gender, because I'm too concerned with maximizing profits and making my business more desirable for potential clients.

One way many companies have"maximized profits" is having a two tiered pay scale to penalize women. If you don't believe this exists you are naive beyond comprehension and are willingly neglecting reality.

If there is no remedy for those who are being discriminated against then there's no reason not to do it

 

[Shooshmoo]

Not to wade in too deeply here, but wanted to point out to Keeper, Bid, and DreamOn that white males under 40 can and do sue all the time for national origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability discrimination/retaliation, etc., etc. There's worker's comp, worker's comp retaliation, FMLA interference and retaliation, and other leave statutes; there are whistleblower statutes, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation claims white males under 40 can and do bring. These are all types of claims by males under 40 that I've dealt with. There are no shortages of avenues for white males under 40 to pursue if they want to sue, and they do. And, good God, do white males 40 and older love to sue the hell out of people for age discrimination. They loooovvveeee it.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

So if people aren't being hired because they're the wrong color, what's your solution?

Unless you can read the employer's mind, you don't "know" this is the reason. Do you want to force some sort of statistical equality in jobs? How about in friendships or sexual relationships? Why don't we leave people alone and let them interact with one another peacefully and let the results come out as they happen without government force?

I don't want statistical equality in business, education or in sports. Do you?

 

[PhDeac]

You just said that employers "hire more people of one color than another".

Shouldn't we try to figure out why and counter it instead of letting discrimination destroy productivity?

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Not to wade in too deeply here, but wanted to point out to Keeper, Bid, and DreamOn that white males under 40 can and do sue all the time for national origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability discrimination/retaliation, etc., etc. There's worker's comp, worker's comp retaliation, FMLA interference and retaliation, and other leave statutes; there are whistleblower statutes, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation claims white males under 40 can and do bring. These are all types of claims by males under 40 that I've dealt with. There are no shortages of avenues for white males under 40 to pursue if they want to sue, and they do. And, good God, do white males 40 and older love to sue the hell out of people for age discrimination. They loooovvveeee it.

Additional reasons to get rid of "discrimination laws".

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

You just said that employers "hire more people of one color than another".

Why do you think it matters why?

I don't think it matters unless the employer is using some kind of force or fraud against someone. Absent that I favor leaving the employer alone.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

One way many companies have"maximized profits" is having a two tiered pay scale to penalize women. If you don't believe this exists you are naive beyond comprehension and are willingly neglecting reality.

If there is no remedy for those who are being discriminated against then there's no reason not to do it

RJ, why do you always include this kind of ignorant value judgement in just about everything you write? It doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Additional reasons to get rid of "discrimination laws".

We should just get of all laws, then.

You're not capable of having a reasonable discussion. You are shunned.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

If this lady is worried about how much health care women can buy with their salaries, she should want not only bigger salaries, but also lower taxes so that the after tax amount is larger. What one has available to spend is one's gross income, minus all taxes (including payroll taxes) plus government checks. If women make less, they may not pay as much tax due to the progressive tax system. They also do fairly well in earning goverment checks due to their baby-making skills. Maybe we should have taxes based on gender to equal out some other inequalities.