Walker signs bill revoking equal pay for women

[PhDeac]

lots of women decide to be mom instead of working towards a high level corporate BS position. the rantings of anti stay at home mothers aside (looking at you while you lurk awakegirl), that's a more valuable choice.

And many employers assume women are going to decide to be mom instead of doing the work. That's part of the problem as well. Out of all my lawyer friends from Wake undergrad or Duke Law, the only one working toward partner at a top tier firm is a mom of a 2 1/2 year old.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

again, if that was the case in the real world, why are there so few women in high level corporate positions? And why didn't that happen at all in businesses before the 1970's?

This whole conversation is redundant. People refuse to acknowledge that legislation was necessary in this country because the free market was not doing anything that Boogity and others suggested would take place. This is not refutable. Corporate America was the exclusive property of white men prior to enacted legislation.

Now, you could make an argument that our society has progressed to such degree in the last 40 years that the legislation is no longer necessary. I don't think the numbers reflect this, but it would at least be a step in the right direction for some to admit that the free market led to widespread discrimination which would never have been overcome without legislation. People just keep repeating "free market" like that means anything when we have 100+ years of irrefutable proof of the free market failing at allowing anything other than white men to participate. The 4th step in Boogity's hypothetical never occurred.

 

[RicoSuave]

again, if that was the case in the real world, why are there so few women in high level corporate positions? And why didn't that happen at all in businesses before the 1970's?

I understand there to be lots of women in high level corporate positions. There would be more if more women chose the corporate track over full-time motherhood, small business ownership, the medical profession, the legal profession, etc. You're apparently assuming that every woman desires to be a corporate officer, and thats not the case for men or women.

I wish someone could point out which of the 7 steps in my logic above is flawed or incorrect.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

I understand there to be lots of women in high level corporate positions. There would be more if more women chose the corporate track over full-time motherhood, small business ownership, the medical profession, the legal profession, etc. You're apparently assuming that every woman desires to be a corporate officer, and thats not the case for men or women.

I wish someone could point out which of the 7 steps in my logic above is flawed or incorrect.

http://www.economist.com/node/21539928

Which is better, but still shows massive disparities exist. As I stated, number 4 is flawed (though it's getting better).

Do you deny that legislation was necessary when corporate America was dominated only by white men and women and minorities had no job prospects prior to Civil Rights legislation? If you admit it was necessary (and no one with a straight face can contend that pre-1970 corporate America freely discriminated against non-white men), do you think such legislation should have been repealed? At what point?

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

"They have made great strides in all kinds of careers, but they still find it much harder than men to bag the most senior jobs. The picture is much the same everywhere: men and women fresh out of college or university are being recruited in roughly equal numbers; half-way up the ladder a lot of the women have already dropped out; and at the top there are hardly any left. The rate of attrition in the middle ranks has slowed a bit in recent years, but the most senior jobs remain almost exclusively male. Women make up just 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs.

And despite sheaves of equal-pay legislation, women get paid less than men for comparable work. That is partly because they often work in different fields, and many of them are part-timers with lower hourly rates. But even in identical jobs they earn slightly less than men from the beginning, and as time goes by the gap gets ever bigger. Across the OECD it now averages 18%. That is a lot less than what it was 40 years ago (see chart), but in recent years it has stopped narrowing."

http://www.economist.com/node/21539928

And this is now, not even addressing educational and employment discrimination which existed and was left uncorrected by the free market prior to legislation.

 

[KeEpEr]

"They have made great strides in all kinds of careers, but they still find it much harder than men to bag the most senior jobs. The picture is much the same everywhere: men and women fresh out of college or university are being recruited in roughly equal numbers; half-way up the ladder a lot of the women have already dropped out; and at the top there are hardly any left. The rate of attrition in the middle ranks has slowed a bit in recent years, but the most senior jobs remain almost exclusively male. Women make up just 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs.

And despite sheaves of equal-pay legislation, women get paid less than men for comparable work. That is partly because they often work in different fields, and many of them are part-timers with lower hourly rates. But even in identical jobs they earn slightly less than men from the beginning, and as time goes by the gap gets ever bigger. Across the OECD it now averages 18%. That is a lot less than what it was 40 years ago (see chart), but in recent years it has stopped narrowing."

http://www.economist.com/node/21539928

And this is now, not even addressing educational and employment discrimination which existed and was left uncorrected by the free market prior to legislation.

All of this discrimination.......what shall we do?

 

[RJKarl]

No, theres a big difference between health and safety regulations (which are needed), and regulations interfering with the right to contract (which are not needed to the extent proposed in this thread). If I as a 40-something white man applied for a job at Michelle African Hair Braiding, for example, and I was the most qualified candidate, should the law require them to hire me? Of course not. If a Public Defender's office sees a specific need for a black staff attorney, should the law require them to hire a more qualified white candidate? Of course not.


I'm not sure how many people posting here actually own businesses and hire employees, but things are different in the real world. Businesses don't magically generate revenue, but do so based on the effort and abilities of their employees. Let me break it down for you:

(1) The female applicant is more qualified than the male candidate.
(2) The sexist boss hire the male candidate. Its an irrational decision, but he does it anyway.
(3) The male candidate underperforms in his job, leading to a loss of revenue and profit for the company (he was the least qualified, remember?).
(4) The female candidate is hired by a competitor of the sexist boss. She performs exceptionally in her job (being more qualified). As a result, the competitor gains more business.
(5) As a consequence, the sexist boss's company loses market share, which leads to a greater loss of revenue and profit.
(6) The competitor is happy and promotes the female who generates revenue to a position of management, because the competitor is self-motived with an eye toward maximizing profit.
(7) The sexist boss is unhappy and will be out of business in a matter of years. He'll likely blame the government, but it wasn't the government who put him out of business.

The problem is this has zero to with the issue of this thread or the concept of having the right to get remedy for not getting equal pay for equal work.

But this is what you do on nearly every subject.

 

[avalon]

I wish someone could point out which of the 7 steps in my logic above is flawed or incorrect.

I'll have a go at it.

No, theres a big difference between health and safety regulations (which are needed), and regulations interfering with the right to contract (which are not needed to the extent proposed in this thread). If I as a 40-something white man applied for a job at Michelle African Hair Braiding, for example, and I was the most qualified candidate, should the law require them to hire me? Of course not. If a Public Defender's office sees a specific need for a black staff attorney, should the law require them to hire a more qualified white candidate? Of course not.

I'm not sure how many people posting here actually own businesses and hire employees, but things are different in the real world. Businesses don't magically generate revenue, but do so based on the effort and abilities of their employees. Let me break it down for you:

(1) The female applicant is more qualified than the male candidate.

I'm with you.

(2) The sexist boss hire the male candidate. Its an irrational decision, but he does it anyway.

Still with you.

(3) The male candidate underperforms in his job, leading to a loss of revenue and profit for the company (he was the least qualified, remember?).

Just because the male counterpart is less qualified, doesn't mean he is completely incompetant. Let alone so incompetant that he causes loss of revenue and profit. He could be able to do the job, even if he wasn't as qualified. Maybe the discriminated individual would have been able to do the job better. And the only way to judge that is if ...

(4) The female candidate is hired by a competitor of the sexist boss. She performs exceptionally in her job (being more qualified). As a result, the competitor gains more business.

There just so happens to be the exact same job opening at the company's chief competitor. Which is a coincidence. Especially in a tough job market, kind of crazy that there were only two applicants and two jobs available.

(5) As a consequence, the sexist boss's company loses market share, which leads to a greater loss of revenue and profit.

Sheesh, that guy must really suck at his job.

(6) The competitor is happy and promotes the female who generates revenue to a position of management, because the competitor is self-motived with an eye toward maximizing profit.

If only there were always multiple openings for the same position in different companies, allowing everyone to have a shot.

(7) The sexist boss is unhappy and will be out of business in a matter of years. He'll likely blame the government, but it wasn't the government who put him out of business.

Yeah, he really really sucks at his job. I can't even imagine how bad he would have to be to single handedly destroy an entire company.

Overall, it totally makes sense from a high level. (I'm a believer in letting the market correct a lot on its own.) But how often does one hiring decision have such a huge impact on a company? I would think that the problems with discrimination happen more often when the qualifications are at least within the ballpark of one another. And, as long as the less qualified person is able to do the job, and there is not obvious proof that the more qualified person would have done significantly better, I'm not sure how that will impact behavior in the market.

 

[WakeandBake]

No, theres a big difference between health and safety regulations (which are needed), and regulations interfering with the right to contract (which are not needed to the extent proposed in this thread). If I as a 40-something white man applied for a job at Michelle African Hair Braiding, for example, and I was the most qualified candidate, should the law require them to hire me? Of course not. If a Public Defender's office sees a specific need for a black staff attorney, should the law require them to hire a more qualified white candidate? Of course not.

I'm not sure how many people posting here actually own businesses and hire employees, but things are different in the real world. Businesses don't magically generate revenue, but do so based on the effort and abilities of their employees. Let me break it down for you:

(1) The female applicant is more qualified than the male candidate.
(2) The sexist boss hire the male candidate. Its an irrational decision, but he does it anyway.
(3) The male candidate underperforms in his job, leading to a loss of revenue and profit for the company (he was the least qualified, remember?).
(4) The female candidate is hired by a competitor of the sexist boss. She performs exceptionally in her job (being more qualified). As a result, the competitor gains more business.
(5) As a consequence, the sexist boss's company loses market share, which leads to a greater loss of revenue and profit.
(6) The competitor is happy and promotes the female who generates revenue to a position of management, because the competitor is self-motived with an eye toward maximizing profit.
(7) The sexist boss is unhappy and will be out of business in a matter of years. He'll likely blame the government, but it wasn't the government who put him out of business.

that sounds like something you read in a high school econ class textbook. Real world?

In the real world, the female is more qualified for the job, but the sexist boss gives it to the man. The man does ok, or maybe even well, at the job but the female was nevertheless more qualified at the time of the interview - and didn't get the job. Now the male is employed (over-employed possibly), the female is not. She continues to look for a position in her field, but often runs into the same dilemma. The male applicants do not. The female eventually settles for taking a position in her field for less money, or she settles for some kind of lesser position (underemployment). She earns less than her equally qualified, but penis-owning, counterpart. That is the real world.

The same goes for promotions. If she is your wife, you too are very frustrated and possibly need to turn to the legal system because you understand this injustice as you try to feed, clothe, and medicate your family.

 

[WakeandBake]

avalon beat me by a second

 

[avalon]

Your post was more succinct and less obnoxious, though.

 

[RJKarl]

Avalon and Bake, boogity's post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. He's trying to deflect the real issue with his silliness.

His name shouldn't be boogityboogity. It should be baityoubaityou. It's all he ever does.

Well other than blaming others for his actions.

 

[KeEpEr]

If you can do better somewhere else then leave your employer and go. If you are correct it would be his or her loss. Too many lawyers. Work, get paid and go home. Simple.

 

[WakeandBake]

helluva world you must live in.

what business are you in? I've been interviewing, working, hiring, firing and promoting as a white male in the competitive IT field for 16 years and can't seem to grasp your paranoid delusions about the workplace.

Have you ever been sued?

I asked you first there, dinglenuts. What line of work are you in? I think it is germane to the discussion. All of our professional experiences shape our opinions. Are you married to a female worker? know any?

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

If you can do better somewhere else then leave your employer and go. If you are correct it would be his or her loss. Too many lawyers. Work, get paid and go home. Simple.

Are you completely blind to the fact that for 100 years women and minorities couldn't do better somewhere else? Not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't even looked at for positions because of their race or gender? That is okay with you? Was Civil Rights legislation ever necessary in this country?

 

[Milhouse]

And many employers assume women are going to decide to be mom instead of doing the work. That's part of the problem as well. Out of all my lawyer friends from Wake undergrad or Duke Law, the only one working toward partner at a top tier firm is a mom of a 2 1/2 year old.

employers have to decide who is worth investing in long term. they are playing the odds.

 

[RJKarl]

Are you completely blind to the fact that for 100 years women and minorities couldn't do better somewhere else? Not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't even looked at for positions because of their race or gender? That is okay with you? Was Civil Rights legislation ever necessary in this country?

Legendz- keeper is a TROLL. He has no interest in any subject. He's just here to mess up every thread in which he participates.

You are trying to be sensible. It's useless with keeper.

 

[Les Grossman]

employers have to decide who is worth investing in long term. they are playing the odds.

I agree with this, and have seen it over and over again in my career. I've worked with many excellent women, but they often times change their career path after they have kids. In every case, it was a very personal decision that they thought was best for their family and they wanted to do it. They either become stay at home moms, change jobs to take a position that is more conducive to being a mom, or stay at their position and go to part time.

This does not apply to all women of course, but to employers a woman employee with a family is seen as unstable. It's a risky bet to invest in her employment. It's the exact opposite for men. A male employee with a family is seen as very stable. He must work and do everything he can to provide for his family. It's less likely they'll change careers or take risks. He's the much smarter bet.

I'm not really taking position on this one way or the other, but I think this is a huge reason why men find it much easier to work their way up the ladder. I dont think employers are actively saying, let's promote John over Jane because we think men are smarter and women should be in the kitchen. I think it's more likely they're thinking, we really like Jane and the work she does, but is she going to be here in five years?

 

[Sgt Hulka]

The free market just outsources jobs to places that use child labor and don't regulate working conditions and safety.

Just read a really interesting book on this (child labor, OSHA, EPA, etc), but it is a discussion for another thread. I will start it later.

 

[KeEpEr]

I asked you first there, dinglenuts. What line of work are you in? I think it is germane to the discussion. All of our professional experiences shape our opinions. Are you married to a female worker? know any?

Dinglenuts? Construction. No. Yes.