That was the excuse given to us in my economics class. It's pure bull of course.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
That was the excuse given to us in my economics class. It's pure bull of course.
Everyone in Germany's in a union, that's how.
RustyNails
Member
Normally when women take time off from work for childbirth/taking care of newborns, they don't get paid. It's not a law in the US. So those idiots talking about it have no clue. Besides, dads take time off from work all the time.
Giant Panda
Member
No, they weren't referencing maternity leave, they were trying to say that women often take years off of work which results in them having less experience which results in lower pay for when they do return to the workforce. The $.77 to $1 rule is supposed to be for equal work, which leads me to think that it already controls for having the same experience, in which case their excuse is bullshit. But then again I don't know for sure that it does control for experience.
The state(s) are obligated to ensure a minimum quality of life instead.
There are employer-employee negotiated minimum wages within certain industries, too.
Their arguments are bullshit nonetheless. Conservative arguments are "argue for current market policy that progressives want to change by accepting it first, then rationalizing it second"
If it was .60 to $1.00 they would support that, if it was .90 to $1.00 they would support that and if it was .50 to $1.00 they would support that because they inherently believe what the market settles on is the correct way to go. You can rationalize and justify away, or at the very least present a rationalization for anything that exists if you're determined to argue for the status quo.
Same thing on minimum wage. in 5 years they'll be arguing that $10.10 is the appropriate minimum wage if it's the current law of the land.
The way to win is to understand their argument is absurd because it is as it has always been..."the market knows best", So sidestep that and stop thinking logically and start thinking politically - the best argument that Democrats can make in terms of catchy politics is that Republicans want to "Punish Motherhood" in the same way that they argued Democrats wanted to punish success.
jamesinclair
Banned
No youre all wrong.
The rational basis is this:
Hiring is EXTRAORDINARILY expensive. Job search, interviews, background checks, paper work...etc.
Training is also very expensive.
Say you have two candidates, exactly the same, but one is male, and one is female.
All else equal, theres a greater risk that the female employee will get pregnant, and bail. Meaning you incur those super high costs all over again. Yes, she MAY come back...but many dont. And you need a temp in the meantime even if she does come back.
That means the rate should not be 1:1 because the woman carries greater risk, and no greater reward (again, both candidates being equal elsewhere). Youd have no reason to hire the women at the same rate. At a discount that accounts for the risk? Absolutely.
Is 1 : .77 the right ratio? Probably not. .85? .90? Who knows. But the fact is, its <1.
Its not sexism, it's risk mitigation 101.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Don't drug test your employees and that's a cut down in costs.IMO
And your rational hat's why we have or ought to have laws to protect women from the idea that they are viewed through the 'might get pregnant' lense.
that is sexism btw
RustyNails
Member
Corporations "deciding" that women should take less pay than men means that corporations already assumed women are not good employees and therefore the market is correcting the system. That's what lolbertarians want you to believe. But it was actually old white men in the 1920s that decided women should get less pay than men, and the market locked it as a constant. There is no "forward correction" in the market. It does not account for many women (or men) making up the time they lost, getting things done in less amount of time, and working extra hours and putting in work. Sometimes (actually lot of times), federal government has to step in and shut the imbeciles up. It had to step in during slavery, during civil rights, during LGBT rights recently and hopefully for equal pay rights in the future. Market cant do jack shit when it comes to governance of equality. It's always a playdough of the greedy fatcats at the top and always will be.
hipsterpants
Member
This is so awesome.
I really hate Missouri.
jamesinclair
Banned
Drug tests are like $10.
Hiring is like $5,000
And no, acknowledging that there are differences between men and women is not sexism. It's a basic fact.
Men do not get pregnant. Women do get pregnant.
When pregnant, the person carrying exits the workforce for weeks, or months, or years. That is a fact.
Dont shout sexism that needs to be corrected because fed-ex and UPS are mostly male employees.
RustyNails
Member
jamesinclair be trollin, they hatin
jamesinclair
Banned
I thought we agreed that this was bannable?
TacticalFox88
Banned
I love how james is only looking at women as an economic benefit, not as an actual fucking PERSON who lives a fucking life.
RustyNails
Member
When? Oh ya I remember now. It was around the same time we all collectively agreed that libertarian economic principles are valid.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It was a joke about your drug test comments the other day.
Yes, you are correct that women can get pregnant and men can't. But all women don't and you making that decision for them is quite sexist. Men can get hurt, get cancer (like testicular cancer which women can't get!), die in a car accident, etc that would cost you money. I don't see you discounting that do you ask them if they drink? Do you ask them if they play extreme sports? do you ask them if they might take off to raise their kids?
We as a society can dictate rules for hiring. You punishing women for the sex that they didn't choose is something we should prevent.
Right, so Punishing Motherhood. All any woman who hears that is "This person is in favor of punishing motherhood" and they'd be right.
Fenderputty
Banned
Especially considering childbirth is a societal/economical need.
jamesinclair
Banned
Wow, spot on.
Are you the dude in the other thread who said I was a cruise boat?
Its not punishing women.
Fed-ex hiring 90% men isnt punishing women, its looking at the cold, hard, facts.
Men and women are not equal physically. By definition. Its foolish to ignore basic anatomy.
Men do get charged more for car insurance because theyre more likely to die in a car crash. Sexist, or science?
I answered a question, and Im shocked apparently none of you knew the answer.
Mind you, there are also post-maternity issues. We live in a society where women still have custody of children as a default, and so when the kids school closes early due to snow....guess which office workers are most likely to be running out and killing office productivity?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling, but women get paid less even when controlling for all of that.
Also, I think that kind of reasoning is based on a bit of a "perfect market" view of how salaries get set, which is quite divorced from reality.
Business has interest to pay as little as they can for their workers (though it's a bit more complicated as the people who make the hiring decisions often are just salaried employees of the company) and the reason why they pay women less is because they can, and the reason why they can pay less is because in general women makes less (and I think it's hard to argue this doesn't have its roots in sexist discrimination) so you're not in a competitive hiring disadvantage by offering them less pay than men.
In any case, I think it's just bad policy to allow that as it leads on the macro level for a more male dominated society.
I strongly believe equal pay is going to lead for better outcome for society as a whole.
Fenderputty
Banned
Hiring a man over a women because the male can lift more isn't even in the same ballpark as hiring a man over a woman because she may or may not have a child.
Of course it's better for society. I would love to see hi try and argue otherwise.
Of course it's better for society. I would love to see hi try and argue otherwise.
Love this.
A) You are punishing women. Rationalizing WHY you're punishing them isn't not punishing them. You're doing what everyone who defends inequality does. Suggesting an explanation or justification =/= not punishing.
If I gave you a rationalized or justified reason for why Blacks, or Gays, or Mexicans, or Whites, or Hispanics should have a lower wage am I not PUNISHING those groups? You can call it "science" all you want (didn't slave owners use "science" to suggest blacks should be slaves because they were scientifically subordinate and thus not equal?)
Despite your opinions on the "science" it doesn't change the outright result, which is punishment.
So if you don't understand that "justified" or "rationalized" or "explained" sexism or racism is STILL sexism or racism (has any racist or sexist ever NOT felt justified, NOT quoted "science", or explained it away somehow?) ...there's no hope for you.
B) People have paid leave for a reason. Whether a mom takes paid leave to get a kid from a snowstorm or a dad takes paid leave to go out hunting. What the hell is the difference? If you want to show me statistics that suggest that women take FAR MORE PAID LEAVE, and FAR MORE UNPAID LEAVE, and that the total DOLLAR COST of this difference in paid leave represents the difference between .77 to every 1.00 you MIGHT have a point. But you don't do that, you focus on motherhood and go on and on about platitudes that are no different than "tax cuts create jobs". It's literally mumbo jumbo.
C) Even if you WERE to present that data, you'd be stuck with the problem that we value family and child rearing, and responsible parenting in America. And as such, mothers who do these things SHOULDN'T be discriminated against. (I don't see you say "men should be paid less because they take more days off to go hunting, or to go play golf then women" - which is another totally logical but still stupid thing to bring up. Because it's narrow as shit.
Pregnancy, leaving town, leaving careers, becoming disabled, contracting a medical disease requiring emergency procedures, plain old QUITTING. There are countless reasons why people leave work, but there's only ONE you're justifying as to why it should directly result in lower pay. Hence...
YOU.ARE.PUNISHING.MOTHERS.
What you perhaps don't understand is that this is the sort of self-fulfilling philosophy that perpetuates the patriarchy.
Have you considered the possibility that women are less likely to return to work because they get paid less than men for the equivalent jobs? Believe me, as a new father, relative pay has been a notable factor in our planning. It seems a rather facile kind of economic Darwinism to assume that societally driven behavior is due to natural characteristics.
Fenderputty
Banned
All women should just stop having children. It's the only way to achieve true equality.
This is especially true when considering child are. If the woman doesn't make enough it becomes economically sound for the family unit to have her stay home. Pay her more and the incentive to stay home decreases.
This is especially true when considering child are. If the woman doesn't make enough it becomes economically sound for the family unit to have her stay home. Pay her more and the incentive to stay home decreases.
Armoured Priest
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama announces no child rule
Yeah. I'd say all of us underestimated how far the GOP and their constituents would go in opposing Obama. They were far more craven than anyone gave them credit for back in 2008.
No child left behind... abortions for all!
You should not be joking at all, paternity leave is something everyone should get, and in industries where workers actually have bargaining power like software, it's fairly common.
jamesinclair
Banned
No I hadnt, very interesting point.
How about requiring women to answer if they have their tubes tied during the interview process?
No baby, no risk, no need to dock pay.
Win, win win.
Fenderputty
Banned
This isn't a real response is it?
Oh look, it's the same Republican chestnut again: invade the privacy of women to give them things they should be goddamned entitled to! Equality before the law, provided you spill the deets on the veej!
Armoured Priest
Member
You should not be joking at all, paternity leave is something everyone should get, and in industries where workers actually have bargaining power like software, it's fairly common.
Actually, its news to me that any American companies offered anything beyond a modicum of Paternity leave...i know its way more common in the EU (along with a generally stronger union presence...go figure).
speculawyer
Member
Meltdown!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
empty vessel
Member
While one can use actuarial science to predict what will happen to groups, the science cannot be applied to individuals. Just because I know that black men are more likely to commit crimes does not mean that I can predict with any certainty whether this particular black man sitting in front of me is more or less likely to commit a crime than any other individual. So, even from a strictly business perspective, if your company does not have thousands of employees, you aren't even engaging in proper science. You have no odds to play, because there are no aggregates. You are just making bad hiring decisions by irrationally discriminating against individuals who may otherwise be your most qualified candidate.
And, you might want to know, if you are holding the possibility of child birth against individual women in hiring decisions, you are breaking the law. We do that, at least in part, precisely so that women who choose not to have children do not get irrationally discriminated against.
Right, and I'd be curious to know why it is that james (and many, many others) fail continually to make that connection. It's almost as if they haven't once worn a woman's shoes whilst exploring their deranged hypotheticals.
Well, here's what the right-wingers are gonna bring up for the next 5 years every time the subject of race pops up:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-tw...ting-bi-racial-couple-deletes-and-apologizes/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-tw...ting-bi-racial-couple-deletes-and-apologizes/
Meh this isn't much. Everyone knows the right wing is racist - pretending they're not is just Kabuki Theater at this point.
Right. That's the premise behind "judging someone by the content of their character and not color of their skin". Even if you objectively, honestly, and scientifically gather data that X group of people does Y more than Z group of people, treating a member of X group as if they have already committed or will commit Y is the very definition of prejudice (sexism, racism, ageism, religious discrimination depending on how group X is defined).
Furthermore, even being objective about it is difficult, especially with something like violent crime data. Data shows that a violent crime is more likely to be committed by Whites, but certain blacks are more likely to commit a violent crime than certain whites.
So for example: If 70% of a specific crime is done by Whites, but due to differences in population size a black person is still twice as likely to commit that crime than a white person, that changes the practical aspects of "who we should blame or be scared of" so to speak. And I think with statistics like that, which line up with several different crimes - people take their pick based on their own internal racial biases - thus not truly being objective anyway.
Black Mamba
Member
This Ann Coulter article + yahoo comments = gold.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-crafts-plan-wreck-country-lose-voters-230115398.html
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-crafts-plan-wreck-country-lose-voters-230115398.html
zero shift
Banned
JesseEwiak
Member
Why, I'm a natural born American and I'd agree more with the naturalized citizens than "natural" American's. Give me international law and the Constitution's the acolytes of FDR wrote for Germany, Japan, and so on over the American Constitution any day of the week.
the state is massively subsidying jobs, just as in the US. so no, they aren't making it work, it's corporate welfare again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked