Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:59PM, HeatMiser wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 9:27AM, MADMAX wrote:

You're off the point. Why did the GOP vote aganist that bill? I see a lot of young ladies in your photos. Such a vote by the GOP should upset you.

Max -- why the hell would you want to support a bill that requires "employers to demonstrate that any salary differences between men and women doing the same work are not gender-related"?

If a woman is capable, she gets paid. It shouldn't be on the employer to "prove" or "justify" any salary difference based on gender. Does he have to prove it the other way around -- if a woman is making more than a man? It silliness -- another make-believe story meant to trick dummies who vote.

Heat, nice response.  More experienced, better qualified people get paid more than their counterparts regardless of gender. 

Are there some cases where a boss pays a man more based on gender? I am sure there are.  Just as I am sure there are just as many cases of women getting paid more because of gender.  Just as I am sure there are minorities getting paid more for their ethnicity and in some cases less for that same reason.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:40AM, luvdayanks wrote:

My daughter was just promoted to Sr. VP of Marketing and Communications for Harris Interactive where she has worked for 20 years. She previously was VP of 4 different divisions that she turned around and made them profitable. She has made, and will make, more money than I could ever dream of making. She has about 50 people under her, many of them men. When the position opened, they went directly to her to offer the position because she was more experienced and better qualified.

Exactly luv.  And thats the way it is in most cases.  You can always find a case of discrimination if you look hard enough. Legislating that you have to provide proof won't stop that discrimination.  Folks will just come up with justification.

John Stossel asked a very reasonable question when it comes to the gender wage gap "Suppose you’re an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women. Why would any employer ever hire a man?”  Of course there is discrimination and bias but at the end of the day the people that allow these to influence their business decisions for them would necessarily suffer the economic consequences of their bigotry.  So why would American businesses not take advantage of this market advantage if there were not externalities that justify the wage disparity.  The Paycheck Fairness Act is intended to accomplish the results the Equal Pay Act and Fair Labor Standards Act were supposed to provide but over the years we have witnessed that although the language already exists on the books and is enforceable the overwhelming majority of litigation does not fulfill the burden of proof because we are not comparing apples to apples.  Professor James Bennett has identified 20 factors in the gender wage gap that to some degree justify much of the disparity:

• 
  

  Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.

• 
  

  Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.

• 
  

  Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).

• 
  

  Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."

• 
  

  Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.

• 
  

  Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.

• 
  

  The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.

• 
  

  Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.

• 
  

  Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.

• 
  

  Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.

• 
  

  Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.

• 
  

  Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.

• 
  

  Men work more weeks per year than women.

• 
  

  Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.

• 
  

  Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.

• 
  

  Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.

• 
  

  Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.

• 
  

  In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.

• 
  

  When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.

• 
  

  Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.

• 
  

  Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

Professors like Thomas Sowell and Steven Levitt have also pointed out contributing factors like marriage.  It seems that prior to marriage men and women in like professions with like education have nearly identical wages and attendance performance.  However when people get married men tend to put in more hours and strive for promotions inside or outside of their current employers while marriage tends to have the exact opposite impact on women.  Having children has a similar impact on the sexes that marriage does, these are lifestyle choices that the employer has little control over that has a tremendous impact on performance and output.

Legislation like the one that fortunately narrowly failed would ask private businesses to incur the very real costs of individual personal decisions and would have a negative impact on the economy overall.  There are also studies that show that un-married women in white-collar jobs begin to out earn their male counterparts as they increase in age.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:40AM, luvdayanks wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:30AM, bomberhojoe wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:59PM, HeatMiser wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 9:27AM, MADMAX wrote:

You're off the point. Why did the GOP vote aganist that bill? I see a lot of young ladies in your photos. Such a vote by the GOP should upset you.

Max -- why the hell would you want to support a bill that requires "employers to demonstrate that any salary differences between men and women doing the same work are not gender-related"?

If a woman is capable, she gets paid. It shouldn't be on the employer to "prove" or "justify" any salary difference based on gender. Does he have to prove it the other way around -- if a woman is making more than a man? It silliness -- another make-believe story meant to trick dummies who vote.

Heat, nice response.  More experienced, better qualified people get paid more than their counterparts regardless of gender. 

Are there some cases where a boss pays a man more based on gender? I am sure there are.  Just as I am sure there are just as many cases of women getting paid more because of gender.  Just as I am sure there are minorities getting paid more for their ethnicity and in some cases less for that same reason.

My daughter was just promoted to Sr. VP of Marketing and Communications for Harris Interactive where she has worked for 20 years. She previously was VP of 4 different divisions that she turned around and made them profitable. She has made, and will make, more money than I could ever dream of making. She has about 50 people under her, many of them men. When the position opened, they went directly to her to offer the position because she was more experienced and better qualified.

Your post had nothing to do with the question, is she making more or the same money as the previous person. And there are always examples of something that isn't the same.