Minn. lawmaker: Fair-pay bill makes women look like ‘whiners’

[Little-Acorn]

As I pointed out, companies that employ women to do certain jobs and pay them $xxx, make less money (or lose more money) than companies that employ men and pay them the same $xxx for the same jobs.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-women-look-like-whiners-4.html#post8809998

If you make a law saying that they must pay those women the same $xxx as men doing the same work, the result will be that they hire fewer women. Because they have NO CHOICE but to do what makes the company the most money (or lose the least money).

 

[nodoginnafight]

Good question. See just ossing a law doesnt mean automatic compliance

Especially if the law sets an absurdly tiny window for a woman to detect and act on wage discrimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

Women already are paid fairly. Any time that you calculate out comparative women to men, the pay is comparable too.

Absolutely wrong.
Statistics clearly refute this oft-repeated talking point.

You are of course a lo-lo. Once you correct for variables--women taking off work, women starting careers late, etc then women actually get paid slightly more than men for the same work.
Here's Prof Sowell to teach you. Cueing ad hom in 3...2..1...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4]Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nodoginnafight]

Women already are paid fairly. Any time that you calculate out comparative women to men, the pay is comparable too.

Absolutely wrong.
Statistics clearly refute this oft-repeated talking point.

You are of course a lo-lo. Once you correct for variables--women taking off work, women starting careers late, etc then women actually get paid slightly more than men for the same work.
Here's Prof Sowell to teach you. Cueing ad hom in 3...2..1...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4]Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? - YouTube[/ame]

Oh you mean once you "unskew" them - LOL
some people never learn

A video clip can't erase the numbers. Oh you guys can try to twist them around until they say what you want - but if you have to manipulate the data to try to prove your point - you really don't have a very good point now do you?

And you sure aren't coming any closer to closing the gender gap at the polls either - are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Absolutely wrong.
Statistics clearly refute this oft-repeated talking point.

You are of course a lo-lo. Once you correct for variables--women taking off work, women starting careers late, etc then women actually get paid slightly more than men for the same work.
Here's Prof Sowell to teach you. Cueing ad hom in 3...2..1...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4]Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? - YouTube[/ame]

Oh you mean once you "unskew" them - LOL
some people never learn

A video clip can't erase the numbers. Oh you guys can try to twist them around until they say what you want - but if you have to manipulate the data to try to prove your point - you really don't have a very good point now do you?

^^
Lo-Lo mind at work. Correcting variables now equals "skewing".

 

[Little-Acorn]

Quite a few people point out that companies pay out just as much, if not more, to employ women as they do to employ men, on average. And that's true even when women's paychecks are lower.

Historically women take more time off than men, necessitating the company to spend resources training temporary replacements, arranging their accounting and employment affairs, losing income during the time between the employee leaving and the replacement coming up to productive speed, etc. When a man takes time off, the company must go through the same expenses and losses, of course... but historically, men do it far less than women.

Whether the time off is for pregnancy, or for childraising, or etc., or for illness or non-job injuries, the time taken off work costs the company. Men may take more time off for illnesses or non-job injuries than women. And women take more time off then men, for pregnancy, child-raising, etc., as well as a greater percentage of women who leave their jobs permanently to raise children, than men who leave their jobs for that reason. Even today, when men are starting to take time off for childraising, the fact remains that they still do that less than women do.

Equal pay defeat for women who go on maternity leave | Mail Online

Bottom line is, companies pay out a lot more when they hire women, per hour of productive work that gets done, than they pay out when they hire men for the same job. So the notion that paying the women lower wages is "unfair" or "unjustified", is mistaken. The company doesn't have a money tree. The extra money they pay out to employ women, has to come from somewhere. And where else can it possibly come from, than the wages paid to men and women respectively?

Perhaps the "fairest" method of determining wages should be structured as follows:

1.) Pay the same dollar amount to every worker doing the same job, regardless of gender.
2.) Dock workers' pay in proportion to the amount of time they take off, and make sure the worker knows it's not just for lost productivity, but also for training replacements, bringing them up to speed, additional overhead for the replacement etc.

Except, how do you predict in advance, that someone is going to leave permanently? Retirements due to age can be predicted. Absence due to illness or non-job injury can (statistically) be predicted. Leaving to devote a life to childraising often cannot, especially when the employee (or spouse) is not even pregnant when first hired. But when they do, it is too late to dock any pay for the expenses they incurred due to leaving. So the structure listed above is unworkable in significant ways.

Historically, there is a real financial basis for women receiving unequal pay, even when they put in the same hours doing the same job. And it's not one that the company has any control over. Women don't take more leave than me because the company wanted it that way. And they don't leave their careers (for childraising or whatever) more often than men, because the company required them to.

But the company must pay more as a result of their doing so, whether the company (or the employee) like it or not, if the company wants to keep up its production standard.

What possible way is there for companies to make up for their increased expenses as a result of employing women, other than paying a lower dollar wage up front to women?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Correcting variables now equals "skewing".

I said you were "unskewing" them.
Since when does "unskewing" equal "skewing"

Very dishonest of you.

I was merely pointing out that "unskewing" with a mind to manipulating the data to say what you want it to say doesn't produce good results. Or have you forgotten?

 

[The Rabbi]

Correcting variables now equals "skewing".

I said you were "unskewing" them.
Since when does "unskewing" equal "skewing"

Very dishonest of you.

I was merely pointing out that "unskewing" with a mind to manipulating the data to say what you want it to say doesn't produce good results. Or have you forgotten?

You dont understand that to compare to disparate groups you have to filter out the other variables. This is like Science 101. Soemthing you haven't taken yet.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As I pointed out, companies that employ women to do certain jobs and pay them $xxx, make less money (or lose more money) than companies that employ men and pay them the same $xxx for the same jobs.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-women-look-like-whiners-4.html#post8809998

A true "Fair-Pay" law, would require that women be paid less then men for doing the same job, since women on average cost the company more than men do.

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rabbi is arguing the numbers are wrong
Acorn argues wage discrimination is OK based on costs

At least there is a logic behind Acorn's argument.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Rabbi is arguing the numbers are wrong
Acorn argues wage discrimination is OK based on costs

At least there is a logic behind Acorn's argument.

I'm merely pointing out why Rabbi is correct.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rabbi is arguing the numbers are wrong
Acorn argues wage discrimination is OK based on costs

At least there is a logic behind Acorn's argument.

I'm merely pointing out why Rabbi is correct.

Rabbi contends that women do not make less money

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi is arguing the numbers are wrong
Acorn argues wage discrimination is OK based on costs

At least there is a logic behind Acorn's argument.

I'm merely pointing out why Rabbi is correct.

Rabbi contends that women do not make less money

^^
Lo-Lo poster at work.

Not really. What I am pointing out is that the reasons women make less have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with unequal qualifications. So unless you want to ban marriages and babies you're going to get disparate pay.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm merely pointing out why Rabbi is correct.

Rabbi contends that women do not make less money

^^
Lo-Lo poster at work.

Not really. What I am pointing out is that the reasons women make less have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with unequal qualifications. So unless you want to ban marriages and babies you're going to get disparate pay.

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

(I guess I confused you with another poster who was claiming women are NOT in actuality paid less, I apologize)

 

[Little-Acorn]

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

You're in the wrong forum. Personal insults are all that most posters here, have to offer.

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Rabbi contends that women do not make less money

^^
Lo-Lo poster at work.

Not really. What I am pointing out is that the reasons women make less have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with unequal qualifications. So unless you want to ban marriages and babies you're going to get disparate pay.

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

(I guess I confused you with another poster who was claiming women are NOT in actuality paid less, I apologize)

Thats the pattern. Say something isnt happening first. Then admit later once they are caught that it is happening but it's ok...they'll explain why its ok.

Pick a topic, any topic...

Voter ID - Doesnt prevent anyone from voting...Well it does in some cases but heres why its' ok. Getting an ID is easy

Global Warming - Not happening...Well it is happening just not as extreme as you say. Heres why Global Warming could be a good thing

 

[Little-Acorn]

Thats the pattern. Say something isnt happening first. Then admit later once they are caught that it is happening but it's ok...they'll explain why its ok.

Pick a topic, any topic...

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi contends that women do not make less money

^^
Lo-Lo poster at work.

Not really. What I am pointing out is that the reasons women make less have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with unequal qualifications. So unless you want to ban marriages and babies you're going to get disparate pay.

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

(I guess I confused you with another poster who was claiming women are NOT in actuality paid less, I apologize)

Have you had a stroke or are you simply incapable of understanding simple sentences?
Once you correct for other factors, women are not paid less. In the real world they are paid less, but that is not due to discrimination.

 

[kaz]

Minn. lawmaker: Fair-pay bill makes women look like ‘whiners’

“We heard several bills last week about women’s issues, and I kept thinking to myself: ‘These bills are putting us backwards in time. We are losing the respect that we so dearly want in the workplace by bringing up all these special bills for women, and almost making us look like whiners,‘ “ Kieffer said last Wednesday.

Minn. lawmaker: Fair-pay bill makes women look like 'whiners' | MSNBC


I wonder how that shoe leather tastes? Sheesh!

Why exactly do you believe that women are not smart enough to take the best paying opportunity they are offered and they need government to do it for them?

 

[The Rabbi]

^^
Lo-Lo poster at work.

Not really. What I am pointing out is that the reasons women make less have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with unequal qualifications. So unless you want to ban marriages and babies you're going to get disparate pay.

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

(I guess I confused you with another poster who was claiming women are NOT in actuality paid less, I apologize)

Thats the pattern. Say something isnt happening first. Then admit later once they are caught that it is happening but it's ok...they'll explain why its ok.

Pick a topic, any topic...

Voter ID - Doesnt prevent anyone from voting...Well it does in some cases but heres why its' ok. Getting an ID is easy

Global Warming - Not happening...Well it is happening just not as extreme as you say. Heres why Global Warming could be a good thing

Another dummy unable to understand subtleties.