The equal pay for women debate is Washington BS!

[Carla_Danger]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That's a meaningless phrase. What constitutes equal work? And what if the person doesn't want/need equal pay? A secondary earner in a 2 income family will not need and would be satisfied at a lower pay rate than a main earner. So why would it make sense to pay a person willing to take less "equal pay"?

If a particular job in your company gets around $40,000/year, and you have an applicant who asks for $30,000, it would be stupid to offer them more. If s/he is happy with $30k, give him/her $30k. That is, by definition, fair, since it's what is asked for. To pay more on some vague principle of abstract fairness is ridiculous and patronizing.

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That's a meaningless phrase. What constitutes equal work? And what if the person doesn't want/need equal pay? A secondary earner in a 2 income family will not need and would be satisfied at a lower pay rate than a main earner. So why would it make sense to pay a person willing to take less "equal pay"?

If a particular job in your company gets around $40,000/year, and you have an applicant who asks for $30,000, it would be stupid to offer them more. If s/he is happy with $30k, give him/her $30k. That is, by definition, fair, since it's what is asked for. To pay more on some vague principle of abstract fairness is ridiculous and patronizing.

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

Wrong.
People are paid what the are worth.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That's a meaningless phrase. What constitutes equal work? And what if the person doesn't want/need equal pay? A secondary earner in a 2 income family will not need and would be satisfied at a lower pay rate than a main earner. So why would it make sense to pay a person willing to take less "equal pay"?

If a particular job in your company gets around $40,000/year, and you have an applicant who asks for $30,000, it would be stupid to offer them more. If s/he is happy with $30k, give him/her $30k. That is, by definition, fair, since it's what is asked for. To pay more on some vague principle of abstract fairness is ridiculous and patronizing.

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

Wrong.
People are paid what the are worth.

WTF did I just say? I said no one should be paid less for the same work.

No one should be paid less simply because it's a secondary job.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Equal pay for EQUAL WORK.....

If your experience makes you more valuable....then you get paid more..... but new women truck drivers should not be paid less than New men truck drivers with no experience....just because they are female.

Doesn't happen, why is it you leftist push a false narrative like it's fact? any company could be sued for that

The point is that it DOES happen. Perhaps not in your industry but in many industries. And it happens so much, that legislation and law suits are needed to fight the practice.

Yes, it does happen, and that is a disgrace. But, the amount that it happens are not anywhere near what Washington wants you to think it is.

A great number of women are still homemakers, and thus, though they do a job that draws them a salary of nothing, the work they do is invaluable. Other women, only want a part time job, and might work 10 or 20 hours a week, because they want to be home, when their children are home, or for any number of different reasons.

The laws that need to be passed, would encourage whistle blowers, working for companies that do not practice equal pay, equal work, to blow the whistle on them, and let the consumers force companies to follow the practice.

If a company who makes socks, does not pay women the same as men, and consumer America found out about it, wouldn't that company lose their wal-mart account, and every reputable account they have? Yeah, it would put that company pretty much out of business, but that is what they deserve. And there will always be another sock maker to replace that company.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That's a meaningless phrase. What constitutes equal work? And what if the person doesn't want/need equal pay? A secondary earner in a 2 income family will not need and would be satisfied at a lower pay rate than a main earner. So why would it make sense to pay a person willing to take less "equal pay"?

If a particular job in your company gets around $40,000/year, and you have an applicant who asks for $30,000, it would be stupid to offer them more. If s/he is happy with $30k, give him/her $30k. That is, by definition, fair, since it's what is asked for. To pay more on some vague principle of abstract fairness is ridiculous and patronizing.

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

Wrong.
People are paid what the are worth.

WTF did I just say? I said no one should be paid less for the same work.

No one should be paid less simply because it's a secondary job.

Here is one example as to why someone, not just a woman, but anyone would be paid less, than someone else, for doing the same job.

I have a company making ear ring backs, I have 2 employees plus myself, when I started the company it was just me, after a few years I grew it big enough to where I had to hire a part time employee, and later I promoted her, to a full time employee, she worked much more than 40 hours a week, and we agreed to a salary for her at 40k a year, which has been improved to 65k a year now. Last year we got a huge new account, and we needed to hire someone to produce more ear ring backs, so we hired a part time worker, and now I am promoting him to a full time position, but with the profits we are making I can only pay him 35k a year, if I paid him more than that, I would either have to cut my other employee's salary, or take a huge risk of going bankrupt, so then all 3 of us would be without a job. By the way, he is very grateful to be a full time employee making 35k. He also knows if we continue to grow, his salary will grow with it.

 

[Edgetho]

WTF did I just say? I said no one should be paid less for the same work.

No one should be paid less simply because it's a secondary job.

Try to grasp this concept.... Try to understand what I'm saying.....

If all you're doing is standing one spot pushing a button every ten seconds to spray the widgets with paint..... Okay. Yeah. I'll go along with that.

Maybe. But here's the thing..... People often get paid based on potential.

IOW, I hire a girl and the fact is -- She's worthless for the first 30 days on the job. Worthless. Beyond worthless. Not only do I have to pay her, I have to spend money training her. I worked in a somewhat technical field, albeit certainly not rocket science.

For the next 6 months, she doesn't earn her pay. And I'm still training her.

All of the sudden, she gets homesick, preggo, breaks up with her boyfriend, wants to continue her education -- Whatever and -- Poof! She's gone.

Know what? If I paid her what she was worth, she'd owe me several thousand dollars.

Know why a lot of women get paid less? Because that shit is exactly what happens. Female employees are notoriously less reliable and less likely to stay on a job for a long period of time.

Once they do, they start making as much, or more, than their male counterparts.

But women don't always see their job as their number One priority in their lives, Men often do.

Women see their children as more important (as they should) and their families as more important (as they should)

With men, their work often identifies them as WHO they are.

When a Man meets another man socially, he is often asked, right out of the box, "What do you do for a living?"

With women? Meh. Don't really care that much.

Female workers are likely just not as dependent on their jobs as men are.

But that's a generalization. And generally speaking, it's generally not a good idea to generalize.

 

[SwimExpert]

People are paid what the are worth.

No, no, no. We've been over this a hundred times, and when you grow up and go out on your first job interview you'll learn it for yourself. People do not get paid what they are "worth." They get paid what they will settle for. I could be worth $1 mil a year, but if I agree to $9.25/hr that's all I'm going to get.

The problem with saying that people are paid what they are "worth" is that it assumes an employer is just going to just give you an offer and that's the end of the story, and that the employer is infallible in gauging how much you should be paid. That kind of foolish thinking is the number one reason why women are likely to receive less pay than men for equal work. It puts all the responsibility on the employer to determine wages, and presumes that any deviation in wages from "worth" is due to malice by the employer.

Individuals need to be responsible for their own wages, first by knowing their market value, then by being able to demonstrated it, and finally by pulling the trigger and being willing to negotiate for better offers.

 

[SwimExpert]

Here is one example as to why someone, not just a woman, but anyone would be paid less, than someone else, for doing the same job.

I have a company making ear ring backs, I have 2 employees plus myself, when I started the company it was just me, after a few years I grew it big enough to where I had to hire a part time employee, and later I promoted her, to a full time employee, she worked much more than 40 hours a week, and we agreed to a salary for her at 40k a year, which has been improved to 65k a year now. Last year we got a huge new account, and we needed to hire someone to produce more ear ring backs, so we hired a part time worker, and now I am promoting him to a full time position, but with the profits we are making I can only pay him 35k a year, if I paid him more than that, I would either have to cut my other employee's salary, or take a huge risk of going bankrupt, so then all 3 of us would be without a job. By the way, he is very grateful to be a full time employee making 35k. He also knows if we continue to grow, his salary will grow with it.

I think your first problem is that you're paying line employees $65k a year to make earring backs.

 

[pinqy]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That's a meaningless phrase. What constitutes equal work? And what if the person doesn't want/need equal pay? A secondary earner in a 2 income family will not need and would be satisfied at a lower pay rate than a main earner. So why would it make sense to pay a person willing to take less "equal pay"?

If a particular job in your company gets around $40,000/year, and you have an applicant who asks for $30,000, it would be stupid to offer them more. If s/he is happy with $30k, give him/her $30k. That is, by definition, fair, since it's what is asked for. To pay more on some vague principle of abstract fairness is ridiculous and patronizing.

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay?

Whose salary requirements are determined by what other people make? A person needs and wants according to his,/her own life and expenses.

What difference does being a secondary earner make?

Person A has a spouse who earns $50,000/year. The House, grocery bills, and the cars are paid for by this salary.A gets a job to pay for entertainment and as a complement.

Person B lives alone and needs to pay fire all living expenses.

You're really going to say that they would want the same minimum amount?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

Oh? So it's not possible for two people applying for the same job to ask for different salaries? You honestly believe that for every job, all applichnts ask for exactly the same amount? That's ridiculous.

 

[SwimExpert]

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

So, if me and a coworker do the same job, but my coworker has 10 years experience and I just started last week, I should expect equal pay?

 

[Faun]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That isn't the argument. The argument is that people complaining about a pay gap are using fudged numbers, either making broad categories that cover work that is not equal in skill or required training, or not accounting for experience and time in trade.

There is still a gap...

Women Can't Get Equal Pay in Finance No Matter What They Do

Women have yet to close the wage gap, even when they have similar jobs to their male counterparts. That's especially true on Wall Street. Last year, women who graduated from business school and took jobs in financial services earned an average of $21,872 less than male MBAs, according to data collected by Bloomberg Business. Drilling down into the numbers shows part of that discrepancy is explained by differences in the type of finance companies that hired women, but a gap persisted even when women worked in similar sub-sectors of finance as men.​

 

[BluesLegend]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

Is that right, go ahead then explain the lop sided teacher tenure compensation system OH SNAP!

 

[SwimExpert]

There is still a gap...

Women Can't Get Equal Pay in Finance No Matter What They Do

Women have yet to close the wage gap, even when they have similar jobs to their male counterparts. That's especially true on Wall Street. Last year, women who graduated from business school and took jobs in financial services earned an average of $21,872 less than male MBAs, according to data collected by Bloomberg Business. Drilling down into the numbers shows part of that discrepancy is explained by differences in the type of finance companies that hired women, but a gap persisted even when women worked in similar sub-sectors of finance as men.​

Why are women settling for lower pay?

 

[Carla_Danger]

What the hell? Who in the hell doesn't want or need equal pay? What difference does being a secondary earner make?

That is a ridiculous argument. No one should be satisfied with lower pay for the same work.

So, if me and a coworker do the same job, but my coworker has 10 years experience and I just started last week, I should expect equal pay?

Sure, but I was talking about a secondary earner, in response to pingy. If you both have 10 years experience, but one is married, should that make a difference? Of course not. Pingy thinks it does.

 

[The Rabbi]

People are paid what the are worth.

No, no, no. We've been over this a hundred times, and when you grow up and go out on your first job interview you'll learn it for yourself. People do not get paid what they are "worth." They get paid what they will settle for. I could be worth $1 mil a year, but if I agree to $9.25/hr that's all I'm going to get.

The problem with saying that people are paid what they are "worth" is that it assumes an employer is just going to just give you an offer and that's the end of the story, and that the employer is infallible in gauging how much you should be paid. That kind of foolish thinking is the number one reason why women are likely to receive less pay than men for equal work. It puts all the responsibility on the employer to determine wages, and presumes that any deviation in wages from "worth" is due to malice by the employer.

Individuals need to be responsible for their own wages, first by knowing their market value, then by being able to demonstrated it, and finally by pulling the trigger and being willing to negotiate for better offers.

I never interviewed for a 9.25/hr job so I wouldnt know what unskilled labor is like.
In the real world employees make multiple applications and take the best job they have available to them. They also try to negotiate with the employer for wages and benefits, etc and do so over the course of their employment. Not coincidentally that is also the market price for their services. I.E. people are getting paid what they are worth.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That isn't the argument. The argument is that people complaining about a pay gap are using fudged numbers, either making broad categories that cover work that is not equal in skill or required training, or not accounting for experience and time in trade.

There is still a gap...

Women Can't Get Equal Pay in Finance No Matter What They Do

Women have yet to close the wage gap, even when they have similar jobs to their male counterparts. That's especially true on Wall Street. Last year, women who graduated from business school and took jobs in financial services earned an average of $21,872 less than male MBAs, according to data collected by Bloomberg Business. Drilling down into the numbers shows part of that discrepancy is explained by differences in the type of finance companies that hired women, but a gap persisted even when women worked in similar sub-sectors of finance as men.​

There's a gap between what hedge fund managers and floor sweepers make. How do you propose to close it?

 

[SwimExpert]

Sure, but I was talking about a secondary earner, in response to pingy. If you both have 10 years experience, but one is married, should that make a difference? Of course not. Pingy thinks it does.

A difference to whom, is the question. I've described the phenomenon before. Two earner households tend to decrease pressure to maximize income, and leads to wage apathy. This results in applicants settling for lower starting salaries and being less assertive in requesting raises.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure, but I was talking about a secondary earner, in response to pingy. If you both have 10 years experience, but one is married, should that make a difference? Of course not. Pingy thinks it does.

A difference to whom, is the question. I've described the phenomenon before. Two earner households tend to decrease pressure to maximize income, and leads to wage apathy. This results in applicants settling for lower starting salaries and being less assertive in requesting raises.

Bullshit.
Employees compare "total compensation" and decide which is better for them. It isnt just a number.

 

[jillian]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

Yes but they feel better when they try to pretend that men somehow deserve to be paid more.

Every person get's paid what they've agreed to. If you agree to work for $X, that's what you deserve. Right?

what a bunch of nonsense. you have to have had bargaining power in order to obtain agreement. if you have a man and a woman doing the same job they should be paid the same.

no matter how it offends rightwingnut male egos.

 

[jillian]

Sure, but I was talking about a secondary earner, in response to pingy. If you both have 10 years experience, but one is married, should that make a difference? Of course not. Pingy thinks it does.

A difference to whom, is the question. I've described the phenomenon before. Two earner households tend to decrease pressure to maximize income, and leads to wage apathy. This results in applicants settling for lower starting salaries and being less assertive in requesting raises.

nice made up concept. and also a bunch of BS. you can describe it til your face turns blue. it doesn't make it any less absurd.