House passes pay equity bill (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2024, 08:38:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  House passes pay equity bill (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: How would you have voted on this bill?
#1
Aye (D)
 
#2
Nay (D)
 
#3
Aye (R)
 
#4
Nay (R)
 
#5
Aye (other)
 
#6
Nay (other)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 35

Author Topic: House passes pay equity bill  (Read 2854 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,331


« on: August 01, 2008, 07:36:14 PM »

I almost laughed at the invocation of the 23-cents statistic. That of course shows nothing about pay discrimination whatsoever.

And obviously, I would vote against the legislation.

I think you do not understand. It means that for every $1 earned by a man, for an equivalent job a woman gets 77cents. Does that seem fair to you? Since you are a republican I would not be surprised if you said yes.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,331


« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2008, 08:03:42 PM »

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

No I do believe it is for a similar position. There are reasons why this might be, like maternity leave and s**t like that, but it's unfair.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,331


« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2008, 02:25:10 AM »
« Edited: August 02, 2008, 02:28:23 AM by sbane »

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

No I do believe it is for a similar position.
It's not.  It's for all women versus all men.  They, of course, would like you to think that it's for similar position's, but it's not.  There are many reasons for the differnce.  Men tend to do the more dangerous work.  Men tend to work more hours per year.  Men tend to not get pregnant.  And then there are weird cases like nursing.  Male nurses make more than their female counterparts but it's not because of the reasons I've already given, it's because there are a lot fewer male nurses (supply and demand) and they are more likely to be able to lift large patients (heavy people are in the hospital a lot more often than skinny people, one of the reasons healthy people make more than the obese...that's not fair either is it?) in and out of beds.  And some well paying jobs have almost no women in the field, like airline pilots or network admins. 

You won't find statistics on women vs men in similiar fields, the numbers there don't show what they want them to show so they keep showing everybody this figure and they let the people make up their own minds what the poll means.  The people tend to figure it means what you thought it means.  It doesn't

Interesting... although how does the bill affect that? It's not as if this bill would make a woman get paid for a lower position the same as for a male in a higher position. Whether or not the statistic is for all men vs women, the bill would only affect wages for similar jobs. Don't see anything wrong with that.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 14 queries.