First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Obama to force Employers to disclose employee salaries
3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
So the Obama administration, unable to prove the "gender wage gap," he's now giving power to force employers to reveal employee salaries by gender.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/obama-administration-to-force-employers-to-disclose-salaries-by-gender.html

As has been proven time and time again, the disparity in earning between men in general and women in general is not due to some patriarchal conspiracy, but due instead in large part to the difference in jobs that men and women tend to choose. To a small degree, it's also because women tend to negotiate their salaries less than men do.

Any way you slice it, a woman doing the same job as a man, with the same knowledge, background, experience, and seniority in employment will earn the same amount. The "$0.77 to a man's dollar" bullshit was an aggregate statistic that merely reflected the earning status of "men with degrees" versus "women with degrees," and completely ignore that women choose idiotic low-paying fields (for example, "Gender Studies") more often than men, and that women in general choose NOT to go into high-paying (and necessary) STEM fields.

This initiative by Obama wouldn't be anything to worry about, since that disparity doesn't exist, except that Obama will now be under pressure to "correct" the "wage gap," and so that he can show results, he's obviously going to scream "misogyny" at the first company that shows any disparity in earnings, regardless of the actual reasons.

Remember, "Equal opportunity" does not mean "equal outcome." With the rise of socialism in this country, not sure of people can even tell the difference anymore.
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
I thought they already had this information honestly. Really, what are they going to do that they haven't already? Unless the company is blatantly discriminating there isn't much they can do. I have trouble seeing the problem here.

It's funny how things that raise our standard of living are denounced as socialism. For example, single payer health insurance is vehemently opposed even though we already pay a lot more than other industrialized and get less with our current system.
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
So this is bad because it'll prove the point you're trying to make? I don't understand the harm here. :/


Seeing as how Fox News announced the transgender funding, I'd be wary.
11650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
Equal is such a loaded term these days.

There's 1 woman that works in my field at my workplace. Rest are all men. I think there's a few in some of the other areas, but not as many. It's pretty well known that women tend to choose different fields than men do. Now why that is... well that's up for debate. I don't know many women who get into the IT field when compared to the amount of men. Even less when it's involving Cyber Security specifically. It's just not as attractive of a job to women as it is for males.

The whole pay/opporutnity argument gets old.
3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/30/16

nooneinparticular wrote:

I thought they already had this information honestly. Really, what are they going to do that they haven't already? Unless the company is blatantly discriminating there isn't much they can do. I have trouble seeing the problem here.

It's funny how things that raise our standard of living are denounced as socialism. For example, single payer health insurance is vehemently opposed even though we already pay a lot more than other industrialized and get less with our current system.


Nah, the only data they had was that study I mentioned of men and women with college degrees.

What are they going to do? My guess is find a woman getting paid less than a man in the same position and shout "muh soggy knees" without really looking into why. Y'know, pretty much the same thing they did before.

Obamacare certainly didn't raise my standard of living, and single-payer health insurance most likely won't, either. "Socialism" isn't a synonym for "things I don't like," it simply means that society determines the means of production and distribution rather than the people doing the jobs.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So this is bad because it'll prove the point you're trying to make? I don't understand the harm here. :/


Seeing as how Fox News announced the transgender funding, I'd be wary.


My point is already proven. The "wage gap" myth has been thoroughly debunked on all platforms. But even if this was an "investigation" into that myth just to prove it wrong again, I wouldn't be as worried. It would be spending money that we can't afford to spend (from 2005 to now, we haven't had a single year with GDP growth over 3% and our debt continues growing while idiots in government spend more and more on "social issues" like this crap), but I could brush that aside.

No, it's as I said--I fear this will turn into an inquisition, where if a company doesn't pay EXACTLY the same amount to a woman as they do a man for WHATEVER reason, Obama will crucify them. He'll be put under pressure to find SOMETHING< since he's already concluded that the wage gap is real.

We already have laws in place for wage discrimination. It might be surprising, but we've had them in place now for over 50 years. This is completely unnecessary.
7416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16
Transparency in pay gives employees of both genders a better position from which to negotiate pay.

I can see why employers would find this bad. Have difficulty understanding why anyone else would be opposed.
3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

Dariamus wrote:

Transparency in pay gives employees of both genders a better position from which to negotiate pay.

I can see why employers would find this bad. Have difficulty understanding why anyone else would be opposed.


This isn't "transparency in pay." This is a committee selected by Obama viewing the salaries, not the people actually employed.
Posted 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


nooneinparticular wrote:

I thought they already had this information honestly. Really, what are they going to do that they haven't already? Unless the company is blatantly discriminating there isn't much they can do. I have trouble seeing the problem here.

It's funny how things that raise our standard of living are denounced as socialism. For example, single payer health insurance is vehemently opposed even though we already pay a lot more than other industrialized and get less with our current system.


Nah, the only data they had was that study I mentioned of men and women with college degrees.

What are they going to do? My guess is find a woman getting paid less than a man in the same position and shout "muh soggy knees" without really looking into why. Y'know, pretty much the same thing they did before.

Obamacare certainly didn't raise my standard of living, and single-payer health insurance most likely won't, either. "Socialism" isn't a synonym for "things I don't like," it simply means that society determines the means of production and distribution rather than the people doing the jobs.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So this is bad because it'll prove the point you're trying to make? I don't understand the harm here. :/


Seeing as how Fox News announced the transgender funding, I'd be wary.


My point is already proven. The "wage gap" myth has been thoroughly debunked on all platforms. But even if this was an "investigation" into that myth just to prove it wrong again, I wouldn't be as worried. It would be spending money that we can't afford to spend (from 2005 to now, we haven't had a single year with GDP growth over 3% and our debt continues growing while idiots in government spend more and more on "social issues" like this crap), but I could brush that aside.

No, it's as I said--I fear this will turn into an inquisition, where if a company doesn't pay EXACTLY the same amount to a woman as they do a man for WHATEVER reason, Obama will crucify them. He'll be put under pressure to find SOMETHING< since he's already concluded that the wage gap is real.

We already have laws in place for wage discrimination. It might be surprising, but we've had them in place now for over 50 years. This is completely unnecessary.


I'm well aware of those laws. But I wouldn't mind if it is the Government doing said work. Bout time we put such a "myth" to rest. For example, we had laws against discrimination in hiring before affirmative action came along, and at that time, Affirmative action did solve the problem of discriminating on the basis of race.


Now while I am aware of such explanations, for all we know they could be wrong or stuff. Surely such a contentious debate has no easy answer with the amount of bias on both sides.

3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/30/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I'm well aware of those laws. But I wouldn't mind if it is the Government doing said work. Bout time we put such a "myth" to rest. For example, we had laws against discrimination in hiring before affirmative action came along, and at that time, Affirmative action did solve the problem of discriminating on the basis of race.


Now while I am aware of such explanations, for all we know they could be wrong or stuff. Surely such a contentious debate has no easy answer with the amount of bias on both sides.



It really -is- about time we put such a myth to rest. It's been debunked countless times. If I just decided out of the blue one day, "bearded men get paid less than non-bearded men," should Obama create a committee (not to investigate the claim, mind you, but to FIND cases where it's happening and punish people for it)?

I think that's where you're getting mixed up, mate. This isn't a committee that will decide whether or not the pay gap is real. This is a committee that's been selected to find heretics. Er, wait, that's the inquisition.... but close enough.



And if you honestly are going to argue that affirmative action "solved" anything, first I will laugh at you, then I will demand your sources, then I'll probably laugh at you again. Seriously, even the majority of minorities (hah, "majority of minorities") that I personally know understand that affirmative action caused an even bigger schism in race relations.

If you're not aware, affirmative action itself is the action of discrimination based on race.
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I'm well aware of those laws. But I wouldn't mind if it is the Government doing said work. Bout time we put such a "myth" to rest. For example, we had laws against discrimination in hiring before affirmative action came along, and at that time, Affirmative action did solve the problem of discriminating on the basis of race.


Now while I am aware of such explanations, for all we know they could be wrong or stuff. Surely such a contentious debate has no easy answer with the amount of bias on both sides.



It really -is- about time we put such a myth to rest. It's been debunked countless times. If I just decided out of the blue one day, "bearded men get paid less than non-bearded men," should Obama create a committee (not to investigate the claim, mind you, but to FIND cases where it's happening and punish people for it)?

I think that's where you're getting mixed up, mate. This isn't a committee that will decide whether or not the pay gap is real. This is a committee that's been selected to find heretics. Er, wait, that's the inquisition.... but close enough.



And if you honestly are going to argue that affirmative action "solved" anything, first I will laugh at you, then I will demand your sources, then I'll probably laugh at you again. Seriously, even the majority of minorities (hah, "majority of minorities") that I personally know understand that affirmative action caused an even bigger schism in race relations.

If you're not aware, affirmative action itself is the action of discrimination based on race.


Personally, at first, it may have solved something. Be ware it was 60s when it was initiated, and people I believe were more racist back then, hence my disclaimer, "at that time".
3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Personally, at first, it may have solved something. Be ware it was 60s when it was initiated, and people I believe were more racist back then, hence my disclaimer, "at that time".


There is no doubt in my mind (although I don't have immediate proof to support it) that you are correct in that people in general were racist to a higher degree during the 60's than they were today.

However, forced diversity is never an acceptable solution.

"Hi, we don't care about who can actually do the job, you need to hire [insert minority] to be diverse."

We live in a meritocracy, in a capitalist society. Unless you can make an argument for hiring minorities being MORE EXPENSIVE than hiring the majority, you cannot argue that "minorities are being kept out of jobs because they are a minority."

If corporations could get away with paying women or black people or any other minority less, don't you think they'd exploit that in a heartbeat? The roles would be completely reversed.
Posted 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Personally, at first, it may have solved something. Be ware it was 60s when it was initiated, and people I believe were more racist back then, hence my disclaimer, "at that time".


There is no doubt in my mind (although I don't have immediate proof to support it) that you are correct in that people in general were racist to a higher degree during the 60's than they were today.

However, forced diversity is never an acceptable solution.

"Hi, we don't care about who can actually do the job, you need to hire [insert minority] to be diverse."

We live in a meritocracy, in a capitalist society. Unless you can make an argument for hiring minorities being MORE EXPENSIVE than hiring the majority, you cannot argue that "minorities are being kept out of jobs because they are a minority."

If corporations could get away with paying women or black people or any other minority less, don't you think they'd exploit that in a heartbeat? The roles would be completely reversed.


That's not how it works. By hiring them you'd be treating them as equals, not as slaves. Many workers would object to being considered the equal of black folk. It did accomplish its goal of getting people to hire minorities, and I don't see where it went wrong. What, did a race war erupt or something? One could say the desegregation of schools was made in a similar vein (Although some aren't merited, but rather required.)
11650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16
Not that this is going to prove their myth or anything, but I hope this isn't on a personal level that these salaries are being revealed and more so at a grade level. It doesn't sound like it is. I didn't read the article.
3226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Personally, at first, it may have solved something. Be ware it was 60s when it was initiated, and people I believe were more racist back then, hence my disclaimer, "at that time".


There is no doubt in my mind (although I don't have immediate proof to support it) that you are correct in that people in general were racist to a higher degree during the 60's than they were today.

However, forced diversity is never an acceptable solution.

"Hi, we don't care about who can actually do the job, you need to hire [insert minority] to be diverse."

We live in a meritocracy, in a capitalist society. Unless you can make an argument for hiring minorities being MORE EXPENSIVE than hiring the majority, you cannot argue that "minorities are being kept out of jobs because they are a minority."

If corporations could get away with paying women or black people or any other minority less, don't you think they'd exploit that in a heartbeat? The roles would be completely reversed.


That's not how it works. By hiring them you'd be treating them as equals, not as slaves. Many workers would object to being considered the equal of black folk. It did accomplish its goal of getting people to hire minorities, and I don't see where it went wrong. What, did a race war erupt or something? One could say the desegregation of schools was made in a similar vein (Although some aren't merited, but rather required.)


Then (just as now) there are claims (however legit or not) about people getting a position because of their skin color, or NOT getting a position because of their lack of melanin. Hell, this actually happened to me, and the guy that DID get the job is one of my best friends, and even he doesn't understand how he got it over me. (He actually quit about a year later and came to work where I work now.)

"Did race wars erupt," you ask? No, but just as today, diversity quotas are a HUGE factor in cross-race tensions and lately even cross-gender tensions. It is still today a huge topic, especially among those seeking employment.

And yeah, that -is- how capitalism works. YOu do what will make you the most money for your company. If you can get away with paying one group of people less for the same job, you do it.

"De-segregation" in public schools is not the same as "forced diversity" in jobs. Do you compete for the position of 3rd grader? No, of course not. IS your status of being a 9th grader hinging on someone else NOT making it to 9th grade? No. Two completely different beasts. I'm completely against segregation.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.