No, I do believe that women, men, teens, blacks, native americans, vets, disabled, should all get equal treatment in regards to wages and such. But when you legislate it you open the door to abuses by those who game the system to get themselves something or to enable them to do less work or lower quality work, without losing the job.
When they get threatened with being fired or their pay lowered because of the listed reasons above, they and the lawyers that cater to such people then have this legislation as a tool to threaten their employer with. I realize not everyone will abuse this legislation like this, but it opens the door to getting people into jobs that will and makes it harder for the employer to get rid of them once in the workplace.
If this is a real issue, then it requires the enforcement of existing legislation not new laws. 5 years ago President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law precisely to deal with this issue. He signed two more executive orders this week. Why should states have to bear the cost of additional, redundant legislation and enforcement. I understand it is an emotional issue and it plays well to the general public. Women (everyone for that matter regardless of distinction) should be paid the same for the same work when all other factors are equal. If they are not, we have existing wage laws both state and federal to address and fix it. Politicians are simply creating smoke screens by running around at our expense giving populist speeches about pay equality and proposing new "tough" legislative action. They count on low information voters and useful idiots to not understand that our system already has too many laws and adding more and more doesn't solve the problem. Redundant laws just clog the system and cost more money to enact and enforce. They do however stir the base and get politicians re-elected.
I was an Assistant Manager for a well known restaurant and I was hired at 34k yearly due to my extensive background in the culinary field and management. Plus the region I was hired in had 34k as a pay rate ceiling. I was then transferred to Upstate NY where the regions pay rate ceiling was 32k. 3 months there they were able to hire an extra Assistant Manager for that location and "she" had no culinary or management experience. She was a bank telling for the last 5 years and was happy to be hired at 30k a year. I will say that despite her inexperience, she did good. But the company had to invest far more in her training that I. I'm sorry, but equal pay rate for these situations only devalues the experienced employee.
It's somewhat of a fallacy being used to gather political support. While it is true that the Average wage of an adult man is about 23% or so higher, that is across all full-time employed adults, when you compare the same job it is much less. While I'd like to see everyone's pay go up and inflation go down for everyone: Government intervention is typically ham-handed, inefficient and ends up with loopholes, so that more laws are needed to combat. Unintended consequences always pop up.
There is no doubt that gender discrimination exists as do many other forms of separating people. Unfortunately, folks need to understand that government and laws do not change peoples' minds. Civil rights laws did not end discrimination on racial basis, it also exists, still. Women have a greater societal expectation of putting their family first. It's assumed that if you hire a woman of a certain age, she may become pregnant and take time off. She is typically expected to sacrifice career goals for her children, at least much more than men are. If you want more parity, then let's work on challenging those expectations and beliefs and values, rather than continuing to try to force certain behaviors. When has that ever worked? Women are assumed to seek jobs with better benefits geared toward children and more flex-time, naturally those will be compensated less monetarily. It's known as a “compensating differential”, meaning the total cost of that particular employee is the same on the bottom line. The problem with thinking this way is that every individual is unique, therefor every family situation is unique, and different people (men or women) will seek the compensation which fits them best. One size fits all solutions, which the ham hand of big government prefers will cause more problems instead of helping.
When you think about it, how necessary was the Ledbetter Act? The Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. It specifically prohibits sex discrimination in wages. We have an enforcement problem, not a legislative problem. Please don't buy into the empty but popular 77 cents on the dollar argument being foisted on us by the White House. Prove to yourself that you are better than simple exploitation by statistical trickery. Theft is illegal in every state in the union and yet thefts occur everyday in every state. We don't fix that by making a new law that says "stealing is illegal still, really we mean it this time". These issues are moral, ethical, and systemic, not legislatively inadequate.
Even the Obama White House has a problem with this. Many of its female staff make less than the males. The WH said that was due to hours worked, experience , education and other variables. And that is the way it should be.
If that is how the WH decides who gets paid what, why do they think it should be any different for anyone else.
Same pay for the same work, yes, but only if everything else is the same
Greg - You're missing the point, I think. The issue is when two people are making different salaries and the only distinguishable difference between the two is gender.
In your example, you had significantly more experience and industry knowledge...you fairly earned a higher wage.
Greg - regardless of the negative votes on your post, I do not believe many people would disagree that your specific situation merited your getting paid more. Although you were doing the same job, (in theory) your experience allowed you to do up the job better and/or more efficiently.
The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men.
"The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men."
But there's the rub. How do we know that's true?
The president yesterday cited census data. But census data doesn't tell us whether there's a real apples to apples comparison.
Yes, women make less than men, the census data tells us, but that doesn't tell us that there is any discrimination taking place (not that it never happens, but is it widespread enough to merit yet one more back-breaking regulation on business?).
Two women I worked with in my early 30s filed a suit against my boss and claimed, in part, discrimination because I made more money than they did, never mind that I had six years more experience and a job with more responsibilities (there were other issues involved and they eventually got a settlement based on "wrongful termination.") Things like that, and Greg's story, make me very distrustful of claims of unequal pay.
I've never seen a rigorous study on this topic. One that clearly addresses obvious discrimination.
A man and a woman work for the same company in the same location doing essentially the same job with the same amount of experience. He makes more than she does. Discrimination. (obviously, a woman with more experience, or a better education or with more responsibility with all else being equal, is also discrimination).
Change one of those variables -- different job, different company, different location, different levels of experience, and discrimination becomes harder to prove.
If anybody can find a link to a study that goes beyond mere census data (which is too generalized to be useful, except to politicians looking to score points), I'd like to see it.
Debbie, it was sold as leveling the gender wage playing field and here we are 5 years later. It, like every other piece of legislation coming out of this White House, was sold on lies, divisiveness, false promises, emotion, and very little substantive value. If the public and our legislators were only told (or bothered to investigate themselves) what was really in the reams of legalese being voted on, not much would or should pass. The bottom line is that if voters took the time to learn that we have had laws on the books to address wage inequalities and all these new ones are just populist window dressing, maybe we could start holding legislators accountable for wasting time and our tax dollars playing off our sense of perceived injustices.
If New York State wants equal pay then they should make the rate that business pays for NYS disability costs the same for men and women. Of course the State would just raise the rate for men to that of women and the small business would get screwed again.
No Jeff it was not. Lily Ledbetter lost her fight against Goodyear because the Supreme Court said it was past the statute of limitations for her to file. The Lily Ledbetter Act clarifies when the time allowed for filing a suit starts.
Oh and Ms. Ledbetter WAS discriminated against...it wasnt just some emotional woman's imagination
I'm not questioning the validity of Ms. Ledbetters case, I'm questioning the effectiveness of the law and how it was sold to the public. There was grand pomp and circumstance as to it leveling the gender wage gap and yet here we are 5 years later pushing the same issue. Either the law was window dressing or there is a failure in enforcing it. Neither situation calls for MORE laws.
I found enough data here to convince me gender discrimination is real, Howard. Maybe it's not enough for you, maybe it is. Again I think it is more about continuing to follow traditional gender role expectations than anything else.
Well Jeff the only reason the Supreme Court gave for throwing her case out was that it was out of the statute of limitations...The Lily Ledbetter Act CHANGES the statue of limitation. It is NOT redundant law and NOT window dressing.
Dave, thanks for the link. I think the most telling graph is the last one. Several jobs that are traditionally female (teaching, nursing, secretaries) where women still earn less than men, so you can't argue -- I don't think -- that the men have more experience, training or education.
But is it up to the government to fix that? Or is up to we as a society to change our attitudes?
Tim, you said, "The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men" The problem is that no one has been able to back up that systemically, women with similar education and experience AND working the same title, same seniority, same company are paid less than men. The reason we are being inundated with a false narrative is that current statistics don't compare wages with all other factors being equal. Instances of gender wage discrimination in the private sector occur just as wage discrimination occurs based on race, age, culture, etc. but they can, are, and should be prosecuted through existing federal and state laws. It is illegal for an employer to pay one person less (regardless of distinction) for the same work when ALL other factors are equal and it has been for 51 years. We don't need more laws and more burdensome regulations on businesses.
The gender pay gap is hopelessly static right now. For the last decade, median earnings for women working full time, year-round have been just 77% of men’s earnings. This oft-cited percentage stems from U.S. Census Bureau data and is not, despite critiques, something made up by feminists to (heaven forbid) give women raises. However, that stat is just a snapshot of the pay gap in the U.S., so it’s important to drill down deeper. The American Association of University Women’s research report, Graduating to a Pay Gap, does just that.
The report controls for occupation, major, hours worked, parenthood, and many other factors to reveal that college-educated women working full time were paid an unexplained 7% less than their male counterparts were paid one year after graduation. To clarify, this analysis looks at men and women who have made the same educational and occupational choices and still finds a gap.
Unbelievably, some folks respond to this research by saying that 7% is too small to worry about. If it’s so small, I suppose these folks would happily give up 7% of their own salaries? Didn’t think so....
I don't think anyone is implying that gender based wage discrimination doesn't exist, the debate is 1.) whether it is systemic and/or epidemic and 2.) how it is addressed. I happen to fall on the side that says there are cases (maybe even a significant # of them) that need redress but that more laws and additional onerous regulations on businesses are not the answer.
I guess I am just not seeing how the bill the Republicans blocked from being debated yesterday is onerous? What is wrong with revising and updating laws that were written 1938 and 1964?
You say that you believe there are cases that need redress. The businesses are the ones who are committing the infractions...so THEY need to be held responsible for their actions.
Now we are on the same page, prosecute employers who commit the infractions, don't force businesses who already comply to come up with reams of data, forms, and tedious documentation just to prove that they are not breaking the law. The onus should be on the law violator, not the law abider. Interesting statistic recently released by the US Dept. of Education shows that for every 160 females who earn a college degree, only 100 males earn one. Should government step in and close that gap as well? Should we subsidize all male college educations until the gender degree gap is closed?
How exactly are we to know which business comply if there is no reporting of data by businesses? We take their word for it LOL?
Your college degree scenario is apples and oranges. The only way it would fit is if the females and males that took the same exact courses and got the same exact grades yet more females earned degrees and males did not.
There obviously need to be tweaks to current laws or additional laws added because the problem still exists and is a slap in the face of every female in this country. "Yeah we know its a proven problem, but so what....its not worth burdening the poor business owner over."
But what do you expect in a country that took years to allow us to vote.
And what do you expect from an authoritative patriarchal government more BS laws that accomplish nothing? Tweaks that still accomplish nothing? Rescinding those laws would open more opportunities. Remember the famous quote about the definition of insanity.
Debbie; The only law which could be passed to eliminate gender pay gap is to force all married men take the same amount of maternity leave as their spouses. But then you will have a married versus single pay gap. Or childless couples versus families with children. And then it's not fair to single people who choose to adopt. And so then there will need to be more laws and so on and so on. I hope you see what I'm getting at. My point is government can't force societal changes, what it can do is open up more diverse opportunities for everyone to take advantage of by removing restrictions.
Debbie,
"Your college degree scenario is apples and oranges. The only way it would fit is if the females and males that took the same exact courses and got the same exact grades yet more females earned degrees and males did not."
Bingo, we are on the same page again. The only way there is a systemic gender wage gap is if women are making less while working the same job, same title, at the same company, with the same training/schooling, the same seniority, same no. of hours per year, same level achieved through job evaluation, same no. of hours taken off for sick/personal/vacation leave and so on. No one has of yet produced credible data to support that.
The government first solution you favor puts the burden of proof along with associated costs on compliant employers. That would compare to the government saying there is a problem with identity theft (which there is) so the solution would be that every person in the U.S. would be required at their own expense to provide exhaustive documentation to prove that aren't participating in identity theft or fostering it through unprotected devices and not shredding personal information before disposing of it.
Laws are designed to provide a framework for the punishment of violators, not eradicate misdeeds altogether. Can you name me one instance where a law completely wiped out instances of the infraction it enforces? We can and should prosecute violators of ALL types of wage discrimination, but not at the expense of those employers who do the right thing.
Everything being equal and
Everything being equal and equitable; absolutely equal pay for equal work and the responsibilities entailed.
Wages should be predicated on many factors and not solely on gender (sex) and absolutely not on political dogma.
Here is a link to an article from Forbes by author Carrie Lukas the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-th…
Is this poll only asking
Is this poll only asking about that specific provision, or the entire Women's Equality Act?
No, I do believe that women,
No, I do believe that women, men, teens, blacks, native americans, vets, disabled, should all get equal treatment in regards to wages and such. But when you legislate it you open the door to abuses by those who game the system to get themselves something or to enable them to do less work or lower quality work, without losing the job.
When they get threatened with being fired or their pay lowered because of the listed reasons above, they and the lawyers that cater to such people then have this legislation as a tool to threaten their employer with. I realize not everyone will abuse this legislation like this, but it opens the door to getting people into jobs that will and makes it harder for the employer to get rid of them once in the workplace.
If this is a real issue, then
If this is a real issue, then it requires the enforcement of existing legislation not new laws. 5 years ago President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law precisely to deal with this issue. He signed two more executive orders this week. Why should states have to bear the cost of additional, redundant legislation and enforcement. I understand it is an emotional issue and it plays well to the general public. Women (everyone for that matter regardless of distinction) should be paid the same for the same work when all other factors are equal. If they are not, we have existing wage laws both state and federal to address and fix it. Politicians are simply creating smoke screens by running around at our expense giving populist speeches about pay equality and proposing new "tough" legislative action. They count on low information voters and useful idiots to not understand that our system already has too many laws and adding more and more doesn't solve the problem. Redundant laws just clog the system and cost more money to enact and enforce. They do however stir the base and get politicians re-elected.
I was an Assistant Manager
I was an Assistant Manager for a well known restaurant and I was hired at 34k yearly due to my extensive background in the culinary field and management. Plus the region I was hired in had 34k as a pay rate ceiling. I was then transferred to Upstate NY where the regions pay rate ceiling was 32k. 3 months there they were able to hire an extra Assistant Manager for that location and "she" had no culinary or management experience. She was a bank telling for the last 5 years and was happy to be hired at 30k a year. I will say that despite her inexperience, she did good. But the company had to invest far more in her training that I. I'm sorry, but equal pay rate for these situations only devalues the experienced employee.
Maybe if people would just
Maybe if people would just learn to negotiate the value of their labor we wouldn't need these silly laws.
It's somewhat of a fallacy
It's somewhat of a fallacy being used to gather political support. While it is true that the Average wage of an adult man is about 23% or so higher, that is across all full-time employed adults, when you compare the same job it is much less. While I'd like to see everyone's pay go up and inflation go down for everyone: Government intervention is typically ham-handed, inefficient and ends up with loopholes, so that more laws are needed to combat. Unintended consequences always pop up.
There is no doubt that gender discrimination exists as do many other forms of separating people. Unfortunately, folks need to understand that government and laws do not change peoples' minds. Civil rights laws did not end discrimination on racial basis, it also exists, still. Women have a greater societal expectation of putting their family first. It's assumed that if you hire a woman of a certain age, she may become pregnant and take time off. She is typically expected to sacrifice career goals for her children, at least much more than men are. If you want more parity, then let's work on challenging those expectations and beliefs and values, rather than continuing to try to force certain behaviors. When has that ever worked? Women are assumed to seek jobs with better benefits geared toward children and more flex-time, naturally those will be compensated less monetarily. It's known as a “compensating differential”, meaning the total cost of that particular employee is the same on the bottom line. The problem with thinking this way is that every individual is unique, therefor every family situation is unique, and different people (men or women) will seek the compensation which fits them best. One size fits all solutions, which the ham hand of big government prefers will cause more problems instead of helping.
Less government - more free market is the answer.
When you think about it, how
When you think about it, how necessary was the Ledbetter Act? The Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. It specifically prohibits sex discrimination in wages. We have an enforcement problem, not a legislative problem. Please don't buy into the empty but popular 77 cents on the dollar argument being foisted on us by the White House. Prove to yourself that you are better than simple exploitation by statistical trickery. Theft is illegal in every state in the union and yet thefts occur everyday in every state. We don't fix that by making a new law that says "stealing is illegal still, really we mean it this time". These issues are moral, ethical, and systemic, not legislatively inadequate.
Even the Obama White House
Even the Obama White House has a problem with this. Many of its female staff make less than the males. The WH said that was due to hours worked, experience , education and other variables. And that is the way it should be.
If that is how the WH decides who gets paid what, why do they think it should be any different for anyone else.
Same pay for the same work, yes, but only if everything else is the same
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had to do with changing the Statute of Limitations.
Greg - You're missing the
Greg - You're missing the point, I think. The issue is when two people are making different salaries and the only distinguishable difference between the two is gender.
In your example, you had significantly more experience and industry knowledge...you fairly earned a higher wage.
Greg - regardless of the
Greg - regardless of the negative votes on your post, I do not believe many people would disagree that your specific situation merited your getting paid more. Although you were doing the same job, (in theory) your experience allowed you to do up the job better and/or more efficiently.
The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men.
"The main argument is that
"The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men."
But there's the rub. How do we know that's true?
The president yesterday cited census data. But census data doesn't tell us whether there's a real apples to apples comparison.
Yes, women make less than men, the census data tells us, but that doesn't tell us that there is any discrimination taking place (not that it never happens, but is it widespread enough to merit yet one more back-breaking regulation on business?).
Two women I worked with in my early 30s filed a suit against my boss and claimed, in part, discrimination because I made more money than they did, never mind that I had six years more experience and a job with more responsibilities (there were other issues involved and they eventually got a settlement based on "wrongful termination.") Things like that, and Greg's story, make me very distrustful of claims of unequal pay.
I've never seen a rigorous
I've never seen a rigorous study on this topic. One that clearly addresses obvious discrimination.
A man and a woman work for the same company in the same location doing essentially the same job with the same amount of experience. He makes more than she does. Discrimination. (obviously, a woman with more experience, or a better education or with more responsibility with all else being equal, is also discrimination).
Change one of those variables -- different job, different company, different location, different levels of experience, and discrimination becomes harder to prove.
If anybody can find a link to a study that goes beyond mere census data (which is too generalized to be useful, except to politicians looking to score points), I'd like to see it.
Debbie, it was sold as
Debbie, it was sold as leveling the gender wage playing field and here we are 5 years later. It, like every other piece of legislation coming out of this White House, was sold on lies, divisiveness, false promises, emotion, and very little substantive value. If the public and our legislators were only told (or bothered to investigate themselves) what was really in the reams of legalese being voted on, not much would or should pass. The bottom line is that if voters took the time to learn that we have had laws on the books to address wage inequalities and all these new ones are just populist window dressing, maybe we could start holding legislators accountable for wasting time and our tax dollars playing off our sense of perceived injustices.
If New York State wants equal
If New York State wants equal pay then they should make the rate that business pays for NYS disability costs the same for men and women. Of course the State would just raise the rate for men to that of women and the small business would get screwed again.
No Jeff it was not. Lily
No Jeff it was not. Lily Ledbetter lost her fight against Goodyear because the Supreme Court said it was past the statute of limitations for her to file. The Lily Ledbetter Act clarifies when the time allowed for filing a suit starts.
Oh and Ms. Ledbetter WAS discriminated against...it wasnt just some emotional woman's imagination
http://youtu.be/tMxsYqaFwA0
I'm not questioning the
I'm not questioning the validity of Ms. Ledbetters case, I'm questioning the effectiveness of the law and how it was sold to the public. There was grand pomp and circumstance as to it leveling the gender wage gap and yet here we are 5 years later pushing the same issue. Either the law was window dressing or there is a failure in enforcing it. Neither situation calls for MORE laws.
I found enough data here to
I found enough data here to convince me gender discrimination is real, Howard. Maybe it's not enough for you, maybe it is. Again I think it is more about continuing to follow traditional gender role expectations than anything else.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/some-data-for-equal-pay-day/
Well Jeff the only reason the
Well Jeff the only reason the Supreme Court gave for throwing her case out was that it was out of the statute of limitations...The Lily Ledbetter Act CHANGES the statue of limitation. It is NOT redundant law and NOT window dressing.
Dave, thanks for the link. I
Dave, thanks for the link. I think the most telling graph is the last one. Several jobs that are traditionally female (teaching, nursing, secretaries) where women still earn less than men, so you can't argue -- I don't think -- that the men have more experience, training or education.
But is it up to the government to fix that? Or is up to we as a society to change our attitudes?
That's all I'm saying Howard.
That's all I'm saying Howard. It may not ever be fixable. I believe an open free labor market will get closer; faster and more fairly than government.
Thank you Tim and Jason. I
Thank you Tim and Jason. I sorry I got a little confused as to the entire point I guess.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Tim, you said, "The main
Tim, you said, "The main argument is that overall, women with similar education and experience are paid less than men" The problem is that no one has been able to back up that systemically, women with similar education and experience AND working the same title, same seniority, same company are paid less than men. The reason we are being inundated with a false narrative is that current statistics don't compare wages with all other factors being equal. Instances of gender wage discrimination in the private sector occur just as wage discrimination occurs based on race, age, culture, etc. but they can, are, and should be prosecuted through existing federal and state laws. It is illegal for an employer to pay one person less (regardless of distinction) for the same work when ALL other factors are equal and it has been for 51 years. We don't need more laws and more burdensome regulations on businesses.
The gender pay gap is
The gender pay gap is hopelessly static right now. For the last decade, median earnings for women working full time, year-round have been just 77% of men’s earnings. This oft-cited percentage stems from U.S. Census Bureau data and is not, despite critiques, something made up by feminists to (heaven forbid) give women raises. However, that stat is just a snapshot of the pay gap in the U.S., so it’s important to drill down deeper. The American Association of University Women’s research report, Graduating to a Pay Gap, does just that.
The report controls for occupation, major, hours worked, parenthood, and many other factors to reveal that college-educated women working full time were paid an unexplained 7% less than their male counterparts were paid one year after graduation. To clarify, this analysis looks at men and women who have made the same educational and occupational choices and still finds a gap.
Unbelievably, some folks respond to this research by saying that 7% is too small to worry about. If it’s so small, I suppose these folks would happily give up 7% of their own salaries? Didn’t think so....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2014/04/07/the-awful-truth…
I don't think anyone is
I don't think anyone is implying that gender based wage discrimination doesn't exist, the debate is 1.) whether it is systemic and/or epidemic and 2.) how it is addressed. I happen to fall on the side that says there are cases (maybe even a significant # of them) that need redress but that more laws and additional onerous regulations on businesses are not the answer.
I guess I am just not seeing
I guess I am just not seeing how the bill the Republicans blocked from being debated yesterday is onerous? What is wrong with revising and updating laws that were written 1938 and 1964?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s84#summary
You say that you believe there are cases that need redress. The businesses are the ones who are committing the infractions...so THEY need to be held responsible for their actions.
Now we are on the same page,
Now we are on the same page, prosecute employers who commit the infractions, don't force businesses who already comply to come up with reams of data, forms, and tedious documentation just to prove that they are not breaking the law. The onus should be on the law violator, not the law abider. Interesting statistic recently released by the US Dept. of Education shows that for every 160 females who earn a college degree, only 100 males earn one. Should government step in and close that gap as well? Should we subsidize all male college educations until the gender degree gap is closed?
How exactly are we to know
How exactly are we to know which business comply if there is no reporting of data by businesses? We take their word for it LOL?
Your college degree scenario is apples and oranges. The only way it would fit is if the females and males that took the same exact courses and got the same exact grades yet more females earned degrees and males did not.
There obviously need to be tweaks to current laws or additional laws added because the problem still exists and is a slap in the face of every female in this country. "Yeah we know its a proven problem, but so what....its not worth burdening the poor business owner over."
But what do you expect in a country that took years to allow us to vote.
And what do you expect from
And what do you expect from an authoritative patriarchal government more BS laws that accomplish nothing? Tweaks that still accomplish nothing? Rescinding those laws would open more opportunities. Remember the famous quote about the definition of insanity.
Debbie; The only law which
Debbie; The only law which could be passed to eliminate gender pay gap is to force all married men take the same amount of maternity leave as their spouses. But then you will have a married versus single pay gap. Or childless couples versus families with children. And then it's not fair to single people who choose to adopt. And so then there will need to be more laws and so on and so on. I hope you see what I'm getting at. My point is government can't force societal changes, what it can do is open up more diverse opportunities for everyone to take advantage of by removing restrictions.
Debbie, "Your college degree
Debbie,
"Your college degree scenario is apples and oranges. The only way it would fit is if the females and males that took the same exact courses and got the same exact grades yet more females earned degrees and males did not."
Bingo, we are on the same page again. The only way there is a systemic gender wage gap is if women are making less while working the same job, same title, at the same company, with the same training/schooling, the same seniority, same no. of hours per year, same level achieved through job evaluation, same no. of hours taken off for sick/personal/vacation leave and so on. No one has of yet produced credible data to support that.
The government first solution you favor puts the burden of proof along with associated costs on compliant employers. That would compare to the government saying there is a problem with identity theft (which there is) so the solution would be that every person in the U.S. would be required at their own expense to provide exhaustive documentation to prove that aren't participating in identity theft or fostering it through unprotected devices and not shredding personal information before disposing of it.
Laws are designed to provide a framework for the punishment of violators, not eradicate misdeeds altogether. Can you name me one instance where a law completely wiped out instances of the infraction it enforces? We can and should prosecute violators of ALL types of wage discrimination, but not at the expense of those employers who do the right thing.
Discussions like these always
Discussions like these always remind me of "The Collapse of Complex Societies."
-- See problem; solve problem; create new problems. Repeat. The cumulative effect, an unsustainable society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzuviYRse3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddmQhIiVM48