Equal Pay Is Bad Even For Women. Why This Must Not Be Part Of Public Policy. (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
41Opinion
It's much more complex than that. Many factors come into play. Some include what you mentioned and some are almost the opposite. The question is, which factors are more important? Everyone has their own thoughts and ideas. It's not a mathematical equation. All I wanna say for now is that it's unfortunate how women seem to be valued or encouraged more even though they are more risky or dangerous to hire.
That is the result of political influence overcoming economic efficiency. One side of the political isle claims that imposing "social justice" at the expense of economic optimization is good for certain people. They distort the economy through top down social experimentation imposed on the private economic engine that pays everyone's salaries. In fact, every move they make takes the biggest negative toll on the very people they purport to champion.
We should get more money than men. Fuck the patriachy!.
Too bad honey that ain't ever happening. Now keep crying.
Be glad you are living good...
You should also be drafted for war and be mandated equal responsibility for equal pay and equal rights, but hey never mind all that. Men should give women money because they have vaginas. Oh wait. That’s already happening. Like alimony which as far as I can figure is payment for previous use of a woman’s vagina.
@Exterminatore
Someone's bitter🙄
This sounds like the same kind of thing as how car insurance for teenage boys is freaking high.
Statistics can be a bitch, does not represent the whole but if you go against the norm you still get screwed anyways.
To further add, the argument for equal pay is to take gender out of the equation regarding pay rates.
"This sounds like the same kind of thing as how car insurance for teenage boys is freaking high."
That is a precision analogy. Insurance rates are based upon EXPECTED experience. Since young men have higher auto accident rates than any other group of drivers, any random young man in the group is EXPECTED to have a greater chance of an accident. Hence they have to pay higher premiums since they are expected to cost the insurance company more money in claims.
Same concept applies to women in the workplace. Women are (logically because the facts prove it) EXPECTED to have a higher absentee rate and a greater chance of leaving their jobs for longer periods than men. Therefore they have a lower expected value to an employer. This is not a "punishment," (as Milton Friedman says in the video posted here it is not about what women "deserve.") it's a recognition of the facts and the logical conclusion those facts imply.
And if the roles were reversed and you were the gender who carried babies and stayed home, those statistics would be flipped with men have more absentees. So my question for you is this:
would you want to be paid less because you made a choice to be a father? No because being a father has nothing to do with how good you are at your job. It's a role in your life, but not the only one. A woman can have a family and be a kick ass career woman. Women are supposed to choose between career or children. If we show weakness in one, we get judged for it. Men don't get a second glance if they have a career and a family. No one second guesses them.
We unfortunately live in a very unequal world. Men have pros and cons to their gender and so do women.
"would you want to be paid less because you made a choice to be a father?"
Of course I wouldn't. But how does damaging the competitive ability of my employer so that I lose my job help me? I don't blame women for using whatever tools they have at their disposal to make as much money as they can. That's rational behavior. But the question is whether enforcing perceived "social justice" by damaging the competitive ability of American businesses is actually better for anyone... even women. Just because there is a perceived injustice doesn't mean that any solution to remedy that injustice is a smart solution.
Also I would point out that becoming a parent is a personal CHOICE. When you make that choice it comes with certain consequences... as is the case with all choices. To demand that others pay for your choices flies in the face of liberty.
Oh I am sorry.. did I become a parent by myself? No a MAN contributed. That's my point your missing. Yes we choose to have a family, but so does the father. So woman get shown as the more absentee gender but that's because they do the majority of child rearing so the fathers record goes untouched statistically.
Some European countries give fathers paid leave when children are born.
"So woman get shown as the more absentee gender but that's because they do the majority of child rearing so the fathers record goes untouched statistically. "
That is correct. Women inevitably and overwhelmingly bear the lion's share of raising children. Even though some people wish this wasn't true, don't want it to be true, fantasize that it isn't true and deny it's true, it's still true. It's been that way for the entire 200,000 year history of modern humans, and probably will remain that way in perpetuity.
So, knowing this is true, you still CHOOSE to take on that responsibility. That means you CHOSE a lifestyle that logically leads to less earnings in a career. A man who has children, however, correctly in most cases, expects that the mother will take on those responsibilities and he will be able to pursue more earnings in his career.
So when a woman makes the choice to have children, she is CHOOSING a lower paying career. How is that an employers fault?
I choose to buy 1,000 lottery tickets every week. We are told that the money from the tickets is used to pay for children's education, to feed homeless people, and to save endangered animals. That's a great cause right?
So I want my employer to be forced to increase my pay to pay for those tickets.
I was talking about why your data would be off. It's an illogical argument because women are the more absentee gender in the workplace because of the responsibilities of being a parent. Like you said men don't assume that responsibility so they are less absent. I wasn't saying an employer should pay me more because I'm a mother. Most women work and aren't moms yet so that doesn't even come close to what I said or make any sense to your rebuddle.
So what if a man makes more because he's a man but he's a worse employee then a woman who has no children and works hard at her job. Should he get paid more because he is a man? Or should the accountable responsibility get paid more regardless of gender and based on her record?
"So what if a man makes more because he's a man but he's a worse employee then a woman who has no children and works hard at her job. Should he get paid more because he is a man? Or should the accountable responsibility get paid more regardless of gender and based on her record?"
Gender is irrelevant. If I hire someone all I care about is how much they can produce. But when I hire them how do I know what they can produce? I can't tell that until they have worked for a while. So if a man and a woman both apply for the job, *and all their qualifications are otherwise equal*, I want to pick whichever one I think will produce the most for me over say the next 5 years. Since I can't see the future, the ONLY way I have to do that is to make my decision based on my EXPECTATION of who will produce more. And since I know it is a fact that the woman is more likely to have more absences from work than the man, I have to give the man the edge. It's only logical. I am not running a charity.
Now, let's say the woman is really smart. She says to me, "How about this... hire me for a 3 month probationary period for 20% lower salary. If after 3 months you are convinced I am the one who can produce the most value for you, then raise my salary to what you were offering."
1. It would give me tremendous respect for the woman because it demonstrates she knows how to negotiate, one of the most important skills in any job.
2. It would reduce my risk of hiring her at least in the short run since it would cost me less and also give me a way to terminate the deal in 3 months without having to be sued.
So I think it's very likely that this would tip the scales in her favor.
But here's the problem. If the law forces me to pay you the original amount, my hands are tied. I can't hire you at all. You remain unemployed.
Equal pay, minimum wage and all the other misguided artificial wage laws PREVENT women and minorities from getting jobs and moving up the economic ladder.
PS: If after 3 months I was happy with you, I'd probably also give you a bonus that reimburses you for the 20% that you didn't get the first 3 months. I want productive employees, I don't care one wit what color or sex they are.
Yes you do. You wouldn't ask it expect a man to say that it take that deal. So it's sexist either way because you have a bias regardless. Even if she had to work harder to prove herself to you, she shouldn't have to just because she's a woman. She should have the benefit of the doubt just like a man.
Another thing is that men are harder on equipment then woman. I know a guy who hires women because they take care of the $4 mil wood chipper as opposed to their male counterparts. Most work injuries are also sustained by males, which results in higher pay outs and coverage of WCB claims, so having these expenses doesn't help your company financially, it causes trouble for it and WCB rates increase with each injury, so your paying more into it for the liability coverage. You and I are not gonna see eye to eye on this, so let's agree to disagree and move on.
True.
Not to mention a women even gets soo much benefits while pregnant. Not that its unnecessary, but a dad is left out!
This i strongly agree. I have seen many women doing enjoyable work beside during working hours. Not many men do that.
And later whine things.
Private groups may know how to handle it better, since they are set for profits!
But Govt groups get de-accelerated while keeping many such women in jobs. They may want to develop a country from both genders, but no eqaulity in that!
I dont think you know the first thing about what you are writing and even less about actual "logic"
Yet you offer no rebuttal. Hardly supportive of your assertion.
I very quickly realized how long it would take to thoroughly refute your assertions only to be faced with continued ignorance you’d shown in your drivel above. And it was at that point I decided to spend my time more wisely. I’ll end with this though, you can’t use the term “with all else being equal” when you ascribe such generalizations to one gender and not the other.
Still no rebuttal, just excuses to hide the fact that you have none.
You know women in some cases make more than men? Are you going to tell me women teachers make less than men? Also women get pregnancy leave , men don't and they must hold job for her. Women take more personal days than men. Other words companies lose more money with women than men. How could any woman argue that point?
Because depending where you live, you don't always get maternity leave. In my country (Canada) Men can take paternity leave and stay at home. There are also parental benefits That get paid to either mom or dad depending on whose on leave. Men can choose to stay home but it's usually the mother for breastfeeding reasons.
In that case, organizations should pay Asians a lot more than white people because Asians as a whole have higher work ethics than whites.
See what I did there.
Pay shouldn't be determined by "work ethic," it should be determined by the value the employee contributes to the organization. And when you are absent from your job, you are not contributing value.
Right. I love your argument how "work ethic" isn't a thing.
Of course, you should just stop this farce and come out and say "Yes, I believe White Men should be paid the most, because we are always there working, and we contribute value by being there." Because surely, only white men have what it takes to contribute "value" (see, I can use parentheses too) to an organization :)
Your case is based on some kind of emotional problem, not on facts and logic. Since I'm not a psychiatrist I cannot address it.
This is a good mytake. People can't be paid equally, especially when certain individuals use more effort than others to carry out specific tasks. It shows in the contributions they make to their workplace. So it's only fair that they deserve a higher income through their hard work.
This is utter bullshit. Equal work for equal pay. The same rules regarding absenteeism, illness, etc. still apply. It's insulting to anyone who does the same work as someone else to be paid less. There is absolutely NO justification for this!!!
Assuming your figures from 1998 are correct, have you researched why women have more absenteeism than men?
No I haven't. But I think the reason is clear and I discussed that with someone on this page earlier (because they bear the primary duties of childcare). This topic though is not about "reason" but about the fact that they have more absenteeism. The discussion about reason has to do with "fairness." That's a different topic and a subjective issue whereas the fact that they have higher absenteeism is not subjective. And, even assuming there is something "unfair" about a lack of equal pay, yet another discussion is what should be done about it. Is forcing equal pay in order to remedy potential unfairness the best solution for a society? And is THAT fair or just replacing one injustice with another? And yet another discussion... should forcing equal pay be something that falls within the scope of what government should be doing? All of that is related in some way, but not the topic of this post.
PS: If the figures provided by the BLS are correct, then my figures are correct because that graph was created by the BLS.
So your argument is that positive descrimination ignores the experience gained while others are absent.
I assume 'equal pay' means the same pay per hour. In theory this means an absentee earns less but many people are salaried so the extra effort performed by the non absentee is ignored in the pay structure.
Annual pay bands would not help with this disparity but a tailored bonus structure may (but this is dependent on the organisation).
However, is there any evidence that a few days absent causes any actual effect on the performance of the employee or would it turn out to be statistical noise.
An interesting take that warrants further examination.
I support women getting equal pay, like when they get drafted for war. Oh wait that’s right, that doesn’t happen. Well so much for feminism being about equality because I’m pretty sure feminists aren’t pushing for that.
The sad part behind this is people are going to give you attention. Because honestly you crave that more than being paid if you write something like this.
this site is full of the dumbest humans on the face of the goddamn earth... i swear to jesus.
word!
Equal pay was meant to be for equal work. Feminism killed that and rigged the game. Quit playing their game, and quit playing with them. Period.
Well then... Haven't you just got it all figured out
Guess everyone who thought equal pay was just silly
If they can't make any logical case for equal pay, yet still believe it is the best choice, then yes, they are silly. You can distinguish yourself from those silly people by making a logical case for it. So far you have not.
“Expected value” lmfao my ass.
When you hire someone you determine how much they are going to contribute to your business based on what you EXPECT them to do. You cannot KNOW how much their value will actually be because they haven't done the job yet. So the only rational way to determine compensation is based on expectations of future performance. What other method would be rational? And absent any specific reason to assume otherwise, if you hire a woman, the rational expectation is that she will be absent from work more often than a man would be.
That’s just not how it works kiddo
You don’t look at someone and go “hmm this person looks like they’d make 5000$ for me a month while this person looks like they’d only make 4000$”
Revenue isn’t calculated according to some random ass expectations and assumptions, if that were the case we’d all earn next to nothing because people would just pull random numbers out of their asses in attempts to maximize corporate profits.
Salaries are fixed taking into account minimum wages adjusted to actual time, effort & qualifications required for the job. That’s why there are trial/training periods for the vast majority of jobs. You gotta make sure your employees are worth their money. It’s HRM 101.
You don't understand the issue and in your case helping you understand it would be beyond the scope of these myTake forums. So I gave you the last word.
Oh okay, we have a consensus over the fact that this take is nonsense then it seems :)