U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[eriseis]

Put this in big bold letters and call it a day. We've come a long way with this Equal Pay Act.

Diurdi and others make great points about such things as leaving the workforce to have babies being a possible reason for the wage gap of 7%. But you can't ignore darenyon's assertion, which seems to have been forgotten.

I thought the 7% came after maternity leave was accounted for?

[starlord]

Maybe in some industries, but not others. For example if they at walmart have some index that says that new hires recieve $10/hour if they're male and $9/hour if they're female by default, then it would be a case of discrimination. But it's often not this simple.

Yeah, I just said that. I don't need you to copypaste from wikipedia for me.

then why would you say its guilty until proven innocent? they have to establish a case that theres unequal pay on the basis of sex.

[BLCalliente]

Ironically, it is starting pay that has the smallest gap.

I don't find that to be ironic at all. That's my point.

A gap in starting pay would be a very easy to spot indicator that there was sexism involved.

Beyond that even I think it gets too muddy.

[bergmann620]

At any rate. You're obfuscating with something that may or may not be a problem. You claim that women are not a minority. In power they are. We might or might not have more women graduating but those in power are still men. Most CEO's are men, most congressmen are men, we still haven't had a female president. In STEM fields most people are men.

And you're obfuscating the currently existing pay gap, which may or may not be a problem.

Might or might not have more women graduating? Do you not believe in facts? More women have been graduating since I was 3!

Most CEO's and Congressmen are men... And most mothers are... Women? SHOCKING! I know that you will only be happy after we have conquered and made irrelevant basic biology, but seriously... The dissonance is shocking.

Yes, there are obviously and rightly women concerned with reaching the peaks of the business and political worlds... And there are many that just want to run a normal life, get married, have kids, and do their thing. Your argument is just silly on its' face. Biologically, more women will ALWAYS be interrupted by the 'being a woman' issue than men.

It's as if you're saying that until women can pee standing up, they will always be behind the ball in business because they can't be as productive and they use more toilet paper. In order to correct this, we must either teach girls to catheterize themselves during potty training, or we must force men to sit down to pee in every occasion so that women can be equal.

We still haven't had a female President because 1) Enlightened Democrats preferred an unqualified black guy over the most qualified female candidate we've ever had, and 3) Not enough women will vote for one.

[Deleted]

then why would you say its guilty until proven innocent? they have to establish a case that theres unequal pay on the basis of sex.

No, this is what I said:

It's a case of guilty until proven innocent once the employee has provided a possibility that it may be sexism.

In normal court cases, the claimant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. But not in cases pursuant to the Equal Pay Act.

[BLCalliente]

Maybe in some industries, but not others. For example if they at walmart have some index that says that new hires recieve $10/hour if they're male and $9/hour if they're female by default, then it would be a case of discrimination. But it's often not this simple.

I giggled a little when I read that. Reminded me of the movie "The Invention of Lying" for some reason.

Seriously though, I believe that there is an issue here of some degree, however I cannot for the life of me come up with a minimally invasive solution.

[starlord]

No, this is what I said:

In normal court cases, the claimant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. But not in cases pursuant to the Equal Pay Act.

thats because intent is not part of it. its just against the law to give unequal pay for equal work.
unless they have a completely arbitrary pay system it would never even be doubtful. and that has its own problems.

[eriseis]

And you're obfuscating the currently existing pay gap, which may or may not be a problem.

Might or might not have more women graduating? Do you not believe in facts? More women have been graduating since I was 3!

Most CEO's and Congressmen are men... And most mothers are... Women? SHOCKING! I know that you will only be happy after we have conquered and made irrelevant basic biology, but seriously... The dissonance is shocking.

Yes, there are obviously and rightly women concerned with reaching the peaks of the business and political worlds... And there are many that just want to run a normal life, get married, have kids, and do their thing. Your argument is just silly on its' face. Biologically, more women will ALWAYS be interrupted by the 'being a woman' issue than men.

It's as if you're saying that until women can pee standing up, they will always be behind the ball in business because they can't be as productive and they use more toilet paper. In order to correct this, we must either teach girls to catheterize themselves during potty training, or we must force men to sit down to pee in every occasion so that women can be equal.

We still haven't had a female President because 1) Enlightened Democrats preferred an unqualified black guy over the most qualified female candidate we've ever had, and 3) Not enough women will vote for one.

Whoa. You have deeper issues than I'd thought. Cuz, you know, society can't evolve where both men and women raise children again. I mean, Facebook and Google offer paternity leave, their men shouldn't be managers!!

Oh, let's also forget that as you rise in executive positions your work day and your non-work day have blurry boundaries. Let's forget work from home, let's forget Skype meetings, let's forget tele-managing.

You're the one who went on a slippery slope based on your entrenchment on an archaic framework that you will never see past. Don't accuse me of cognitive dissonance.

You know what, let's go back to your preposterous statement. You're also saying the individual woman is constantly pushing babies out. Pregnancy, even if a deterrent, would be temporary and would only slow down the progress of the individual woman. It would a deterrent, not a prohibitive factor. Within your framework pregnancy would lead to women in Congress and female CEO's being older than the men, not for the women to be a significant minority.

[Deleted]

thats because intent is not part of it. its just against the law to give unequal pay for equal work.
unless they have a completely arbitrary pay system it would never even be doubtful. and that has its own problems.

Yes, but the defendant has to prove that it's something else than gender that is causing the difference in wages. Normally, it would fall on the claimant to prove this, but now the employee only has to show that there's a male employee that earns more than her and that their work is similar in responsibility, type etc. But just because it's a similar type of work, doesn't mean they should be paid the same, and it's then up to the employer to show that it's because of seniority or whatever reason it is.

[eriseis]

Yes, but the defendant has to prove that it's something else than gender that is causing the difference in wages. Normally, it would fall on the claimant to prove this, but now the employee only has to show that there's a male employee that earns more than her and that their work is similar in responsibility, type etc. But just because it's a similar type of work, doesn't mean they should be paid the same, and it's then up to the employer to show that it's because of seniority or whatever reason it is.

Diurdi's right. I think the problem with discrimination is that, when it comes to individual cases, it would be difficult to measure every single factor that would lead to the person's pay. Discrimination is a pattern of behavior towards a group. If Jennifer gets paid less than Juan, it might just be because of different aspects of Jennifer as an individual, her muliebrity would be coincidental. Now, if we have 72 men and 75 females and a significant portion of females makes less money than the men, then there might be room for discrimination.

[starlord]

Yes, but the defendant has to prove that it's something else than gender that is causing the difference in wages. Normally, it would fall on the claimant to prove this, but now the employee only has to show that there's a male employee that earns more than her and that their work is similar in responsibility, type etc. But just because it's a similar type of work, doesn't mean they should be paid the same, and it's then up to the employer to show that it's because of seniority or whatever reason it is.

but the employee would have been informed of this when she was hired.. so your objection is "someone might sue and waste their own time and money"?

and i dont see how this somehow violates our legal system anymore than any other regulation.

[eriseis]

but the employee would have been informed of this when she was hired.. so your objection is "someone might sue and waste their own time and money"?

and i dont see how this somehow violates our legal system anymore than any other regulation.

Can you explain that? From the context of Diurdi's quote and your post I'm understanding that the employee should be told when someone is making more money than them?

[starlord]

Can you explain that? From the context of Diurdi's quote and your post I'm understanding that the employee should be told when someone is making more money than them?

well they would have been informed of the way their pay/promotion system works when hired is what i meant.

[eriseis]

well they would have been informed of the way their pay/promotion system works when hired is what i meant.

I've always thought it was common understanding that companies have salary grades and you get paid within a range. As in, it's clear someone in your position level is going to be making more or less than you are.

[bergmann620]

Whoa. You have deeper issues than I'd thought. Cuz, you know, society can't evolve where both men and women raise children again. I mean, Facebook and Google offer paternity leave, their men shouldn't be managers!!

Society can evolve that way, and based on the individual, it might. That's a great thing. You seem to skip past a very basic truth, though- just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done, or is beneficial to do. I don't doubt that men or women can raise children, or that they can share the burden. What I do doubt is the long-term viability of encouraging behaviors that aren't supported biologically.

You seem to think I want women to all be barefoot and pregnant, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. What I want is for each person/family to make their own decisions, based on their own values and motivations and abilities. It is simply biologically easier for a woman to stay at home and breastfeed a child than it is for a woman to pump breast milk and equip a man to do the same job. If, in a given relationship, the woman's career is important enough to her and the family to do that, so be it. It makes no sense to do it just to do it, however. You seem to assume that no woman can ever be a fulfilled, whole person unless every task is shared straight down the middle.

Oh, let's also forget that as you rise in executive positions your work day and your non-work day have blurry boundaries. Let's forget work from home, let's forget Skype meetings, let's forget tele-managing.

Rising in executive positions means that your work day intrudes on your non-work day. You might get more leeway than the rank and-file, but you get it because you've largely proven you won't use it.

You're the one who went on a slippery slope based on your entrenchment on an archaic framework that you will never see past. Don't accuse me of cognitive dissonance.

Nature is pretty archaic.

You know what, let's go back to your preposterous statement. You're also saying the individual woman is constantly pushing babies out. Pregnancy, even if a deterrent, would be temporary and would only slow down the progress of the individual woman. It would a deterrent, not a prohibitive factor. Within your framework pregnancy would lead to women in Congress and female CEO's being older than the men, not for the women to be a significant minority.

Where did I say that? Pregnancy, as a deterrent, means that any woman that ever has a child, will have to work harder than any given male competition simply to get to the same place. In your version of my world, you're also failing to account for the notions that women don't have a strong record of voting for women, and that the gap for many women that would attempt to run is around 10 years, rather than 1.

[starlord]

I've always thought it was common understanding that companies have salary grades and you get paid within a range. As in, it's clear someone in your position level is going to be making more or less than you are.

yeah.. afaik diurdi seems to be talking about "but what if someone gets paid more cause he was wearing a polka dotted tie that day and then he has to prove it in court!" or something...

[bergmann620]

I've always thought it was common understanding that companies have salary grades and you get paid within a range. As in, it's clear someone in your position level is going to be making more or less than you are.

I've never worked at a company like that. My current (awesome) company doesn't even do formal reviews. I have no idea how others are compensated; I am compensated based on a mixture of what I currently do for the company and for my propensity to identify ways we can trim and grow the business. I am more likely to get a bonus for completing a project raise than a straight 'raise'.

For my last major completed project I received (aside from my hourly pay while working on it) clearance to buy all the components for my last gaming tower. Other times, I have received paid days off, git cards to restaurants, etc. It would be pretty difficult to prove or disapprove equal pay, and based on the variety of my responsibilities, it would be impossible to determine equal performance.

[starlord]

I've never worked at a company like that. My current (awesome) company doesn't even do formal reviews. I have no idea how others are compensated; I am compensated based on a mixture of what I currently do for the company and for my propensity to identify ways we can trim and grow the business. I am more likely to get a bonus for completing a project raise than a straight 'raise'.

For my last major completed project I received (aside from my hourly pay while working on it) clearance to buy all the components for my last gaming tower. Other times, I have received paid days off, git cards to restaurants, etc. It would be pretty difficult to prove or disapprove equal pay, and based on the variety of my responsibilities, it would be impossible to determine equal performance.

does your company have a lot of problems with employees suing over unequal pay?

[bergmann620]

does your company have a lot of problems with employees suing over unequal pay?

No.

I don't think they would, even if there was unequal pay, because we'd go out of business, and an unequal job still pays more than unemployment.

Also, as I said, it would be virtually impossible for an employee to prove unequal compensation- especially as we aren't big enough to hire multiple people at the same time, so everyone naturally has different levels of seniority.

[eriseis]

No.

I don't think they would, even if there was unequal pay, because we'd go out of business, and an unequal job still pays more than unemployment.

Also, as I said, it would be virtually impossible for an employee to prove unequal compensation- especially as we aren't big enough to hire multiple people at the same time, so everyone naturally has different levels of seniority.

Yeah, compensation is complicated. That's why I argue that it's probably more likely to sue based on the behavior on a group than on the behavior of a mere individual. Too lax of a law could provoke abuse.