Senate Republicans Vote Down Bill on Equal Pay

[alexkeren]

And what of the women who decide not to have children? Should my wife who is an Oncology Nurse have to take a 12% less pay than a man simply because she doesn't have a penis?

If she works at the White House, then yes, as documented she'd on average get 12% less pay.

[Spectral]

Even 4% less is still less...

If that's a real effect (and that's always a question mark with small scale effects), the question turns to why? Is it because of choices they make? Discrimination? Negotiating? Is it just a problem with the empirical work? If we conclude that it's discrimination, and that might be true, to be clear, then we have to think about whether any potential policy solutions are workable in a fashion that correct the problem without causing more splash damage than its worth. For example, if the cost of compliance (increasing HR department sizes to document equality, for example) was sufficiently high, everyone loses.

If there's a problem, it's not amenable to just stamping our feet and shouting that it's not fair.

[Zython]

It's not. Women who decide to have children and end up working flexible hours with lower paying jobs are... get this... going to make less. With a MAJORITY of women (not all) taking the family route, it will VASTLY affect the statistics. In any case, like I said, those who DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN have essentially equal pay.

So how you do you explain the wage gap straight out of education. Or how economists can't explain 20% of the wage gap at all?

[Spectral]

That's because most people with doctorates work in academia. Professionals with advanced degrees tend to be conservative. That's the disconnect. If you work in Academia, you're more likely to be liberal. If you actually work in your academic discipline, you're more likely to be conservative. Of course that says nothing about the disparity in academic disciplines that provide advanced degrees. I don't know how many Women's Studies PhDs or Sociology PhDs are going to vote Republican.

How does this narrative jibe with the reality that scientists are overwhelmingly not Republicans? Keep in mind that this group includes plenty of private sector scientists.

[Verain]

As others have pointed out, the wage gap is mostly a political myth- women who work the same jobs and hours as men get paid the same (and in some industries, more). You have to control for things like education and workplace experience as well.

So, what DOES this act do? It amends an equal pay act that was passed long ago.


http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...e-bill/84/text


It also seems to authorize some massive spending on special federal training on negotiation, but only for women. I mean, what?

So, here's the current law:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes...orStandAct.pdf

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to

(i) a seniority system;
(ii) a merit system;
(iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex:

Provided , That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee .

So it takes that section four up there- the "any other factor other than sex"- and replaces it with "a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience". Then it defines that, and demands that the burden of proof fall on the employer:

"The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph
(A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor
(i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in
compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in
question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense
shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative
employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose
without producing such differential and that the employer has refused
to adopt such alternative practice."


This makes it arbitrarily hard to fall under that section 4. Section 4 is the one that currently includes job experience (which is different than seniority). Suddenly, any lawsuit against a big company has a totally reasonable chance of succeeding!



This law would basically open the door to tons of bad lawsuits (lawsuits that don't actually involve real discrimination). It doesn't do what it says (because there's already a law that says that), which is get women to be paid equal to men for the same work. What it definitely does is make two people with a similar job description but fundamentally different abilities a concern for a company.


The net effect of this would be a great deal of extra differentiation and management needed to ensure that there are enough categories to avoid lawsuits.



It's a dumb law, and why would the Democrats want to pass a dumb law?


Well, this will play well in the elections. They all vote for this ruinous law, knowing the Republicans have to oppose it, and knowing that the explanation will take far longer than the attention span of pretty much anyone. As such, they know it will fail, but they'll be in the public mind as fighting for the oppressed- even though in this particular case, women are not oppressed.


Men work, on average, longer hours than women. They stay in their jobs much longer, and spend much more of their adult life working by percentage (even if you ignore the big problem where men die earlier). You would expect a man who was worked a set of relevant jobs for 30 years to be paid a bit more, on average, than a woman with 27, right?

[Rizendragon]

You are saying that women who have children, take less paying jobs. Then I ask you, how can they afford children?

By couponing, having a spouse's income, not living outside one's means, etc. Our country has a bad bad bad habit of living beyond what they can afford. I'm currently making under $20k/year and my wife an I seem to be able to make ends meet with a new little one. I work she doesn't. She coupons like crazy though and we never spend over $50 for 2-4weeks of groceries.

[Felya]

You really do have no ability to understand how statistics work, do you?

I don't mean that as an insult, but a specific statement of fact: evidence has been presented in the form of primary quotes from authorities in assembling the statistics (just scroll up and follow the links in my posts). Virtually every position you have advanced is at odds with what the data gatherers state the date indicates.

You think women with children work more: "June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office" states that "Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay."

You're just wrong.

I disagree that the statistical difference, justifies the stated cause. I am telling you, that the statistics for women making less, do not justify how much less they are making. It also does not make sense that a woman having a child, would seek a lower paying job or quit all together, when there is now an extra mouth to feed. The disparity the statics state are absurd when child birth is used as an excuse...

[theostrichsays]

Okay the most consistent numbers I can find on men to women full time workers (see previous post) showed that men on average worked 8.5 hours per day to 7.7 hours per day for women (2006.)
If we take that 8.5 *5 equals 42 while 7.7*5 equals 38.5. At ten an hour no taxes that would state women earn 385 per week while men with 1.5 overtime earn 430 per week. This would equal a 89 percent, round up to 90, of what a male earns in a average week. But that is a pple to apple comparison with equal pay based on qualifications and time on job. But from how those FTYR reports read, they don't really seem to take that into consideration and report it anyways as only 89-90 percent rather then per hour or adjusted to 40 hours.

[Felya]

You're on the wrong track, buddy. My wife quit working. So she provides no income. Guess how she affords a baby? Her husband...

The expectation is that like you, they can afford an extra mouth to feed and lose an income? Or clip coupons?

[Zython]

I find it hilarious that you've dismissed the rest of my post which actually analyzes the data at hand and goes along with the rest of the statistical analysis on the subject.

I don't really care what the bill does,

Why should I read the rest of your post if you yourself don't care to be informed?

but MORE government control on an issue that is a fallacy at this point of our nations history is WRONG.

The bill merely prevents companies from punishing employees that discuss their salaries with other employees, as well as having the DoL collect wage data from employers.

Now apologize for being stupid.

[Rizendragon]

The expectation is that like you, they can afford an extra mouth to feed and lose an income? Or clip coupons?

You do what you can to make it work. You don't ask for MORE from anyone when you can make it on your own. It was your decision to make a family. It's your responsibility to provide for that family. Not your government's.

[Fexus]

That's not what I was saying at all. And I think you know that, but as usual, when you can't argue with the points presented, create a false argument and dismiss that. But yes, an Engineer with a PhD working for IBM is generally going to be paid more and put in more hours than a Professor at MIT.

You use the terms professionals in exclusion to those in academia. You used the phrase actually work in exclusion to those in academia. I don't think I twisted your words at all. Also, I didn't say anything about hours or compensation, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your last statement.

[Verain]

The bill merely prevents companies from punishing employees that discuss their salaries with other employees, as well as having the DoL collect wage data from employers.

Now apologize for being stupid.

I dunno what else he said, but it doesn't "merely" do that. Please examine the bill. I break down a bit on the previous page.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...e-bill/84/text

The bill has several effects.

[THE Bigzoman]

You are saying that women who have children, take less paying jobs. Then I ask you, how can they afford children?

When they have children, they forego time they could have otherwise used to be socially mobile to have a fucking kid.

What part of that don't you understand?

[Symphonic]

So how you do you explain the wage gap straight out of education. Or how economists can't explain 20% of the wage gap at all?

I don't know, but if you look at the statistic on page 20 (page 32 of the PDF) it turns out it's 93% a year later. Hmm.

[Falkenburg]

I disagree that the statistical difference, justifies the stated cause. I am telling you, that the statistics for women making less, do not justify how much less they are making. It also does not make sense that a woman having a child, would seek a lower paying job or quit all together, when there is now an extra mouth to feed. The disparity the statics state are absurd when child birth is used as an excuse...

And again, you're just wrong. Having children (and getting married) profoundly affect women's long term earnings.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Having children and the desire to be home with those children, having more flexible hours to facilitate that, accounts for an immense proportion of the observed wage gap.

[alexkeren]

Sounds to me, this could be a men's rights topic. Give men the same rights of maternity leave, along with the right to make less money.

Why when men already get paternity leave?

[Rizendragon]

As others have pointed out, the wage gap is mostly a political myth- women who work the same jobs and hours as men get paid the same (and in some industries, more). You have to control for things like education and workplace experience as well.

So, what DOES this act do? It amends an equal pay act that was passed long ago.


http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...e-bill/84/text


It also seems to authorize some massive spending on special federal training on negotiation, but only for women. I mean, what?

So, here's the current law:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes...orStandAct.pdf




So it takes that section four up there- the "any other factor other than sex"- and replaces it with "a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience". Then it defines that, and demands that the burden of proof fall on the employer:

"The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph
(A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor
(i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in
compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in
question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense
shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative
employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose
without producing such differential and that the employer has refused
to adopt such alternative practice."


This makes it arbitrarily hard to fall under that section 4. Section 4 is the one that currently includes job experience (which is different than seniority). Suddenly, any lawsuit against a big company has a totally reasonable chance of succeeding!



This law would basically open the door to tons of bad lawsuits (lawsuits that don't actually involve real discrimination). It doesn't do what it says (because there's already a law that says that), which is get women to be paid equal to men for the same work. What it definitely does is make two people with a similar job description but fundamentally different abilities a concern for a company.


The net effect of this would be a great deal of extra differentiation and management needed to ensure that there are enough categories to avoid lawsuits.



It's a dumb law, and why would the Democrats want to pass a dumb law?


Well, this will play well in the elections. They all vote for this ruinous law, knowing the Republicans have to oppose it, and knowing that the explanation will take far longer than the attention span of pretty much anyone. As such, they know it will fail, but they'll be in the public mind as fighting for the oppressed- even though in this particular case, women are not oppressed.


Men work, on average, longer hours than women. They stay in their jobs much longer, and spend much more of their adult life working by percentage (even if you ignore the big problem where men die earlier). You would expect a man who was worked a set of relevant jobs for 30 years to be paid a bit more, on average, than a woman with 27, right?

Why should I read the rest of your post if you yourself don't care to be informed?



The bill merely prevents companies from punishing employees that discuss their salaries with other employees, as well as having the DoL collect wage data from employers.

Now apologize for being stupid.

There. Simply because you want to be argumentative. I am informed. This is a subject that has been beaten to death, and the wage gap is based on decisions an individual has made. Nothing more nothing less. As I said in my main post the 24-35 age group being at 90% is the most telling portion of that table initially posted. This is the group with the most parity and that would boil down to 2.5-4hrs a week of more work by a man vs a woman.

Edit: You keep posting news stories and not research. New stories that are written with a bias are pretty moot in this discussion.

[theostrichsays]

Why when men already get paternity leave?

Anecdotal and all but outside the military I have never had a job that offered a legit paternity leave. Even the military only offered 2 weeks to men compared to 30 days minimum offered to most the women I know. Granted I understand there is a recovery and all, but in civilian jobs I have never seen more then 3 days of male paternity and it wasn't paid. Naturally different jobs offer different benefits.

[alexkeren]

But, the average yearly pay difference implies a baby each year. That's absurd... It also implies that men suffer no decrease in production, after having a baby. That thing wrecks your life for 18 years, regardless of gender... Only hinging on proximity...

Did you fail math? 12% != 1 month

Given that I can see why all the other logical fallacies of yours exist.