Senate Republicans Vote Down Bill on Equal Pay

[vindicatorx]

Do you take more than a month off each year to have a baby?

Most of them take the full 6-8 weeks they are granted and you can't really hire a replacement during that time for most jobs it is a real pain in the ass.

[Tangra]

Big business basically owns the government at this point, so they are both basically the same thing.

[spinner981]

...what previous century or backwards country do you post from. o_O

Is this seriously the only type of post that can possibly be made by those in favor of this bill in this thread?

- - - Updated - - -

Big business basically owns the government at this point, so they are both basically the same thing.

Lots of vague conjecture...

[Tangra]

Is this seriously the only type of post that can possibly be made by those in favor of this bill in this thread?

- - - Updated - - -



Lots of vague conjecture...

If it was easy to prove then they wouldn't own the government since everyone would notice. When the super wealthy control the system, it inherently becomes difficult to prove that they are doing it.

[jordonus]

If it was easy to prove then they wouldn't own the government since everyone would notice. When the super wealthy control the system, it inherently becomes difficult to prove that they are doing it.

The conspiracy is strong with this one.

[Tangra]

The conspiracy is strong with this one.

You give someone millions of dollars, they do what you want them to, so I'm not sure where conspiracies come into play, it's blatantly obvious. Even Alan Greenspan has admitted in court that there seems to be an inherent flaw in unregulated markets, and that would be it. Businesses can become so powerful that they can come to control the market itself, and the government that 'regulates' it. Not to mention the "too big to fail" issues, which also displays what a silly fantasy unregulated markets are.

Edit: he admitted it at a hearing not a court, since he and the people backing him are too powerful to go to court.

[spinner981]

If it was easy to prove then they wouldn't own the government since everyone would notice. When the super wealthy control the system, it inherently becomes difficult to prove that they are doing it.

Isn't that the case with any government? I mean, if something is bigger than the government then according to you they would own the government, but if the government is the biggest then they would be able to hide anything anyway. What point are you trying to make exactly?

[THE Bigzoman]

Isn't that the case with any government? I mean, if something is bigger than the government then according to you they would own the government, but if the government is the biggest then they would be able to hide anything anyway. What point are you trying to make exactly?

Trying to prove that workplace discrimination exists even if we can't see it?

I'm sure unicorns exist. I just can't see them?

[jordonus]

You give someone millions of dollars, they do what you want them to, so I'm not sure where conspiracies come into play, it's blatantly obvious. Even Alan Greenspan has admitted in court that there seems to be an inherent flaw in unregulated markets, and that would be it.

Either "big business" owns the government and everyone notices or "big business" owns the government because nobody notices. You don't see the fundamentally flawed reasoning with what you said?

[Tangra]

Either "big business" owns the government and everyone notices or "big business" owns the government because nobody notices. You don't see the fundamentally flawed reasoning with what you said?

It's a flaw in the system, not my reasoning. Large institutions, whether businesses, governments, religious institutions or anything else have historically always snowballed into greater and greater corruptions, because power itself snowballs, the more power you have, the easier it is to get more, and also easier to hide that you are misusing it.

[Osmeric]

having business do it is even worse

Why? If a business offers too little money, the workers go elsewhere. This is called a "market".

[Kraenen]

Because you said so, right? Having businesses do it creates competition. Competition encourages businesses to better pay their workers. The government wouldn't have any competition and would simply decide everything arbitrarily.

competition encourages businesses to pay worse because they need more profit. the will to profit is greater than the will to be attractive to employees who, in the current market, will do more work for less pay because they're grateful just to be working.

[Kraenen]

Why? If a business offers too little money, the workers go elsewhere. This is called a "market".

no, the workers usually end up working at that place because they need to get by. the business can afford to not have those employees of course.

[Tangra]

Why? If a business offers too little money, the workers go elsewhere. This is called a "market".

When I don't take a job my family suffers, when a business keeps the position open until someone takes it, the billionaire who owns it gets slightly less ludicrously wealthy. Therefore, it's not a fair negotiation.

[Osmeric]

no, the workers usually end up working at that place because they need to get by. the business can afford to not have those employees of course.

No, workers will move to get higher wages. They will avoid going to jobs that have lower wages if they have better opportunities elsewhere. Over time, this forces employers to offer competitive wages. A company cannot afford to not have workers.

[LilSaihah]

“In other words,” he said, “when it comes to American women over all, what we’ve seen over the past five and a half years is less income and more poverty. That’s the story Senate Democrats don’t want to talk about.”

Hey uh yeah. When it comes to everyone we've seen less income and more poverty.

[Tangra]

no, the workers usually end up working at that place because they need to get by. the business can afford to not have those employees of course.

In addition, 30 years of consistent deregulation has led to numerous recessions and a decline in the American standard of living, not to mention the global one.

[Kraenen]

No, workers will move to get higher wages. They will avoid going to jobs that have lower wages if they have better opportunities elsewhere. Over time, this forces employers to offer competitive wages. A company cannot afford to not have workers.

has this ever happened in reality?

[Tangra]

No, workers will move to get higher wages. They will avoid going to jobs that have lower wages if they have better opportunities elsewhere. Over time, this forces employers to offer competitive wages. A company cannot afford to not have workers.

People can't be jobless forever, so they get desperate and take crappy jobs; a multi-billion dollar corporation always wins the chicken game. And, If a corporation fails, wealthy investors just start a new one, and their losses are minimized by the fact that investors, unlike people, don't have to pay the debt of a corporation, they start from 0 not from debt, unlike normal people who can't file for bankruptcy as often as they would like.

Sure markets regulate themselves, but ever wonder how long this would take? A day, a year, a thousand years? People can't wait that long, so they are always on the losing side.

The legal monstrosity that is the corporation allows wealthy investors to take massive risks, with minimal consequences.

[theostrichsays]

No, workers will move to get higher wages. They will avoid going to jobs that have lower wages if they have better opportunities elsewhere. Over time, this forces employers to offer competitive wages. A company cannot afford to not have workers.

I understand the concept behind this, and maybe I only look at it from my personal experience as a bottom feeder of the working class.
But for the most part any established business has the funds available to wait for someone to "NEED" the/a job to take it. Most people don't have the funds available to wait out hoping another job that pays more comes along. At the same time this creates a hefty turn over rate as factory a offers 9.90 an hour while factory b offers 12.50 an hour for relatively similar workload. The moment factory b comes open people from factory a rush to it, but a lot of epopel can't afford to wait it out until factory b has openings. At least from my perspective.

To clarify a company can pay someone short term overtime to come in or simply work the people there harder (it happens frequently) rather then offering significantly more. Most companies only really have to pay enough to make people feel like it is worth being there for, or have enough people requiring money ASAP.