108 Cents on the Dollar Isn't Fair
A few adjustment in today's NY Times editorial: "77 108 Cents on the Dollar Isn't Fair":
In a disappointing defeat for women men, Senate Republicans worked overtime in December to ensure that a measure addressing gender-based wage discrimination never reached the Senate floor where it likely would have passed by a sizable majority. Fortunately, supporters of the Paycheck Fairness Act have not given up.
Last week, Senators Harry Reid, the majority leader from Nevada, and Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, reintroduced the bill. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat of Connecticut, has reintroduced the legislation in the House.
Women Men now make up almost more than half of the American work force, but, according to data compiled by the Census Bureau, James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, single, unmarried, childless full-time female employees still make, on average, only 77 cents $1.08 for every $1 earned by men in America's largest cities.
The bill, a much-needed updating and strengthening of the nation’s half-century-old Equal Pay Act, would enhance remedies for victims of gender-based wage discrimination, shield employees from retaliation for sharing salary information with co-workers and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related rather than sex-based, and justified by business necessity.
President Obama has pledged to “keep up the fight” to pass the bill. In a recent radio address, he explained that he takes the issue personally, “as the father of two daughters a man who wants to see his girls young boys grow up in a world where there are no limits to what they can achieve.”
Women Men around the country — from both parties — need to speak up. Lawmakers might think twice about refusing to act if they knew that female male voters were taking down the names of those who would rather please corporate interests than stand up for a woman’s man's right to earn equal pay for equal work. For young, single, unmarried childless women to be now earning $1.08 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts clearly demonstrates that paychecks for men and women are not equal, and that's why we need the Paycheck Fairness Act. Simply put, 108 cents on the dollar just isn't fair.
6 Comments:
I noticed a comment that said if women were systematically underpaid, then employers would hire women instead of men.
Also, it went on to say women are more likely to balance home life with work (which I'm sure a lot of men appreciate).
However, the labor market prices-in all factors resulting in a fair wage. When the government intervenes, it tips the balance towards unfairness.
Hey, who's counting? No, really, who is doing this counting? Where does the data come from? Tax returns? Calculated from corporate data?
That's the problem with these data. They get manipulated just like climate data until the real numbers become unrecognizable. Of course, that's exactly what politicians and bureaucrats need to stick their fingers in the marketplace pie.
This an issue where's definitely with Dr Perry. Seriously, what the hell?
lol. You can feel the passion put into this one. So much passion....that the actual merits of the legislation cannot be discussed. Interesting.
I am glad more people are challenging the bogus 'pay gap' myth.
The fact that women tout this myth alone is evidence of economic illiteracy so great that even 77 cents on the dollar would be too much compensation.
Read 'The Misandry Bubble' here, to learn how female supremacism is dominating America :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
The problem with so called "pay gap" data is the fallacy that money is the only thing that matters in life. Where is the analysis on nonpecuniary forms of compensation? Is the pursuit of the almighty dollar the only thing that counts to the left?
Post a Comment
<< Home