"The old -- and repeatedly discredited -- game of citing women's incomes as some percentage of men's incomes is being played once again, as part of the "war on women" theme.
Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out.
When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point -- and, in some cases, the women earn more than comparable men."
Bravo, Mr. Sowell. What an abomination.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that these laws become costly to the employer and hurt, not help, women. I know that I lost out on career opportunities during my prime child-bearing years (I was married, which made it worse) because the employer wouldn't be able to easily adjust my compensation if I should become less productive as a result of pregnancy and child-rearing. I'm intimately familiar with cases where women were fired for poor performance where one sued claiming that she was fired because she was pregnant and one sued claiming she was fired for being female (though, it seemed to escape her notice that she was also hired as a female).
In lending support to such legislation, women have made it harder on themselves. If it seems we must be head and shoulders above the other eligible male candidates to get the job, it's because that's the case. Women are a bigger liability and so we must be more valuable to our employers. And, of course, that means we get fewer chances to get a job in highly competitive fields slightly above our skill level that gives us invaluable opportunity to learn and grow professionally. Inevitably, women take this as men being more comfortable working with other men. Well, of course. Other men are much less likely to sue them. Thanks, activists. Nice job.
There is a war on women. But, it's being waged by "fair pay" advocates. A pox on all of them.
ReplyDelete"There is a war on women. But, it's being waged by "fair pay" advocates"...
ReplyDeleteWhy yes there is methinks and guess what? Its being waged by women on women...
From the Washington Free Beacon: SENATE DEMS BETRAY LILLY
SENATE DEMOCRATS PAY FEMALE STAFFERS LESS THAN MALE STAFFERS
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Ahh, the irony of it all...:-)
so this is not true:
ReplyDelete" I’m a former employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. For close to two decades, I was paid less than my male co-workers even though I was doing the same work they were, and doing it well. The company kept the discrimination quiet and I didn't know about the pay gap until I got an anonymous note about it near the end of my time there. Seeking to rectify this injustice, I first filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then brought Goodyear to court.
A jury found that Goodyear had discriminated and awarded me more than $3 million in damages. But Goodyear appealed my case all the way to the Supreme Court and got a reversal of the jury verdict by one vote. The Court said I should have filed my complaint within six months of the original act of discrimination even though at the time I didn't know the discrimination was happening, let alone have enough evidence to complain."
http://action.nwlc.org/site/PageNavigator/FairPay_LillyLedbetter
"The Court said I should have filed my complaint within six months of the original act of discrimination even though at the time I didn't know the discrimination was happening, let alone have enough evidence to complaint"...
ReplyDeleteSee what happens larry g when one takes to much time to shop around for just the right kind of ambulance chaser?
I love the "blind eye" approach to these issues.... great for revisionist history too.
ReplyDeleteFor close to two decades, I was paid less than my male co-workers even though I was doing the same work they were, and doing it well.
ReplyDeleteIf every word in that sentence is true, it is not proof of sex discrimination. Mind, even if it were, I don't find it a prosecutable offense.
At the very beginning of my career, I actually worked for a company that had a really stupid policy of paying women less - and also a policy of not allowing us to wear trousers. The head of the company was an insufferable sexist, ego-maniac. So, I did what any motivated professional in my position would do - I spent a few months learning everything I could (I was right out of college) and then sent out my resumes and got a bidding war going between several competitors. I ended up with a much more pleasant job at a top tier investment bank at twice my previous comp. From that moment forward, my comp always exceeded that of my male colleagues in similar positions - which, of course, didn't stop me putting my labour up for bid periodically to negotiate even better terms for myself.
The firm that openly (and, weirdly proudly) discriminated against women? You've never heard of it. The environment was not only repulsive to women, but also to the men. Anyone worth their salt always left the way I did. As a result, the firm ended up employing predominantly dundgerheads who could not find employment elsewhere. The firm hurt itself with its idiotic policies and toxic work environment. I was unscathed.
If you work at a job for a long time, you will suffer wage compression. A firm will pay as little as possible to keep you in its employ. This woman hung out at the same firm, probably without ever applying to other firms to revalue her labour, and her employer eventually read correctly that she's unlikely to leave, so it didn't have to keep giving her generous raises to hold on to her. A possible explanation for why the men made more is because the company knew their opportunity cost was higher (and they made sure the firm knew that). Another reason could be that she really wasn't doing the same job. Or she needed more flex time to tend to family. There could be a million explanations for why her paycheck was smaller.
The company kept the discrimination quiet...
This is stupid. Does your employer make it a habit to discuss your compensation package with your coworkers?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteand speaking of proof reading..."resume", not "resumes" and "dunderheads", not "dundgerheads", etc. Beyond one's impaired ability to adequately proof one's own writing, there is the added obstacle of the constraints of the comment box. My apologies for these and all of my grammatical and spelling offenses.
ReplyDeleteMethinks,
ReplyDelete"My apologies for these and all of my grammatical and spelling offenses."
Geez....if yours are offenses, then mine are crimes against humanity.
methinks Methinks is much too modest!
ReplyDeleteA pox on all of them
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like you, Methinks. No one does these classic curses any more.
Larry G,
ReplyDeleteEven if your story is true, how does it at all make Sowell wrong? If I claimed that men, on average, couldn't possibly make more than women, on average, because I, like, once knew this guy who got paid less than women, despite, you know, totally being a better worker, would you think that the stat showing the average man makes more than the average woman to be wrong?
@ken , re: average, anecdotal, pattern
ReplyDeletewhat happened to Ledbetter was fairly common in years past.
What Sowell is talking about is also true.
What is wrong is that he is using it in a way that implies that what happened to Ledbetter never happened and does not happen.
It's basically intellectually dishoenst but it's a more and more common technique with a lot of issues including civil rights.
it then subtly or openly attacks the history itself by saying if it is not true not, it was not true then either and the whole thing was a lie.
it borders on propaganda in my view
and it works wonders with folks who are too young to remember how things really were ....
Any cursory history of woman and pay will reveal that it was not only a practice but a common practice in many companies.
I love the "blind eye" approach to these issues.... great for revisionist history too.
ReplyDeleteThe blind eye is yours my idiot friend. A few instances where companies adopt bad practices that harm their own investors as much as they do some of their employees cannot justify the level of damage that you want to inflict on everyone.
" The blind eye is yours my idiot friend. A few instances where companies adopt bad practices that harm their own investors as much as they do some of their employees cannot justify the level of damage that you want to inflict on everyone."
ReplyDeletedifferent pay for women was a common practice Mr. 3rd grader...
at the least you should acknowledge the truth - but you cannot because it violates your ideology...
that's the basic problem here with the zealots...
it's one thing to recognize something that is true now but it's quite another to insist it was always true.... because your beliefs cannot deal with the truth.
What exactly happened to this woman, Larry?
ReplyDeleteShe was paid less than her other coworkers. What do you know about the other coworkers? Nothing. What do you know about how well she performed her job? Nothing. What do you know about how much time the company allowed her to take off to attend to family? Nothing.
At any time, this woman could have put her labour up for auction. She either didn't bother doing that or she did and found she didn't command higher compensation.
It doesn't matter that sexism exists. It surely does. I've seen it myself and many times However so long as women have the ability (and they do) to leave their jobs and to start their own businesses - in other words, so long as women have options (and they very much do) - sexism won't hurt them. It works against companies with sexist policies because in a competitive world, you cannot win by devoting energy to oppressing employees and losing good employees to competitors.
It's also important to note that I've witnessed sexist behaviour toward men from their female bosses. Yet, nobody is screaming about that.
Your dredging up "past years" is absurd. If we are to right wrongs to every soul in the history of mankind, we will never accomplish anything. Moreover, you cannot right a wrong done to one person by rewarding another person. Women today are not owed special advantages because women 40 years ago may have been harmed (something yet to be proven).
different pay for women was a common practice Mr. 3rd grader...
ReplyDeleteIt should be. If a woman cannot commit to as many hours as a man she should not get the same pay as the man. That is what Mark meant when he wrote, "When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point." My male family doctor makes much more money than my brother's female family doctor. The reason is primarily the amount of time that they work.
at the least you should acknowledge the truth - but you cannot because it violates your ideology...
I do acknowledge the truth that men and women are often paid a different amount. My argument is that they should be paid a different amount even when they do the same things because of commitment levels and productivity.
that's the basic problem here with the zealots...
Find a mirror and look into it. See the zealot who ignores reality and human nature?
it's one thing to recognize something that is true now but it's quite another to insist it was always true.... because your beliefs cannot deal with the truth.
On almost any subject that you have commented I am confident that I have more knowledge than you do. You are so stupid that you don't even know what I am saying, what Mark is saying, and what Methinks has said. So take a deep breath and read the comments again. This time try to think before you respond.
" Your dredging up "past years" is absurd. If we are to right wrongs to every soul in the history of mankind, we will never accomplish anything."
ReplyDeletebecause the current narrative pretends that it never happened and the rules were never needed and now they should be entirely disbanded.
it's an intellectually dishonest narrative that ignores the history and the reason WHY regulations came about in the first place and you as a women almost surely had a mother and grandmother who actually experienced that discrimination and actually supported efforts to ensure equality.
" On almost any subject that you have commented I am confident that I have more knowledge than you do. You are so stupid that you don't even know what I am saying, what Mark is saying, and what Methinks has said. So take a deep breath and read the comments again. This time try to think before you respond."
ReplyDeleteonly because your condition makes "ignorant" look like a compliment.
You and your cohorts in crime here are insufferable arrogant name-calling dumbasses who know far less than you believe.
worse than that.. intellectually dishonest in your illicit quest to hew to a particular ideological view.
It's one thing to say that regulation on jobs for women has gone too far because it fails to account for less hours (if it does, I'd agree), it's quite another to assert that this was the problem all along and that NO regulation was EVER necessary to start with.
that's the kind you types are... you suck up the red meat tossed out by the likes of Sowell who exemplifies denial of history as necessary for the legitimacy of his beliefs.
denial of history seems to be part and parcel of his kind and as soon as I see it in their writings, I know who they are and what they are about..and that includes their "defenders".
because the current narrative pretends that it never happened and the rules were never needed and now they should be entirely disbanded.
ReplyDeleteReally? I've never heard any narrative that denies sexism exists. I do deny that government rules are needed.
Pretend that you own a company. If you got the chance to hire women who are at least as good candidates for the job as men for 27% less than you would have to pay men, wouldn't you hire only women? Just think of the boost to the bottom line!!
You'd have to believe that all men are so sexist that they will PAY to indulge their sexism. 27% is a huge amount to pay for a personal preference. Shareholders are probably not going to be happy about that. You would also have to believe there are no female-owned or run companies (which is untrue as yours truly is proof otherwise and in my industry alone Muriel Siebert came long before me) or that there are and that those WOMEN also refuse to hire only women to take advantage of the discount. There is no indication at all that women at female-owned companies make more money than they do at companies owned or run by men, btw.
So you believe that all owners of company, regardless of gender, are all sexist and are all willing to pay for their sexism by refusing to take advantage of the enormous discount they supposedly get on female labour?
Even to you this must seem quite silly.
Also, remember our old friend - the law of supply and demand. If equivalent women's labour could be obtained at a discount to men's labour, we would expect an increase in demand for women's labour (even if SOME firms are willing to pay for sexism by refusing to take advantage of the discounted female labour). What does an increase in demand for women's labour do to the price of women's labour?
it's an intellectually dishonest narrative that ignores the history and the reason WHY regulations came about in the first place and you as a women almost surely had a mother and grandmother who actually experienced that discrimination and actually supported efforts to ensure equality.
ReplyDeleteThat's a little irrelevant because while both my mother and grandmother were professionals, my grandmother never thought at about it because she spent her life in the Soviet Union.
My mother was against such laws because she understood that they simply hurt women's employment opportunities and had no benefit at all. My mother spent her life in the academy where she was tenured, her position was endowed and she served as chairman of her department. Pretty much, that's as high as you can go in academe. She NEVER supported ERA and all that crap even though she encountered many male professors and department heads who were downright misogynists.
But, my mother and grandmother are irrelevant. If your reading comprehension skills were a touch better, you'd have registered that I myself have experienced sexism and I vehemently do NOT support government meddling.
" Really? I've never heard any narrative that denies sexism exists. I do deny that government rules are needed"
ReplyDeletedo you deny that women were discriminated against?
yes or no.
" But, my mother and grandmother are irrelevant. If your reading comprehension skills were a touch better, you'd have registered that I myself have experienced sexism and I vehemently do NOT support government meddling. "
ReplyDeleteafter hearing their history, I agree.
I did read of your "experience" and I recognize your view of "govt meddling" but my bigger point here is that many women in the past did not have "tenure" and WERE discriminated against with less pay for the same work.
And THIS IS TRUE.
and the current narrative goes something like this:
1. - "it's gone to far
2. - it was never a problem
3. - we never needed ANY regulation
4. - we should get rid of all of it NOW
I would say that the above is intellectually dishonest.
we did have a serious problem with many (if not your family)...
we had the same problem (by the way) with black people...
to engage in a narrative that implies we never had this problem ... is just plain dishonest.
No more than men, Larry.
ReplyDeleteAnd THIS IS TRUE.
ReplyDeleteIt's not true because you write it in bold. You present zero evidence that it is true and that it is systematically true.
You may like laws that favour women over men because they make you feel better, but they do not help women. They hurt women by making them more expensive to employ.
So, what you're telling me is that you are agitating for laws that hurt women in order to improve your opinion of yourself. How sexist.
" No more than men, Larry"
ReplyDelete????
discrimination?
Jeeze, Methinks..
even now in the Armed Services YOU are excluded from doing a job, right?
back in the day.. Women AND blacks WERE discriminated against not only in jobs but in pay.
That's the TRUTH... and it's just wrong to deny it.
" So, what you're telling me is that you are agitating for laws that hurt women in order to improve your opinion of yourself. How sexist. "
ReplyDeleteno.
What I said was it was the truth that women AND blacks were discriminated against - period.
that is the truth.
you think it gave women an "edge".
It did not. Many could not even get the job to start with and if they did get it .. they were paid less.. promoted less and, in general treated differently than their counterparts.
You might think it gave women an "edge".
Most folks DISAGREE with you and THAT was the reason for the regulations ... in the first place.
you are letting your personal ideology get in the way of simple, verifiable facts and if you told the truth about your age.. you should know this.
Methinks - this is NOT ABOUT your personal beliefs.
ReplyDeletethis is about ...what actually happened.
You cannot change the history by asserting it's not what you believe.
although it seems to be ever more popular now with zealots like Sowell.
even now in the Armed Services YOU are excluded from doing a job, right?
ReplyDeleteI hope so, Larry. I hope there's plenty such discrimination against both men and women.
Men and women are different, Lar. There's just no way around that.
If I were ever in need of rescuing from a burning building, I certainly prefer a strong man to a weaker woman to carry me out.
I certainly hope that your preferred non-discriminatory policies do not lead my local intimate apparel shop to hire a man to fit me for a bra.
Nor do I wish to see brawny male models showing women's clothes in fall shows this year.
I certainly hope that I can continue to choose female massage therapists over male therapists.
" Men and women are different, Lar. There's just no way around that."
ReplyDeleteAMEN to that Methinks...
but YOU DIGRESS!
if you set a standard for doing a job - then anyone who can meet that standard should be allowed to do that work AND they should get the SAME PAY.
address that sentence.
Larry, what the hell are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou're incoherent.
It seems that now that you can't make an argument for "fair pay", you've taken to digging around in history to justify idiotic laws today. Equal pay laws have always worked against women. Always. They are more damaging than sexism.
f you set a standard for doing a job - then anyone who can meet that standard should be allowed to do that work AND they should get the SAME PAY.
ReplyDeleteHappily.
I'm sure there are a lot of men who can meet the standards of wielding a tape-measure to fit women for bras. I'm sure there are quite a few men who wouldn't mind standing within an inch of a shirtless woman, pawing her breasts. Most women, however, would not prefer that. They, in fact, are likely to never shop there again and the shop will close down.
So, no, I do not think that because you CAN do the job, you're entitled to do the job.
You've now inadvertently crossed the line into property rights, Larry.
As owner of my company, I have the right to hire whomever I wish and not hire whomever I wish. I have the right to run my company as I see fit. By the same token, my employees are not obligated to work for me. They can leave any time they want and for any reason - even if that reason is because they don't like to work for women. Their labour is their property. They can do with it what they want.
Or are you suggesting that if you are capable of doing the job that you are obligated to do the job regardless of your personal preferences?
And, Larry, in your desperation to cling to government to solve all perceived wrongs (whether they exist or not), it seems that, as Sowell said, women with the same skills, education, hours of work and other determining factors DO make as much as their male counterparts.
ReplyDeleteSo, it seems your complaint is addressed. So, what's the reason for more legislation again?
" You're incoherent.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that now that you can't make an argument for "fair pay", you've taken to digging around in history to justify idiotic laws today. Equal pay laws have always worked against women. Always. They are more damaging than sexism."
I'm telling you that MOST WOMEN in the past DISAGREED with your view and THEY were the ones who DID WANT the law and believed it was needed.
When you and Sowell DISAVOW the true history because of your ideology.. it is dishonest.
but worse that that, it ignores the realities of why we have the regs to begin with AND it ignores the realities that even today.. even though we probably have gone too far..that the basic laws are STILL NEEDED in most people's minds.
f you set a standard for doing a job - then anyone who can meet that standard should be allowed to do that work AND they should get the SAME PAY.
"Happily.
I'm sure there are a lot of men who can meet the standards of wielding a tape-measure to fit women for bras. I'm sure there are quite a few men who wouldn't mind standing within an inch of a shirtless woman, pawing her breasts. Most women, however, would not prefer that. They, in fact, are likely to never shop there again and the shop will close down. "
nice try... do TSA people "paw" you? do you really care what the gender is? Would you care if it was a women or man that stopped a terrorist?
"So, no, I do not think that because you CAN do the job, you're entitled to do the job."
some exceptions.. perhaps.. but not many and not near as many as has been the practice.
"You've now inadvertently crossed the line into property rights, Larry.
As owner of my company, I have the right to hire whomever I wish and not hire whomever I wish. I have the right to run my company as I see fit. By the same token, my employees are not obligated to work for me. They can leave any time they want and for any reason - even if that reason is because they don't like to work for women. Their labour is their property. They can do with it what they want."
well no, clearly you do not. It's what you want but it does not justify denying the history of it as a premise for dismantling it.
"Or are you suggesting that if you are capable of doing the job that you are obligated to do the job regardless of your personal preferences? "
I'm saying if you are qualified to do the job and want to do the job then you should not be denied from getting that job or equal pay for that job for reasons that have nothing to do with your ability.
You are entitled to believe as you wish but you are not entitled to change past history... as the basis for and conformity with your views.
that's the problem that Sowell and others are having right now. It's open season on the truth just so he can justify a view.
AND it ignores the realities that even today.. even though we probably have gone too far..that the basic laws are STILL NEEDED in most people's minds.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a survey of "most people's minds" on that issue? You wouldn't just aggressively assert something like that without any evidence, would you?
But, if what's in most people's mind's is your standard, then you haven't a leg to stand on historically. Historically, in "most people's minds" (including women's), women should be staying home and taking care of kids and husband, not gallivanting off to work in an office. As one ancient manager in a large Wall Street bank once told me decades ago, "This is no business for a young lady".
nice try... do TSA people "paw" you? do you really care what the gender is? Would you care if it was a women or man that stopped a terrorist?
Huh? And, Yes. I very much care if it is a man or woman pawing me.
The rest of your post is even more incoherent. It's an unaddressable, nonsensical word salad.
that's the problem that Sowell and others are having right now. It's open season on the truth just so he can justify a view.
ReplyDeleteLOL! As opposed to what? Your merciless assaults on truth logic logic?
"AND it ignores the realities that even today.. even though we probably have gone too far..that the basic laws are STILL NEEDED in most people's minds.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a survey of "most people's minds" on that issue? You wouldn't just aggressively assert something like that without any evidence, would you?"
we might.
"But, if what's in most people's mind's is your standard, then you haven't a leg to stand on historically. Historically, in "most people's minds" (including women's), women should be staying home and taking care of kids and husband, not gallivanting off to work in an office. As one ancient manager in a large Wall Street bank once told me decades ago, "This is no business for a young lady". "
the interesting thing about your experience is that you USED IT to YOUR ADVANTAGE while other women were not so assertive...
"nice try... do TSA people "paw" you? do you really care what the gender is? Would you care if it was a women or man that stopped a terrorist?
Huh? And, Yes. I very much care if it is a man or woman pawing me. "
so you FAVOR hiring women just because they are women?
"The rest of your post is even more incoherent. It's an unaddressable, nonsensical word salad."
no more a "salad" that your continuing to deny the obvious and documented history of discrimination against women (and others) that directly led to regulations..... and THEN using that denial of history to justify dismantling all regulation associated with discrimination against women.
Most women would consider your position "incoherent" on this.
basically you were able to overcome discrimination on your own so you believe that all other women should also have done the same rather than having a law.
is that a correct description of your position or is it "incoherent" once again?
you tend to have the same problem as Van.. but you are more adept at using subtleties to accomplish the same intent....and takes away from your points...
that's the problem that Sowell and others are having right now. It's open season on the truth just so he can justify a view.
ReplyDeleteLOL! As opposed to what? Your merciless assaults on truth logic logic?
as opposed to the simple truth as to why anti-discrimination laws really came about in the first place.
there is no question in most minds that women were unfairly discriminated against.
To deny that truth - as a premise to oppose regulation just divides people and not a better understanding of where we are right now and what we should do.
No one is going to wipe out anti-discrimination regulation despite the wet-dreams narratives ...so what's the real point ?
the interesting thing about your experience is that you USED IT to YOUR ADVANTAGE while other women were not so assertive...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you suppose happens to unassertive men?
so you FAVOR hiring women just because they are women?
In the case of TSA, I favour the hiring of neither. However, the answer to your question is "yes". I do. I also favour hiring men just because they're men. I thought I was pretty clear on that point. And let me be clear on another point - hiring decisions at companies I don't run are none of my business. Or yours. The only place they may be our business is in public sector hiring.
there is no question in most minds that women were unfairly discriminated against.
Since you can't come up with the evidence to verify this dubious claim, I must conclude that it's untrue. But even if, for the sake of argument it is true and you use this as justification for policy, then if there was no question in most minds that women should stay at home and raise children, would would support laws that prevented women from seeking employment that most people disapproved of "in their minds"?
Using your logic, most people believed that slavery is just, that this would make slavery moral and good. If in the "minds of most" Germans, the Jews were responsible for their personal misfortunes, then that alone would make it true.
This is Larry Lojick.
Incidentally, the evidence that most people don't believe women are unfairly discriminated against (despite the tireless efforts of NOW and you to paint the lie) or at least they do not think that government can fix such an ill is that the "fair pay" bullshit has as much of a chance of passing into law as the Equal Rights Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThank God for that.
the interesting thing about your experience is that you USED IT to YOUR ADVANTAGE while other women were not so assertive...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you suppose happens to unassertive men?
better than unassertive women.
"so you FAVOR hiring women just because they are women?
In the case of TSA, I favour the hiring of neither. However, the answer to your question is "yes". I do. I also favour hiring men just because they're men. I thought I was pretty clear on that point. And let me be clear on another point - hiring decisions at companies I don't run are none of my business. Or yours. The only place they may be our business is in public sector hiring."
why public sector only?
"there is no question in most minds that women were unfairly discriminated against.
"Since you can't come up with the evidence to verify this dubious claim, I must conclude that it's untrue. But even if, for the sake of argument it is true and you use this as justification for policy, then if there was no question in most minds that women should stay at home and raise children, would would support laws that prevented women from seeking employment that most people disapproved of "in their minds"? "
the evidence is ubiquitous and we have laws that were deemed needed. Your continual denial of those realities undermines your position and reaffirms that you seek to believe what you wish and not the truth.
the reason to oppose the status quo was that it was wrong. No one should be stereotyped institutionally.
"Using your logic, most people believed that slavery is just, that this would make slavery moral and good. If in the "minds of most" Germans, the Jews were responsible for their personal misfortunes, then that alone would make it true. "
in the short term , perhaps. but in the long term.. the discrimination attitude loses.
this is not just me. This is the reality of why the laws came about. Yes.. a bunch of people though slavery was fine - for a while - but then the fundamental basis of what is right and moral - prevailed.
And the PROOF of this is that there is ZERO chance that we'll undo our ideas about the "right" of blacks and women to "equal" status.
we're never going back.
"This is Larry Lojick."
well.. methinks.. it's Methinks trouble in reconciling her own views with history and reality.
I'll grant you your views no matter how much I disagree but you are not entitled to your own set of facts which seems to be the problem with Sowell and supporters.
You probably have a point about CURRENT trendlines of regulation but you completely destroy your own prospects of change by refusing to acknowledge the history and the truth of the rationale behind the original regulation.
most folks who are old enough to remember how women were treated in the workplace ...do not agree with you... on the history nor on the merits...
most folks..especially those who have daughters - want their daughters to not be discriminated against... and support laws to that effect and would oppose dismantling laws that do that.
" Incidentally, the evidence that most people don't believe women are unfairly discriminated against (despite the tireless efforts of NOW and you to paint the lie) or at least they do not think that government can fix such an ill is that the "fair pay" bullshit has as much of a chance of passing into law as the Equal Rights Amendment."
ReplyDeletethen how did the original law become a law if most were opposed?
the CURRENT one that got shot down in Congress recently is just more partisan war-fighting.. so I'd agree with that.
but what Sowell is saying and you supporting is that we never had a problem to start with... and that's clearly not what happened and clearly not why laws got passed.
you're in denial about that.
A couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. I find it quite amazing that people like Larry want to have the govt take over such a vital task as regulating wages for various employees.
2. You'd think that if employers could, in general, pay women less, for equal or better work, they'd be hiring more women.
3. Because some women don't seem to know how to negotiate higher wages we need the govt to step in as negotiator on their behalf? That's ludicrous. Should auto dealers also be forced to sell cars to men and women at the same price too?
4. If the average salary for men is X dollars per hour, surely some are making more than X and some less than X. Does that prove discrimination against those making less than X?
"1. I find it quite amazing that people like Larry want to have the govt take over such a vital task as regulating wages for various employees. "
ReplyDeleteI lean that way but am not foaming at the mouth but what I point out is the reality of the history where laws got passed ... are now we deny there were reasons why they got passed... pretending there was no sentiment for the laws to start with.
"2. You'd think that if employers could, in general, pay women less, for equal or better work, they'd be hiring more women."
that's not the way it worked when the original legislation in 1964 passed... By the way NOW did not exist when the law was passed.
"3. Because some women don't seem to know how to negotiate higher wages we need the govt to step in as negotiator on their behalf? That's ludicrous. Should auto dealers also be forced to sell cars to men and women at the same price too?"
so a whole class of race or gender or less competent as "negotiating"? Is that the real cause of race and gender-based discrimination? I guess all those folks in 1964 were just dead wrong, eh?
"4. If the average salary for men is X dollars per hour, surely some are making more than X and some less than X. Does that prove discrimination against those making less than X? "
it does if you WANT to do an honest survey designed to get at the truth. but the point is.. if it IS determined to be true - then what is your position?
I guess all those folks in 1964 were just dead wrong, eh?
ReplyDeleteNo more wrong than the folks who agreed that slavery was okay.
" No more wrong than the folks who agreed that slavery was okay."
ReplyDeletewell in 1964 it was not only about gender discrimination but race discrimination... and both had been as acceptable as slavery had been and then what happened?
are we going to change our minds back again?
so the American people are going to vote for politicians who promise to do away with race/gender discrimination, repeal the Civil Rights Act and re-institute slavery?
sounds like a libertarian wet dream to me!
well in 1964 it was not only about gender discrimination but race discrimination.
ReplyDeleteSweet Jesus. You have now reached a level of stupid I had heretofore not known was possible. I've had enough of this stupidity, Larry. Good night.
Larry, what the hell are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou're incoherent.
He is ignorant and stupid. If you expect coherence you overestimate our friend.
that seems to be ya'lls stock bail card...
ReplyDeleteboth of you are idiots in your own right for sure... you both live in a libertarian dream world that exists no where on Earth only in your minds.
and you apparently breed!
juandos: "See what happens larry g when one takes to much time to shop around for just the right kind of ambulance chaser?"
ReplyDeleteBut Lilly didn't even know she was supposed to be shopping, until she had worked happily for 20 years, at which time someone who knew more about how much she was paid than she knew herself, clued her in.
Methinks: "If every word in that sentence is true, it is not proof of sex discrimination. Mind, even if it were, I don't find it a prosecutable offense."
ReplyDeleteWhat it DOES show is a lack of curiosity about her surroundings at work that is mind boggling.
Methinks:
ReplyDeleteI was right with you up until this:
"Even to you this must seem quite silly."
Methinks,
ReplyDelete" I've had enough of this stupidity, Larry. Good night."
Ha, this is where we all inevitably end up whenever we follow Larry down the rabbit hole.
yeah.. I was wondering what took her so long but then I remember that's her practice
ReplyDelete;-)
"What does an increase in demand for women's labour do to the price of women's labour?"
ReplyDeleteYou are asking someone who hasn't yet mastered the concept of supply and demand and how price is related.
Paul, you're so right.
ReplyDeleteRon H., I was hoping. And, yes, I do realize that Larry thinks the law of supply and demand is merely a hypothesis. But, the person to whom the comment is addressed is rarely the sole reader.
"most folks..especially those who have daughters - want their daughters to not be discriminated against... and support laws to that effect and would oppose dismantling laws that do that."
ReplyDeleteYou have this exactly backwards, Larry. If there *is* discrimination in the workplace - and no one has argued that there isn't - the best way to combat it is to make it expensive to indulge.
If an employer prefers to hire men, the only way a women can overcome that prejudice is to work for lower pay. In that way, more women will have jobs despite sexist discrimination, because few employers will be willing to hurt their bottom line by excluding women and paying more for men.
If you legislate equal pay, there will be fewer women working, as it costs nothing to discriminate against them and hire men instead.
Methinks:
ReplyDelete"Ron H., I was hoping. And, yes, I do realize that Larry thinks the law of supply and demand is merely a hypothesis. But, the person to whom the comment is addressed is rarely the sole reader."
That's true, there are probably always other readers,and I think it's the main reason any of us ever respond to Larry at all. It's obvious he never gains from these interchanges.
Larry G,
ReplyDeletehe is using it in a way that implies that what happened to Ledbetter never happened
You're projecting. He doesn't even mention Lily Ledbetter once. He's saying, quite rightly, and something with which you agree, is that women are not systematically discriminated against. The point of his article isn't to disparage Ledbetter, but to disparage the need for government intervention into a made up problem.
I understand your beliefs and your ideology but they do not work the way you believe - in the real world.
ReplyDeleteand most people support equal pay for equal work regardless of gender - and race.
When we "discuss" these issues, you refuse to accept the realities that I point out to you and so you then go to name calling...
it's pretty infantile IMHO.
There actually is SOME logic to your thesis but the problem is most people find discrimination repugnant and wrong and support laws to discourage it even if those laws cannot eradicate it.
You jump me for pointing this out to you... as if I "do not learn".
The "learning" is reconciling your beliefs about this and yes other related issues such as supply/demand between what you believe and how the world really does operate.
when is the last time a politician got up and said that wage discrimination against Women was "correct" and got elected.
How many people - who make laws - have been elected on that platform?
What have you learned about that?
Larry G,
ReplyDeleteWho are you addressing in your last comment? Are are you simple tilting towards windmills and yelling at the wind?
Ken - if the shoe fits.
ReplyDelete"and most people support equal pay for equal work regardless of gender - and race."
ReplyDeleteYou have provided no basis for that claim. It's probable you read something, somewhere, that gave you that impression, and with no further thought or understanding you now pull it back out of your ass to post here.
You make this mistake in almost every comment you write, unaware that others realize you don't know what you're talking about. That, along with the fact that you don't appear to understand what others write, is one of the main reason so many here use you for target practice.
You should get a clue.
" You should get a clue. "
ReplyDeleteName the people who run for office who say they would vote to get rid of the Civil Rights Act.
Do you have a majority?
how many do you have?
do you have a clue?
"Name the people who run for office who say they would vote to get rid of the Civil Rights Act."
ReplyDeleteThat is neither an answer, nor a meaningful response to anything written on this thread.
Name the people who comment on this blog who say they think Larry makes a positive contribute to discussions on this blog.
Do you have a majority?
Did you get more than 1?
you boys live in a world of denial.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil RIghts Act did pass - with a majority vote and has never been repealed and not a single elected official that I know of publically supports repeal of it.
Rand Paul stepped in it then walked it back.
What does that tell you about public sentiment ?
What it tells me is that you folks just deny reality so you can cling to your dogma...
The fact is that the Civil Rights Act (and related) laws DID pass with majority votes and continue to remain in effect - and there is a snowball chance in hell that even one feckless politician would advocate repeal of it - and survive an election.