Radical promise? - Yawn! She is not one to think out of the box that her benefactors put her in.
8
The photo with the caption: "Hillary Clinton with supporters in Council Bluffs, Iowa," in my opinion says it all. She is among women, supporters and the look on her face is that she is in "hog heaven." She really is committed to public service, that expression is not phony.
The equal pay is just one example of this vulnerable, imperfect human being (who isn't?) committed to helping others. When will her detractors wake up to this?
When was the last time you say Donald tRump so genuinely involved with his base?
The equal pay is just one example of this vulnerable, imperfect human being (who isn't?) committed to helping others. When will her detractors wake up to this?
When was the last time you say Donald tRump so genuinely involved with his base?
6
It's always interesting to see how many men scream at the mere idea of equal pay for women.
Don't these men have sisters, wives and daughters? I know all of them have mothers.
Don't these men have sisters, wives and daughters? I know all of them have mothers.
10
I spent 30 years in the Army. For all I put up with as a woman, every single day I knew I got paid the exact same as anybody else at my grade and time of service. And I will reap the benefits of retirement in exactly the same amount. In any defined benefits program, 87 cents to the dollar amounts to millions over the years.
5
Every one of the government programs that have supposedly solved some social problem has only created a dozen more non-solvable problems. Why? Because the only reason that these things are brought forth is that there are clowns that want attention and have very little insight as to what happens as a consequences of their clowning around with the system. The Clinton's are clowns with a totally amoral attitude towards the world. As far as Trump goes, I would feel much better if he would promise to bring his daughter into the White House as an advisor. She seems to be a person with a level head and an ability to analyze things clearly.
8
The problem is tightly tied to marriage and children. Never-married men and women without children earn the same. However this is solved (outside of government mandates of equal pay regardless of life circumstances and time on the job), we should not start by ignoring the underlying dynamics. We need to get creative. A good start would be free high quality child care and mandatory time off to care for sick children. Changing the differing attitudes of men and women about child care responsibilities would go a lot further, but I am at a loss on how to accomplish that.
7
This is for all those complaining about "government interference in the workplace":
You would also then agree that there should be no impediment to trade, or to the free flow of labor across national borders, correct?
No tariffs, no walls.
Sounds like a plan! Don't vote for the guy interfering in the free interaction between employers, workers, and consumers! Got it!
You would also then agree that there should be no impediment to trade, or to the free flow of labor across national borders, correct?
No tariffs, no walls.
Sounds like a plan! Don't vote for the guy interfering in the free interaction between employers, workers, and consumers! Got it!
2
Two points:
1. The National Labor Relations Act, which applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, prohibits any rule or policy that inhibits employees' ability to share wage and benefit information. Most people are unaware of this. It needs to be enforced at non-unionized workplaces.
2. We need to change the culture of round the clock work, which impacts females in high level jobs (and males who want to have a life). This may be easier to accomplish than the cultural shift inherent in making childcare shared equally between men and women. Women cannot be responsible for child care when they are expected to work (and punished for not working) 70-hours per week. Besides, what good is having kids, money, etc. if you're never around to enjoy them? Americans work too damn much and this workaholic culture makes it impossible for working mothers to succeed in their professions and as parents.
1. The National Labor Relations Act, which applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, prohibits any rule or policy that inhibits employees' ability to share wage and benefit information. Most people are unaware of this. It needs to be enforced at non-unionized workplaces.
2. We need to change the culture of round the clock work, which impacts females in high level jobs (and males who want to have a life). This may be easier to accomplish than the cultural shift inherent in making childcare shared equally between men and women. Women cannot be responsible for child care when they are expected to work (and punished for not working) 70-hours per week. Besides, what good is having kids, money, etc. if you're never around to enjoy them? Americans work too damn much and this workaholic culture makes it impossible for working mothers to succeed in their professions and as parents.
4
Another likely reason that women's wages lag behind that of men is that women tend to be less demanding than men in negotiations. Women in our society are taught, by perhaps nature and nurture, to be more compliant and, generally, they often are. In school growing up, boys act up, girls are much more cooperative and get good grades.
Some women might fight less for higher wages because they don't see themselves as the primary bread winner. They want their husbands to assume that role and they insist that they must do so, bringing that steady, growing paycheck to the family while their wages are supplemental.
There is another factor, mainly one of sociology and relationships. Women want men who make money. Some women only want men who make more money than they do. When choosing someone for marriage, how many women say, "Oh, he's really good looking. I know he only makes minimum wage, but who cares about that?"
Men are intensely aware of the need to make money as a key ingredient of finding and marrying a woman of their choice. The job a man has can be just as important, if not more so, than looks, intelligence and personality. Is it surprising that this desire on the part of women translates into a desire of men to make more money and get more prestige? (Why do all the old rich guys have younger, attractive women on their arms?)
The best way to get more money for women workers is to cut the pay of males and spread the results around. Who is singing up for that?
Some women might fight less for higher wages because they don't see themselves as the primary bread winner. They want their husbands to assume that role and they insist that they must do so, bringing that steady, growing paycheck to the family while their wages are supplemental.
There is another factor, mainly one of sociology and relationships. Women want men who make money. Some women only want men who make more money than they do. When choosing someone for marriage, how many women say, "Oh, he's really good looking. I know he only makes minimum wage, but who cares about that?"
Men are intensely aware of the need to make money as a key ingredient of finding and marrying a woman of their choice. The job a man has can be just as important, if not more so, than looks, intelligence and personality. Is it surprising that this desire on the part of women translates into a desire of men to make more money and get more prestige? (Why do all the old rich guys have younger, attractive women on their arms?)
The best way to get more money for women workers is to cut the pay of males and spread the results around. Who is singing up for that?
4
"She wants women and men to be paid the same."
For the same work and the same amount of hours?
For the same work and the same amount of hours?
8
How long have we as a country been talking about this problem, years, decades? Why hasn't it been fixed? How about that pen and cellphone being used with the Department of Labor, that monolithic bureaucracy that doesn't seem to listen well to 50% of the population. If it can't be a law then how about a rule? Or use the DOJ to bring charges of financial discrimination against any US business that doesn't comply. Less talk more action.
5
Very good analysis from Bryce Covert. It's a complex problem and there are many elements that conspire to create the reduction in wages. If you protect women's rights so they don't need to leave the work place, that will help close the gap, so that's an excellent point.
One that I've noted is that women are treated exactly the same as men on the job…as long as they faultless. As soon as an error occurs, the perception is often it's because "she's a woman and we never should have trusted her".
On the other hand, the man gets "he's having a rough time at home", "this experience will only make him stronger and more prepared for future crises" or some similar free pass.
Hillary like all humans, has made mistakes. She has lost at times. She has suffered heartbreak and betrayal. After each setback, she has back stood up and continued to fight. That willingness to continue the struggle is one of the finest qualities that any person can have.
The insidious thing about glass ceilings is they are invisible, and until they are broken you are often not even aware they are present. Regardless of how her campaign turns out personally, Hillary Clinton is already succeeding in breaking a glass ceiling imposed by the idea that women must be faultless before they are allowed to compete with men.
One that I've noted is that women are treated exactly the same as men on the job…as long as they faultless. As soon as an error occurs, the perception is often it's because "she's a woman and we never should have trusted her".
On the other hand, the man gets "he's having a rough time at home", "this experience will only make him stronger and more prepared for future crises" or some similar free pass.
Hillary like all humans, has made mistakes. She has lost at times. She has suffered heartbreak and betrayal. After each setback, she has back stood up and continued to fight. That willingness to continue the struggle is one of the finest qualities that any person can have.
The insidious thing about glass ceilings is they are invisible, and until they are broken you are often not even aware they are present. Regardless of how her campaign turns out personally, Hillary Clinton is already succeeding in breaking a glass ceiling imposed by the idea that women must be faultless before they are allowed to compete with men.
6
The Obama WH pays women 75 cents for every dollar a man earns doing the same job. The Clinton campaign pays women less than male staffers.
This sloppy recall of liberal talking points from the 1990s is laughable.
And sadly, all talk.
This sloppy recall of liberal talking points from the 1990s is laughable.
And sadly, all talk.
15
It is IMMORAL to pay a woman less than a man when both are doing the same work.
But Capitalism isn't moral. It's amoral. It's about profits. It's about exploitation of the underprivileged.
The invisible MALE hand of the market decides, just as God has decided that women must serve men.
But Capitalism isn't moral. It's amoral. It's about profits. It's about exploitation of the underprivileged.
The invisible MALE hand of the market decides, just as God has decided that women must serve men.
If this true then how do males even get a job. If you hire only women your profits go up because you can pay them less...
6
Great advice, Bryce Covert! I can't wait to be "pushed into the areas that pay better" while I have two preschool aged children, one of whom is still nursing. The mommy track exists for a reason... I am not inclined to "lean in" so far that I fall flat on my face. Of course good leave policies and affordable childcare are important, but I'm not convinced that is the government's (read: all of society's) responsibility to pay for it. It's better to allow moms to work on a slower - and less highly paid - track while their family responsibilities are high, and then ramp up as they lessen. What good is it to anyone if moms stretch themselves so thin that they're not effective at work or at home?
Women without kids, completely different bag - they should be paid exactly the same as men (and I think they are actually paid more in some cities?).
Women without kids, completely different bag - they should be paid exactly the same as men (and I think they are actually paid more in some cities?).
9
I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada the most significant pay gap is between the hourly wages paid to part-time workers with the same qualifications, training and expeirence, doing the exact same jobs a full-time workers in the same organizations. This problem far outstrips gender pay equity as an economic issue.
Part-time workers subject to such worker status discrimination are often forced into poverty while government does nothing to end what is obvious discrimination on a worker status basis.
In Canada, only Quebec has taken proper steps to outlaw this enormous source of poverty and suffering. Pay equity based on gender is also important. Why not tackle both at once?
Part-time workers subject to such worker status discrimination are often forced into poverty while government does nothing to end what is obvious discrimination on a worker status basis.
In Canada, only Quebec has taken proper steps to outlaw this enormous source of poverty and suffering. Pay equity based on gender is also important. Why not tackle both at once?
2
There are wage GAPS. The 79 cents on the dollar figure is for white women. Women of color make as little as 54 cents on the dollar. We have to talk about intersectionality and stand together with all our sisters when we talk about wage gaps (and, ahem, the far thornier and deeper problem of income inequality).
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/18/3569328/gender-wage-gap-race/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/18/3569328/gender-wage-gap-race/
4
"Income inequality" is a euphemism for "I want what you got".
2
I broke the tone with this paragraph, but I was getting in a hurry to get out and buy some essentials before the stores closed:
"She should ask for help, obtaining what people want, not "promise" it to them."
I should better have said:
"She is asking for help, to obtain what people want, not "promising" it to them.
In other words, she is throwing down the gauntlet, issuing a challenge. She needs to be aware she is not "promising" things, just as much as the voters.
It is challenges we're talking about, not promises. As Sly once intoned, "You can make it, if you try."
"She should ask for help, obtaining what people want, not "promise" it to them."
I should better have said:
"She is asking for help, to obtain what people want, not "promising" it to them.
In other words, she is throwing down the gauntlet, issuing a challenge. She needs to be aware she is not "promising" things, just as much as the voters.
It is challenges we're talking about, not promises. As Sly once intoned, "You can make it, if you try."
1
As a man who interrupted career work to take the duties of a father, I learned as many women learn, interruptions for children lose the track, the position, the job, the respect.
Other men referred to me as, 'Mister Mom.'
The alternative work I did pursue paid less with less security and much more struggle. I did make money, yet I lost the equivalent of an average worker's lifelong earnings.
The lost hypothetical earnings mean nothing. That money would have been spent long ago. My memories as a father live with me every moment of my life. And my children succeeded in professions and as adults.
Other men referred to me as, 'Mister Mom.'
The alternative work I did pursue paid less with less security and much more struggle. I did make money, yet I lost the equivalent of an average worker's lifelong earnings.
The lost hypothetical earnings mean nothing. That money would have been spent long ago. My memories as a father live with me every moment of my life. And my children succeeded in professions and as adults.
5
Obtaining pay equality should be easier than having to file a lawsuit to win it.
1
Here's an interesting tidbit from an article that appeared on May 16, 2016 in The Cut:
"Women at the New York Times are underrepresented in several categories — reporters, critics, and graphics editors — with men dominating the highest-paying jobs. Women who have worked at the company for more than 20 years face the biggest pay gap, earning 89 percent of the average pay for men, while women with 6 to 20 years of experience at the company face a 2 to 4 percent wage gap.
Only 22 percent of Times employees are people of color, and the wage gap varies depending on race and ethnicity: Latino workers made 84 percent of average pay; African-American, 89 percent; white employees, 103 percent; and Asians, 98 percent."
Why, who would have guessed? People living in a glass house -- or in this case, editorial boardroom with glass walls -- should not toss stones at other folks...
"Women at the New York Times are underrepresented in several categories — reporters, critics, and graphics editors — with men dominating the highest-paying jobs. Women who have worked at the company for more than 20 years face the biggest pay gap, earning 89 percent of the average pay for men, while women with 6 to 20 years of experience at the company face a 2 to 4 percent wage gap.
Only 22 percent of Times employees are people of color, and the wage gap varies depending on race and ethnicity: Latino workers made 84 percent of average pay; African-American, 89 percent; white employees, 103 percent; and Asians, 98 percent."
Why, who would have guessed? People living in a glass house -- or in this case, editorial boardroom with glass walls -- should not toss stones at other folks...
9
This is an important consideration, when remembering women are a little bit over half of the entire population. But actually, to give women any credit goes against the silent strictures of a patriarchy.
I've done daycare, been a 5 year stay-at-home mom, then stayed home because I cared for 4 elderly family members (three with dementia, 2 bed-bound and incontinent) and never got paid a dime for these jobs. This was difficult and draining work, and those people were men and mothers of men. But the message I got was, no, what you are doing for society doesn't matter. And then, when I worked outside the home, I got paid like I didn't matter too.
Yet, everyday I am full of love because I can take pride in knowing I did what mattered. But please, why couldn't I get paid? I will be that person dying, and since I don't have much Social Security, what will I do? I do NOT want my kids to have to do what I did. I'll probably just work until I drop dead.
I've done daycare, been a 5 year stay-at-home mom, then stayed home because I cared for 4 elderly family members (three with dementia, 2 bed-bound and incontinent) and never got paid a dime for these jobs. This was difficult and draining work, and those people were men and mothers of men. But the message I got was, no, what you are doing for society doesn't matter. And then, when I worked outside the home, I got paid like I didn't matter too.
Yet, everyday I am full of love because I can take pride in knowing I did what mattered. But please, why couldn't I get paid? I will be that person dying, and since I don't have much Social Security, what will I do? I do NOT want my kids to have to do what I did. I'll probably just work until I drop dead.
3
I'm a woman and appreciate that when one does the same work as the guy next to them, they should have the same opportunity to make the same amount.
However, if a woman or man doesn't work the same number of hours, works flex time or part time vs. full time - we can all agree that they don't get the same money. Right?
If a woman or man has worked at a job for 3 years, but the person next to them has been there for 5 or 10 (i.e. more time, more experience, around for more raises if given), then they won't get the same money.
Lastly, although the NYTimes completely ignores the fact, it has been published from public data (and analyzed over and over) that women make between 0.93 and 0.97 to every dollar made by a man. I call that equal pay - a difference that small cannot really be 'managed' by government policy. I'm saying all of this as a woman that was not paid the same for equal work in the 80s and 90s, but it's 2016 and those deltas are gone.
However, if a woman or man doesn't work the same number of hours, works flex time or part time vs. full time - we can all agree that they don't get the same money. Right?
If a woman or man has worked at a job for 3 years, but the person next to them has been there for 5 or 10 (i.e. more time, more experience, around for more raises if given), then they won't get the same money.
Lastly, although the NYTimes completely ignores the fact, it has been published from public data (and analyzed over and over) that women make between 0.93 and 0.97 to every dollar made by a man. I call that equal pay - a difference that small cannot really be 'managed' by government policy. I'm saying all of this as a woman that was not paid the same for equal work in the 80s and 90s, but it's 2016 and those deltas are gone.
11
Exactly what America needs, more government oversight and regulation of businesses. Let's add the $25 minimum wage to it while we're at it and watch the American economy finally grow :/
5
Discrimination on basis of gender is already ILLEGAL and must be enforced.
The pay-gap myth has been debunked many times and repeating it does not make one look more honest. Some reasons for the differences in pay:
Average is a terrible measure in this case because it includes the outliers, the very highly paid positions mostly occupied by men. (Why this is so is a topic for another day.)
Women and men have different interests and choose different fields.
Women work fewer hours than men.
Differences in years spent on a job.
Differences in negotiation strategy...
The remaining gap, which is much smaller than presented here should be closed if and only if it is proven to be due to gender discrimination.
The quota systems are not only terribly ineffective but are also a form of real gender discrimination. So if Hillary wants to fight UNPROVEN discrimination by ACTUAL discrimination that doesn't make her a candidate who supports gender equality or any kind of equality. It makes her a bigot.
The pay-gap myth has been debunked many times and repeating it does not make one look more honest. Some reasons for the differences in pay:
Average is a terrible measure in this case because it includes the outliers, the very highly paid positions mostly occupied by men. (Why this is so is a topic for another day.)
Women and men have different interests and choose different fields.
Women work fewer hours than men.
Differences in years spent on a job.
Differences in negotiation strategy...
The remaining gap, which is much smaller than presented here should be closed if and only if it is proven to be due to gender discrimination.
The quota systems are not only terribly ineffective but are also a form of real gender discrimination. So if Hillary wants to fight UNPROVEN discrimination by ACTUAL discrimination that doesn't make her a candidate who supports gender equality or any kind of equality. It makes her a bigot.
6
That's what she's saying. I'm a Bernie supporter and one of those who just doesn't trust a word Hillary said. We'll see how it all falls out. Which is true of any presidency actually.
2
I was a legislative aide to a councilman who was widely hailed as the champion of working people (and mostly, that was true). But when, as an attorney with eight years experience, working much longer hours than my male counterpart, I asked for a raise, he told me that my parents would help me if I needed more money. I should not have to elaborate -- they could not have helped me, but even if they could have, that is absolutely not a response he would ever, in a million years, have given a man. And when I did eventually get the raise, he gave my male colleague one exactly the same size. The presumption that women have other means of support and/or that their work is less important is ingrained and poisonous.
7
The Paycheck Fairness Act would enrich trial lawyers, while encouraging small business owners to avoid litigation by hiring only women or men for a particular job description. Larger businesses would endure the pain, hire more lawyers and HR professionals, and pass the costs on to their customers. Pay levels for employees would be reviewed for compliance with court precedents rather than set by merit.
See what the Americans with Disabilities Act has done. It has created a cottage industry for trial lawyers who find minor accessibility violations and threaten to sue small business owners if they don't hand over cash. Businesses are very wary of ADA and will find almost any excuse not to risk litigation by hiring disabled people. Employment of disabled workers has fallen since the ADA was passed.
See what the Americans with Disabilities Act has done. It has created a cottage industry for trial lawyers who find minor accessibility violations and threaten to sue small business owners if they don't hand over cash. Businesses are very wary of ADA and will find almost any excuse not to risk litigation by hiring disabled people. Employment of disabled workers has fallen since the ADA was passed.
6
Google "Gender Pay Gap Myth".
It's been debunked many times. The comparisons determining the pay gap are not apples to apples.
It's been debunked many times. The comparisons determining the pay gap are not apples to apples.
5
By any measure there should be equal pay for equal work. Making employee compensation openly available is a good step forward. But in a job where an employer has to hire and train a replacement for someone who takes a pregnancy leave, no matter how you twist and turn you can't describe that as being equal work.
7
I feel tired of listening Republicans affirming global warming is a “hoax.” Yesterday, I spent $4500 for a new central air conditioning unit because the old one couldn’t resist the heat wave.
As a senior citizen, I do research about political history and events; it keeps my brain functioning. It’s unbelievable how Republicans chose to ignore that American women who work full time are being paid 79 cents less than men for every dollar earned and that for black women the wage cap is even larger.
As to Donald Trump’s intentions of building a “wall” to prevent illegal immigration, it would interfere with the flowing of water from Mexico into the Colorado River so, that’s a no-no. This is why I’m concerned about Trump’s intentions when he doesn’t take a look at the outcome.
I also researched Hillary Clinton’s past and present. She’s untrustworthy; has been paid by special interest groups and handled her emails in an improper fashion placing classified material at the risk. Since history tells about a person, I perceived she’s always felt a great love for this country thus, I believe the email problem was reckless but unintentional. She’s dedicated her political career to fight for the welfare of working families, assisting children a priority and of fighting for women’s rights to choose.
Realizing that lesson are learned when we go through painful experiences, I have decided to give my vote to Hillary Clinton.
As a senior citizen, I do research about political history and events; it keeps my brain functioning. It’s unbelievable how Republicans chose to ignore that American women who work full time are being paid 79 cents less than men for every dollar earned and that for black women the wage cap is even larger.
As to Donald Trump’s intentions of building a “wall” to prevent illegal immigration, it would interfere with the flowing of water from Mexico into the Colorado River so, that’s a no-no. This is why I’m concerned about Trump’s intentions when he doesn’t take a look at the outcome.
I also researched Hillary Clinton’s past and present. She’s untrustworthy; has been paid by special interest groups and handled her emails in an improper fashion placing classified material at the risk. Since history tells about a person, I perceived she’s always felt a great love for this country thus, I believe the email problem was reckless but unintentional. She’s dedicated her political career to fight for the welfare of working families, assisting children a priority and of fighting for women’s rights to choose.
Realizing that lesson are learned when we go through painful experiences, I have decided to give my vote to Hillary Clinton.
9
The article states "Men and women also end up in different industries and occupations, and the ones dominated by men pay more." and "when women move into a previously male-dominated area, the pay drops." My wife has seen that circularity in medicine (she is a hematologist / oncologist), where average earnings in fields go down over time as more women enter them. So does the work become less valuable somehow when women perform it? No, the work is the same. Do women do the work less well? No, by every measure they perform as well as male docs. What, then, is the explanation? To paraphrase a mantra from the campaign of a different Clinton "It's the misogyny, stupid".
38
Mike,
there's an answer to your question.
Consider a possibility that when more women enter a field, it becomes less competitive or when it becomes less competitive, more women enter the field.
Once less competitive, the field brings less income to its practitioners.
What I'm saying is a testable hypothesis supported by some data. Instead of falling back on a dumb communist idea of paying everyone the same, we could spend a pittance on research testing this hypothesis and ending the political farce.
That would make Demos unemployed, though.
there's an answer to your question.
Consider a possibility that when more women enter a field, it becomes less competitive or when it becomes less competitive, more women enter the field.
Once less competitive, the field brings less income to its practitioners.
What I'm saying is a testable hypothesis supported by some data. Instead of falling back on a dumb communist idea of paying everyone the same, we could spend a pittance on research testing this hypothesis and ending the political farce.
That would make Demos unemployed, though.
3
A thought that may not be well-liked in this comment section, but should we consider that the gap will not and should not be closed? At least maybe it shouldn't be in the way it is currently measured as median for women to median for men, irrespective of jobs and experience. If men continue to seek higher paying fields, not take paternity leave (and the opportunity cost that comes with it), work longer hours, and don't take jobs just to help the greater good, as some women do, I can't see how this gap even could be closed. All four of those differences are real and none of them are from discrimination.
I think everybody can agree that there should be equal pay for equal work (and results), but the 79% statistic does not aim to show a gap in this target. What if we accepted that we want equal pay for equal work (and results) and then also accepted that men (on the whole) care more about their own salary? Or that they can and should work more than mothers (again, on the whole)? If a woman wants to chase the dollar, she should be rewarded. But if she doesn't, it shouldn't be seen as a negative.
There is a weird shame against women that don't want to sell their souls to capitalism. What if we took it as a point of pride that women are 21% less soulless?
I know this won't be liked in this comment section, but we should really consider what this goal is truly aiming for. Maybe it can't be done. Maybe it shouldn't. But at least it should be thoughtfully considered.
I think everybody can agree that there should be equal pay for equal work (and results), but the 79% statistic does not aim to show a gap in this target. What if we accepted that we want equal pay for equal work (and results) and then also accepted that men (on the whole) care more about their own salary? Or that they can and should work more than mothers (again, on the whole)? If a woman wants to chase the dollar, she should be rewarded. But if she doesn't, it shouldn't be seen as a negative.
There is a weird shame against women that don't want to sell their souls to capitalism. What if we took it as a point of pride that women are 21% less soulless?
I know this won't be liked in this comment section, but we should really consider what this goal is truly aiming for. Maybe it can't be done. Maybe it shouldn't. But at least it should be thoughtfully considered.
5
Six times in this article you say or insinuate that equal pay for men and women is a PROMISE that has been made. Maybe seven, with, "She vows..." Yet if you look through all that Hillary has said on this subject, or what the Democratic platform says about it (in an overly dense text with no notes or numbering!), nowhere does it say, "We absolutely promise to...", with a deadline date.
So I don't think this is a promise, more a constituent "objective" of the combatting-inequality "goal". So let's not get carried away. Voters need to understand this is going to be a long, hard slog, not pie in the sky. And told so, by candidate and campaign. Help requested.
Hillary's statements on the subject are all of the, "When we do ... it will be good," "If we can, then," and, "It IS possible, even given..." varieties: conditional sentence syntax, subjunctive grammar modes, speculative causality statements, couched in prudent terms.
Hardly promises and vows. She should ask for help, obtaining what people want, not "promise" it to them.
The hurdles you specify, which need to be overcome for such a distant, glittering mirror to be reached and grasped are helpful. Clearly understanding where the mines in the field ahead are hidden will help focus minds ready today, to help in the struggle. Minds perhaps, today, clouded by idealism.
But I doubt that old roader Hillary's mind is so clouded. She's been around the block too many times. And remembers when she got "burnt", too.
So I don't think this is a promise, more a constituent "objective" of the combatting-inequality "goal". So let's not get carried away. Voters need to understand this is going to be a long, hard slog, not pie in the sky. And told so, by candidate and campaign. Help requested.
Hillary's statements on the subject are all of the, "When we do ... it will be good," "If we can, then," and, "It IS possible, even given..." varieties: conditional sentence syntax, subjunctive grammar modes, speculative causality statements, couched in prudent terms.
Hardly promises and vows. She should ask for help, obtaining what people want, not "promise" it to them.
The hurdles you specify, which need to be overcome for such a distant, glittering mirror to be reached and grasped are helpful. Clearly understanding where the mines in the field ahead are hidden will help focus minds ready today, to help in the struggle. Minds perhaps, today, clouded by idealism.
But I doubt that old roader Hillary's mind is so clouded. She's been around the block too many times. And remembers when she got "burnt", too.
5
You might as well believe in the tooth fairy if you think she'll bring income equality.
5
I'm really happy that I believe in the tooth fairy.
4
To pay women the same as men for equal work, we would have to first pay all men the same pay for the same type of work. How do feminists propose to make this happen?
10
Every chief cook and bottle washer out there doesn't get the same pay because some of them cook and wash bottles better than others.
And some of them think more logically then others, too.
And some of them think more logically then others, too.
2
The Women's Equal Rights Amendment failed by one state and there's all the disgrace for that.
5
Gender pay equality is indeed an objective worth achieving. But should it be a top priorty?
I would prefer to see Secretary Clinton commited to two other main priorities: 1) A living wage job for anybody who wants to work. 2) A steady rise in median household income. Both are completely feasible and completely noncontroversial.
I would prefer to see Secretary Clinton commited to two other main priorities: 1) A living wage job for anybody who wants to work. 2) A steady rise in median household income. Both are completely feasible and completely noncontroversial.
1
Are you saying, then, that pay equality between the sexes is not feasible? And is controversial?
Are you saying that a living wage job for anybody who wants to work is good, but it doesn't necessarily have to be as good for women as it should be for men? Do you want a steady rise in median household income, but it's fine if the little woman's paycheck is smaller than that of the man of the house?
Is that what you want?
Are you saying that a living wage job for anybody who wants to work is good, but it doesn't necessarily have to be as good for women as it should be for men? Do you want a steady rise in median household income, but it's fine if the little woman's paycheck is smaller than that of the man of the house?
Is that what you want?
3
When Hillary Clinton is elected to the Presidency, she will be paid the same amount as would Trump if he were elected. And that isn't radical at all!
3
Maybe it's not such an insidious plot to keep women down. Maybe men get paid more because so that they can fulfill the social assumption that they will pick up the check on dates...
I remember my father as an investigator for the US labor department enforcing the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Has this law expired?
3
No doubt that women should be paid the same as men, as long as they are willing to make the same career commitment.
However, most women intuitively understand that raising children has a far greater value than putting in extra hours at the office. Women choose certain lower-paying careers -- like teachers and nurses -- precisely because they offer greater flexibility to balance family and career.
There will never be "equal pay" as long as women place greater priority on their children than their careers. That is not going to change anytime soon.
However, most women intuitively understand that raising children has a far greater value than putting in extra hours at the office. Women choose certain lower-paying careers -- like teachers and nurses -- precisely because they offer greater flexibility to balance family and career.
There will never be "equal pay" as long as women place greater priority on their children than their careers. That is not going to change anytime soon.
7
Nice try but I've known women who were childless throughout their entire careers who got paid less than their male counterparts.
It's interesting that men feel they have the right to be fathers and not have to accept any of the responsibility for providing child care for their kids.
It's interesting that men feel they have the right to be fathers and not have to accept any of the responsibility for providing child care for their kids.
5
Do you really think I care about this? As a woman I care more about my safety. More about not having to wear a burka. More about my children and what they will face this woman becomes President. I would gladly make a little less and have my safety. I care about how my many more Muslims she will let in. How many more illegals. That is what I care about and that is why as a woman will vote for Donald Trump. This idiotic idea that the time has come for a woman to be president just because she is a woman is foreign to me.
4
If you don't care, you're a fool. Lower wages are something that will impact your life each and every day. Your chance of being a victim of terrorism is miniscule.
BTW, if you're worried about your safety, you might want to avoid voting for politicians cozying up to the NRA, your chance of being shot by a U.S. citizen who was born here is pretty good.
BTW, if you're worried about your safety, you might want to avoid voting for politicians cozying up to the NRA, your chance of being shot by a U.S. citizen who was born here is pretty good.
1
Chris, I am sorry to learn that in your little corner of the big wide world things are so bad that your paranoia level has risen to a scary level. Who is suggesting you will need to wear a burka if HRC is elected? What is your safety concern? Do you think the illegals coming to our country has only happened on the watch of democrats? Do you think those who employ them are only dems also? The world is a beautiful place-- smell the roses, walk the dog, watch the butterflies, listen to the birds. You will feel better, I promise.
1
Anecdotally speaking. I've supervised both men and women for 30 years. Women who have children have never been as productive. Women without children often outperform their male colleagues. Child rearing makes a huge impact. It draws mothers away from work in many ways. If our country provided affordable child care options I believe women would often outperform men.
16
Providing "childcare" is not the role of "our country". Nor is it that of an employer. Affordable -- a euphemism for cheap -- child care options have nothing to do with women's workplace performance.
2
Covert: "... pushing women into the areas that pay better ..."
Covert reveals his authoritarian mindset with the word "pushing". "Pushing" is rude at best and a crime at worst. Covert is denying that women should be free to choose[1]. Indeed, Covert never uses the words "choose" or "choice" in his OpEd.
[1] See "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement" by Milton and Rose Friedman.
Covert reveals his authoritarian mindset with the word "pushing". "Pushing" is rude at best and a crime at worst. Covert is denying that women should be free to choose[1]. Indeed, Covert never uses the words "choose" or "choice" in his OpEd.
[1] See "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement" by Milton and Rose Friedman.
From the Payscale.com website:
"This pay gap, which we refer to as the uncontrolled gender pay gap, is calculated by comparing the average earnings of all working men to all working women, this figure shows that there is a deep chasm between the earning power of men and the earning power of women, overall."
But that's not the way most people define "pay gap." Most people think, erroneously, that it means that a woman with the same qualifications as a man, doing the exact same job with the same demands, the same title, etc., earns 21% less. And that's not true.
We need much more frank and truthful dialogue that identifies exactly where gender-based discrepancies are occurring, FOR IDENTICAL WORK. Secretaries and coders and truck drivers are NOT equivalent occupations, so trying to argue they are needs to stop. When a male administrative assistant with 10 years experience and a BA is making $2K more a year than a woman fresh from Katy Gibbs with 6 months office experience and an AA, that's not unfair either. If the genders were reversed, the same should hold.
Let's stop promoting fraudulent and misleading narratives, and especially, let's not allow sentimentality to govern our decisions about government subsidies for having children, which in our society is ALWAYS ELECTIVE.
"This pay gap, which we refer to as the uncontrolled gender pay gap, is calculated by comparing the average earnings of all working men to all working women, this figure shows that there is a deep chasm between the earning power of men and the earning power of women, overall."
But that's not the way most people define "pay gap." Most people think, erroneously, that it means that a woman with the same qualifications as a man, doing the exact same job with the same demands, the same title, etc., earns 21% less. And that's not true.
We need much more frank and truthful dialogue that identifies exactly where gender-based discrepancies are occurring, FOR IDENTICAL WORK. Secretaries and coders and truck drivers are NOT equivalent occupations, so trying to argue they are needs to stop. When a male administrative assistant with 10 years experience and a BA is making $2K more a year than a woman fresh from Katy Gibbs with 6 months office experience and an AA, that's not unfair either. If the genders were reversed, the same should hold.
Let's stop promoting fraudulent and misleading narratives, and especially, let's not allow sentimentality to govern our decisions about government subsidies for having children, which in our society is ALWAYS ELECTIVE.
11
Katy Gibbs? What century are you living in?
1
I could have sworn president Obama promised the same thing, and ended up with a gender pay gap within the white house. Clinton's blatant pandering is disgusting.
5
Ninety-two percent of all workers killed on the job are men: 92%. Only 8% of workers killed on the job are women.
And that inequality is just fine as far as feminist leaders are concerned.
Men now receive barely more than 40% of the college degrees in the US, and face disproportionate risks of dropping out if not entering the school-to-prison pipeline because of school disciplinary measures that are disproportionately targeted at boys.
And those inequalities, too, are just fine as far as feminist leaders are concerned.
And that inequality is just fine as far as feminist leaders are concerned.
Men now receive barely more than 40% of the college degrees in the US, and face disproportionate risks of dropping out if not entering the school-to-prison pipeline because of school disciplinary measures that are disproportionately targeted at boys.
And those inequalities, too, are just fine as far as feminist leaders are concerned.
12
Both men and women in America need a significant raise. Incomes have been declining even while America has growing fabulously wealthy on globalization and automation. Government redistribution of some of that wealth would reduce income inequality and spur economic growth. Unfortunately, sexism and racism are not so easily fixed.
4
She's suggesting that millions of women be paid more for what they do, right? That's a worthy goal, but the consequences might include lower pay for men or lower profits for employers or even fewer jobs for women. Unforeseen changes will inevitably ripple through the system.
2
This promise will force Trump to oppose it (and appear out of touch), ignore it (and appear evasive and slippery or support it (and appear insincere and pandering).
1
Men and women already are paid the same.
3
No they aren't and you shouldn't make easily disproved statements. It makes you look foolish.
1
Wage parity between the sexes is important and I look forward to President Hillary Clinton helping men earn $225,000 per speech to Wall Street Bankers.
7
Equal pay for equal work from equally qualified people. No brainer. But that ain't what were talking about unfortunately ......
8
This legislation is based on the silly idea that men and women are the same. Anyone can look around and see that it is not true. Therefore there will be differences in economic performance. One difference, not often mentioned is that men's brains are 10% larger than women's brains. (I am not arguin that one sex is smarter than the other - I am arguing that they are different .) Both my 10 year old daughter and 15 year-old son are academically successful, but they gravitate to different things. Since my son has been successful, I try what worked with him on my daughter, and quite often, she has a different response.
JD
JD
3
"Mrs. Clinton said it was a myth that the gap couldn’t be closed. “We can if we summon the political will,” she said, promising to “use every tool.”"
I 100% agree with the goal AND the underlying attitude to see it done. I guess my one question is why this attitude is considered "naïve" when it is expressed from another source. I could literally change the word "gap" in Clinton's above quote to any of the objectives Sanders brought up and it would make just as much sense and I would also agree. It ALMOST sounds as if Clinton is saying that mere mastery of policy is insufficient to bring about meaningful change. It's almost like she's suggesting that she will need some kind of ground swell of popular support and political activism to sweep away obstructions. It sounds like the idea of a "political revolution", so often mocked during the primaries, has become an acceptable game plan now that she is at the head of the proposed revolution. This isn't "naïve"? Clinton doesn't need to "grow up" and accept "real world" political realities? I'll still support the goal, but I find it funny that suddenly all things are possible.
I 100% agree with the goal AND the underlying attitude to see it done. I guess my one question is why this attitude is considered "naïve" when it is expressed from another source. I could literally change the word "gap" in Clinton's above quote to any of the objectives Sanders brought up and it would make just as much sense and I would also agree. It ALMOST sounds as if Clinton is saying that mere mastery of policy is insufficient to bring about meaningful change. It's almost like she's suggesting that she will need some kind of ground swell of popular support and political activism to sweep away obstructions. It sounds like the idea of a "political revolution", so often mocked during the primaries, has become an acceptable game plan now that she is at the head of the proposed revolution. This isn't "naïve"? Clinton doesn't need to "grow up" and accept "real world" political realities? I'll still support the goal, but I find it funny that suddenly all things are possible.
She's as believable as a promise by the tooth fairy.
She's said anything and everything to every possible constituency group and advocacy groups, including those that aren't even citizens or allowed to vote that says "I'm with you, oops, I meant myself."
The only thing radical is the complete lack of objectivity in the NYT that supported this candidate from the start and did EVERYTHING it could to make Bernie and Trump look bad or, gasp, frightening.
This too will not be enough to make people who think, and remember, and are the slightest bit questioning, to vote for her. The fix was in. She's an establishment candidate in a change election. She will lose in November and deservedly so.
She's said anything and everything to every possible constituency group and advocacy groups, including those that aren't even citizens or allowed to vote that says "I'm with you, oops, I meant myself."
The only thing radical is the complete lack of objectivity in the NYT that supported this candidate from the start and did EVERYTHING it could to make Bernie and Trump look bad or, gasp, frightening.
This too will not be enough to make people who think, and remember, and are the slightest bit questioning, to vote for her. The fix was in. She's an establishment candidate in a change election. She will lose in November and deservedly so.
4
That would be great if Hillary started paying her women staffers the same as the male. There are so many issues regarding Hillary and the trust factor. Now the latest one, that the DNC conspired to help her over Bernie. What does she do? Hire Wasserman-Schultz. Doesn't she see how that looks. It is hard to trust that she will do what she says. The same with all the many speeches to Wall Street. They look bad. Did she need the money that much? People already remember what it was like when her husband was president and the things that went on. Her role in covering up Bill's dalliances and worse made people not trust her then. She needed to be squeaky clean and then she does these stupid things. Can people trust she will do what she says?? Let her prove she pays women and men employees the same. That will be a start in the right direction.
1
I have a much more radical idea.
Equal pay for equal results.
Tie the wages into productivity. I know, way too liberal an idea for the liberals.
They prefer to pay people just for showing to work and not rioting.
Equal pay for equal results.
Tie the wages into productivity. I know, way too liberal an idea for the liberals.
They prefer to pay people just for showing to work and not rioting.
6
The women I work with worker harder and more diligently than the men. The men get promoted and the women still do the figurative heavy lifting. I am a CPA. What is your work?
3
NB,
you're still missing my point. It doesn't matter how hard working or diligent an employee is. They should be rewarded for the result not effort regardless of sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In many jobs (not sure about CPA) promotion comes to employees outperforming their peers (men or women), which may be achieved by smarts, unique talents, or brute force (cutting your vacation, uncompensated overtime - my personal strategy, disregard for the needs of others).
Linebackers work as hard as quarterbacks but are paid less. They are not women.
you're still missing my point. It doesn't matter how hard working or diligent an employee is. They should be rewarded for the result not effort regardless of sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In many jobs (not sure about CPA) promotion comes to employees outperforming their peers (men or women), which may be achieved by smarts, unique talents, or brute force (cutting your vacation, uncompensated overtime - my personal strategy, disregard for the needs of others).
Linebackers work as hard as quarterbacks but are paid less. They are not women.
3
It is it is confounding that existing fields which pay women and men equally (e.g., public school teachers, realtors, Civil Service positions, and more) aren't held up as models and precedents. Absent measurable, qualitative differences in women's being unable to perform or achieve the same tasks as men, there are no convincing arguments in favor of the wage gap. Only excuses.
2
The simplest solution would be to require all pay to be public information. A woman sitting next to a man at work doing the same job would have the needed information to negotiate the same pay.
Instead, I expect a Democratic government will pick a heavy handed approach that would levy penalties, allow more lawsuits, alter the free market for labor, create wage controls, give tax breaks to favored industries, create enormous new burdens for employers to fix all social problems e.g. make them pay for extended leaves, day care, etc, and probably have quotas for businesses to hire and promote races and women favored by the Dems.
Instead, I expect a Democratic government will pick a heavy handed approach that would levy penalties, allow more lawsuits, alter the free market for labor, create wage controls, give tax breaks to favored industries, create enormous new burdens for employers to fix all social problems e.g. make them pay for extended leaves, day care, etc, and probably have quotas for businesses to hire and promote races and women favored by the Dems.
5
In order to close the wage gap, maybe men need to make less. I can remember when my late husband gave up his pay raises, year after year, so his staff could make a little more money. (Don't hoot--he kept the bonuses, which were pretty nice.)
3
Income inequality is a lot about gender pay inequality. For a long time there was this attitude that men should automatically make more money because they have to support an entire family. Well that time is long since passed. More and more households, among all incomes levels are run by single mothers. Middle class men and even wealthy men leave their partners too and decide child support is optional because they want to keep all of their income for themselves.
Women are constantly getting the financial shaft. My ex is an involved father, and my husband is great about shouldering the burden of the household, but so much of my income goes to expenses related to my daughter, esp childcare. Closing the wage gap is long overdue. The excuses no longer hold water. Even for women who chose to forgo motherhood to focus on their careers or because they just don't want kids, the disparity naybe less pronounced, but still very significant overall.
Women are constantly getting the financial shaft. My ex is an involved father, and my husband is great about shouldering the burden of the household, but so much of my income goes to expenses related to my daughter, esp childcare. Closing the wage gap is long overdue. The excuses no longer hold water. Even for women who chose to forgo motherhood to focus on their careers or because they just don't want kids, the disparity naybe less pronounced, but still very significant overall.
4
Guess it depends what you mean by "significant overall". From what I have read it's around 5%. That is significant but not near what is being thrown out there.
Anything above this is just comparing all men against all woman. Which I hope we can at least agree isn't where the conversation should be starting with.
My wife has often been given the shaft as a woman in her workplace (she has her Phd, and has not taken time off for children). It's really, really makes me angry. However, using misleading numbers for political gain, as has been done by both Hillary and Obama, is not how this should be approached.
Finally, no income equality is not about gender pay inequality. Income equality will barely budge even if magically women made just as much as men tomorrow. Real wages for everyone except the top 1% has barely budged in decades (with inflation). With gender pay you could at least say the market is clearly headed in right direction. Income equality seems to be getting nowhere quickly and if anything is just getting worse.
Anything above this is just comparing all men against all woman. Which I hope we can at least agree isn't where the conversation should be starting with.
My wife has often been given the shaft as a woman in her workplace (she has her Phd, and has not taken time off for children). It's really, really makes me angry. However, using misleading numbers for political gain, as has been done by both Hillary and Obama, is not how this should be approached.
Finally, no income equality is not about gender pay inequality. Income equality will barely budge even if magically women made just as much as men tomorrow. Real wages for everyone except the top 1% has barely budged in decades (with inflation). With gender pay you could at least say the market is clearly headed in right direction. Income equality seems to be getting nowhere quickly and if anything is just getting worse.
That Hillary is a genius: "She suggested getting more women into high-paid fields like technology and science." Let's pass a few laws requiring women to excel at science and technology. That's how any good socialist would handle it.
8
It's not a "women's issue". Most families depend on the paychecks of two wage-earners. It's an issue for all of us: wives, husbands, and children.
8
The only promise she can make to help America is to withdraw.
7
And if she withdraws, what? How will that "help" America?
1
There are so many issues regarding Hillary. Now the latest one, that the DNC conspired to help her over Bernie. What does she do? Hire Wasserman-Schultz. Doesn't she see how that looks. It is hard to trust that she will do what she says. The same with all the many speeches to Wall Street. They look bad. Did she need the money that much? People already remember what it was like when her husband was president and the things that went on. Her role in covering up Bill's dalliances and worse made people not trust her then. She needed to be squeaky clean and then she does these stupid things. Can people trust she will do what she says??
7
Why is it that Hillary did not pay women the same as men in the Clinton foundation? When factored for time worked, experience and type of job women are paid the same in most of the work place. It has been the law for a long time in both government and the private sector.
10
Overall, we need more unionization and more aggressive bargaining. At present, the unchecked interests of the quarterly-report driven "investors" rule with almost no consideration for anything else.
3
I also want to close the wage gap between men and women. I just want it closed up, not down. Bring women up, don't take men down.
Ivanka also highlighted closing that gap. Closing it is not controversial. How is. Up to men or down to women is key.
So tell us what we don't know, not what even Trump agrees.
Ivanka also highlighted closing that gap. Closing it is not controversial. How is. Up to men or down to women is key.
So tell us what we don't know, not what even Trump agrees.
3
"So why is her promise to close that gap, a promise so utopian and so broad..." I think there is more to it than a pay gap issue. Women are different. They have a different perspective on work and on life.
Women see life differently than men. They focus more on family, community and education. Women often have more patience, determination and more diplomacy. And I believe more women in leadership can stimulate the economy with HOPE.
So, I suggest that Hillary Clinton push the "W" card to the max.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She could make the sign of a "W" by bringing both hands together with "V" signs. She could do this repeatedly, and flip it over to form an "M" for man:
One step for (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)umankind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We put a man on the moon, why not a woman in the WhiteHouse?
Women see life differently than men. They focus more on family, community and education. Women often have more patience, determination and more diplomacy. And I believe more women in leadership can stimulate the economy with HOPE.
So, I suggest that Hillary Clinton push the "W" card to the max.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She could make the sign of a "W" by bringing both hands together with "V" signs. She could do this repeatedly, and flip it over to form an "M" for man:
One step for (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)umankind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We put a man on the moon, why not a woman in the WhiteHouse?
2
Let me add, that Trump has impact by suggesting that he can turning things upside down. This to me is scary. It might turn the economy upside down and send us into a recession.
But Hillary, as first woman president can lead a revolution for women which can help to drive the economy, with no risk...
Yes, she can!
----------------
But Hillary, as first woman president can lead a revolution for women which can help to drive the economy, with no risk...
Yes, she can!
----------------
2
HILLARY'S Focus on equal pay for women is a version of Bill's focus on the economy ("stupid"), to quote his phrase. She has the same focus as his from a different perspective. Hillary is pragmatic and change oriented in her approach to equal pay for women, which involves many economic as well as sociological dynamics. Both women who care about equal rights, along with men who want the to have full equality, are by far the majority of people in the US. I think that Hillary's appeal to many rests in her desire to change our national creed to be, All Persons Are Created Equal. Who better to realize that balance and to advance the vision of the Founders to proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof (Leviticus 25:10), the Biblical verse written on the Liberty Bell. Hillary will lead us to fulfill the principles of the Founders, to move the US forward into the 21st century and to build a more perfect union.
What is Trump's vision? Simply put, It's All About ME. 24/7/365
What is Trump's vision? Simply put, It's All About ME. 24/7/365
4
If she promises equal pay for every American, then inequality would end instantly?
2
"She wants women and men to be paid the same. It’s a big, sweeping pledge. "
will she also demand that men and women work equal hours? That they graduate from the same schools? That they take equal time off (or not) for childcare?
will she also demand that men and women work equal hours? That they graduate from the same schools? That they take equal time off (or not) for childcare?
8
So the one "sweeping change" she does promise is to something that doesn't actually exist and that she has no power to change even if it did. Wonderful.
She would, in the process, however, like to raise pay for teachers (paid for by taxpayers) and childcare providers (paid for by working mothers). I'm excited.
She would, in the process, however, like to raise pay for teachers (paid for by taxpayers) and childcare providers (paid for by working mothers). I'm excited.
10
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong. C'mon Americans, let's join the civilized world and the 21st century in 2016 rather than the first century where the Republican'ts and their ilk wish us to go.
1
She'll get there by decreasing the pay of men.
2
John Smith- "She'll get there by decreasing the pay of men."
No that's Trump's plan since he has publicly stated that American's wages are too high. If we accepted wages in parity to China, Bangladesh and other third world slave wage nations we could better compete in the global market.
No that's Trump's plan since he has publicly stated that American's wages are too high. If we accepted wages in parity to China, Bangladesh and other third world slave wage nations we could better compete in the global market.
Has it occurred to anyone that Hillary Clinton has not made bold, sweeping promises (a la Bernie) is precisely because she knows that these issues are difficult and complicated? Has it occurred to anyone that when those promises are not fulfilled, as they invariably cannot be with a hostile Congress and simply due to the complexities, they will hear about it?
And what candidate would hear about it more than any other in history? The one who's got to "do it all backwards and in high heels."
And what candidate would hear about it more than any other in history? The one who's got to "do it all backwards and in high heels."
1
Equal pay is utopian? Radical? Forgive me, I'm laughing.
1
Equal pay for unequal qualifications and experience is, yes, radical and utopian. And make no mistake, that is what we are talking about.
1
Ok Hillary lets make sure all NBA , NFL , players get the same $ etc. The nonsense she expresses is precisely why she is unqualified ( As Bernie said ) Merit and the value a person brings to a given position ( man or woman ) is how one is paid, not just on gender.
4
Wingate- the expression is EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK!!! Sports players get paid for their various abilities. If two people perform the EXACT SAME JOB why should one be paid less because of gender?
Sharon,
You are right. Gender should not be a factor. However, I think where so much distrust comes from is that isn't the numbers that are being presented.
Honestly, why aren't we using the number 5% or so that they've suggested cannot be accounted for in difference of position or skill. I think we could all agree that this number should not exist and woman absolutely should be paid the same.
How can we have an honest discussion if the numbers presented aren't even honest?
You are right. Gender should not be a factor. However, I think where so much distrust comes from is that isn't the numbers that are being presented.
Honestly, why aren't we using the number 5% or so that they've suggested cannot be accounted for in difference of position or skill. I think we could all agree that this number should not exist and woman absolutely should be paid the same.
How can we have an honest discussion if the numbers presented aren't even honest?
1
And think about this folks -- the impossibility of having some bureaucracy determine what every job in the US should be paid.
And I think you also have to consider the majors chosen by men and women.
And I think you also have to consider the majors chosen by men and women.
4
Hillary Clinton has long positioned herself as a champion of equal pay for women. Ironically, new reports show that the former Secretary of State is, herself, part of the problem.
During her time in the U.S. Senate, Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a report by Washington Free Beacon.
Analyzing data obtained from official Senate expenditure reports, Free Beacon concluded that the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men, between 2002 to 2008.
That’s about a 28 percent gender wage gap:
20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay#NoCeilings
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 9, 2014
Clinton may suggest women being paid 72 cents on the dollar to men only happened 20 years ago in America–but it didn’t. It happened in her own Senate office, within the past seven years.
During her time in the U.S. Senate, Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a report by Washington Free Beacon.
Analyzing data obtained from official Senate expenditure reports, Free Beacon concluded that the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men, between 2002 to 2008.
That’s about a 28 percent gender wage gap:
20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay#NoCeilings
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 9, 2014
Clinton may suggest women being paid 72 cents on the dollar to men only happened 20 years ago in America–but it didn’t. It happened in her own Senate office, within the past seven years.
7
Reportedly, the same pattern of gender discrimination in pay also exists at the Clinton Foundation.
1
When salaries are secret it's hard to uncover wage discrepancies. A few years ago when contracts were sent, there was a mail merge mistake and all received anothers. Guess what.....the women, many of whom were longer serving and more qualified, made significantly less than the men. They didn't even get 79%.
So to suggest that this isn't a real situation, the "supposed" wage gap, is factually incorrect.
So to suggest that this isn't a real situation, the "supposed" wage gap, is factually incorrect.
29
Didn't Ivanka Trump make the same promises as she introduced her dad? I thought I was listening to a Dem.
14
And she was selling her clothing line at the same time, tweeting right from the convention where watchers could buy a dress just like the one she was wearing. Will that be the new thing if Trump family is in the White House? Will it be the new Amazon?
1
Here is a huge problem with your theory here, Ms. Covert.
If we had really generous maternity and parental leave....MORE women would probably take it, and stay out of the workforce longer. They might even have more children!
That's why they do it in Europe, BTW. It isn't to be "nice" or even feminist. They do it to entice young women to have more children, because European nations are aging and have low birth rates. (Interestingly, even with generous leave policies, Germany has one of the lowest birth rates of any nation -- fully 40% of German women will NEVER have children!)
Of course, in the US we don't need more children. We are drowning in children. We have 320 million people and 20 million illegal aliens! Our environment, the ecology, etc. are all hurting. We have climate change and water shortages. We need Zero Population Growth -- we should be DISCOURAGING childbearing, not trying to get women to have more babies.
So....that woman who takes all that paid maternity leave is happy, but when she gets back from 1-2 years of staying home, will her company really promote her? Or will they "mommy track" her? And what about the next time they hire? Will they pick a youngish woman, knowing she may well take 1,2,3 years off -- with pay! -- while they have to pay for a temp to take her place? Or will they instead hire a man?
You should ask European women how these policies affect female HIRING....
If we had really generous maternity and parental leave....MORE women would probably take it, and stay out of the workforce longer. They might even have more children!
That's why they do it in Europe, BTW. It isn't to be "nice" or even feminist. They do it to entice young women to have more children, because European nations are aging and have low birth rates. (Interestingly, even with generous leave policies, Germany has one of the lowest birth rates of any nation -- fully 40% of German women will NEVER have children!)
Of course, in the US we don't need more children. We are drowning in children. We have 320 million people and 20 million illegal aliens! Our environment, the ecology, etc. are all hurting. We have climate change and water shortages. We need Zero Population Growth -- we should be DISCOURAGING childbearing, not trying to get women to have more babies.
So....that woman who takes all that paid maternity leave is happy, but when she gets back from 1-2 years of staying home, will her company really promote her? Or will they "mommy track" her? And what about the next time they hire? Will they pick a youngish woman, knowing she may well take 1,2,3 years off -- with pay! -- while they have to pay for a temp to take her place? Or will they instead hire a man?
You should ask European women how these policies affect female HIRING....
9
Most women are Mommy Tracked CC, whether they are actually mothers or not. As a single childless woman I can tell you about that. It doesn't matter where you live because most employers view women as less worthy than men. And most employers, unless it bites them on the bottom line, aren't interested in paying women equally, giving any one, much less a working mother who is not in the executive ranks of the company, paid or unpaid time off to raise a child.
Actually we do need children in America. Without them we risk becoming like Japan or Europe. So it's to everyone's advantage, male or female, parent or not, that families be given consideration in the workplace. The key is giving the same consideration to all rather than just to mothers or fathers, or parents.
Actually we do need children in America. Without them we risk becoming like Japan or Europe. So it's to everyone's advantage, male or female, parent or not, that families be given consideration in the workplace. The key is giving the same consideration to all rather than just to mothers or fathers, or parents.
I'm for blue skies and sunny trails too. We all are.
Regrettably, Secretary Clinton's promise is simply more of the wonkish same. Next thing on the agenda? Child care tax credits or some such thing.
That is not to say this isn't important. It is. They are.
They just don't win elections.
And for God sake, please. Let's not have yet another speaker telling me that Clinton "fought for women and children." I have seen no evidence of that.
Secretary Clinton is a status quo candidate who will do nothing as the upward redistribution of wealth continues and the political cauldron boils. Her backers are the .1%ers, so that's what will happen.
Regardless, it is terribly important that she defeat the country's first out and out neofascist.
Whether she does or not is anyone's guess. According to 538, the election is a tossup at this point.
That doesn't surprise I'm sorry to say.
Regrettably, Secretary Clinton's promise is simply more of the wonkish same. Next thing on the agenda? Child care tax credits or some such thing.
That is not to say this isn't important. It is. They are.
They just don't win elections.
And for God sake, please. Let's not have yet another speaker telling me that Clinton "fought for women and children." I have seen no evidence of that.
Secretary Clinton is a status quo candidate who will do nothing as the upward redistribution of wealth continues and the political cauldron boils. Her backers are the .1%ers, so that's what will happen.
Regardless, it is terribly important that she defeat the country's first out and out neofascist.
Whether she does or not is anyone's guess. According to 538, the election is a tossup at this point.
That doesn't surprise I'm sorry to say.
2
I don't understand why people say they want to defeat Donald Trump and then proceed to lambast Hillary Clinton. Does not compute.
1
Madeline,
You can still think Tump is the worst possible outcome and think that Hillary is still a terrible choice (it's what most Americans are doing, just look at how these are the two least popular candidates ever). Are you so indoctrinated with party rules that you can't see this?
For many of us that vote more democrat Hillary feels like a slap on the face. She is hardly the first choice for most liberals and frankly there are many more candidates that deserved the nomination (women and men alike). She might be better than Trump but she is a far cry from what this nation needs. She is a career politician who represents the worst aspects of what the means (and her bank accounts show it).
You can still think Tump is the worst possible outcome and think that Hillary is still a terrible choice (it's what most Americans are doing, just look at how these are the two least popular candidates ever). Are you so indoctrinated with party rules that you can't see this?
For many of us that vote more democrat Hillary feels like a slap on the face. She is hardly the first choice for most liberals and frankly there are many more candidates that deserved the nomination (women and men alike). She might be better than Trump but she is a far cry from what this nation needs. She is a career politician who represents the worst aspects of what the means (and her bank accounts show it).
Yes, here is a gender pay gap, and yes it needs to be tacked. However, that gap is NOT 79 cents on the dollar. The methodology that produced that figure was absolutely atrocious for anyone that even remotely understands mathematics. The pay gap (last I saw) ranges from non-existent to 10% or more, depending on profession, age and region. In some sectors there is actually a reverse pay gap (something never usually mentioned).
Shouldn't liberals focus on facts instead of ideology and emotion? Instead of using poor metrics to rally support let's talk about the actual pay gap (and promotion gap) that women face and tackle real issues instead of imaginary ones. Above all else this means better family leave programmes, and quality affordable childcare options. Get these sorted and my guess is the wage gap will vanish. If some small bit of it persists (outside of normal fluctuations) then we can put our heads together and come up with some else to help get us over the finish line.
Shouldn't liberals focus on facts instead of ideology and emotion? Instead of using poor metrics to rally support let's talk about the actual pay gap (and promotion gap) that women face and tackle real issues instead of imaginary ones. Above all else this means better family leave programmes, and quality affordable childcare options. Get these sorted and my guess is the wage gap will vanish. If some small bit of it persists (outside of normal fluctuations) then we can put our heads together and come up with some else to help get us over the finish line.
6
This is a very important thesis and I think the best way for Hillary to overtake Donald with the most crucial demographic for her, white women. Two or three additional percentage points with this group puts the election out of reach for Republicans. It is a natural fit for Ms. Clinton and something she can use to address wage inequality generally, tapping into the Sanders coalition. This is absolutely critical for her. My unsolicited advice would be to campaign less like the Yale educated elitist Secretary of State who hobnobs with Middle Eastern royalty, and more like a working woman with a family, casual and real. The message and delivery must reinforce one another to be sincere and credible, and she can do this.
2
I want a country where both parents help raise their children and both parents contribute financially to the family and both, using brawn and/or brain, contribute to the society--a society where everyone can be a fully functioning person. I read a great book lately that explains how our economic philosophy ignores the caring work done in a society--yes, the work done mostly by women. Hmm!?! It is Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? by Katrine Marcal. In a nutshell, Adam Smith was a bachelor whose mother shopped, cooked and served him dinner (and probably did all the cleaning and the laundry, too) every night and he forgot to take that into account whilst formulating his philosophy. Oops!
3
Yes, this is a characteristic of American Society. But, just because "...that's the way it has always been" just doesn't cut it in 2016.
Back in the 1950s, many women went to college to find a husband. Home Eq was a pop[ular major. Nowadays, women earn more degrees than men, and the same goes for grad and professional degrees. Society, which hopefully has recognized the value of education, should also recognize the value of maternity and parental leave, as well as pre-school and day-care.
Just think of the waste of having one woman stay home with one child. Sure, parental leave for newborns held ground both children and parents in the new partnership. But over time, small children learn to socialize with other children, and mom (or dad) can contribute more effectively, both to society and the economy.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Back in the 1950s, many women went to college to find a husband. Home Eq was a pop[ular major. Nowadays, women earn more degrees than men, and the same goes for grad and professional degrees. Society, which hopefully has recognized the value of education, should also recognize the value of maternity and parental leave, as well as pre-school and day-care.
Just think of the waste of having one woman stay home with one child. Sure, parental leave for newborns held ground both children and parents in the new partnership. But over time, small children learn to socialize with other children, and mom (or dad) can contribute more effectively, both to society and the economy.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
I think simply taxing men and giving revenues to women to close the gap directly may be more effective than trying to unravel all of the causes of the pay gap. Outright pay discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal and has been since the 1960s. What we're left with is stuff like differences in occupational field prevalences, positions, etc. Attempts to regulate this all would be difficult, and in some cases might be counterproductive: for example, more paid family leave, if taken primarily by women, and imposed on the private sector as a legal mandate, would make women, on average, less profitable employees than men unless they were paid less when not on family leave.
Transfer payment programs like Social Security work fairly well. We pay for Social Security by taxing people and then making transfer payments to SS recipients like the elderly and disabled. A 10.5% tax on male incomes, with the revenues transferred to women, would close a 0.79:1 pay gap.
Transfer payment programs like Social Security work fairly well. We pay for Social Security by taxing people and then making transfer payments to SS recipients like the elderly and disabled. A 10.5% tax on male incomes, with the revenues transferred to women, would close a 0.79:1 pay gap.
1
Of course, since study after study after study (DOL, Harvard, MIT) find that the real pay gap is about 5%, your approach would result in a real permanent income gap -- in favor of women -- of about 7%.
That would be on top of the Obamacare requirement that insurance premiums be gender-neutral, even though women use far more medical services than men. The Women's National Law Center estimated this Obamacare change alone results in the annual transfer of over $1 billion from male earners to female earners.
But why stop there? Why not simply repeal the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- but only for men?
Next, of course, you will have to re-outlaw transgenderism, as the rational approach for men will be to declare themselves to be women.
That would be on top of the Obamacare requirement that insurance premiums be gender-neutral, even though women use far more medical services than men. The Women's National Law Center estimated this Obamacare change alone results in the annual transfer of over $1 billion from male earners to female earners.
But why stop there? Why not simply repeal the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- but only for men?
Next, of course, you will have to re-outlaw transgenderism, as the rational approach for men will be to declare themselves to be women.
1
Hillary is waiting until there is some law that forces her to equalize the earnings of men and women on her own staff.
Meanwhile, Trump has actually been hiring women executives and paying women equally or better than men since the 70s.
Actions speak louder than Hillary's campaign promises.
Meanwhile, Trump has actually been hiring women executives and paying women equally or better than men since the 70s.
Actions speak louder than Hillary's campaign promises.
2
For years I was an executive at one of the largest firms in the US. I found that women and minorities were consistently overpaid and over-promoted within their peer groups. This was because we all had to answer to a diversity report card that the CEO reviewed. In order for us to meet our diversity quotas we frequently had to pass over non minority males who were graded higher. The company is now worth a fraction of what it was at its peak.
4
I really wish that this issue would be explained properly to insure we address the real issues, not the misleading comment that the pay gap is 21%.
According to Payscale the actual gap when comparing like jobs is 2.7%. Yes women make 79% of what men make, on average. But women chose or are forced into lower paying career choices. We need to address these type of issues. I am not sure if many of the people commenting here understand the actual data and facts.
Payscale points out the the real gender issues that we need to address and thankfully does it with truthful facts not misleading headlines.
I would find this Opinion Piece much more convincing if it presented the real facts and issues clearly.
Here is the Payscale analysis and discussion of the actual issues that need to be addressed:
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
According to Payscale the actual gap when comparing like jobs is 2.7%. Yes women make 79% of what men make, on average. But women chose or are forced into lower paying career choices. We need to address these type of issues. I am not sure if many of the people commenting here understand the actual data and facts.
Payscale points out the the real gender issues that we need to address and thankfully does it with truthful facts not misleading headlines.
I would find this Opinion Piece much more convincing if it presented the real facts and issues clearly.
Here is the Payscale analysis and discussion of the actual issues that need to be addressed:
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
10
In spite of being an economic policy editor at ThinkProgress and a contributor to The Nation, Brice Covert appears to have clear enough understanding of why an attempt at a wholesale manipulation of the labor market in favor of a fanciful and unachievable goal—pay equality—is a terrible ikea. However, we miss the point if we think equal pay is what he, and Mrs Clinton, desire. We are making the same error as many of us made in thinking that "affordable care" was the purpose of the Affordable Care Act. In that case, the not so hidden purpose was to put roughly a fifth of the economy under government control. Here, the purpose is to put the entire labor market under government supervision in much the same way as the EPA can regulate and restrict land use on behalf of migratory birds. Mr. Covert admits this by asking us to think of pay inequality as "a disease infecting all areas of our economy". Mrs. Clinton's advocacy of policies is and always has been exclusively based on their political utility. That is why her positions have so often changed
4
Paying well, 20%-30% more than their existing employers, I was desperately seeking technically minded people for field service of computers (no huge strength required) over twenty years ago. Not one woman accepted an offer out of eighteen jobs. None were married or had children at the time. The woman generally did not want to travel to several different locations each day, work shifts or weekends be on call or travel around the county a week a month. The young men took the extra money and did what was needed.
People choosing their career path, is not something for the government to "fix".
People choosing their career path, is not something for the government to "fix".
11
Did you ask any one of those women why they didn't want to travel to several different locations each day, work different shifts, etc.? As a woman I can tell you that there are places I wouldn't travel to during the day much less at night. In case you aren't aware of the fact women do live in fear of being raped which is not an unreasonable fear in our country, or any other country for that matter. Extra money doesn't undo the trauma of being raped, won't help if you get pregnant and need to take time off from work to have an abortion or the baby, and it's certainly not an encouragement to stay in the field. These are things that countries need to address so that women do feel safe working odd hours or in places that aren't always well lit.
We all know from life experience some individuals are smarter, more innovative, better problem solvers. Some more knowledgeable and skilled at certain tasks. Some more experienced.
There are endless differences in abilities and interests, and it doesn't depend on the gender, it depends on the specific person. Based on common sense, some people deserve more based on what they can do. It depends on the individual. Can they do the job at an average level, a very good level or an exceptional level of performance.
I'm in favor of wage equality when knowledge, skills, abilities, responsibilities and experience are roughly the same. When adjusted for these factors today, most studies show difference in wages are small to non existent.
Government funded family leave and child care is another matter. Companies can't be expected to fund these things for everyone, but tax dollars can if we vote it in. As far as Hillary goes, she is flawed like all people, but the only sane candidate in the race. Got to go with her.
There are endless differences in abilities and interests, and it doesn't depend on the gender, it depends on the specific person. Based on common sense, some people deserve more based on what they can do. It depends on the individual. Can they do the job at an average level, a very good level or an exceptional level of performance.
I'm in favor of wage equality when knowledge, skills, abilities, responsibilities and experience are roughly the same. When adjusted for these factors today, most studies show difference in wages are small to non existent.
Government funded family leave and child care is another matter. Companies can't be expected to fund these things for everyone, but tax dollars can if we vote it in. As far as Hillary goes, she is flawed like all people, but the only sane candidate in the race. Got to go with her.
1
Statements like "...child rearing, a job that still mostly falls to women" seem to imply that children are a burden that gets forced upon women. Many women, in fact, enjoy being mothers and raising their children is a rewarding part of their lives. What about the woman who chooses to work reduced hours to be able to spend more time with her children, who are not just a burden but a blessing to her?
I am absolutely for equal pay for equal work for men and women, I just don't like this perception that the only definition of success for the modern woman is to be a top executive at a corporation (preferably in the STEM field).
I am absolutely for equal pay for equal work for men and women, I just don't like this perception that the only definition of success for the modern woman is to be a top executive at a corporation (preferably in the STEM field).
20
It is more than fair that women and men are paid the same for the same job, same tenure, and same work output. What is not fair is to equate different jobs because of gender differences between job categories (e.g. Software engineers vs School teachers because school teachers have large number of masters degrees) or to enforce concepts designed specifically accommodate work life "balance". Instead of equity, it becomes social and business engineering.
20
"...it becomes social and business engineering."
But where have you been last few decades, Chris? Social and business engineering is the core agenda of the Demo party.
They serve only two gods: Redistribution and Political Correctness. Not only they are ready but happy to sacrifice our nation's might at their altar.
Trump is no angel but in his speech he never mentioned god other than in a rather secular way, "God bless America." In that I'm with him and serve one and only god - USA.
But where have you been last few decades, Chris? Social and business engineering is the core agenda of the Demo party.
They serve only two gods: Redistribution and Political Correctness. Not only they are ready but happy to sacrifice our nation's might at their altar.
Trump is no angel but in his speech he never mentioned god other than in a rather secular way, "God bless America." In that I'm with him and serve one and only god - USA.
2
There are people who are clueless about wage gaps and other workplace discrimination against women, especially older women. Thank goodness Hillary Clinton is trying to address such issues. She certainly knows first-hand. Whatever she says or does is a target for criticism. Even The New York Times headline went along with this: Hillary Clinton’s Radical Promise.
People in comparable jobs should earn comparable pay. Yes, things change, and EVERYBODY needs to have updated skills. That’s what professional development is about. Employers who say that people who are not continually employed, and that older workers don’t have those skills don’t define those skills. How many companies who hire young people don’t even bother to train them, even though they need it, and can’t describe definitively what the job entails?
IMHO, Hillary’s critics are just envious of her, just as they are of her husband and of Martha Stewart. These three people were not born with silver spoons in their mouths, but they succeeded beyond anyone’s imaginations. Are they perfect? Of course, not. But Hillary is far more presidential than Trump. and Martha lost her own money, not other people’s money, and it wasn’t that much, so she paid for her mistakes. Wall Street crooks still haven’t been indicted. Trump is in a gazillion business related lawsuits for failure to pay vendors, for fraud, etc., but Hillary should be punished. Someone please explain this double standard.
People in comparable jobs should earn comparable pay. Yes, things change, and EVERYBODY needs to have updated skills. That’s what professional development is about. Employers who say that people who are not continually employed, and that older workers don’t have those skills don’t define those skills. How many companies who hire young people don’t even bother to train them, even though they need it, and can’t describe definitively what the job entails?
IMHO, Hillary’s critics are just envious of her, just as they are of her husband and of Martha Stewart. These three people were not born with silver spoons in their mouths, but they succeeded beyond anyone’s imaginations. Are they perfect? Of course, not. But Hillary is far more presidential than Trump. and Martha lost her own money, not other people’s money, and it wasn’t that much, so she paid for her mistakes. Wall Street crooks still haven’t been indicted. Trump is in a gazillion business related lawsuits for failure to pay vendors, for fraud, etc., but Hillary should be punished. Someone please explain this double standard.
9
Most feminist activists and other women's advocates seem to believe employers are fiercely determined to pay women less than men for the same work.
Yet they also seem to think employers' prime modus operandi is greed. ("Corporate greed" is perhaps one of their most salient rallying calls.) Thus they no doubt believe employers would hire only illegal immigrants for their lower labor cost if they could get away with it (many do get away with it), or would move their business to a cheap-labor country to save money, or would replace old workers with young ones for the same reason.
So why do these same feminist activists and women's advocates think employers would NOT hire only women if, as they say, employers DO get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work?
See:
“The Doctrinaire Institute for Women's Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality” www.malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-fo...
Yet they also seem to think employers' prime modus operandi is greed. ("Corporate greed" is perhaps one of their most salient rallying calls.) Thus they no doubt believe employers would hire only illegal immigrants for their lower labor cost if they could get away with it (many do get away with it), or would move their business to a cheap-labor country to save money, or would replace old workers with young ones for the same reason.
So why do these same feminist activists and women's advocates think employers would NOT hire only women if, as they say, employers DO get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work?
See:
“The Doctrinaire Institute for Women's Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality” www.malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-fo...
1
Again the wonks and those wanting to sound like 'em, are missing the basic point. The wage gap starts due to the lack of wage transparency - across nearly all industries (not unionized) then it is about gender, per se. Both sexes are being offered jobs/raises where there is pretty much no means for the applicant (even inside a company) to know what the base wage is, or was, or should be. Because Human Resources and the hiring/interviewing managers rarely have any guidelines, and/or they have too much room to "negotiate". (I use the term negotiate loosely, as negotiation rarely occurs its usually take X or nothing.)
In the service and retail industries, there are no wage baselines, just vague ranges. Ranges to often skewed when a manager (emotionally) decides an applicant is the butter for their toast and pays more then is the average. Or when revenues have dipped (seasonally) and management does what they only know how to do, cut payroll!
Made worse when most companies unfairly treat their employees seeking a new position, over how they treat outsiders, esp. from competitors coming in. Retail is notorious for this unfair practice. They have hidden caps on wage increases for employees, but are free to hire outsiders at much more then they would ever offer their employees.
The problem is a lack of wage hiring/raise standards, that should can be fixed first, so that fairness becomes part of the process, not the exception. Wage transparency is critical.
In the service and retail industries, there are no wage baselines, just vague ranges. Ranges to often skewed when a manager (emotionally) decides an applicant is the butter for their toast and pays more then is the average. Or when revenues have dipped (seasonally) and management does what they only know how to do, cut payroll!
Made worse when most companies unfairly treat their employees seeking a new position, over how they treat outsiders, esp. from competitors coming in. Retail is notorious for this unfair practice. They have hidden caps on wage increases for employees, but are free to hire outsiders at much more then they would ever offer their employees.
The problem is a lack of wage hiring/raise standards, that should can be fixed first, so that fairness becomes part of the process, not the exception. Wage transparency is critical.
43
Well Bo,
you want to take control over pay incentive from the employer and give it to the gov. This is basically what "wage transparency" entails.
We have such a system already. It's called government. I never saw more wasteful, inefficient, and mismanaged organization than gov (before I took a gov contract).
Don't take my word for it just look at the congress, senate, VA, public schools, should I continue?
Didn't think so.
you want to take control over pay incentive from the employer and give it to the gov. This is basically what "wage transparency" entails.
We have such a system already. It's called government. I never saw more wasteful, inefficient, and mismanaged organization than gov (before I took a gov contract).
Don't take my word for it just look at the congress, senate, VA, public schools, should I continue?
Didn't think so.
1
omg she is so radical! I mean, if she was calling for a wall between us and Mexico, deportation of immigrants, pulling out of NATO, nuking countries, that's one thing. But fair pay?! That's utterly insane!
119
People who work in public education are, like people who work in the military, on pay grade scales. It's the same scale for males and females. Education is one of the largest employers in the US. There are small ways to supplement the income, but the basic pay rate is exactly the same for the same jobs. Most people suppose teachers are paid huge amounts of money, but these amounts are commensurate to geographic area do not result in generous standards of living, especially if supporting a family. This gy-freakin-normous employer is NEVER spoken of when this argument about pay comes up. Could it be because, in making sure that pay is equal for equal jobs, that pay for males must be LOWERED? There are two ways to equalize pay. You assume that the only way is to bring women's pay up. I bet no one foresaw the diminishing of the 40-hr work week that was brought to us by Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, which made it possible to lower the standard of living for many people. Don't assume that a negative shift in men's pay rates won't occur, because there is just so much money to go around. The other way to equalize pay is to lower men's pay. Then, everyone is paid the same and you are left surprised because you didn't see that coming.
2
By “equal pay for equal work” feminists actually mean women should be paid the same as men performing the “same type” of work. But how can women make the same as men for equal work when men don’t make the same as other men for equal work? For example, the New York Times doesn’t pay all male reporters the same salaries. The NFL doesn’t pay all starting quarterbacks the same salaries. To ensure women make the same pay as men for equal work, we would first have to require employees to pay all men performing the same type of work equal money. How do feminist propose to make this happen?
2
Sports players are paid by their talents. Is each starting quarterback of equal talent? I would highly doubt this. If I deliver mail and a male delivers mail, we both deliver the same amount of mail in the same amount of time should I be paid less because I'm female? It's telling that most commentators who are dis missive of this very real issue are males, the most privileged in our society! I was excluded from taking painting and decorating at a vocational school because painting is a man's job. I knew a girl who graduated tops in her small engine repair class who couldn't find a job in her field except as a secretary in a small engine repair shop. The sexism is real. You're just too blinded by your privilege of being male to see it.
1
Riddle me this progressives.
You believe that corporate America is completely focused on the bottom line to the detriment of it's employees.
Yet you believe that these same "greedy" corporations willingly employee similarly skilled males at a 21% higher wage than females.
Do you see the contradiction?
You believe that corporate America is completely focused on the bottom line to the detriment of it's employees.
Yet you believe that these same "greedy" corporations willingly employee similarly skilled males at a 21% higher wage than females.
Do you see the contradiction?
3
Everyone is under paid because of the law of supply and demand. More women working in fields where men dominate means more supply and every one suffers. It is too bad that it now requires two incomes to support a family because the best solution to many of our problems is for one parent to stay home, man or women. Before I catch a lot of grief I have been a stay at home dad for 20 years.
2
Since when do we believe 'campaign promises'?? Politicians, and even Mr. Trump, say things to attract voters and get votes..it's that simple.
Bernie wanted 'free' college tuition - but nothing is free in the country; something we all will find out in the not to distant future..when our country can't pay it's bills.
Bernie wanted 'free' college tuition - but nothing is free in the country; something we all will find out in the not to distant future..when our country can't pay it's bills.
2
Things have changed a lot since the 1960s when I entered the job market. I was told that most companies didn't hire women and that I, as a college graduate, was way over-qualified for the positons that were available in those who deigned to put females on the payroll. When I see women of my generation, and Hillary Clinton is one of them, who have accomplished so much, I have to wonder how they managed to do it.
The changes in society, with more sharing of family responsibilities and women gradually rising in the work hierarchy, will help address some of the inequalities, but there is danger that letting the free market do its work will further exacerbate overall inequality. Donald Trump has said he likes to hire women who will work harder, and perhaps accept lower pay. I think that's very revealing.
If we really value the contributions everyone can make to our economy, we will create systems to support talented people as they go to work. That is what has been missing. Clinton seems to get that when she talks about making childcare affordable. It may be hard to fight corporate greed and the weight of tradition to get there, but it seems possible that we can benefit from the human capital that would be released if more women had opportunities to realize their potential.
The changes in society, with more sharing of family responsibilities and women gradually rising in the work hierarchy, will help address some of the inequalities, but there is danger that letting the free market do its work will further exacerbate overall inequality. Donald Trump has said he likes to hire women who will work harder, and perhaps accept lower pay. I think that's very revealing.
If we really value the contributions everyone can make to our economy, we will create systems to support talented people as they go to work. That is what has been missing. Clinton seems to get that when she talks about making childcare affordable. It may be hard to fight corporate greed and the weight of tradition to get there, but it seems possible that we can benefit from the human capital that would be released if more women had opportunities to realize their potential.
2
Re: "It may be hard to fight corporate greed"
Most women's advocates seem to think employers are greedy. So why would greedy employers pay men more for the same work? They would hire only women if, as the advocates say, employers get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work.
Most women's advocates seem to think employers are greedy. So why would greedy employers pay men more for the same work? They would hire only women if, as the advocates say, employers get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work.
2
The equal pay issue should be approached from the angle that increasing pay for all workers would be a boost of super adrenaline for the economy. Millions more people with more money to spend would perk things up quickly. As part of that effort, tackle the equal pay issue. Boosting the pay of all workers has a much broader appeal, especially to workers who have not received a raise for years.
1
If you were an employer struggling as so many do, would you agree with your comment?
Please try a little empathy, putting yourself in the shoes of an employer.
Please try a little empathy, putting yourself in the shoes of an employer.
That would be sort of like someone whose nom de plume is "MaleMatters" putting himself in the shoes of a woman.
This is where the Sanders people and Clinton people can work together. It would take a more government controlled economy to make this happen. Companies need to force the issue. It can happen.
1
Clinton's zeal to close the wage gap is admirable, but the issues run far deeper. It is that in a capitalist society, we do not properly value things that don't easily match a price tag.
In an Ayn Rand fantasyland, there is no value in elders teaching lifelong wisdom to the young, unless it is paid for. We pay therapists to listen to our problems and offer us suggestions, but sometimes all we need is to lean on the shoulders of a friend.
In a techno-capitalist fantasy, all workers are robots. Nobody goes home, becomes distracted, gets sick, and by no means would anyone sap their energy by raising a child. Without new kids, capitalism grinds to a halt; humanity ends.
Whether it is done by a woman or a man, "domestic" tasks like cooking and cleaning are valued far less than earning a paycheck, even though everybody needs to eat, and presumably not live in a sty.
VICE[1] wrote a piece a few weeks ago about the discrimination faced by stay-at-home dads: they're seen as creeps by the stay-at-home moms at the park, and inadequate by their male peers.
Our society reveres doctors who heal us when we are sick, but thinks nothing of the janitors who keep places of filth from getting us sick in the first place.
A real radical promise would be to ensure a level footing, a basic dignity, for everybody. It will cost money, but I am ok with that: I would rather have a limited leap than an unlimited fall.
[1] http://www.vice.com/read/why-so-many-stay-at-home-dads-are-depressed
In an Ayn Rand fantasyland, there is no value in elders teaching lifelong wisdom to the young, unless it is paid for. We pay therapists to listen to our problems and offer us suggestions, but sometimes all we need is to lean on the shoulders of a friend.
In a techno-capitalist fantasy, all workers are robots. Nobody goes home, becomes distracted, gets sick, and by no means would anyone sap their energy by raising a child. Without new kids, capitalism grinds to a halt; humanity ends.
Whether it is done by a woman or a man, "domestic" tasks like cooking and cleaning are valued far less than earning a paycheck, even though everybody needs to eat, and presumably not live in a sty.
VICE[1] wrote a piece a few weeks ago about the discrimination faced by stay-at-home dads: they're seen as creeps by the stay-at-home moms at the park, and inadequate by their male peers.
Our society reveres doctors who heal us when we are sick, but thinks nothing of the janitors who keep places of filth from getting us sick in the first place.
A real radical promise would be to ensure a level footing, a basic dignity, for everybody. It will cost money, but I am ok with that: I would rather have a limited leap than an unlimited fall.
[1] http://www.vice.com/read/why-so-many-stay-at-home-dads-are-depressed
6
So Hillary wants equal work for equal pay. So does Ivanka Trump. She said that would be a goal of a Trump administration in her speech last week
and stated the Trump organization already pays women equally . But don't hold your breath for either party to fight for such legislation although this is the first time we've heard it as a goal at a GOP convention.
BTW, the last time a Secretary of State was elected president was James Buchanan in 1856. Many historians consider him the worst president in U.S. history. Of course, there is no counterpart to a super rich businessman with no elective experience getting the job. Most U.S. presidents have been former vice presidents, governors or winning generals. Only three senators have become president.
and stated the Trump organization already pays women equally . But don't hold your breath for either party to fight for such legislation although this is the first time we've heard it as a goal at a GOP convention.
BTW, the last time a Secretary of State was elected president was James Buchanan in 1856. Many historians consider him the worst president in U.S. history. Of course, there is no counterpart to a super rich businessman with no elective experience getting the job. Most U.S. presidents have been former vice presidents, governors or winning generals. Only three senators have become president.
3
How about if we start with the pay gap in the White House? Women working in the White House are paid 87% of what the men working there are. President Obama claims White House employees are paid "equal pay for equal work" but the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) would require proof that the disparity is not due to discrimination. That's fine for the government, which can hire (at taxpayer expense) lots of analysts to "prove" there is no discrimination.
But most private employers don't have that luxury. What the PFA would likely do is to make it harder for low skill women to find employment, since hiring them would skew a company's statistics in the wrong direction.
But most private employers don't have that luxury. What the PFA would likely do is to make it harder for low skill women to find employment, since hiring them would skew a company's statistics in the wrong direction.
6
Yes! Yes! Yes! The government should do more to manipulate wages! Genius! Hilarious. Any private business owners (e.g. Employers) looking forward to handing over their wage data to the Feds? Enjoy....
3
Employers already hand over their wage data to the feds, unless they aren't paying taxes.
2
Sadly, the problem is that the ignorant have the most need but they won't take the time(if they can indeed,) to read. Sad so many people do not want to accept the responsibility of staying informed, they would rather that Faux tell them what to think, it is such hard work to read. The weight that all the US is gaining is testament to refusal to gain discipline over their lives.
I submit to all, we all need to do more learning, exercise and strenuous work to stay competitive with the world. If we want improvement, the place to first look is in the mirror and we are never to old to start trying to do more and learning more. IMHO
World Peace needs informed people, ignorance only gets badly served.
I submit to all, we all need to do more learning, exercise and strenuous work to stay competitive with the world. If we want improvement, the place to first look is in the mirror and we are never to old to start trying to do more and learning more. IMHO
World Peace needs informed people, ignorance only gets badly served.
3
And why, I ask, should this be difficult to achieve? Get those sociopathic Republicans out of the way and this country could achieve miracles.
12
Many of the young professional women today eschew the title of feminist. I think they believe we've moved past the need for it. Nonetheless, advances in women's rights are still being made.
In recent years we have seen disclosures of predatory sexual behavior in the workplace, such as that which was apparently demonstrated by Roger Ailes, who pressured his female employees for sexual favors, under threat of losing their job. We seem also to be rooting out the truth about previously unacknowledged sexual assaults on college campuses and in the military.
All these instances of sexual victimization of women were happening just under the surface of what seemed like smoothly functioning organizations. In fact, unacknowledged sexual victimization of powerless women has always been a fact of life.
The reason I mention this, is that unfair pay differentials for female employees do still exist. Are there justifiable reasons for some of the differences in pay between men and women? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that much of the difference is directly attributable to unfair discrimination. When it is uncovered, some people express surprise, even the employers themselves.
In recent years we have seen disclosures of predatory sexual behavior in the workplace, such as that which was apparently demonstrated by Roger Ailes, who pressured his female employees for sexual favors, under threat of losing their job. We seem also to be rooting out the truth about previously unacknowledged sexual assaults on college campuses and in the military.
All these instances of sexual victimization of women were happening just under the surface of what seemed like smoothly functioning organizations. In fact, unacknowledged sexual victimization of powerless women has always been a fact of life.
The reason I mention this, is that unfair pay differentials for female employees do still exist. Are there justifiable reasons for some of the differences in pay between men and women? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that much of the difference is directly attributable to unfair discrimination. When it is uncovered, some people express surprise, even the employers themselves.
9
I have grown weary of the so-called "wage gap" narrative. Want equal pay for equal work, ladies? Simple: don't drop out of the workforce. Keep progressing and moving up the ranks. I have been gainfully employed for more than 20 years, and my career has remained uninterrupted. All I had to do was 1) show up; and 2) keep my skills current. That I make the same as a male employed in the same position is a matter of public record.
10
Lisa Meyer, I took exactly 8 weeks off for each of my children's births, then went right back to work, full-time. I have never asked for shorter days or fewer responsibilities or less travel. I have gotten additional certifications in my field, accolades and awards from my supervisors, steady upgrades in my role and responsibilities. You know what I haven't gotten? Equal pay with the men who do my job. I'm happy for you that you have achieved that, and that it's a matter of public record. In my industry, nothing pay-related is public, and I have had to sleuth to find out the truth. One difference between us is that I have been gainfully employed for forty years. Stop blaming women for the failures of the corporation to value them. My head spins when I read stuff like this.
50
Lisa Myer: It's just not that automatic for most women, and it's rarely a choice. Glad that whatever you do and have done works for you. But my, my, you are sorely out of touch.
7
Wow! I'm so glad you have such a simple solution for this complex problem!!!! Have you considered running for president? People LOVE simple solutions right now.
Your sad little admonishment fails to consider several items: 1. Sexism may inhibit women from continuing to "progress[] and move up the ranks" and 2. many women do not have the choice to remain in the workforce during certain points in their lives.
Your argument also assumes without showing that if a woman never drops out of the work force there will be no pay gap. That it appears not to be the case for you does not mean that it is not the same for everyone else.
Weak thinking. Try harder next time.
Your sad little admonishment fails to consider several items: 1. Sexism may inhibit women from continuing to "progress[] and move up the ranks" and 2. many women do not have the choice to remain in the workforce during certain points in their lives.
Your argument also assumes without showing that if a woman never drops out of the work force there will be no pay gap. That it appears not to be the case for you does not mean that it is not the same for everyone else.
Weak thinking. Try harder next time.
4
The argument that women are paid less because they leave the workforce to care for children is specious. Women without children are also paid less than their male counterparts. The "leaves the workforce" argument falls apart and it becomes more apparent that the reason for unequal pay is simply sexism, nothing more. Good luck legislating that out of existence.
85
One word for you: expectations.
What should an employer expect and then think about why they behave that way.
What should an employer expect and then think about why they behave that way.
1
Other countries have.
1
My heart nearly literally stopped last night at the end of the convention when the video of the 44 male Presidents of the United States were shown then the "glass ceiling" shattered and Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared. What an amazing picture of how important and historic this election is.
You can bet that the "boys at the top club" will do anything they can to prevent her from being our next President and it is time for women - and the men who love them - to DEMAND balance in our society by electing smart, courageous, socially conscious women to help run our country.
Rodham-Clinton/Kaine have my vote on November 8!
You can bet that the "boys at the top club" will do anything they can to prevent her from being our next President and it is time for women - and the men who love them - to DEMAND balance in our society by electing smart, courageous, socially conscious women to help run our country.
Rodham-Clinton/Kaine have my vote on November 8!
5
Wow! I am reading about Presidential politics and I found an article about policy! Whoo hoo! More, please.
So here's the thing. Double Income families are struggling to survive financially, right? The cost of living (despite the phony inflation gauges) has escalated dramatically for a young family. "Utilities" alone suck up as much as some mortgage payments. Add college debt and you have a recipe for disaster in the future - how will they pay for the kids college and god forbid, finance a decent retirement?
So, if the female earner is being cheated out of equal pay, who are the Oligarchs hurting? Everyone, of course.
So here's the thing. Double Income families are struggling to survive financially, right? The cost of living (despite the phony inflation gauges) has escalated dramatically for a young family. "Utilities" alone suck up as much as some mortgage payments. Add college debt and you have a recipe for disaster in the future - how will they pay for the kids college and god forbid, finance a decent retirement?
So, if the female earner is being cheated out of equal pay, who are the Oligarchs hurting? Everyone, of course.
Perhaps when Hillary actually pays her female workers the same as her male worker, then we''ll start to believe her.
1
This so called "pay gap" is just one more lie that the democrats/leftists use to further divide us. There have been laws in place since the sixties that ensure women the same pay as men for the same job and experience. If there really were this "gap" why wouldn't companies hire only women? They would immediately be saving 21% on the cost of their labor force. This myth along with blacks being unfairly targeted by police, war on women, so-called homophobia, science denial, are all made up simplistic lies that the Dems use, with the main stream media's complicity, to libel their opposition. Sad thing is, most people are too intellectually lazy to pursue the truth.
3
LOL. "Further divide us?" Yo, I feel "divided" when I'm told that women are second class citizens. You have the nerve to totally dismiss my experiences, tell me that the war on woman is a total myth, and then expect me to want to be "united" with you? Un freaking real. As women are fond of saying, I wish I had the confidence in my reasoning equal to that of a mediocre white man.
As to your "argument," which is easily debunked (it doesn't even require facts! only logic to do so!): First of all, it is not the case that each woman is paid precicely 21% less than each man in an equivalent role. Straw man #1. Second, sexism--the same thing that produces the wage gap-- is what would prohibit companies from hiring only women because they are "cheaper."
As to your "argument," which is easily debunked (it doesn't even require facts! only logic to do so!): First of all, it is not the case that each woman is paid precicely 21% less than each man in an equivalent role. Straw man #1. Second, sexism--the same thing that produces the wage gap-- is what would prohibit companies from hiring only women because they are "cheaper."
Wanting women to be paid as much as a man doing the same work....shouldn't even be an issue. It should be a reality. Unfortunately for us all, Hillary is a corporatist so even if she's successful that will mean not that women will necessarily get more actually dollars but probably that men will get less. Hillary wasn't for the $15 minimum wages and I venture a guess she still isn't. Oh but you say it's IN THE PLATFORM. Ooh, please!
Big corproate donors come first for Hilliary and unincorporated humans of any race, color, creed, ethnicity or gender come dead last. Look who she chose as her running mate!
Big corproate donors come first for Hilliary and unincorporated humans of any race, color, creed, ethnicity or gender come dead last. Look who she chose as her running mate!
Equal pay - radical?
Well, then it's about time we had a radical in the
White House.
If equal pay rattles the NYT's, it must be driving the male Republicans up the "war against women" wall.
The backlash against President Obama from the right was disgusting, horrible - civility has become a thing of the past.
Women in general better watch their back after the election.
Republican women have been beasts about women and their rights.
Bryce Covert's fearful radical reaction to equal pay?
Only the beginning.
Well, then it's about time we had a radical in the
White House.
If equal pay rattles the NYT's, it must be driving the male Republicans up the "war against women" wall.
The backlash against President Obama from the right was disgusting, horrible - civility has become a thing of the past.
Women in general better watch their back after the election.
Republican women have been beasts about women and their rights.
Bryce Covert's fearful radical reaction to equal pay?
Only the beginning.
As a stay at home dad who works as a consultant out of the home, I get paid less than both men and women who work full time jobs and haven't left them to take care of kids.
So, does this pay equity proposal benefit me or is this just for women?
As I've voluntarily taken time off from the workforce to take care of my kids, I know that my career has taken a hit in both salary and seniority and I'm ok with that.
But I'm not ok with that if the women who were sitting at the playground with me get special treatment and consideration when they return to work.
Democrats seem to have a problem with white men because they are "privileged", so I fully expect that people like me will somehow be excluded. Am I wrong? And if I am, please show me some evidence that this is not just a program aimed at women.
So, does this pay equity proposal benefit me or is this just for women?
As I've voluntarily taken time off from the workforce to take care of my kids, I know that my career has taken a hit in both salary and seniority and I'm ok with that.
But I'm not ok with that if the women who were sitting at the playground with me get special treatment and consideration when they return to work.
Democrats seem to have a problem with white men because they are "privileged", so I fully expect that people like me will somehow be excluded. Am I wrong? And if I am, please show me some evidence that this is not just a program aimed at women.
2
Equal pay for equal work is all well and good. However, if, like her husband, Hillary ends up supporting bad free trade deals like TPP and other legislation and policies that hurt American workers, then everyone - women and men - will see their wages decline.
Won't be nice to have a perfect world of gender equality when we're all making minimum wage?
Won't be nice to have a perfect world of gender equality when we're all making minimum wage?
1
And I want to see more love in the world. If we make my wish happen first, we wouldn't need Hillary's Radical Promise.
She's making promises she can't keep either. But at least I can pray for mine.
She's making promises she can't keep either. But at least I can pray for mine.
2
To be clear, I am in favor of equal pay for equal work for men and women and want the best candidate for president regardless of gender or race.
The problem with all the promises made by politicians is they will say almost anything to get elected. With Hillary, with her embarrassingly and historic highs for dishonesty, what are voters to do? Trump helps answer that question, with his dishonesty numbers and questionable mental health.
For sure, this will be and has been an historic presidential run for a number of reasons. Sadly, the first time a woman has been nominated to be the Democratic nominee, will be stained and part of our history by the actions of another woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The problem with all the promises made by politicians is they will say almost anything to get elected. With Hillary, with her embarrassingly and historic highs for dishonesty, what are voters to do? Trump helps answer that question, with his dishonesty numbers and questionable mental health.
For sure, this will be and has been an historic presidential run for a number of reasons. Sadly, the first time a woman has been nominated to be the Democratic nominee, will be stained and part of our history by the actions of another woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
What was a major goal of President Obama's second presidency? Equal pay for women.
What was a major goal of Obama's first presidency? Equal pay for women.
What was a major goal of Bill Clinton's second presidency? Equal pay for women.
What was a major goal of Bill Clinton's first presidency? Equal pay for women.
What is a major goal of Hillary Clinton's candidacy? Equal pay for women.
Why? What can she do that two liberal presidents couldn't do in 16 years?
See why she, too, will fail:
"Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/salary-secrecy-discrimina...
What was a major goal of Obama's first presidency? Equal pay for women.
What was a major goal of Bill Clinton's second presidency? Equal pay for women.
What was a major goal of Bill Clinton's first presidency? Equal pay for women.
What is a major goal of Hillary Clinton's candidacy? Equal pay for women.
Why? What can she do that two liberal presidents couldn't do in 16 years?
See why she, too, will fail:
"Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/salary-secrecy-discrimina...
This is an old issue and to my surprise nothing to equate wages between women and men has changed in the USA since the issue first came up.Why does and has this discrepancy continued not to have been dealt with way back when, by positive federal legislation on this issue?(Bill Clinton where were you on this issue?) Some people(males in position of power and influence?) in America just feel they are not worth the monies.Compare how corporates and politicians dumb down the public when they want;this is continued dumbing down of women.
The assumption is that "equal pay" means a lower paid woman will have her salary raised to that of the higher paid man.
The equalizer very well could go the other way.
What is in the proposed law that prevents an employer from lowering the pay of a man to make it equal to the pay of the lower-paid woman. "Sorry, bub, just complying with federal standards."
The marketplace might settle the situation differently. However, for older men -- who like all older workers, male and female -- leaving a company they've been employed by for many years and finding a new job won't be so easy.
Teaching women and men how to negotiate for higher wages might be a better place to start. But in an economy with little sure-fire job security, a negotiator with an unrealistic opinion of his/her bargaining chips risks the possibility of "take it or leave it" or being sacked.
And if non-union businesses were ever required to make public workers' wages, then a free-for-all of internecine workplace battles -- men vs. men and women vs. women, as well as women vs. men -- would be the order of the day, which could once the dust settles, be a plus.
However, better to get the economy rolling again so workers have more bargaining power across the board. Better to increase the size of the pie than have us all fighting over the crumbs.
My apologies, fellow Bernie supporters, the conservatives are right on this one.
The equal pay issue is a can of worms.
The equalizer very well could go the other way.
What is in the proposed law that prevents an employer from lowering the pay of a man to make it equal to the pay of the lower-paid woman. "Sorry, bub, just complying with federal standards."
The marketplace might settle the situation differently. However, for older men -- who like all older workers, male and female -- leaving a company they've been employed by for many years and finding a new job won't be so easy.
Teaching women and men how to negotiate for higher wages might be a better place to start. But in an economy with little sure-fire job security, a negotiator with an unrealistic opinion of his/her bargaining chips risks the possibility of "take it or leave it" or being sacked.
And if non-union businesses were ever required to make public workers' wages, then a free-for-all of internecine workplace battles -- men vs. men and women vs. women, as well as women vs. men -- would be the order of the day, which could once the dust settles, be a plus.
However, better to get the economy rolling again so workers have more bargaining power across the board. Better to increase the size of the pie than have us all fighting over the crumbs.
My apologies, fellow Bernie supporters, the conservatives are right on this one.
The equal pay issue is a can of worms.
3
At the beginning of the Clinton Presidential years Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. But the Clintons did not focus on gender pay equity. The Clintons tried healthcare. But they could not even get their healthcare program passed by a Democratic congress. After passing healthcare, with the exception of the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, President Obama has not done much better on gender pay equity.
Instead of healthcare and gender pay equity the Clinton administration turned to mass incarceration, welfare deformation, corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare, DADT/DOMA and military-industrial complex war mongering. Nothing radical about that scheme.
The reality is that the Republicans currently control both houses of the U.S. Congress. Some women are Republicans. Athough Hillary is not dusky hued like Obama, she has mammary glands and no Y chromosome. That is the radical hurdle that she must leap over.
Instead of healthcare and gender pay equity the Clinton administration turned to mass incarceration, welfare deformation, corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare, DADT/DOMA and military-industrial complex war mongering. Nothing radical about that scheme.
The reality is that the Republicans currently control both houses of the U.S. Congress. Some women are Republicans. Athough Hillary is not dusky hued like Obama, she has mammary glands and no Y chromosome. That is the radical hurdle that she must leap over.
3
The Republican Party has refused to even consider legislation that would insure women would be given equal pay as men for equal work. I am always mystified by women who belong to the party of "No" and vote for people who act against their interests. It seems that with every passing year the GOP tries to erode more of the rights that were achieved by all minorities. If Trump is elected, they will believe that have the mandate to continue to take away those rights. As a high school teacher who teaches History. I always ask my female students which America do you want to live in? The one your mother grew up in? or the one your grandmother did? I was lucky. As a baby boomer I saw positive changes, I fear my granddaughter won't grow up with the same opportunities and rights
8
"The Republican Party has refused to even consider legislation that would insure women would be given equal pay as men for equal work."
During the Great Depression Democrats determined that they knew the minimum value of anyone's labor. Now they use a simplistic "equal pay for equal work" in an attempt to impose more government control.
Why stop there? If the government is so smart, they should determine wages for every worker. While they're at it, they can determine prices as well.
During the Great Depression Democrats determined that they knew the minimum value of anyone's labor. Now they use a simplistic "equal pay for equal work" in an attempt to impose more government control.
Why stop there? If the government is so smart, they should determine wages for every worker. While they're at it, they can determine prices as well.
Only in the US would people celebrate a woman as a candidate for head of state as though it were something that Americans have pioneered. We are behind the rest of the world, so please let's not act as though it's a radical idea / US invention for women to succeed in government and for women to be paid salaries commensurate to men's salaries.
3
"They disrupt their careers and miss out on raises and promotions."
While certainly true for many, it's been my experience in an upper middle class neighborhood that a lot of my college educated female friends, CHOSE to stay home (or perhaps work part time in some capacity) because they WANT to, and do not see raising kids as a "Disruption." (Which may speak to many of the statistics linked to.)
I've heard a few friends say that the moment they saw their child, they knew they had no desire to be like many in my neighborhood-- on the bus to NYC by 7am, and home 12 hours later.
Likewise, in talking to female students over the years, many have expressed similar views. I recognize this is my experience, but much of the gender pay-gap discussion assumes that ALL women want to work up a career ladder that takes them away from something they want to do: raise their kids. And now, thankfully, for men, this is also an option.
Because of this, the "wage-gap" will always exist. So then the question is what is the appropriate size of the "gap"?
While certainly true for many, it's been my experience in an upper middle class neighborhood that a lot of my college educated female friends, CHOSE to stay home (or perhaps work part time in some capacity) because they WANT to, and do not see raising kids as a "Disruption." (Which may speak to many of the statistics linked to.)
I've heard a few friends say that the moment they saw their child, they knew they had no desire to be like many in my neighborhood-- on the bus to NYC by 7am, and home 12 hours later.
Likewise, in talking to female students over the years, many have expressed similar views. I recognize this is my experience, but much of the gender pay-gap discussion assumes that ALL women want to work up a career ladder that takes them away from something they want to do: raise their kids. And now, thankfully, for men, this is also an option.
Because of this, the "wage-gap" will always exist. So then the question is what is the appropriate size of the "gap"?
3
maybe Hillary will force your female friends to stop making cookies and go get jobs as being a mother is not "worthy" of being a woman?
-----------------------------
What a bizarrely written column!
You opened by noting Hillary is fixated on details, unlike Bernie or The Donald, who make sweeping promises. Yet, you say she, too, has made a SWEEPING promise that CANNOT be met by detailed policies.
"But Mrs. Clinton has made one promise over and over again throughout her campaign that is sweeping, idealistic and impossible to meet with detailed tax packages or government subsidies alone.
She vows to close the wage gap for women."
However, after that, you show she has, indeed, produced a package of detailed policies that will help close the gap!
A different framing would have worked much better. Many people will stop reading your column after its seemingly partisan negative introduction.
It also would have helped to highlight the need for equal pay for *comparable* work!
"Equal pay for equal work" is misleading. The issue is far less that women are paid less for the same job, but that wages are set in discriminatory fashion--favoring jobs currently held by men. Only in passing, did you note a key finding that as more women enter a field, wages go down.
In any event, as a Sanders supporter, I appreciate your showing that Hillary's "incrementalism" can actually add up to something!
---------------------------
What a bizarrely written column!
You opened by noting Hillary is fixated on details, unlike Bernie or The Donald, who make sweeping promises. Yet, you say she, too, has made a SWEEPING promise that CANNOT be met by detailed policies.
"But Mrs. Clinton has made one promise over and over again throughout her campaign that is sweeping, idealistic and impossible to meet with detailed tax packages or government subsidies alone.
She vows to close the wage gap for women."
However, after that, you show she has, indeed, produced a package of detailed policies that will help close the gap!
A different framing would have worked much better. Many people will stop reading your column after its seemingly partisan negative introduction.
It also would have helped to highlight the need for equal pay for *comparable* work!
"Equal pay for equal work" is misleading. The issue is far less that women are paid less for the same job, but that wages are set in discriminatory fashion--favoring jobs currently held by men. Only in passing, did you note a key finding that as more women enter a field, wages go down.
In any event, as a Sanders supporter, I appreciate your showing that Hillary's "incrementalism" can actually add up to something!
---------------------------
6
Could NYT do a mathematical break down of the pay gap? I keep seeing this $0.79 figure but then I read pieces on harder economics sites and it's chick-full of economists saying this is a fallacious statistic and that averaging the earnings of all full-time men with all women leads to faulty outcomes since the career choices vary too widely.
What is the real story here? At this point I'm more inclined to believe what I read when I see the math actually broken down, something I don't see from the people citing the $0.79.
Please explain this in a future column!
What is the real story here? At this point I'm more inclined to believe what I read when I see the math actually broken down, something I don't see from the people citing the $0.79.
Please explain this in a future column!
4
If Trump want Ameica to be Great Again, he must support equal pay for women; otherwise his slogan is a fraud.
Hillary Clinton's "sweeping pledge" rings hollow.
As senator, Clinton paid her female staff 72% of her male.
During her years as SoS, the State Department pay gap averaged $16.4K/yr.
And the Clinton Foundation male executives earn 38% more than the female. The top paid male, a director, is paid nearly a half a million a year vs $169k for the top female director. (The 2nd highest paid male is longtime Clinton fixer, Bruce Lindsey, at $395k.)
You cannot believe a word she says….
As senator, Clinton paid her female staff 72% of her male.
During her years as SoS, the State Department pay gap averaged $16.4K/yr.
And the Clinton Foundation male executives earn 38% more than the female. The top paid male, a director, is paid nearly a half a million a year vs $169k for the top female director. (The 2nd highest paid male is longtime Clinton fixer, Bruce Lindsey, at $395k.)
You cannot believe a word she says….
8
I recall that latest vote by congress for equal pay for equal work. I recall EVERY female Republican rep and EVERY female Republican senator voting against the bill yet THEY all make the same base pay as their male counterparts. I just can not understand ANYONE who accepts such blatant hypocrisy. From Bachmann to Snow to Collins to Blackburn to Murkowski not ONE voted in support of women. Yet none were willing, in a show of solidarity, to take a cut in pay to equal 79% of their male congressmen's pay. Yet women keep electing them! What is wrong with a huge segment of our society? They're on the verge of electing a hateful, vulgar, lying hypocrite as president of the USA who promises jobs to Americans while he outsources the manufacture of ALL of his products, brings in H2B visa workers to work in his domestic companies, hires illegals to construct and maintain his buildings, cheats people of their hard earned money with bogus "universities", sees women as pigs and dogs and of no value unless they have a perfect body, big breasts and the IQ of a turnip, has filed multiple bankruptcies, and has been sued by contractors and workers for back pay and refusal to pay for completed work. My husband ran an HVAC department for 14 years. If the work wasn't done to the customers satisfaction it was made right. The customers was not allowed by law to not pay for the services rendered. This is theft! Yet Trump is looked on as a hero for sticking it to the little guy! Incomprehensible!!
23
Pro woman is anti-male at its core.
4
And a good thing that is, too.
Referring to the wage gap as a "women's issue," which of course it is, is the other half's way of fending off what would men assume would be the reduction of their own compensation.
Equal pay for all has to come from the same pot. What studly male wants to see the little woman rake in what he thinks he's entitled to?
Until he have enough women writing the laws, there will be no wage equality for us. There will be no equality at all.
Equal pay for all has to come from the same pot. What studly male wants to see the little woman rake in what he thinks he's entitled to?
Until he have enough women writing the laws, there will be no wage equality for us. There will be no equality at all.
4
Women are paid the same, for the same job. I've never worked anywhere where women were paid less for the same job and hours worked. The pay gap is explained because women choose lower paying careers for one reason or another. More women are teachers than men, but teachers have great benefits in my state and work only 9 months of the year. More women choose jobs that may be part time, or involve less travel or hard physical labor. If the Dems make this their top priority, it will reveal how out of touch they are, and Trump will win.
7
"Women are paid the same, for the same job."
Citation needed. Thanks in advance.
"I've never worked anywhere where women were paid less for the same job and hours worked."
How do you know? Or have you only ever worked menial wage jobs with hourly salaries? If that's the case, you can hardly be trusted to understand this issue.
"The pay gap is explained because women choose lower paying careers for one reason or another."
Oh wow, what a nice, simple explanation!! We can all go home now. Pro-tip: gender discrimination in the workplace and in society contributes to the fact that more women "choose" "lower paying careers."
Foolish, foolish men.
Citation needed. Thanks in advance.
"I've never worked anywhere where women were paid less for the same job and hours worked."
How do you know? Or have you only ever worked menial wage jobs with hourly salaries? If that's the case, you can hardly be trusted to understand this issue.
"The pay gap is explained because women choose lower paying careers for one reason or another."
Oh wow, what a nice, simple explanation!! We can all go home now. Pro-tip: gender discrimination in the workplace and in society contributes to the fact that more women "choose" "lower paying careers."
Foolish, foolish men.
1
This is a very nice as principle. However in a society based on capitalism the idea is impractical.
Men doesn't earn as much as other men working in the same field doing the same job. This is because the employer tries to "manage" the cost of the workforce. And the employer doesn't have a choice because if the concurrence does it, and he doesn't he gets out competed. Individually however anyone - no matter the sex - could achieve a higher salary by changing jobs when a better one is offered.
That is of course not true for jobs that requires (almost) no formation. There the Unions are the only ones who could achieve a rise of salary.
My bet is: in the first case you cannot achieve much, because there might be someone who earns more then you, but there are others who earn less in the field.
In the second case the salaries are as low already as they "could possibly be". And the women and the men tend to work in different fields.
But then modern politics is obviously not about solving problems. It's about creating tension in society.
Men doesn't earn as much as other men working in the same field doing the same job. This is because the employer tries to "manage" the cost of the workforce. And the employer doesn't have a choice because if the concurrence does it, and he doesn't he gets out competed. Individually however anyone - no matter the sex - could achieve a higher salary by changing jobs when a better one is offered.
That is of course not true for jobs that requires (almost) no formation. There the Unions are the only ones who could achieve a rise of salary.
My bet is: in the first case you cannot achieve much, because there might be someone who earns more then you, but there are others who earn less in the field.
In the second case the salaries are as low already as they "could possibly be". And the women and the men tend to work in different fields.
But then modern politics is obviously not about solving problems. It's about creating tension in society.
2
I've noticed that men are moving into better-paid traditionally female jobs and women are being utilized more in poorly-paid traditionally male jobs (think school bus drivers). Here is an illustrative snippet from the US Government Census site:
About 2.7 percent of registered nurses were men in 1970 compared with 9.6 percent in 2011.
In 2011, 9 percent of all nurses were men while 91 percent were women.
Men earned, on an average, $60,700 per year, while women earned $51,100 per year.
Even among men and women in the same nursing occupations, men outearned women. Women working as nurses full-time, year-round earned 91 cents for every dollar male nurses earned.
About 2.7 percent of registered nurses were men in 1970 compared with 9.6 percent in 2011.
In 2011, 9 percent of all nurses were men while 91 percent were women.
Men earned, on an average, $60,700 per year, while women earned $51,100 per year.
Even among men and women in the same nursing occupations, men outearned women. Women working as nurses full-time, year-round earned 91 cents for every dollar male nurses earned.
12
I agree with Mr Benson. however, there are some caveats we ought to consider: Norway is a much more statist society than we have in the US, for which an appropriate trope may be a federated society predicated on the principle of communitarian individualism. Also, the US, from its inception, has formulated a mythopoetic past based on immigration (cf Hector S. de Crevecoeur essay "What is an American" makes this point rather nicely). Norway did not engage in such a mythopoesis.
1
When Columbus invaded this continent Native Americans had a matriarchal society. The women did all the work and the men hunted and/or fished all day and played games of chance in the evenings. On occasion, the men would do battle to steal each other's workers (This was before Spaniards introduced horses* to North America). What goes around comes around. Not a bad way to live. Go Hillary. We don't have to live with her gentlemen. Bill does. A kind of poetic justice.
*Horses later became more valuable than the women workers.
*Horses later became more valuable than the women workers.
1
And before the Romans invaded the northern frontiers of Europe, they too had a matriarchal, warrior society. So what?
Another in the long series of nonsense claims about the supposed wage gap, one that no longer exists in any meaningful sense but will always provide fodder for the statistically challenged. When you control for relevant factors, the wage gap disappears. This is not a secret. But the propagandists who fill the ranks of the media will just keep beating this drum because it riles up the voters they need for their party.
8
It's those "relevant factors" that are keeping women from being equal in this world.
And the use of "control" here is most appropriate.
And the use of "control" here is most appropriate.
Thank you!
The Clinton Foundation would be a good place to start ...
9
I am sure Chelsea Clinton gets paid plenty.
How can anyone believe anything that Hillary says?
Her current 70% untrustworthy polls reveal that most people don't want her as their president.
The only reason that most of the people who will vote for her is: We hate Trump.
We no longer have our two major political parties. The Republican party is dead. It has been replaced by Trump, the one man attraction.
The Democratic party, which is controlled by the Clintons, as the recent e mail revelations in which Hillary and Co. are shown to have worked behind the scenes using party funding to destroy Sanders, is so corrupt and politics as usual that no one would support it except to stop Trump.
It took Trump a very short time to go from a total joke to the Trojan Horse that took over the Republican party.
In a comparable time, Sanders, who responded to the outrage of many Americans, became a major force only to be destroyed by the Hillary machine.
There is an option.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are rapidly gaining momentum from those Americans who want honesty, good people who we can believe in, true experience. They are two term governors ( New Mexico, Mass.), former liberal Republicans in heavily Democratic states.
People say, I don't want to waste my vote on a third party.
The Libertarian party, on the ballot in 50 states, is becoming the second of the two major parties.
And it can't happen soon enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU
Her current 70% untrustworthy polls reveal that most people don't want her as their president.
The only reason that most of the people who will vote for her is: We hate Trump.
We no longer have our two major political parties. The Republican party is dead. It has been replaced by Trump, the one man attraction.
The Democratic party, which is controlled by the Clintons, as the recent e mail revelations in which Hillary and Co. are shown to have worked behind the scenes using party funding to destroy Sanders, is so corrupt and politics as usual that no one would support it except to stop Trump.
It took Trump a very short time to go from a total joke to the Trojan Horse that took over the Republican party.
In a comparable time, Sanders, who responded to the outrage of many Americans, became a major force only to be destroyed by the Hillary machine.
There is an option.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are rapidly gaining momentum from those Americans who want honesty, good people who we can believe in, true experience. They are two term governors ( New Mexico, Mass.), former liberal Republicans in heavily Democratic states.
People say, I don't want to waste my vote on a third party.
The Libertarian party, on the ballot in 50 states, is becoming the second of the two major parties.
And it can't happen soon enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU
6
Show me Gary Johnson's decades-long work to improve the life of this country's most vulnerable citizens. Show me his work on behalf of expanding civil rights. Show me his work on improving the economy for everyone, and improving the safety net for those left behind. Show me his efforts to secure health care, first for children, and then for everyone else.
I get it, you don't like Hillary Clinton on a personal level. But Christ on a bicycle, man, how do you completely ignore Hillary Clinton's substantial, literally decades-long record of getting stuff done - stuff that benefits huge swathes of the population? For those of us who are not already sitting in the catbird seat, libertarianism is a scary prospect. If you already have power and privilege, then, yes, the government frequently looks like a sword - striking out against your freedom to live and earn as you see fit. To those who aren't born with privilege, the government looks more like a powerful shield, protecting us from the predations of the already powerful. Libertarianism assumes everyone is equally powerful when we are simply not. I want a strong government protecting me from corporate pollution; wage discrimination; monopoly power; sexual harassment; redlining; and providing public education for everyone; public parks and beaches; basic scientific research, and many other things that make us strong as a nation. I'm voting for the Democrat - not even a close call.
I get it, you don't like Hillary Clinton on a personal level. But Christ on a bicycle, man, how do you completely ignore Hillary Clinton's substantial, literally decades-long record of getting stuff done - stuff that benefits huge swathes of the population? For those of us who are not already sitting in the catbird seat, libertarianism is a scary prospect. If you already have power and privilege, then, yes, the government frequently looks like a sword - striking out against your freedom to live and earn as you see fit. To those who aren't born with privilege, the government looks more like a powerful shield, protecting us from the predations of the already powerful. Libertarianism assumes everyone is equally powerful when we are simply not. I want a strong government protecting me from corporate pollution; wage discrimination; monopoly power; sexual harassment; redlining; and providing public education for everyone; public parks and beaches; basic scientific research, and many other things that make us strong as a nation. I'm voting for the Democrat - not even a close call.
"The Hillary machine" is the millions of us Democrats that chose to vote for her rather than Bernie. That machine is called Democracy, a concept foreign certainly to the Republican Party, and to a large extent the anti-government (by and for the people remember?) Libertarian Party. I know, I lived through Johnson's silliness in New Mexico.
This woman never took time off, but the men where I work now certainly make more than the women. Make it illegal to prevent us from discussing our salaries and watch the discrepancy disappear. You're just rehashing old excuses.
77
Data needs to come from a larger pool than just one workplace. The question is: what do you know about the salaries of people in your industry and how can you position yourself to better your salary?
1
And have those MEN been there longer than you? Perhaps they do a better job than you? People who complain the loudest at work usually are the worst workers...
1
What do you do? How do you know what the men earn?
1
"Women's rights are human rights." Clinton's promises are consistent-- and backed up by her proposed policies and past performance.
4
You want an easy solution for closing the pay gap? Unionize! My husband works for a union utility company. Every job has a set pay rate. Every worker makes the rate for the job. Female or male there is no difference. The woman he replaced when she retired early to care for her elderly mother was making the same pay as her male co-worker. I'll admit unions are far from perfect since there are no merit raises but there is also no nepotism, no "fair-haired" boy, no fears of a female being retaliated against by refusing her boss' sexual advances or implied innuendos. Unions, for the most part, protect a female worker's rights to pay parity with her male counterpart. They protect all workers with pay parity. The union recently became aware that employees of the company who worked out of a different office doing the same work as my husband and his coworkers were being paid more per hour. They fought for and won on the issue of pay parity. He received a $2.00 per hour raise. The union argued on equal pay for equal work. This protection costs my husband $19.50 a week, equivalent to 30 minutes pay! He has sick leave, personal leave, 3 weeks paid vacation, a pension, a no- layoff contract, guaranteed rest time in the event of emergency work, and above all the voice of a strong union that will fight for any injustices he may encounter. He worked 30 years for non union shops, 14 years as management. There is no comparison between the two. The job protections and security are priceless.
14
Another choice: choose to work in an industry that is already unionized. Great points, Sharon!
Equalizing the pay gap will require more federal government usurpation of power, control over every aspect of the economy, and the economic stagnation that will come with it.
Equal pay for women is already the law of the land.
Equal pay for women is already the law of the land.
3
It seems only fair and proper that Sen. Sanders will now be returning to the Senate as an Independent, which is what he was elected as in the first place. Especially since he has never been a Democrat. His next step after this, I predict he will soon announce, will be creating a new party based on the Socialist principles that have guided him throughout his entire political life.
It will have millions of followers on the day that he forms it. I'd like to see him name it the Free Lunch Party. It will stand for providing a good life to its members by taxing the rest of us.
The Republican Party is not the only party that has been badly damaged by the present election campaign. The Democratic Party has also been decimated.
It will have millions of followers on the day that he forms it. I'd like to see him name it the Free Lunch Party. It will stand for providing a good life to its members by taxing the rest of us.
The Republican Party is not the only party that has been badly damaged by the present election campaign. The Democratic Party has also been decimated.
1
There is another way to look at the fracas. Republicans offered numerous choices and argued heartily and publicly about issues (with a bit of entertaining, school-boy jabbing about body-part size). Democrats offered one true Democrat candidate with one new-to-Party candidate, who offered no strong challenge equal to the fight going on in the Republican party. (but was very popular, to the surprise of the long-term Democrat candidate, who used secretive, subversive tactics in her strategy against him). In my view, choice and open conflict over high-stakes ideas is not necessarily damaging. It is only damaging if people cannot continue to communicate toward a beneficial goal. Therefore, the Republican party is doing just fine, if "fine" means conserving a multi-faceted political system full of choice. The Democrats are in danger of becoming a group-think party, especially combined with the avaricious name-calling they do to normal citizens who think differently, including within their own party. They use the buzz words of choice, but do not offer it. That is the opposite of a free society. It is the behavior that creates richer leaders and poorer society, such as we have now after 8 yrs of that class of leadership.
2
As long as women have children, and choose to raise them alone, there is no gap in equal pay for equal work. This is a false issue. Try something more salient.
2
Rather than Hilary Clinton claiming to “close the wage gap”; she might be better off educating on the causes of the wage gap. Too often the disparity in pay between men and women is blamed on discrimination. To be sure some portion of that gap is discrimination but there are other causes such as history and personal choices that have nothing to do with discrimination.
There are many men, especially professional both white and blue collar who entered the work force 40, even 50 years ago. During that time they have built up impressive salaries. Forty years ago was 1976, women were only just beginning to enter the work force in large number, and few as professionals. Fifty years ago even less. That wage gap from history won’t be closed for a few more decades.
Another large part of the wage gap as mentioned by the author is personal choices. Women are more likely to enter professions that pay less but give them more flexibility to spend time with a family, for example being there for after school plays or other activities. Men, being the louts that we are, care more about the money and prestige of the job.
These aren’t things that can be closed by legislation, but legislation can certainly help close that portion of the wage gap that is due to discrimination.
Unfortunately talk of discrimination gets more votes than talk of personal choices. We shouldn’t blame Hillary Clinton for that.
There are many men, especially professional both white and blue collar who entered the work force 40, even 50 years ago. During that time they have built up impressive salaries. Forty years ago was 1976, women were only just beginning to enter the work force in large number, and few as professionals. Fifty years ago even less. That wage gap from history won’t be closed for a few more decades.
Another large part of the wage gap as mentioned by the author is personal choices. Women are more likely to enter professions that pay less but give them more flexibility to spend time with a family, for example being there for after school plays or other activities. Men, being the louts that we are, care more about the money and prestige of the job.
These aren’t things that can be closed by legislation, but legislation can certainly help close that portion of the wage gap that is due to discrimination.
Unfortunately talk of discrimination gets more votes than talk of personal choices. We shouldn’t blame Hillary Clinton for that.
3
Think about it: women's choices aren't made in a vacuum. Gender discrimination is one factor that, via a variety of means, pushes women into less lucrative careers.
This wouldn't be a complicated issue if you every listened to a woman's experience on the subject.
This wouldn't be a complicated issue if you every listened to a woman's experience on the subject.
My daughter is currently in medical school and deciding which field to enter. I have listened to her choices and the reasons.
I know of what I speak.
I know of what I speak.
With Angela Merkel in Germany, Theresa May in the UK, Hillary has a chance of becoming a woman leader representing the USA and changing the narrative....http://www.jjmccullough.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php
1
Why is this a radical promise? The wage gap is one of the main reasons elderly women are poor whether they've taken time out to raise children or not. Underpaying women, regardless of the job they do, how well they do it, or how qualified they are is one of the bigger problems women and families face in America. The care taking jobs that women do are often minimized unless a man does them and then that man is praised to the skies for doing a mother's work or working in a woman's field.
Women are penalized for being assertive in the workplace. We're penalized when we tell someone they didn't the job well. We're told that menstruation is why we act the way we do. Of course when a man acts the same way it's fine because he doesn't have hormonal variations every month. One thing that I'd like to see addressed in this country is how ourwork life cycle is set up to accommodate men's needs, how often men with wives and children get ahead while women with children and husbands don't.
America talks about helping women but shouldn't that start with helping families find and be able to afford decent daycare for their young children? Shouldn't all of us be able to take time off to care for ourselves or family members when necessary? Shouldn't boys be told that they too are responsible for helping to raise children just the same as girls? And shouldn't men's salaries be lowered so that they can compete with women who are cheaper? (Just kidding but it might make men think.)
Women are penalized for being assertive in the workplace. We're penalized when we tell someone they didn't the job well. We're told that menstruation is why we act the way we do. Of course when a man acts the same way it's fine because he doesn't have hormonal variations every month. One thing that I'd like to see addressed in this country is how ourwork life cycle is set up to accommodate men's needs, how often men with wives and children get ahead while women with children and husbands don't.
America talks about helping women but shouldn't that start with helping families find and be able to afford decent daycare for their young children? Shouldn't all of us be able to take time off to care for ourselves or family members when necessary? Shouldn't boys be told that they too are responsible for helping to raise children just the same as girls? And shouldn't men's salaries be lowered so that they can compete with women who are cheaper? (Just kidding but it might make men think.)
8
Women who feel penalized for doing their administrative duties, such as telling someone they didn't do a job well, might require professional development in people skills and staff development, but are certainly seeking affirmation from the wrong source. The correct source of affirmation is the fulfillment of company goals. Bosses and staff like you when you deliver prosperity and/or whatever the real goal is, and many times, that takes deliberate staff development, which people invariably grumble about. Building or being part of a strong staff, bolstering the company, being prosperous. That's why we work. If you fall short and feel bad about it, quit checking with your feelings, reflect on what to change next time, and get out their fighting. Someone commenting to you about menstruation? Deliver a quick, yet entirely tasteful verbal jab, such as, "Still trying to cope with the difference between males and females?" while you are recording their comment in writing, with the date, in front of them. Toughen up and crack your glass ceiling.
The "difference" between males and females, I've learned in my more than 70 years of experience, is that one rarely hears of a woman being referred to as a jerk.
[And if one of them had ever commented to me about menstruation, I'd have punched him out, not hit him with a weak verbal jab.]
[And if one of them had ever commented to me about menstruation, I'd have punched him out, not hit him with a weak verbal jab.]
1
In today's workplace no one feels that doing their job well pays. We've either been fired after getting a great job review or we know someone who's been fired. And we also know that no matter what most workplaces say they don't care about harassment, equal pay or decent treatment of their employees, about employee health, etc. What they care about is the bottom line and employees are expenses, not assets. Women are seen as deficits because we might get pregnant. If we get pregnant and decide that we want to raise our kids any training we got on the job was a waste. Therefore, in the interests of not wasting money on people who have the nerve to reproduce, maybe not return after a leave, employers spend no money on training women or men.
The attitude of employers is such that even if the gender gap in pay was closed and men were given the same leave as women, and people who were single were included as well, job training and retention would still be horrible. Imagine how it feels to be told that you are expendable, that you aren't worth training, or that you do a great job but we're letting you go anyway? The problems start with the gender gap but they go much further than that.
The attitude of employers is such that even if the gender gap in pay was closed and men were given the same leave as women, and people who were single were included as well, job training and retention would still be horrible. Imagine how it feels to be told that you are expendable, that you aren't worth training, or that you do a great job but we're letting you go anyway? The problems start with the gender gap but they go much further than that.
A point well made so where are the comments?
What about the job mortality gap? Men are 90% of all workplace fatalities, not counting the military.
There is no gender wage gap.
And the assumption that when women enter a field the salary drops, ignores the fact that in the last 30 years, EVERYONES salaray has dropped when normalized with inflation. EVERYONE.
So stop whining.
You cannot fix what is not broken.
For the same hours, same job, same skill: men and women make the same.
It is just that men take the jobs no one wants, in places no one wants to be.
There is no gender wage gap.
And the assumption that when women enter a field the salary drops, ignores the fact that in the last 30 years, EVERYONES salaray has dropped when normalized with inflation. EVERYONE.
So stop whining.
You cannot fix what is not broken.
For the same hours, same job, same skill: men and women make the same.
It is just that men take the jobs no one wants, in places no one wants to be.
9
That is absolutely a true generality about men taking jobs "no one wants, in places no one wants to be," that are also often dangerous, and I will add, with a gritting of the teeth and silent determination. Males and females are alike in some ways, but not alike in all ways. It is idealistic to believe that hormones do not bathe the brain at every moment. We must appreciate the differences, such as this one that you mentioned. What is uncalled for is the stale battle about whether women are better than men, or men better than women.
Solid editorial. Yes, providing solutions to the pay gap does affect everyone, not just the female cohort of American workers.
Bernie Sanders, in his stump speeches, was always in favor of passing federally mandated benefits as they do in European countries, because right now we fall short as this editorial points out: "We don’t guarantee paid family leave, a benefit just 13 percent of private sector employees get, and child care costs remain high. But when women have paid leave and access to steady, reasonably priced child care, their wages benefit."
I never know if the GOP fight against equal pay for equal work is due to the fact they don't really believe women should be in the workplace at all! There exists a pervasive attitude about the role of woman in the lives of men and the nation--is it fear? jealousy? a sense that a working woman threatens the stability of God's order?
I doubt anybody will every tell you the why of their attitudes. But, they are deeply ingrained, and misogyny remains deep down there, even if not stated.
But the irony is, the more women earn, the more the family as a whole benefits.
And mandating equal pay for equal work is hardly an expansion of the "nanny state." Pro wage gap closure supporters aren't in favor of wresting control of the family from the family members through government "rules"-- they are merely asking for level the playing field and expand the concept of fairness.
Bernie Sanders, in his stump speeches, was always in favor of passing federally mandated benefits as they do in European countries, because right now we fall short as this editorial points out: "We don’t guarantee paid family leave, a benefit just 13 percent of private sector employees get, and child care costs remain high. But when women have paid leave and access to steady, reasonably priced child care, their wages benefit."
I never know if the GOP fight against equal pay for equal work is due to the fact they don't really believe women should be in the workplace at all! There exists a pervasive attitude about the role of woman in the lives of men and the nation--is it fear? jealousy? a sense that a working woman threatens the stability of God's order?
I doubt anybody will every tell you the why of their attitudes. But, they are deeply ingrained, and misogyny remains deep down there, even if not stated.
But the irony is, the more women earn, the more the family as a whole benefits.
And mandating equal pay for equal work is hardly an expansion of the "nanny state." Pro wage gap closure supporters aren't in favor of wresting control of the family from the family members through government "rules"-- they are merely asking for level the playing field and expand the concept of fairness.
52
Closing the wage gap will lower men's pay. A mandate to equalize pay is getting confused with a mandate to raise pay. Nice dream. There is more than one way to equalize pay, once you stop assuming.
1
If you are not at work you should not get paid? Why should women get paid to not show up? How is that even women proving they can work like men?? Men and women are different, it's called biology. Obviously breast feeding moms and women late in pregnancy cannot do as much work as a man who is not going to get pregnant or nurse a baby. This is just common sense that "progressives" refuse to accept. It's also why men were expected to provide for their wives, which is not some evil conspiracy to keep women down but really just a practical means of providing for moms who were not able to work while caring for small fragile humans who should only drink human breast milk called babies. A job is not charity, nor is it a handout, employers pay for the work not to further feminism. If women want equal pay they need to work as hard as men that means no leaving work for months on end while expecting pay. There is no actual wage gap anyways the women who don't take maternity leave, who don't have children, make the same as men who also don't take maternity leave. You see people are getting paid for what they put in and because of nature women are at a disadvantage in what they can put it, don't be mad at Republicans for respecting business owners rights to not have be the breadwinners of mothers (newsflash ladies your job is not your husband, a husband is the one with the responsibility to provide for you and kids) take up with God (or evolution whatever) not the government.
1
"There is no actual wage gap anyways the women who don't take maternity leave, who don't have children, make the same as men who also don't take maternity leave."
Citation needed.
So what's your solution? Simply fire women when they get pregnant? Force them to be economically dependent on men? Say too bad, so sad, it's nature?
Why should society --including men-- get to benefit from the labor that women put in with their bodies to produce and raise children- but the entire burden must fall on women? Why is it acceptable to just say "oh, I'll accept this huge benefits and women are just disadvantaged," and throw your hands up and shrug?
Citation needed.
So what's your solution? Simply fire women when they get pregnant? Force them to be economically dependent on men? Say too bad, so sad, it's nature?
Why should society --including men-- get to benefit from the labor that women put in with their bodies to produce and raise children- but the entire burden must fall on women? Why is it acceptable to just say "oh, I'll accept this huge benefits and women are just disadvantaged," and throw your hands up and shrug?
Only in today's world would this be considered "radical."
It's as radical as oxygen, and the irony is most women don't give a damn. Many will still vote against their interests, like the dumbest of men.
It's as radical as oxygen, and the irony is most women don't give a damn. Many will still vote against their interests, like the dumbest of men.
32
So sad but so true! The people in worse need of medical insurance was voting against ACA all the way, that is how the GOP kept control of Congress, just say you are fighting Obama and they will vote any way you want.
Dear Mr. Covert,
You point out the real crux of the problem; even with, or perhaps especially with, a Democratic president and a Neolithic, excuse me, Republican Congress, nothing will get done as evidenced by the past few years.
So the "real" contest is not just the presidency but all the rest of the seats up for grabs, the people that actually control law making.
We know the presidential candidates; a really dumb oligarchist moron versus a reasonable woman. That choice, hopefully, is quite simple.
How to change the rest of the shebang is vastly more important. Perhaps focusing on key races in the states might be helpful to those of us in the "trenches', the few, the proud, the voters.
You point out the real crux of the problem; even with, or perhaps especially with, a Democratic president and a Neolithic, excuse me, Republican Congress, nothing will get done as evidenced by the past few years.
So the "real" contest is not just the presidency but all the rest of the seats up for grabs, the people that actually control law making.
We know the presidential candidates; a really dumb oligarchist moron versus a reasonable woman. That choice, hopefully, is quite simple.
How to change the rest of the shebang is vastly more important. Perhaps focusing on key races in the states might be helpful to those of us in the "trenches', the few, the proud, the voters.
25
To know money is to know it doesn't grow on trees. A mandate for equal pay will lower pay for all jobs. The same amount of money will equalize within the system; no one will come up with more money to raise the pay of a large portion of the working force. Honestly, why doesn't anyone understand this?
1
Well I think one of the differences we get with Hillary is that she pushes, she doesnt simply hope the parties will work together, she makes them work. President Obama and his team lacked the experience that Hillary herself brings; which was actually getting a lot of real work done and with disparate parties. She's done more work that ended in real results in her career, then I would estimate that all of the previous GOP candidates, including Trump (because he's done nothing politically, except donate) did in total.
What the GOP most fears about Hillary is that she is the best example of what a truly politically savvy public servant can do, and will never shrink from doing...over their do-nothing whining and regularly scheduled witch-hunts.
What the GOP most fears about Hillary is that she is the best example of what a truly politically savvy public servant can do, and will never shrink from doing...over their do-nothing whining and regularly scheduled witch-hunts.
Close the wage gap between men and women?
Let's work on making sure EVERY ONE gets a living wage first and health benefits for all, and education for all.
And let's concentrate on single people. Many are struggling to make ends meet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or maybe it does) to know that two income families have many advantages that a single person has.
Let's work on making sure EVERY ONE gets a living wage first and health benefits for all, and education for all.
And let's concentrate on single people. Many are struggling to make ends meet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or maybe it does) to know that two income families have many advantages that a single person has.
11
Well, the American public loves pipe dreams. No one connected the Affordable Health Care Act with the death of, in many industries, of the 40-hr work week with benefits, coupled with a federal government tax penalty if you don't purchase your own health coverage that, for many people, cannot be used for actual health care. This certainly lowered the standard of living for many while helping Obama feel like a big hero. On the issue of equalizing pay, hoards of women and men have simplistic ideas. Pay will not be raised for women. Pay will not be raised by gender. Pay will be lowered by job. Congress is not going to mandate that employers pay the cost of living. That's impossible, at least, for now. Congress can mandate equalized pay. All that means is that an employer proves that an amount of funds is distributed equally, which lowers pay for men and does not enhance women's salaries. Same amount of money, distributed slightly differently. No one's life changes, except for their disappointment that their dream didn't pan out as they assumed, and another President gets to tell herself she's a big hero.
I'd like to address your wish for "education for all." Your post is the cry of many people today and I understand the pain behind it. I assume you mean federally-funded, free college tuition. That money has to come from taxes. Picture this: millions of poorly-prepared high school graduates enter college, take a few classes, get to college-level math, fail, and drop out. (Or college-level science, etc.) This is a very common scenario. Many poorly-prepared college students must take pre-college level math and language arts classes because they were poorly prepared in high school. My local college offers significantly more college prep math classes (high school level math) than college level math because students are not prepared, so high school level math is paid for, by taxes, in high school, and under free college tuition, it would be paid for a second time, by taxes. Where does that money come from? Raising taxes. I don't want my taxes used this way and I don't want the taxes of young adults, new in the work force, used this way. I'd rather make changes to K-12 public education, and authentically prepare students for college so that billions of dollars in taxes collected from working stiffs is not thrown down the drain. Then, the idea could be revisited.
When Obama Care became law, the amount of money taken from my pay check to cover my share of my mostly-employer-paid health care benefits tripled, yet my plan remained the same. See my point?
When Obama Care became law, the amount of money taken from my pay check to cover my share of my mostly-employer-paid health care benefits tripled, yet my plan remained the same. See my point?
This is why we can't have democrats run anything. The wage gap is primarily an illusion brought about by differences in life and career choices. If you compare how men and women are paid for the same job in the same geographic region and industry you will find minimal gender based pay differences by job. The 79 % difference is simply bull that progressives use to gain traction with their base. The reason for the pay difference -- which by the way holds in HRC's campaign staff and in Obama's WH -- is that women more often occupy lower paid jobs. If you look at a bank -- if a large majority of tellers and call center staffers are female -- even if women are well represented and paid equally in other jobs the math is straight forward -- women on average will be paid less in that bank. Or any organization.
Now, one can argue that we need to do more to support women going into high paying careers. But the idea that women are paid 21% less than men in the same organization -- or industry -- for doing the same job -- is wrong. And on the face of it is absurd. If this were true -- then companies would quickly toss as many men out as they could and hire women or promote them into these jobs and reduce their salary and benefits expense line.
And lest you think I don't what I'm talking about -- I have experience in corporate America looking at this very issue with access to detailed job data, performance info, experience, etc.
Now, one can argue that we need to do more to support women going into high paying careers. But the idea that women are paid 21% less than men in the same organization -- or industry -- for doing the same job -- is wrong. And on the face of it is absurd. If this were true -- then companies would quickly toss as many men out as they could and hire women or promote them into these jobs and reduce their salary and benefits expense line.
And lest you think I don't what I'm talking about -- I have experience in corporate America looking at this very issue with access to detailed job data, performance info, experience, etc.
58
Yes, you have a point, Ralphie. I've always been paid less than men because I made the wrong life choice.
I chose to be born a female. My bad.
I chose to be born a female. My bad.
93
Thank you for pointing out this ongoing canard. Why don't people like me trust Clinton? Because she bases a major campaign promise on a statistic that does not show what she purports it does. She even ties herself up in rhetorical knots to try to get it there, but leaves out the most fundamental aspect: this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. I fully expect her, post-election, to switch the statistical basis to be analytically correct, then claim credit for the dramatic "increase".
2
I have experience in Corporate America looking into this very issue across many organizations and I'm sorry sir but you are incorrect. It is very typical for women to be paid less than men in the same job.
I notice you snuck in performance. If it were measured equally for men and women you might be on to something, but if there is one thing glaringly clear about HRC's run for office, men and women are held to vastly different standards.
Donald Trump would have never gotten out of the janitorial pool if the world were "fair". He is of sub-par intelligence, has poor impulse control and bullies people who don't agree with him. His decision making faculties are poor and truth to be told dangerous. He is irrational, irritable and thin-skinned. He has absolutely nothing to stack up to HRC's achievements and yet here we are.
I notice you snuck in performance. If it were measured equally for men and women you might be on to something, but if there is one thing glaringly clear about HRC's run for office, men and women are held to vastly different standards.
Donald Trump would have never gotten out of the janitorial pool if the world were "fair". He is of sub-par intelligence, has poor impulse control and bullies people who don't agree with him. His decision making faculties are poor and truth to be told dangerous. He is irrational, irritable and thin-skinned. He has absolutely nothing to stack up to HRC's achievements and yet here we are.
26
Republicans are the biggest obstacle to Hillary's promise. The misogyny and hypocrisy at the core of the Republican Party is manifest. They impose their sanctimonious religious prattle on our secular society, yet commit blasphemy against women every day.They foam at the mouth over "big government" yet want to control a woman's vagina.They mouth"family values" yet oppose Family leave, paycheck fairness, increasing the minimum wage and universal child care. They label government child care and family leave programs that empower women an"intrusion", yet in Virginia proposed a law requiring women exercising a constitutional right to undergo a vaginal probe.
38
"universal childcare" is the government raising your kids with tax payer money
"maternity leave" is the government forcing business owners to take on the role of bread winner fathers/husbands.
"abortion on demand" is the murder of a very young human being, also in what way does abortion a cause for family when it is the killing of a family member???
"paycheck fairness and minimum wage" have nothing to do with family the vast majority of workers do not earn minimum wage and the biggest group on minimum wage are young people (16-24) and part time workers.
There is no contradiction, well to those who accept natural law. The problem is Democrats and progressives in general cannot accept these laws, they believe they can reconstruct and reinvent humanity to fit their vision of "equality". Men and women are not "equal" they are different with differing strengths and weaknesses, get over it.
"maternity leave" is the government forcing business owners to take on the role of bread winner fathers/husbands.
"abortion on demand" is the murder of a very young human being, also in what way does abortion a cause for family when it is the killing of a family member???
"paycheck fairness and minimum wage" have nothing to do with family the vast majority of workers do not earn minimum wage and the biggest group on minimum wage are young people (16-24) and part time workers.
There is no contradiction, well to those who accept natural law. The problem is Democrats and progressives in general cannot accept these laws, they believe they can reconstruct and reinvent humanity to fit their vision of "equality". Men and women are not "equal" they are different with differing strengths and weaknesses, get over it.
1
@eveisabeast The problem is that you are welcome to your definition of a human being even though it's not the legal definition or mine. What you or the Republicans don't have the right to do is inflict your personal value system on me or anyone else.
1
Sorry, but I don't agree with sweeping declarations like "all women should be paid the same as all men."
To clarify:
Yes, women should be paid the same as men, when they do the same job and are as productive as men.
No, women should not be paid the same as men, when they don't do the same job and are not as productive as men.
Just as well, women should be paid more than men, when they do more on the job and are more productive than men.
Everyone should be paid fairly based on the job and their productivity. Not everyone should be paid fairly just because of their gender, man or woman.
To clarify:
Yes, women should be paid the same as men, when they do the same job and are as productive as men.
No, women should not be paid the same as men, when they don't do the same job and are not as productive as men.
Just as well, women should be paid more than men, when they do more on the job and are more productive than men.
Everyone should be paid fairly based on the job and their productivity. Not everyone should be paid fairly just because of their gender, man or woman.
72
@ Lippity Ohmer. If you and I were teachers of English in the same place, then based on our "productivity," I'd have to be paid more than you.
1
Lippity Ohmer, the most productive thing anyone has ever done is produce another human life, love it, raise it, and support its well-being. When we start paying women (and men) for doing that, fair pay won't be an issue.
1
The issue is that on average and in millions of specific cases women get paid LESS "just because of their gender." Pay attention next time.
2
Hillary talks about "equal pay for equal work," but the well-camouflaged reality is that she's pushing for "equal pay for COMPARABLE work" - with government bureaucrats empowered to define and decide what jobs are "comparable." No, thanks. Questions: why can't / won't she be honest about that? Is that too much to ask or expect? Sadly, the answers are self-evident.
19
Yars: you might have a point except for the fact that the other team has no problem paying all workers way less than the value they produce and allowing the corporate heads to keep more of that value than they are worth. The GOP can't say that out loud but you can't be so ill informed that you don't know it. So, what is your solution? Complaining seems all that people who feel stuck seem able to do. Come up with a solution, another way to deal with the difficulty and then put it out on the net. That seems to be the way that all of our youthful voters seem to go.
1
She can try all she she wants but it's just not how the world works and not even the massive HRC ego can change it.
2
So both sexes can be paid peanuts? Better still, we'll all just stay home, because there's no politician dealing with the robot in the room.
9
A vast majority of women (and a vast majority of men) believe that women should have the principal child care responsibilities. And most women consider child rearing to be fulfilling. In homes where women are the principal earners, it is not unusual for men to stay at home with the kids. There are not a lot of such homes, but these stay-at-home dads generally enjoy child rearing as much as women. I would like to see child-rearing responsibilities divided equally between both parents. I suspect that that would resolve the equal pay dilemma and would be better for the kids. Moreover, both members of a family that shares child-rearing often stay at their careers without interruption.
3
In my working class neighborhood, there are a few stay-at-home dads. It's not a lot, but it is a noticeable minority. This was especially true during the recession; a lot of the stay-at-home dad were unemployed. Their wives had good jobs, and the arrangement made economic sense.
From what I saw, they were very good primary parents, and did a good job with the other homemaking duties -- shopping, cooking, cleaning. I think it is a good thing.
The problem is....it seems these guys only did this because they could not get good paying jobs. And because their wives tended to work in "recession-proof" good paying jobs, like nursing.
Also, I noticed that for most -- the arrangement that was working so well, ENDED as soon as the husband found a good job again. They were not content to stay home. It would have interesting to have interviewed these dads and seen what they really felt inside.
I know other young families around me (and remember, this is a pretty working class inner-ring suburb) where the parents manage to work different shifts, so someone is always at home with the kids. Mom works night shift, Dad works days. Or the opposite. The general thing they express is that they don't like and can't afford day care.
NOTE: this article ignores the fact that in 25% of homes, the wife is now the higher income earner or primary breadwinner. This is not 1965.
From what I saw, they were very good primary parents, and did a good job with the other homemaking duties -- shopping, cooking, cleaning. I think it is a good thing.
The problem is....it seems these guys only did this because they could not get good paying jobs. And because their wives tended to work in "recession-proof" good paying jobs, like nursing.
Also, I noticed that for most -- the arrangement that was working so well, ENDED as soon as the husband found a good job again. They were not content to stay home. It would have interesting to have interviewed these dads and seen what they really felt inside.
I know other young families around me (and remember, this is a pretty working class inner-ring suburb) where the parents manage to work different shifts, so someone is always at home with the kids. Mom works night shift, Dad works days. Or the opposite. The general thing they express is that they don't like and can't afford day care.
NOTE: this article ignores the fact that in 25% of homes, the wife is now the higher income earner or primary breadwinner. This is not 1965.
The quickest way to close the wage gap would be to stop expecting men to be providers for women. Once fathers can spend as much time with their children as mothers, and once we get rid of unjust divorce settlements, that gap will disappear very quickly.
16
But a significant number of women want men to provide for them. Just saying....
The root of the pay gap is profound sexism within our society. If a woman does the job, it is just considered less valuable than when a man does the same job. Can't really believe it is any more complex than that....
43
I just returned to the workplace after a long hiatus as a stay at home mother. Like a new car at a dealership, my value dropped in half the minute I left the lot.
I can't return to the type of position I had, unsurprisingly, because the work world moves on. You have to be able to keep up the skills and knowledge; you have to continue to participate.
But where I do find the subtle denigration is in the attitude toward women with children. Stay at home mothers get the most: we are assumed to have lost our intelligence and competence. People who would have no problem hiring a new hire college grad, don't see that women re-entering the workplace are in a similar position. Our previous work records, like a college transcript, reveal potential, and the ability to handle work. Brains don't atrophy simply because one has spent time with infants and school children. Personally, I think dealing with toddlers makes us especially able to deal with the average American exec.
When the wage gap is driven by the movement of women in and out of the workplace, it reflects a grim reality. We don't consider the task of raising children to have much social or economic value.
I got lucky, and found a job with an employer who actively looks for people like me, who look for brains and character and view the experience on the resume as a more valuable guide than the gap. No automated reader will do that, leaving most in my position with minimum wage opportunity.
I can't return to the type of position I had, unsurprisingly, because the work world moves on. You have to be able to keep up the skills and knowledge; you have to continue to participate.
But where I do find the subtle denigration is in the attitude toward women with children. Stay at home mothers get the most: we are assumed to have lost our intelligence and competence. People who would have no problem hiring a new hire college grad, don't see that women re-entering the workplace are in a similar position. Our previous work records, like a college transcript, reveal potential, and the ability to handle work. Brains don't atrophy simply because one has spent time with infants and school children. Personally, I think dealing with toddlers makes us especially able to deal with the average American exec.
When the wage gap is driven by the movement of women in and out of the workplace, it reflects a grim reality. We don't consider the task of raising children to have much social or economic value.
I got lucky, and found a job with an employer who actively looks for people like me, who look for brains and character and view the experience on the resume as a more valuable guide than the gap. No automated reader will do that, leaving most in my position with minimum wage opportunity.
186
I agree with you about the attitude and the subtle denigration of women with children, as if having them automatically decreases your intelligence and ambition. I encountered this in graduate school while on a dissertation research fellowship to England; I arrived at Cambridge University and was treated like all the other grad students until it was known that I was pregnant (I was less than three months along when I arrived); after that I became invisible to the fellows at the college. It was simply assumed that I would not have an academic career.
2
It's tragic that many women don't think that children have a "social or economic value". As the Western world's population decreases, because of materialism, egocentrism, and blind ambition, the Muslim world sees the opening to complete their caliphate. Ask the Germans, the French, and the Spanish. Childbearing should be valued and supported lest our culture dissolve into the history books.
If you lived in any of the other G7 countries, returning to your old job would be guaranteed, along with paid leave in the first place, for both parents.
Maybe she and others should start by not presenting the issue deceptively as one of unequal pay for women and men in the same exact job working the same hours, but rather as one having more to do with women's voluntary cultural and life choices and how our economy responds to that.
28
"Voluntary choices"? Hmmm...
Except that she hasn't paid women the same as men throughout her career. Another do as I say not as I do. Another promise from another Clinton.
8
2observe2b: Evidence, please?
1
I find it amusing that the first line of this column begins with "Hillary Clinton can't make the kind of sweeping promises that voters want to hear".
How many times and how often have we excoriated politicians for making promises they can't keep? Indeed, isn't that almost always our cynical take on politicians; that they will do and say anything to get elected?
This somewhat accusatory statement about Hillary, it seems to me, ought to be met with a standing ovation. At last, a politician who doesn't promise us the world, and then fails to deliver! She actually has a grasp on detailed policy, which is of course, what we really need.
This kind of judgement about Sec. Clinton runs right beside the narrative that she is not inspiring enough, doesn't have a well-toned speech delivery, that we "don't know her".
We contradict ourselves and show ourselves to be very fickle when we say we want one thing and then demand the other.
Can she deliver on equal pay for women? I absolutely know that she will try, and she will examine every imaginable tool we have that can make that happen. And I know, because she has shown us time and time again, that she has the will.
How many times and how often have we excoriated politicians for making promises they can't keep? Indeed, isn't that almost always our cynical take on politicians; that they will do and say anything to get elected?
This somewhat accusatory statement about Hillary, it seems to me, ought to be met with a standing ovation. At last, a politician who doesn't promise us the world, and then fails to deliver! She actually has a grasp on detailed policy, which is of course, what we really need.
This kind of judgement about Sec. Clinton runs right beside the narrative that she is not inspiring enough, doesn't have a well-toned speech delivery, that we "don't know her".
We contradict ourselves and show ourselves to be very fickle when we say we want one thing and then demand the other.
Can she deliver on equal pay for women? I absolutely know that she will try, and she will examine every imaginable tool we have that can make that happen. And I know, because she has shown us time and time again, that she has the will.
27
Yep. That's the burning issue of the day. Typically narrow, minuscule and therefore obviously of the usual feather heft of what passes for that party's "thinking". Terrorists among us? Ongoing, never-ending conflict to serve their MI-Complex masters? Hollowing out the most productive segment of this fractured society? Crickets. She and her ilk are poison.
11
Equal pay -- and equal respect for my brawn and brains -- has always been the burning issue of my day, throughout my life.
Terrorists, not so much. "MI-Complex masters?" What's that? Crickets? I'm not all that worried about insects.
My pay check, and my sense of worth in this world, is not "narrow, minuscule" to me.
And Hillary Clinton know that!
Terrorists, not so much. "MI-Complex masters?" What's that? Crickets? I'm not all that worried about insects.
My pay check, and my sense of worth in this world, is not "narrow, minuscule" to me.
And Hillary Clinton know that!
1
Radical, big, sweeping? That in 2015 the USA should have gender pay equity?
Should be a norm.
But what about the pay levels for all--for both men and women workers being below what they should be in the world’s richest nation? Part of the cause is trade deals destroying jobs, and also weakened unions. The CEO/worker pay ratio has widened hugely, while the middle class is declining, as we all know.
What effects women especially is that we’re behind other nations in worker protections, union participation and guarantees for worker sick leave, vacation and family leave. And in h/c for all at accessible cost. All this is labeled too radical and sweeping.
To close the wage gap, and to at last elect a woman pres are great milestones. But they can’t substitute for getting the big money out of politics, and restoring balance to the economic system.
Economists say in other modern countries women have greater workforce participation than in US.
Jeffrey Sachs was just explaining this on Bob Herbert’s TV show. This is due to their subsidized child care, good family leave policies that preserve their jobs and pay scale. See Nordic nations and others for positive role models.
Also they have better public transport, so women don’t need to depend on costly car ownership to commute to work, and even to look for work.
But these would all be big, complex and yes, radical achievements for any US president, whoever they are, given the state of our political culture.
Should be a norm.
But what about the pay levels for all--for both men and women workers being below what they should be in the world’s richest nation? Part of the cause is trade deals destroying jobs, and also weakened unions. The CEO/worker pay ratio has widened hugely, while the middle class is declining, as we all know.
What effects women especially is that we’re behind other nations in worker protections, union participation and guarantees for worker sick leave, vacation and family leave. And in h/c for all at accessible cost. All this is labeled too radical and sweeping.
To close the wage gap, and to at last elect a woman pres are great milestones. But they can’t substitute for getting the big money out of politics, and restoring balance to the economic system.
Economists say in other modern countries women have greater workforce participation than in US.
Jeffrey Sachs was just explaining this on Bob Herbert’s TV show. This is due to their subsidized child care, good family leave policies that preserve their jobs and pay scale. See Nordic nations and others for positive role models.
Also they have better public transport, so women don’t need to depend on costly car ownership to commute to work, and even to look for work.
But these would all be big, complex and yes, radical achievements for any US president, whoever they are, given the state of our political culture.
24
Data from the WorldBank disagrees with you, Meredith.
Labor participation rate for women in the US: 44%
Denmark: 46%
Finland: 47%
The Netherlands: 38%
Norway: 44% (THE SAME!)
Sweden: 47%
Switzerland: 42%
But let's look at the winners!
Burundi: 52%
Cambodia: 51%
Malawi: 50%
Mozambique: 55%
I guess we can set our sites on those poor third world nations! because the women work more!
Actually what the FACTS prove is the opposite of what you say, Meredith.
Labor participation rate for women in the US: 44%
Denmark: 46%
Finland: 47%
The Netherlands: 38%
Norway: 44% (THE SAME!)
Sweden: 47%
Switzerland: 42%
But let's look at the winners!
Burundi: 52%
Cambodia: 51%
Malawi: 50%
Mozambique: 55%
I guess we can set our sites on those poor third world nations! because the women work more!
Actually what the FACTS prove is the opposite of what you say, Meredith.
1
Best "comment" in the entire thread. In the 39 years since I graduated from college, the fact that there is still an inequity in gender pay IS ridiculous. But what has become much more disheartening (to me) is knowing that I have been deprived of what my own husband has always had- being VERY "satisfied" with what one does for work. To be able to choose a job and use "personal enjoyment" as the very first criteria in his decision is what he has ALWAYS had. Me? Never. And all because I took one year off after the birth of each of our 3 children. This is not unique to my marriage but it absolutely falls under "gender inequality."
2
One job, one wage, that's fair !
11
No. You get what you earn, not what you think is 'fair'.
2
And who among us in a country of 318.9 million (2014) gets that one job?
And what do we do with the other 318.899999999 million of us?
People like Clinton have never created a single job in their lifetime - but they certainly seem to be experts on how to do it in 'theory'
And what do we do with the other 318.899999999 million of us?
People like Clinton have never created a single job in their lifetime - but they certainly seem to be experts on how to do it in 'theory'
1
For one kind of job, you earn one defined wage, independent of your skin's color, sex, weight, length of hair, size of shoes, etc.
That's what I find fair.
That's what I find fair.
So equal pay for women and paid family leave and affordable child care are government intrusion into the family!!!!! Just when I thought that the GOP could not fall any further in my esteem, they manage to do so. Vote for Hillary and other democrats so that social programs that ensure gender equality get some traction.
51
No one should argue against equal pay for the same job with the same experience level. I suspect most companies do in fact practice this. A 10 year mid level manager at Widgets Inc likely is paid $x, man or woman. A 20 year mid level manager would reasonably make more than a 3 year employee, man or woman. But we should all argue against government dictating wage scales especially to private companies. And how to monitor this. Create yet another another government agency? Is there any aspect of our lives the left doesn't want to control?
6
Yes Randy, the left doesn't want to control our personal private lives, our reproductive lives, our family planning lives or who we are allowed to love on equal footing with everyone else. That would be the republicans. And family leave, sick days and affordable child care are real economic issues for many families, especially those who are single parent families. No agency need be created for this.
Democratic presidential candidates have been making the same equal pay for equal work campaign promise for over 30 years and nothing every comes of it. If Hillary Clinton becomes the 45th president I'm sure she will be making less money than her husband did when he was president two decades ago.
Equal pay for equal work.
But that is too complex and fair to really grasp.
But that is too complex and fair to really grasp.
16
"Equal pay for equal work."
A while back that was the mantra on some of the MSNBC prime time opinion shows such as "All In" with Chris Hayes. Yet the network will not answer the question about the pay of Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell. They all do the exact same job (host of a 1-hour opinion show), but I guarantee they do not earn the same amount of money. In my world we call that hypocrisy.
A while back that was the mantra on some of the MSNBC prime time opinion shows such as "All In" with Chris Hayes. Yet the network will not answer the question about the pay of Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell. They all do the exact same job (host of a 1-hour opinion show), but I guarantee they do not earn the same amount of money. In my world we call that hypocrisy.
"The problem stems from ..". there is no problem. The "equal pay for equal work" mantra is nonsense. it should be replaced by "equal pay for equal performance". But it doesn't matter since automation is replacing humans for tasks that require no human input anyway.
8
Thank you for writing this - the underlying and often overt sexism running through this entire campaign and the treatment of Ms. Clinton as a candidate has been infuriating. On the one hand, men want to deny sexism exists period - and then go on the attack that to call something sexist or highlight the importance of Ms. Clinton as the first female candidate is somehow sexist. It is absurd, wrong and dangerous for people to argue that we live in a post gender society. Look at any major organization in this country - from corporate america to congress - nearly all the decision makers, money people, and people in power are men. Pretty strange since universities and graduate schools are mostly half women these days. The rules are set by men and the deck is stacked against women. We are weeded out the minute we start having children or if we continue to work our male colleagues earn more because "they have a family to support..." For anyone who does not believe that this is a cultural and societal bias - look at the Nordic policies where government policies from paid leave to subsidized childcare to quotas for Boards of Directors have created countries where the economic and power structure is nearly equal. Thank you Ms. Clinton for having the audacity to think big and take on the single biggest issue facing half our country.
193
Yes, Dana, I agree. My heart nearly literally stopped last night at the end of the convention when the video of the 44 male Presidents of the United States were shown then the "glass ceiling" shattered and Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared. What an amazing picture of how important and historic this election is.
Bill Clinton's description of her and that video are two important reasons I will vote for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be OUR next President of the UNITED States!
Bill Clinton's description of her and that video are two important reasons I will vote for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be OUR next President of the UNITED States!
3
Great comment! One thing I would add: Women are not a minority. Women are not a special interest group. Women are half of the human species. Let that sink in! Half of the entire human species...
7
Sorry to report that the Norway you describe does not exist. Nor are women paid equally as men doing the same job. If it were true would we not all move there?
1
When Hillary declares to fight for the goal of equal pay--something that should have been achieved years ago--no one labels her idea a "Happy Dream," or "Idealistic," or calls her a "Unicorn." No one says only incremental change will achieve the goal. No--just serious discussion about how the policy is right for America. And any Democratic candidate who said we will "never, ever" have equal pay--what Hillary said about single payer-- would be pushed sside.
Aspirational goals are essential for setting the standard. Equal pay is one among many. It is disturbing how the pro-Hillary pundits and supporters derided Bernie and his supporters for having aspirational goals akin to equal pay just because Hillary did not support them.
Identity politics is ruining this Nation. Here's hoping that if Hillary is elected, she can achieve equal pay for women. It's time to once and all understand "incremental change," "pragmaticism," and "realism" are just code words for maintaining the status quo.
Aspirational goals are essential for setting the standard. Equal pay is one among many. It is disturbing how the pro-Hillary pundits and supporters derided Bernie and his supporters for having aspirational goals akin to equal pay just because Hillary did not support them.
Identity politics is ruining this Nation. Here's hoping that if Hillary is elected, she can achieve equal pay for women. It's time to once and all understand "incremental change," "pragmaticism," and "realism" are just code words for maintaining the status quo.
9
Hillary Clinton's new promise is the Democratic platform. I hope she will work to promote all of the promises within this platform, and not turn her back on any parts of it.
7
If Democrats could prove a real “wage gap”, then this author’s claims would be more convincing. The actual wage-gap, to the extent that one exists, has narrowed already to the vanishing point – serious economists have been making this point for a long time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804..... Those who flog the bloody shirt of “wage-gap” for political reasons don’t control for relevant factors between men and women – such as occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace. The claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make represents merely the average difference between what “full time” men and women earn – when “men” include management consultants and “women” include teachers. The measure has no real meaning.
Recent studies have exploded this myth of a “wage-gap” conclusively, demonstrating that the (adjusted) wage-gap is actually between 4.8 cents and 7 cents per hour.
Mrs. Clinton’s “radical promise” can be compelling to voters only to the extent that Republicans (and mainstream economists of BOTH parties) fail to point out the actual facts.
Recent studies have exploded this myth of a “wage-gap” conclusively, demonstrating that the (adjusted) wage-gap is actually between 4.8 cents and 7 cents per hour.
Mrs. Clinton’s “radical promise” can be compelling to voters only to the extent that Republicans (and mainstream economists of BOTH parties) fail to point out the actual facts.
43
So male consultants or paid the same as female consultants?
2
To paraphrase "Elf" the democrat party sits on a throne of lies -- from the wage gap to cops are targeting and killing Blacks to climate change is settled science to -- I could go on.
2
Most of the wage gap was dealt with YEARS ago; if you adjust for profession or age of the worker, you find few differences. A female CPA makes pretty darn much what a male CPA makes.
The problem that persists is that after 50 years of feminism....women still don't go into many of the high paying fields. They are jobs that simply do not seem to appeal to women. My son is a nuclear technician at a power plant. The plant is in a very remote part of the US -- far from any sort of amenities. It did not require college, but he had extensive nuclear training in the Navy. That's where the industry gets most of its workers, ex military. I asked him: how many women work at your plant? He said the only females were secretaries or worked in the lunchroom. Not ONE nuclear tech was female!
It is not a hard physical job, it involves sitting around monitoring control systems. So, why don't women apply for these jobs? The pay is outstanding -- about $75K to start and at mid career, it's over $120K -- the benefits are superb, and include a full defined benefit pension and top health insurance.
So tell me: why don't women go into this field, in the same numbers as men?
Before going into the Navy in 2001, my son -- who was not very academic -- got a certificate in auto repair. He had a great job at a auto dealership, made $60K a year by age 21. The program was open to women, even had scholarships. Not one woman applied. The dealership had zero female auto mechanics.
The problem that persists is that after 50 years of feminism....women still don't go into many of the high paying fields. They are jobs that simply do not seem to appeal to women. My son is a nuclear technician at a power plant. The plant is in a very remote part of the US -- far from any sort of amenities. It did not require college, but he had extensive nuclear training in the Navy. That's where the industry gets most of its workers, ex military. I asked him: how many women work at your plant? He said the only females were secretaries or worked in the lunchroom. Not ONE nuclear tech was female!
It is not a hard physical job, it involves sitting around monitoring control systems. So, why don't women apply for these jobs? The pay is outstanding -- about $75K to start and at mid career, it's over $120K -- the benefits are superb, and include a full defined benefit pension and top health insurance.
So tell me: why don't women go into this field, in the same numbers as men?
Before going into the Navy in 2001, my son -- who was not very academic -- got a certificate in auto repair. He had a great job at a auto dealership, made $60K a year by age 21. The program was open to women, even had scholarships. Not one woman applied. The dealership had zero female auto mechanics.
2
All for this. Look to the Nordic countries for inspiration.
66
I teach at a university in Norway, where I have lived for 15 years. There is something here called the "Nordic Gender Equality Paradox", which basically refers to the fact that large discrepancies in pay and status between men and women remain despite the facts that women, for all intents and purposes, have every form of legal equality imaginable. In Norway, with which I am most familiar, occupations such as kindergarten and elementary school teacher are overwhelmingly female, efforts to recruit young men notwithstanding, while the financial, IT, and oil sectors are overwhelmingly male. There has even been talk that conditions for women are so good ("koselig" or "cozy" in Norwegian) that they hold women back by providing them with negative incentives to get ahead. The Nordic countries, and Norway in particular, have some great things about them. But after six months living here many American liberals find themselves having disturbingly libertarian thoughts about what was supposed to be, but alas is not, the social paradise they had imagined.
9
These nations are home to millions of Muslims.
To combat Islamophobia, Hillary must pledge to duplicate this immigration initiative here.
Hillary can easily outdo Angela Merkel to fight the hate!
To combat Islamophobia, Hillary must pledge to duplicate this immigration initiative here.
Hillary can easily outdo Angela Merkel to fight the hate!
Dear Mr. Benson,
Just what "Nordic" country has;
a. Significant racial minorities
b. An amendment to their Constitution that is so vague that people either can have as many guns as they want or not, who knows?
c. Inner cities that have been abandoned by the "elite" of their countries for the purposes of increasing their 'bottom line".
Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Which one?
Just what "Nordic" country has;
a. Significant racial minorities
b. An amendment to their Constitution that is so vague that people either can have as many guns as they want or not, who knows?
c. Inner cities that have been abandoned by the "elite" of their countries for the purposes of increasing their 'bottom line".
Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Which one?
4