the contorted logic of the far right

[ProblemAgain]

so in a nutshell, it is your patriotic duty as an american to underpay women...geee, that makes you feel really, really good about yourself and ever such a flagwaver when you fuck them over, right?

What If Women Had to be Paid the Same as Men?

Michael S. Rozeff
Lew Rockwell Blog
January 31, 2014

Women are paid less than men due to many economic factors that have nothing to do with discrimination on the basis of sex. Whatever these factors are, it comes down to the fact that employers who are bidding for women’s labor don’t have to bid as high as they do to get men to work for them.

Image: U.S. Dollars (Wikimedia Commons).

Why then don’t they all buy up more women’s labor and in the process drive the pay to equality? It’s because of those “factors” that cost them more in other ways when they hire women. Under current circumstances (and they have lasted a long time), it’s only with a pay differential that both men and women get hired. As these factors change, the pay differential changes.

If women had to be paid the same as men by the force of law (guns, fines and prisons), then employers would not hire as many women. This might violate some other anti-discrimination law that’s based on quotas and numbers. In that case, if they were forced to pay equally, it would act as a tax on their production. They’d lay off people, invest less, and the product prices would probably rise. Growth would slow. The domestic firms forced to pay more than the market price for female labor would become uncompetitive compared to foreign companies without such laws. Employers, for example, would move production to Indian, Malaysian, Mexican and Chinese markets and hire female labor in those markets.

A train of political demands and consequences would also likely be set in motion.

The point of this blog is about Obama’s statement that women deserve equal pay for equal work. He’s willing to force the issue, if he can. If he succeeds, he’ll hurt women, men, employers, employees, investors and consumers, or just about everyone.

Do women deserve, i.e., have a right to a particular pay level? Women have a right to be free, everyone will agree. Employers have a right to be free too, but everyone (Obama) will not agree on that statement. He thinks they have no right to make a wage bid of their choosing. He thinks they have no right to associate with those whom they please or not. He thinks “society” via the government takes precedence. In his mind, these organizations, which are really organized groups of people, somehow have a right that employers or people do not have. I see no way that he or anyone else can justify this theory without indulging in some kind of arbitrary discrimination.

It is erroneous to think of an agreement reached over pay in terms of rights, which the word “deserve” means. It is erroneous to label some agreements as deserved and others as not. Justice does not extend to such matters. The idea of a just price is an old medieval and religious idea that doesn’t apply to how prices are determined.

Women do not deserve or have a right to equal pay for equal work because that entails short-circuiting the freedom to make bids (exchanges) and the freedom of association, in other words, actively impairing proper activities of others that do not invade anyone’s person or property or harm them in any criminal way or through a tort. On the other hand, we can say that women (and men) deserve to be free, because in this instance if they get what they deserve, their freedom, that does not invade anyone else’s person or property and does not harm them in any criminal or tortuous way.

This article was posted: Friday, January 31, 2014 at 5:46 am

[exedir]

The nut of this is whether equal pay for equal work is a slogan or a formula.  As applied as an economics event pay and other forms of compensation is an derived index of value, subject to geography, family status, gender, age, culture  and the competitive environment each factor can be a plus or a minus as to the outcome.

Taken as a slogan and street poetry, economics does not apply, what applies is an + one thing for the other.  And in most cases the other side of the equation $ = is the job, is where the trouble begins.  Not all jobs are the same and not all people doing those jobs are the same...so does the equation work, or is it just an idea and slogan.  Clearly there are viewpoints are this matter, and differing viewpoints, that in which fact play to a role, but so do opinions, because much of performance can, and will be subjective.  

Most American jobs were to make things, now to doing things,as to what those things and what those things are worth, differ...and differ greatly, from person to person, and job to job.  

One of the easier things, of course, is just rise the minimum wage, and rise all boats.  However, the economic reality is that the payment has to come from somewhere and rising prices on the items sold is where it will settle.  It idea that a company and business will finance a overall wage increase without somehow changing the mix of labor is also unrealistic.  The most likely change due to an increase in the minimum wage, or any terms of employment, is to  outsource if possibly, if there is a cost advantage, reduced other overhead such as provided benefits, and to invest in automation.  And none of the actions is gender specific, they are business specific.

We have traditionally accepted the idea that there is a labor separation by gender, much of due culture and societal expectations but also was a way to maintain tradition gender roles as seen as being advantageous to society and families.  And yes, we all know that much of this change in this country during the 50's when women joined the workforce to move families into the lower and middle class where one income provider was not enough, and there were jobs.

We now in a process of reconciling what we have become is not a swarm of undifferentiated gender or otherwise limited beings and have become differentiated persons with individual talents each and multiple capacities, all worth something, just what that is worth...well, that's the problem...

[ProblemAgain]

cutting all the bullshit aside....

"Taken as a slogan and street poetry, economics does not apply, what applies is an + one thing for the other.  And in most cases the other side of the equation $ = is the job, is where the trouble begins.  Not all jobs are the same and not all people doing those jobs are the same...so does the equation work, or is it just an idea and slogan." 

unless you've been living under a rock, equal pay for equal work means people doing the same job with the same seniority at a company should be paid the same wage or salary, production value being equal. thus equal pay...equal work..all the rest of that endless manuscript was obfuscation.

[Ioruach]

Seems to work great as a slogan, doesn’t it. For all  those protesters and marchers who just love to shout slogans, they can easily make a beat out of it.  Like this:

     e--quil--pay
     e--quil--work

     e--quil--pay
     e--quil--work

     (dum--dum--dum)
     (dum--dum--dum)

I would go out and try it, but aw, shit, I hate shouting slogans. Seems a poor substitute for rational thought.