Discussion of women's rights is back on the front pages these days. But it has been a curious discussion. Instead of talking about advancing new rights, as women are more likely than ever to be their families' breadwinners, in management positions in the workforce and hold advanced academic degrees, we find ourselves re-litigating decades-old policy debates, which secured basic rights for women's autonomy -- like access to contraception, equality in education funding and getting equal pay for equal work.
I find it surprising that, in 2012, presidential candidates and pundits are debating issues so central -- and so seemingly settled -- to women's equality. Take the issue of pay equity. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which secured workplace protections for compensation and other forms of discrimination, were passed almost 50 years ago. Yet, in looking at the ACLU's Liberty Watch Women's Rights Scorecard, it's clear not all of the presidential candidates agree on the need to continue these protections, let alone enact new legal tools to close the ongoing gender wage gap. And it is not just national figures; indeed, the governor of Wisconsin just signed a law repealing that state's equal pay law.
Let there be no doubt that updates to improve the effectiveness of our fair pay laws are needed. Women, on average, continue to earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men -- just 17 cents more than when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. For women of color, the progress has been even slower.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would enable President Kennedy's vision to be fully realized. Among other things, it would amend the Equal Pay Act to require employers to demonstrate that disparities in pay between men and women working the same job result from factors other than sex. It would also prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about their employers' wage practices or disclose their own pay to colleagues and strengthen penalties for equal pay violations.
Women fought for and won the right to receive equal pay for equal work. And because more needs to be done to achieve it, it's hard to believe that such basic rights are even being debated. Not all women view these issues the same way. Indeed, part of the freedom of equality is that we are not, and should not be, viewed as a monolith. But money is a great equalizer in the fight for equal rights -- should anyone who has done the work to earn a dollar be told they are only worth a fraction of that? Isn't that a lesson we all learned 50 years ago?
It's a lesson we hope we will reverberate throughout the presidential campaign and every federal and state election this fall.
One is better than the other.
Should the employer be able to pay the better employee more money...yes or no?
Maybe businesses simply have an allocation for how much they'd like to spend on an employee? Health insurance for Women on average costs a lot more than for Men. That could be a reason why businesses cut into their income.
I mean, it honestly doesn't make sense to me from a fiscal standpoint why anyone would hire a Man for a job a Woman can do if indeed the Woman is cheaper.
Can someone please explain that to me? I mean businesses outsource jobs overseas for cheap labor ... Why the hell would they bother hiring Men if Women can do the same job for less.
It just doesn't make sense, and that's why I don't believe this nonsense. I think the data has ignored some very vital factors such as experience, age, expertise etc.
Someone explain to me why Men are still hired if businesses indeed pay Women less.
Companies don't charge its employess different premiums based on their gender. Nor are employers charged more by the insurance company for female employees.
Add in to that the fact that on average women seek treatment much earlier than men and women are much more apt to be using prevetive care services to avoid getting ill in the first place. Men may go less often, but it usually requires something big (and expesive) to get them to be seen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/health/policy/women-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html
How about you do some digging for yourself instead of regurgitating everything you're told?
Anyway, seeking care out earlier doesn't change the fact that certain Women specific procedures cost more money.
This is all besides the point though. My original question remains unanswered:
If indeed Women are cheaper to hire than Men ... Why are there still Men in the workforce? Why don't businesses capitalize on this cheaper form of labor just as they did when they outsourced jobs to India and China?
I have one theory ... All things being equal, Women are not cheaper to hire than Men. In other words, this wage gap thing has been skewed in such a way to make it seem that way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/health/policy/women-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/october/23/gender-discrimination-health-insurance.aspx
There you go. How about doing a little research on your own instead of regurgitating everything you read online?
Women going for checkups more frequently doesn't change the fact that their procedures generally cost insurance companies more to accommodate.
And this is all besides the point ... My original question has not been answered:
If indeed businesses pay Women less to do the same job as Men ... Why do businesses hire Men in the first place when they can get the same for less in a Women? You think they just enjoy throwing money away? I mean, these are the same businesses that ship jobs overseas to save a buck or two.
I have a theory ... Women are not paid less than Men doing the same work.
With all that being said, all that goes to show is that some jobs demand more than others. If a Man entered that industry with all those Women today, he won't be paid more simply because he's a man.
My point still stands.
When the number of people available for a given job increase, the wage decreases.
What you speak of it the obvious and predictable result that anyone who understands basic economic principles would anticipate...but, instead of understanding that...you scream sexism.
Why are there still Men in the workforce? Why don't businesses just hire Women if they are indeed cheaper? After all, it will result in a lower cost which yields a larger profit. No?
I mean, business is no respecter of gender, race, religion or any of the demographics that usually divide us. Businesses are in it to win, simple.
In case it's not obvious what I'm getting at, I'm saying this Women are paid less mantra is skewed.
You can't compare all Women in the workforce and all Men in the workforce and come to a conclusion without making room for education level, years of experience, hours worked, job title etc.
I mean, my female peers make about the same as I do, so maybe my personal experiences are just making it hard for me to believe this nonsense.
No one is limiting access to contrception. Contraception is legal and plentiful to any woman who wants it. If she is referring to the Catholic church, a religious institution has the right to not provide a service that is contrary to its beliefs. Besides a miniscule number of women as compared to the total would be affected and no one is forcing a woman to work for such an organization.
Equality in education funding, what? More women are going to college and receiving college degrees than men. There are numerous laws/regs (eg, Title IX) that mandate the same funding for women as for men.
Finally the fallacy that women make less than men. Women and men are not the same and therefore it is meaningless to compare all women to all men. if you compare single women to single men with no kids you will find that given equal levels of education a woman makes the same or a little more than men. The differences arise when women have children and CHOOSE to leave the workforce for a period of time or choose jobs based on factors other than advancement and pay (eg, day care, felxible hours, regular hours, no travel, etc). Additionally, women with children work less hours on average than men and thus put in less time.
My personal argument that no one seems to answer is "Why do businesses employ men if they can get the same thing from women for much less?"
People just want to believe what they're told without doing any research or thinking for themselves. They just want to believe that someone is responsible for their woes.
If women want the same "perks" as men have, they should have the same responsibilities as men have.
Do men appreciate the idea of being raked over the coals with regard to child support because they can't physically be pregnant or give birth?
Golf humor.
No law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... Nor will a "paycheck fairness" law work.
One more law is always needed.
Only one law would close the gap: a law prohibiting men from supporting or spending money on women. Think about it.
See "Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/
Why are women divided on this issue? How could ANY woman EVER vote for ANY Republican?
But many do.
Until you solve that, you can hope and wish all you want, but your problem won't be solved.
If women voted in block, or close to it, you could control the country outright.
The power is in your hands.
Use it.
Use it wisely, but USE IT.