On-Topic GOP Claims To Be The Equal Pay For Women Party

[chrisrobin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...equa_n_5753190.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Just days after an internal report found that the Republican Party is alienating female voters by opposing equal pay laws, the party attempted to reverse that trend in a tweet.

"This LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice," the Republican National Committee tweeted. "All Republicans support equal pay."

Right! And all chickens support Col. Sanders (KFC).

 

[Benvolio]

Republicans support equal pay. We do not support laws mandating equal pay.

 

[mightbe]

Republicans support equal pay. We do not support laws mandating equal pay.

Please explain how that isn't a contradiction for all practical purposes? Are you simply *hoping* that businesses adhere to that? Don't you realize that they are masters on their own territory and don't respond to the "wishes" of the people; I.e., if they're not legally bound to follow a policy they'll do whatever they want?

In theory, I agree, but in practice equal pay on good-faith alone does not pan out.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Republicans support equal pay. We do not support laws mandating equal pay.

You mean just like how you are for gay equality, just not laws mandating gay equality?

 

[Benvolio]

Whether women are paid less depends on who gets to be the dictator. That is, it requires aomeone to say, a receptionist deserves to make as much as a steel worker; a waitress as much as an over the road trucker. These are exaggerated, but they illustrate the pioint that people claiming wide disparities are making a judgment about the equivalency of the jobs. In the real world, employers pay wages largely determined by the market place, i.e. the availability of people willing to do the work at the wages offered. Some jobs are by nature mens jobs. Sure some women could become steel worker, plumbers, trash haulers, over the road truckers etc. But few. women eant to do such jobs. The result is a smaller supply of workers for some jobs and.employers must compete for them. Since women usually exclude themselves from heavy weight jobs, the is a higher supply of labor for jobs that women want and wages are lower.
Souch practicality is foreign to liberals who want everyone to be equal. "From everyone according to ability, to eveyone according to need."

 

[xbuzzerx]

Whether women are paid less depends on who gets to be the dictator. That is, it requires aomeone to say, a receptionist deserves to make as much as a steel worker; a waitress as much as an over the road trucker. These are exaggerated, but they illustrate the pioint that people claiming wide disparities are making a judgment about the equivalency of the jobs. In the real world, employers pay wages largely determined by the market place, i.e. the availability of people willing to do the work at the wages offered. Some jobs are by nature mens jobs. Sure some women could become steel worker, plumbers, trash haulers, over the road truckers etc. But few. women eant to do such jobs. The result is a smaller supply of workers for some jobs and.employers must compete for them. Since women usually exclude themselves from heavy weight jobs, the is a higher supply of labor for jobs that women want and wages are lower.
Souch practicality is foreign to liberals who want everyone to be equal. "From everyone according to ability, to eveyone according to need."

Total b.s. The pay differential can be observed within a given industry and even within the same job titles or positions. We're not talking about how professional laundresses make less money than aerospace engineers.

 

[Benvolio]

Total b.s. The pay differential can be observed within a given industry and even within the same job titles or positions. We're not talking about how professional laundresses make less money than aerospace engineers.

The only meaningful differences would be those by employees of the same employer for identical jobs.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The only meaningful differences would be those by employees of the same employer for identical jobs.

So two employees doing precisely the same work, but giving different job titles, let's say, Executive and Execuvette, there is no gender inequality that one is being paid 33% more than the other and just happens to have a penis.

Seriously, do you not know why your party is regarded as regressives just clinging onto any excuse to not be dragged into the 21st century?

 

[Benvolio]

So two employees doing precisely the same work, but giving different job titles, let's say, Executive and Execuvette, there is no gender inequality that one is being paid 33% more than the other and just happens to have a penis.

Seriously, do you not know why your party is regarded as regressives just clinging onto any excuse to not be dragged into the 21st century?

No, I said identical jobs, not titles, and 33% is an absurd hypothetical.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, I said identical jobs, not titles, and 33% is an absurd hypothetical.

But the job is different. He's an executive, she's an execuvette. I'm just using the same logic people of your party would.

 

[Benvolio]

But the job is different. He's an executive, she's an execuvette. I'm just using the same logic people of your party would.

Nonsense..........

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nonsense..........

But it's a different job. We're not paying them differently because of their gender. Look at the job title. It's not the same job. We hired one executive at x rate and an execuvette at another rate. What's the problem? If the lady we hired as an execuvette had a problem with the fact that the offering for the position she took was less, she should have simply refused to take the position. Let the market sort it out.

 

[bankside]

Souch practicality is foreign to liberals who want everyone to be equal. "From everyone according to ability, to eveyone according to need."

That's not liberalism; you're quoting socialism. They're very different, basically opposite things.

 

[bike10]

Next they come out and say there were ones who proposed Social Security and Medicare.

 

[mightbe]

Next they come out and say there were ones who proposed Social Security and Medicare.

In the words of one anonymous tea-partier (she was holding a sign in a picture), "Get your socialist hands off my Medicare!"

 

[Ninja108]

Bwaa ha ha!!

 

[xbuzzerx]

In the words of one anonymous tea-partier (she was holding a sign in a picture), "Get your socialist hands off my Medicare!"

No one accused them of being smart.

 

[Benvolio]

No one accused them of being smart.

Most likely a liberal pretending to be a tea partier.

 

[TX-Beau]

Most likely a liberal pretending to be a tea partier.

BEN!!!! You made a joke!!

 

[Benvolio]

But it's a different job. We're not paying them differently because of their gender. Look at the job title. It's not the same job. We hired one executive at x rate and an execuvette at another rate. What's the problem? If the lady we hired as an execuvette had a problem with the fact that the offering for the position she took was less, she should have simply refused to take the position. Let the market sort it out.

You do understand that you are debating with yourself over facts invented by yourself? It is known as a straw man argument. Knock yourself out but do not rxpect anyone else to debate you.