Thread: Wisconsin Governor veto's Fair Pay Bill for Women

Originally Posted by PatrickT

With a citation to Laborradio.org given I assume you would want Governor Walker recalled. And, the blurb you cited is hilarious but it's upsetting to think union thugs actually believe that nonsense. The "women earn $.78 cents for every $1" has been debunked so often it's embarrassing but for nitwits it still works.

It seems to me that if one wants to undercut one's competitors, one can gain a *huge* advantage on labor costs by hiring only women. Right?

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

It seems to me that if one wants to undercut one's competitors, one can gain a *huge* advantage on labor costs by hiring only women. Right?

Only if you assume that discrimination can be understood via Becker's "taste for discrimination" approach. For example, if we take the Marxist approach then both males and females can be weakened by discriminatory practices (i.e. divide & conquer)

I know this is a blow to the trial lawyers but they'll recover. I'm sure the Democrats will pass some other laws they can use to sue.

Isn't paying women less than men in the same job already illegal by federal law, if you're not the President of the U.S.?

Like most Marxist propaganda, the title of the bill usually has nothing to do with the goal

Take this one for example where auto manufacturers will be mandated to put a black box in every vehicle only to be used by the federal government pushed by Reid and Pelosi and will also revoke passports if you own taxes, something that will be challenged in court since it is unconstitutional.

‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Like most Marxist propaganda, the title of the bill usually has nothing to do with the goal.

No kidding. The Employee Free Choice Act was really the Card Check Act. It's actually insulting to have an act designed to promote union thuggery called "Employee Free Choice Act".

Originally Posted by Reiver

You'd have to show that all wage (and promotion) differentials are the result of efficiency (i.e.reflecting human capital differences). Can you do that?

Are you really that stupid?

First, when the baby is born, who takes that maternity leave (hint: it ain't the man)
When the kid gets sick and needs to be picked up early from school, who does it?
When the kid is too sick to go to school or daycare, but too young to stay home alone, who else stays home?
Which children are more likely to take in their parents?

So at every turn, the WOMAN is the one taking time off of work to care for the family. Which means time not working, or part time hours to take care of family issues, things men never do -- at least not very often. So when wages are given out, women are taking home about the same as a man would if he was constantly calling in sick and leaving early and demanding special hours -- which is to say 25% less. When you don't make work a priority, the boss doesn't make you a priority. If you call in sick a lot, you don't get promoted. DEAL WITH IT. Either put in the same hours as a man does, without taking time off when the kids get sick, or put up with the lesser pay you've earned. Just don't work less than a man does and then cry discrimination when your part time labor doesn't make as much money as a man's full time employment. you want rewards? EARN THEM.

I'm not interested in the foot stamping. I said:

You'd have to show that all wage (and promotion) differentials are the result of efficiency (i.e.reflecting human capital differences). Can you do that?

That requires reference to empirical evidence (particularly as the standard statistical discrimination story, based on perceived average differences across gender, is often rejected). Achieve that and we can avoid the tantrum stuff!