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

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker vetoed a bill which would make it easier for victims of wage discrimination to file lawsuits against employers.

http://www.laborradio.org/Channels/S...spx?ID=1683122

Well, at least he's consistent. I sure hope they recall him from office.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-09-2012 12:30 AM

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.

Now, something to really frighten you. Women live much longer than men. It's a conspiracy. We must act on this now.

So, best of luck to Gov. Walker and I hope the thugs and crooks lose. Not that I don't feel sorry for teachers who had to start paying a little bit for health care. At least they don't have to pay what the private sector pays.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

The "women earn $.78 cents for every $1" has been debunked so often it's embarrassing

You'd have to control for human capital and also bias created by differentials in promotion chances. Has your debunking at least achieved that?

The obama administration pays its women employees on average 11,000 less than it does the men.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You'd have to control for human capital and also bias created by differentials in promotion chances. Has your debunking at least achieved that?

You have to take into account that many women exit and re-enter the workplace due to taking time out for children, which decreases their chances of continued promotion.

The women that forego having children do much better in the workplace in the long run.

Another bill trying to tell business how to run is just another move toward totalitarian democracy.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

You have to take into account that many women exit and re-enter the workplace due to taking time out for children, which decreases their chances of continued promotion.

Already mentioned that via the reference to human capital. Note, however, that the standard reference to 'statistical discrimination' (where, for example, we refer to female sprog raising) has been found to be incapable of explaining differentials in compensation performance. For example, the probability of job turnover is often found to be higher for males.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

The "women earn $.78 cents for every $1"

I'm outraged everytime I hear this, especially if it's true. If it is true, I think that women are way overpaid. Given their inferiority in every aspect of life, as a male I am insulted that women earn more than 50 cents for every $1 I make.

Originally Posted by MisLed

The obama administration pays its women employees on average 11,000 less than it does the men.

No. It pays women the same wages for the same jobs.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You'd have to control for human capital and also bias created by differentials in promotion chances. Has your debunking at least achieved that?

Most of the differences in pay and promotion come from the very simple fact that most women take a few years off when they have kids. Gaps in employment lower your pay, and diminish your chances of getting promoted. I don't see discrimination except in the fat that Woman want more pay for doing less actual work.

One of the big things that actually holds women back is the FMLA act -- it says that an employee can suddenly take a year off to care for a sick relative. Problem is that most of the people who use FMLA are women, and it gives employers a bit of pause when choosing a woman to run a business critical office. You simply cannot promote a woman because if she goes out on FMLA, you lose the leader of that department, the money you spent training the woman, and the money that you now must spend to train someone else. Of course once you do that, you must replace the new manager with the manager who hasn't set foot in the office for 12 months and waste yet more time and money getting her up to speed. Or you can hire a man whose wife will do all the FMLA stuff and not have to worry that he'll take 12 months off suddenly.

Women have it all handed to them on a golden platter, and then they want to sue because a man working full time makes more money than she makes working part time.

Originally Posted by septimine

Most of the differences in pay and promotion come from the very simple fact that most women take a few years off when they have kids.

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?