• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time

iliveonramen said:
Sure...just like I'm not owed a companies financial information or owed information on a car I'm about to buy but it sure does help markets operate.
Click to expand...

So then, the government shouldn't force the issue. What makes markets operate to your liking is immaterial.
 
This is nothing but some more class warfare to drum up hostile feelings for the mid-term. Political horse ****.
 
Henrin said:
So then, the government shouldn't force the issue. What makes markets operate to your liking is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not to my liking it's pretty much a requirement for a competitive market. Asymmetric information is bad. Equal information between both parties is good. Hence...why very pro-market economist like Milton Friedman typically support financial reporting.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This bill is about salary...
Click to expand...

Which is part of compensation. You're trying to argue that a bill about squares doesn't apply to rectangles.

Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong when you said that Title VII wasn't about pay?? It's easy to do. You just say something along the lines of: "Huh, I never noticed that part before. I guess I was wrong." It's how adults deal with the mistakes they make. You admit that you were wrong and then make adjustments to avoid making the same mistake again.
 
iliveonramen said:
Actually it's not to my liking it's pretty much a requirement for a competitive market. Asymmetric information is bad. Equal information between both parties is good. Hence...why very pro-market economist like Milton Friedman typically support financial reporting.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what Milton Friedman thought. He is largely responsible for the income tax and monetary systems we have today, and for that, I hope he is burning in hell.
 
This issue annoys me because its so difficult to find good information on. On one hand, people who insist this is a serious problem points to studies which claim that women generally make less but fail to test for extraneous factors like hours worked. One study showed that companies were paying women 20% less but didn't even bother to check what positions the women were actually working. I supposed when you are obsessed with finding injustice anywhere you can those types of sloppy studies will be adequate for you.

On the other hand, the people who claim this is a non-issue often make statements with no basis, claiming this definitely exists because of fewer hours worked and position without showing that it's not actually bias that's creating the problem. This seems to stem from wanting to believe that prejudice could not exist in modern day.

If you are confident of your position on this issue, I'd like to ask that you give me your best source for it, as my personal research has failed to turn up anything useful.

I've not been following this bill too closely. How did this bill screw over employers, aside from those who would engage in discriminatory pay practices?
Click to expand...

How can you not see how a bunch of additional documentation requirements would have a negative impact on all employers? Depending on who the employer is, having to keep track of all of this can become an extreme burden.
 
iliveonramen said:
So....what's the big deal then? This site depends on surveys from HR departments. Why exactly is it a bad thing that workers have better data?
Click to expand...

Because only providing part of the information creates false impressions. If I make $50K a year and my co-worker doing the same job makes $55K a year and that's all I see, then I get a false impression about our relative value. What I don't see is that my co-worker only missed 3 days of work in the last 5 years and I've missed 48. What I don't see is that my co-worker has been putting in 10 hours a day while I head home after 8 hours and not a minute more. What I don't see is that my co-worker has a great attitude and builds up her fellow employees while I'm a whiny little **** who tears everyone else down. Only looking at one aspect of an employee's value is grossly deceptive and unfair to both the employees and the employer.
 
Henrin said:
I don't really care what Milton Friedman thought. He is largely responsible for the income tax and monetary systems we have today, and for that, I hope he is burning in hell.
Click to expand...

He was largely responsible for the Earned Income Tax Credit not the income tax....he actually didn't support the EITC in it's current form because he said it should be a replacement for government services.

He is responsible for the monetary systems we have but it was the scalpel alternative to as he saw it Keynes generally chainsaw approach to down turns.

The idea of information symmetry being important for the operation of a competitive market though is pretty standard. Do you believe that monopolies should be allowed because getting rid of them generally requires government intervention?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The GOP stopped supporting equality in the 50's. The party of pitty. The party that represents inequality. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The party that is finally showing an inkling of supporting Conservative Family Values; thank goodness.
 
iliveonramen said:
Actually it's not to my liking it's pretty much a requirement for a competitive market. Asymmetric information is bad. Equal information between both parties is good. Hence...why very pro-market economist like Milton Friedman typically support financial reporting.
Click to expand...

When I learned about asymmetric information, it pertained to the details of a transaction between two parties. For instance, hiding the terms of employment from the employee or a potential insurance recipient forgoing information on their more dangerous hobbies when signing up for coverage. Non-relevant information is (or at least was) not considered an aspect of asymmetrical information.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't have a problem with an employer firing someone for discussing wages.
Click to expand...
That may be, but you're not explaining how it screws over employers, like you earlier claimed. How does this screw over employers?
 
iliveonramen said:
He was largely responsible for the Earned Income Tax Credit not the income tax....he actually didn't support the EITC in it's current form because he said it should be a replacement for government services.
Click to expand...

He is responsible for the withholding system that is the backbone of the income tax system as it is currently.

He is responsible for the monetary systems we have but it was the scalpel alternative to as he saw it Keynes generally chainsaw approach to down turns.
Click to expand...

Doesn't much matter, the fact is he supported the fed and supported massive amounts of faux currency flooding the market by increasing the supply of money daily at a rate of 3-5%.

The idea of information symmetry being important for the operation of a competitive market though is pretty standard. Do you believe that monopolies should be allowed because getting rid of them generally requires government intervention?
Click to expand...

Creating monopolies requires government intervention, so I can't imagine that is a good example. What information is shared is up to the parties themselves, not government. If that information is helpful or not isn't all that important to me.
 
faithful_servant said:
Because only providing part of the information creates false impressions. If I make $50K a year and my co-worker doing the same job makes $55K a year and that's all I see, then I get a false impression about our relative value. What I don't see is that my co-worker only missed 3 days of work in the last 5 years and I've missed 48. What I don't see is that my co-worker has been putting in 10 hours a day while I head home after 8 hours and not a minute more. What I don't see is that my co-worker has a great attitude and builds up her fellow employees while I'm a whiny little **** who tears everyone else down. Only looking at one aspect of an employee's value is grossly deceptive and unfair to both the employees and the employer.
Click to expand...

Well generally there are reasons for individuals to make more than others. When the information is aggregated you generally smooth out those individual differences and patterns start to emerge.

For example...if I found out that I and my co-workers make the in the bottom 10% of wages for our job then it's an indication that our employer doesn't pay well. Therefore...we start looking for something closer to the market value for our labor. Either our employer hires wages to prevent turnover or he just ends up cycling through employers at a high cost. Welcome to labor markets. What's interesting is that conservative seem to be so against the idea of equal information. Why exactly shouldn't employees have access to information on pay? Maybe not even individual information but aggregated information?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
BS! Title VII is about discrimination, not pay.
Click to expand...

Actually it is just a political ploy before the mid-term elections in order to conjure up some perceived discrimination and establish victim status in what the Democrats hope will equal votes. It is the same tactic they always use. Right now the flavor of the month is "the war on women" and "income inequality".

The democrats run their party like a plantation.
 
TurtleDude said:
given it was a pure party line vote its most likely designed to create money or advantages for DNC allies and designed to hurt GOP allies
Click to expand...

I agree.

I do believe it is another wedge issue designed to go against the GOP for, well, you know, just for doing the things the GOP typically does. Ie; anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-liberty and anti-freedom, etc.

The GOP cannot support it and still stay tight with the moneybags they typically represent. The proverbial rock and hard place. I believe the dems only want the issue on the forefront, to drive home the usual GOP modus operandi and is being used purely for political purposes.
 
There are millions of reasons that someone isn't paid as much as someone else.

it is up to the business to determine that not the government. if someone feels slighted that they aren't making enough then they need to talk to their boss or HR.
also this bill violates contracts signed by employee's which it cannot do.

almost all business have you sign nondisclosure agreements on salary. this bill cannot violate those agreements or invalidate them.

this bill had nothing to do with equal pay non-sense and everything to do with a political ploy.
there are already anti-pay discrimination laws on the books there is no need for more.

it is no one's business what i make in a year. if you want pay ranges you can look on any number of sites to find out what the pay for a position should be.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well generally there are reasons for individuals to make more than others. When the information is aggregated you generally smooth out those individual differences and patterns start to emerge.

For example...if I found out that I and my co-workers make the in the bottom 10% of wages for our job then it's an indication that our employer doesn't pay well. Therefore...we start looking for something closer to the market value for our labor. Either our employer hires wages to prevent turnover or he just ends up cycling through employers at a high cost. Welcome to labor markets. What's interesting is that conservative seem to be so against the idea of equal information. Why exactly shouldn't employees have access to information on pay? Maybe not even individual information but aggregated information?
Click to expand...

Employees shouldn't have access to their co-workers compensation. It's bad for morale when you have people getting bent out of shape because Suzie gets paid more than they do. As an employer, there are considerations about pay that are highly personal and in some cases highly unethical to reveal. Paying Linda less than Moe because Linda can't read isn't something that Linda wants everyone to know about. Exposing part of the picture without showing all of it is a BAD idea.
 
Henrin said:
He is responsible for the withholding system that is the backbone of the income tax system as it is currently.
Click to expand...

Sure...in order to raise money for WWII. It's not like he was a lifelong supporter of it. I guess he's guilty as charged of living in reality rather than some made up Libertarian world.

Doesn't much matter, the fact is he supported the fed and supported massive amounts of faux currency flooding the market by increasing the supply of money daily at a rate of 3-5%.
Click to expand...

Actually he said that inflation should equal the real-growth of the economy. That's not flooding the market that's currency meeting the demand of the economy. Despite what goldbugs think you can't have a currency that constantly grows in value as economic activity increases. It leads to deflation and hoarding.
Creating monopolies requires government intervention
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.....Standard Oil grew because of innovation and doing better than their competitors. Once they got big enough they used their market power to keep competitors out of the market. When it comes to things like restaurants or business that have low barriers to entry you'll never see a monopoly.

When it comes to a business that is costly to start then the company with a large market share can use it's size to dump and undercut competitors and put them out of the business. Then then have long periods of time of monopoly power because it's both timely and costly to enter the market. Then of course they dump and use predatory pricing to put then new challenger out of business. Eventually no one else will want to raise the high amount of money required to try and challenge the monopoly.

What information is shared is up to the parties themselves, not government. If that information is helpful or not isn't all that important to me.
Click to expand...
Well gee.....anyone that has more information has every incentive to hold back information that results in them having an economic gain. That's a great idea.
 
faithful_servant said:
Employees shouldn't have access to their co-workers compensation. It's bad for morale when you have people getting bent out of shape because Suzie gets paid more than they do. As an employer, there are considerations about pay that are highly personal and in some cases highly unethical to reveal. Paying Linda less than Moe because Linda can't read isn't something that Linda wants everyone to know about. Exposing part of the picture without showing all of it is a BAD idea.
Click to expand...

Which is why as I mentioned the information should be aggregated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom