• 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

Which is why as I mentioned the information should be aggregated.

It still leaves people with flawed impressions. I make $75K a year and my dept. average is $90K that tells me nothing since there's one guy who makes $175K because he can write any program you throw at him in less than a day. I'm actually the #2 on the pay scale, but because I'm looking at an average, suddenly I'm pissed that I'm making less than average. Go to median and I can show similar cases where a false impression can be created.

At the end of the day, it's the employee and the employer who need to know what the employee is making and no one else. If you think that you're being discriminated against, take them to court and prove it using Title VII to back yourself up.
 
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

that seems to be pretty much business as usual in American politics...

no bill is titled accurately and no bill ever does what it says it does; from this perspective there is nothing "affordable" as a nation or an individual in the "Affordable Care Act" and nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act.
 
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.

How is pay information non-relevant in the labor market? How would an employee even know the market rate and where they are in relation to the market rate unless they have that information.


Here's a paper that talks about information asymmetry and how it creates frictions in labor markets
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/veronica.guerrieri/research/jobmarket_version.pdf
 
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.

Yes, in order to use a more effective means of taking peoples income than doing it all on April 15. What better way than to force employers into labor and take peoples income all year long. Not only is it more effective, but it also allows you to take more than you otherwise could.

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.

Nonsense. Even if the prices of consumer goods are expected to fall, people will still consume goods, and in order to do so, business will need to spend in the present on investment to ensure the flow of consumer goods into the future. If we consider that many markets such as the computer market live in a deflationary environment and yet are still able to sell their goods to consumers for profit it becomes clear there is no concerns of depressions or hoarding of any sort from deflation. All that occurs is goods are cheaper and people are richer for it.

Btw, this is what he said...

Milton Friedman said:
My choice at the moment would be a legislated rule instructing the monetary authority to achieve a specified rate of growth in the stock of money. I would specify that the Reserve System shall see to it that the total stock of money so defined rises month by month, and indeed, so far as possible, day by day, at an annual rate of X%, where X is some number between 3 and 5.

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.

Standard Oil grew because of government assistance. On the point of oil however, the only reason oil is still marketable is because of government subsidy. Otherwise, the price would be too high for the market to handle and the oil companies would run out of business.

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.

They would need to grow to a certain size to be able to use predatory pricing, which in a free market would not be possible.

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.

It is up to individuals in question what information they will share. I'm sorry that I don't support forced labor like you, but yeah, I don't.
 
Last edited:
It still leaves people with flawed impressions. I make $75K a year and my dept. average is $90K that tells me nothing since there's one guy who makes $175K because he can write any program you throw at him in less than a day. I'm actually the #2 on the pay scale, but because I'm looking at an average, suddenly I'm pissed that I'm making less than average. Go to median and I can show similar cases where a false impression can be created.

At the end of the day, it's the employee and the employer who need to know what the employee is making and no one else. If you think that you're being discriminated against, take them to court and prove it using Title VII to back yourself up.

Once again you're talking about just a few data points. What if you found your 75k a year was equal to the bottom 5% out of 700k programmers? What happens if you found you were in the top 5%? Either way that information is useful to you in making employment decisions. Ultimately you would have to decide how to react to the information. This bill just provides transparency.
 
The bill is just creating transparency. It doesn't matter if it's illegal if no one is aware it's taking place.

Honestly all salaries should be public information for all individuals. If anything it would lead to a truly fair and competitive labor market.

Honestly salaries and total compensation shouldn't. Other than myself and my employer, it is nobodies business what we have negotiated as compensation.
 
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.
 
Compensation does not equate salary.

I don't understand your argument. Compensation is total cost to the employer and includes but is not limited to salary or any other factors. Other factors would include vacation time, health care, cost of government compliance, etc.
The only question to an employer is whether a costs of the hire is less than the income generated. Failing that, the employee does not get hired.
 
Yes, in order to use a more effective means of taking peoples income than doing it all on April 15. What better way than to force employers into labor and take peoples income all year long. Not only is it more effective, but it also allows you to take more than you otherwise could.

Yeah because we were fighting a war for survival. So how much does your no tax personal freedom view help when the other side is willing to pool all their resources in order to win the war?

Nonsense. Even if the prices of consumer goods are expected to fall, people will still consume goods, and in order to do so, business will need to spend in the present on investment to ensure the flow of consumer goods into the future.
Hoarding occurs during periods of deflation. Of course people still need to eat, cloth themselves, and have shelter. When it comes to other goods people put off purchases in order to maximize what they can spend. It's pretty much proven empirically and fits with theory.

As for future investment...once again...empirically and in theory it usually is coupled with decreased demand for goods, higher borrowing costs.

If we consider that many market such as the computer markets live in a deflationary environment and yet are still able to sell their goods to consumers for profit it becomes clear there is no concerns of depressions or hoarding of any sort from deflation. All that occurs is goods are cheaper and people are richer for it.
The drop in price of computer gear is generally due to both an early adopter premium and the cost savings from mass production. I also want to point out...the deflation that occurs in the technology field is generally different products. A new better one comes out and the older one decreases in value.

I also want to point out that people do wait. You have some that buy the new Iphone on day one as a status symbol while a lot of people wait for it to drop in value.

My choice at the moment would be a legislated rule instructing the monetary authority to achieve a specified rate of growth in the stock of money. I would specify that the Reserve System shall see to it that the total stock of money so defined rises month by month, and indeed, so far as possible, day by day, at an annual rate of X%, where X is some number between 3 and 5
.

Sure...and that is pretty much the range in real GDP growth.

Standard Oil grew because of government assistance. On the point of oil however, the only reason oil is still marketable is because of government subsidy. Otherwise, the price would be too high for the market to handle and the oil companies would run out of business.
How so? They pretty much used a lot of practices that now are illegal...predatory pricing to undercut competitors, buying up all the supplies needed to operate in order to great scarcity for competitors, negotiating with other industries that supported the manufacturing of oil to get special deals, buying up all their competitors etc.

They would need to grow to a certain size to be able to use predatory pricing, which in a free market would not be possible.
Not sure why you say this. There is always efficiency in scale and there will always be companies that are better than their competitors. Wal-Mart grew to their size in a free market did they not? How about Apple?

It is up to individuals in question what information they will share. I'm sorry that I don't support forced labor like you, but yeah, I don't.
Yeah...and those individuals will always hold back information that benefits themselves in a transaction. That's reality.
 
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.

Add in being on the job the same amount of time and doing the job as well.
 
How does this bill give more opportunity to sue, if pay practices are fair? It's a genuine question.

It's already illegal to discriminate in pay based on sex. This though doesn't mean that pay won't be different between men and women who do the same job and that's not because of the employer's actions, it's because of the employees.

Here's an example:

In a dramatic illustration of this, the authors describe a recent study showing the starting salaries of female Carnegie Mellon MBA graduates as almost $4,000 less than male graduates of the same school.

Why? "Only 7 percent of the female students had negotiated (their salary) but 57 percent ... of the men had asked for more money." Those who negotiated, be it men or women, increased their starting salary by just over $4,000.​

Male and female job candidates are offered the same starting salary. Almost all of the women accepted the offer made. Over half of the men rejected the offer and asked for more. The men, through their own initiative, and 7% of the women too, extracted another $4,000 per year from their employer. It's not he employer's fault that women don't like to negotiate.
 
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.

There is a mountain of literature on this. Search for scholarly articles in the labor economic literature. The trouble is that there really isn't ONE SOURCE which puts everything together for you.

Here's one piece of the puzzle:

The analysis was prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. . . .

“Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,” said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College sociologist and the author of “Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women.”​
 
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.

Nonsense. Businesses are not social welfare organizations. They need people doing the work. People who don't do as much work and don't have the experience don't get paid as much.
 
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.

untrue. why? the qualifications will be different. all pay grades have salary ranges. where you fall in that salary range depends on your lvl of skill.

if someone has 2 more years experience should they not earn more than the person with 1 year or no experience?
 
Once again you're talking about just a few data points. What if you found your 75k a year was equal to the bottom 5% out of 700k programmers? What happens if you found you were in the top 5%? Either way that information is useful to you in making employment decisions. Ultimately you would have to decide how to react to the information. This bill just provides transparency.

But this bill isn't about industry averages, it's about the individual corporation's average. If this was designed to force employers to give raises based on industry/profession averages, then it not only goes too far, it goes WAY, WAY, WAY too far.
 
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.

Only if both are equally qualified, have equal experience, have equal employee qualities and get equal results. Just doing the same job isn't enough to make that kind of decision.
 
I have two questions to raise which will suggest that this pay equality BS is all a plot by the democrats to lure votes by painting people as victims, as usual:
1. If women have the same qualifications as men then why doesn't the male unemployment rate look like crap compared to female unemployment? Wouldn't the big, bad capitalist be smart enough hire the cheaper of two equal candidates?
2. The president likes to lump minorities with women when talking about equal pay. Why in the heck are white men painted as the evil face of the higher salary when it is actually Asians who have the highest salary?
I could only laugh at how many times I heard POTUS use the words "fair" or "unfair" absurdly yesterday. The best part was that he claims it's caused by "various personal choices" when women earn less in the White House, but it's discrimination in the private sector.
 
:lamo
BS! Title VII is about discrimination, not pay.

LOL and being paid less due to your gender when you do the same work is gender DISCRIMINATION

try a few dozen Title VII cases as I have, and then I will listen to you tell me about a subject I was a recognized expert in
 
Add in being on the job the same amount of time and doing the job as well.

that is what labor and ED lawyers refer to as "similarly situated employees"
 
Back
Top Bottom