- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
How many more equal pay bills do you think we need?
Well saying there is clearly a pay gap.... And that we dont have equal pay bills....
How many more equal pay bills do you think we need?
Well saying there is clearly a pay gap.... And that we dont have equal pay bills....
Yeah, we do. Obama signed one into law already.
So you see no difference in me as an individual posting my data and everyone's data being available?
The school board may be working for the public, but I'm working for my employer. And it doesn't change the fact there's no real reason you can give me why those who work for private employers are entitled to more privacy. I don't lament them having more privacy, I'm just saying there's no legitimate reason you can give me to why they are entitled to more privacy.There is something different about working for the public. And if you aren't working for the public, the school board is.
Make everyone's earnings public, I don't care. It'd probably go a long way in helping prevent tax fraud. And, as long as you aren't pulling down $1 million or more a year, I think you're grossly overestimating your risk to pre-planned home invasions. And, speaking from personal experience (not mine, but someone very close to me), if you're pulling down more than $1 million a year, you can afford to purchase extra security, which you probably need already.I agree with your sentiments that "At first it bothered me" and that some people should not have more privacy than others. It would bother me if my salary was publicized, it would help criminals in determining who to rob or identity to steal, and it would put me on unequal footing with people who don't draw a salary and therefore have greater financial privacy. (Such as investors, landlords, pensioners, etc.)
No, I just assumed those who would be willing to sue over compensation, regardless of how fair it was, would do so already.I'm going to make a wild guess here and that is that when you wrote the above you pictured how you would react in the situation and then attributed your reaction to the populace at large.
Why feminists? Why not men?Now imagine the reaction of the most stupid and strident feminists with the least common sense imaginable and how this perpetual troublemaker would react.
I'm not sure where you get that from! I want information in order to make informed choices. I've never mentioned once that I want the government or law to back up any demand.
Also...you mention pay in accordance with national averages but that's all this bill provides...disclosure.
I think it's weird that someone would think it should be legal to fire an employee for discussing their salary with someone.
The school board may be working for the public, but I'm working for my employer. And it doesn't change the fact there's no real reason you can give me why those who work for private employers are entitled to more privacy. I don't lament them having more privacy, I'm just saying there's no legitimate reason you can give me to why they are entitled to more privacy.
And, speaking from personal experience (not mine, but someone very close to me), if you're pulling down more than $1 million a year, you can afford to purchase extra security, which you probably need already.
My point is it doesn't matter if people know. Whether income is private or public, it's not going to substantially change an individual's life. And my point is I don't understand why you working in the private sector entitles you to more privacy than me working in the public sector.I still don't understand your point. Do you wish that your income was private or, since it is not, are you just being vengeful, perhaps, and want others to suffer your fate.
I don't disagree at all. I'm not whining about my salary being public, though I am pointing out I don't work for the public so much as I work for my employer. But, then again, I'm also not whining about everyone's earnings being made public.I agree that the public doesn't have a right individual salaries of public employees but it seems that the public has a right to know how much is being spent on public employees in terms of salaries, health pensions, and pension benefits (both currently funded and deferred).
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.”
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
Just ridiculous. Unequal pay for equal work is one of the biggest problems facing this country.