Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
In union shops and minimum wage jobs perhaps...not so much otherwise.
You really need to upgrade your integrity on the internet. The way it is going we are going to need to fact check any claim you make.
That link just adds to the misinformation
You should know better than most that pay and wages are equal for the same job and for the same responsibilities as required by law.
Incomes are different among groups of people, including differences by sex, for many reasons. Those reasons are largely extrinsic to the issues of wage and salary levels. The question is what kind of law can you pass to make, for example, the women's PGA tour pay the same as the men's tour. If you can't legislate getting rid of all the differences causing unequal incomes, the pandering about this is just bullshit.
As I am typing this and watching CU v AZ I asked a former engineering dean sitting next to me what % of the engineering students are female. Answer: 15-16%. Without that being 50% we will never finish talking about this and your link will always be nonsense.
Of course you would confuse "information" with "misinformation." When it disagrees with your assumptions.
Why?
Not, it's not. That's just ridiculously stupid. Retardedly ridiculously stupid. I mean, nonsensically retardedly ridiculously stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself for even putting your name to such a comment. Why should LPGA events pay the same as PGA events? That has nothing to do with pay equality, and if you think it does, then that just proves that you don't have even the slightest idea about what the problem with pay equality actually is.
That's even more ridiculously stupid. You legislate to get rid of the causes that can be affected by legislation. If we simply decided not to attack problems because we couldn't address them 100%, then we'd never do anything. I suspect that's what you'd like, though. Let's never do anything.
It's not nonsense. Your response proves that you either didn't read the article I linked, or you didn't understand it.
I'll let you worry about my integrity
I did okay with this stuff including knocking over the biggest bank in town about how they calculated bonuses for female loan officers.
I know it is stupid
But it is part of the income differential you are harping about. That's how stupid your argument is, not mine.
Agreed
What legislation would you propose beyond Title VII and the Equal Pay Act? Should we pass a law suggesting that graduate engineers (mostly male) be paid the same as graduates in Gender Studies (mostly female)?
I know all about the law and I know about employment practices beyond pay and wages that have disparate impact on females. I've litigated those issues. The law is well developed. The differences now are largely attributable to social and life choices that the law isn't equipped to deal with.
You're the one claiming the LPGA is the problem, not me. I'm not the stupid one.
I'm only suggesting you stop pretending there isn't a problem.
No you aren't
You are harping on the income gap as if it is a problem fixable with more laws. Don't move the goal post. If you have legislation that will fix the issue, I'm all ears. But don't tell me what I think.
No, I'm not. I'm not doing any of that. You're inventing it, so you don't have to address the very real fact that an income gap actually does exist.
What does this even mean?
I'll stipulate to the income gap.
Of course yapping about the income gap means nothing if there is nothing to be done about it. It certainly doesn't mean anything in politics unless it is fixable with legislation. So once again. Do you have anything to offer to fix this or are you just going to continue to waste our time?
So you'll stipulate your previous posts were full of shit? great! That's all I wanted.
You still don't get it do you
Equal pay is not the same thing as equal income. Pay attention here.
That's okay. I understand your problem
You are depressed about the Cub game and can't grasp a very simple distinction between pay and income.
This whole conversation is rich. On one hand, we've got a moderator questioning the integrity of another poster, not to mention calling him stupid. This belies the fact that the other poster, on his worst day, is five times smarter than the moderator. If that wasn't enough, we've got a neophyte lawyer fresh out of law school, who couldn't find a job, questioning the legal aptitude of another lawyer with forty years of actual experience at a very high level. You couldn't make this up.
I'd like to see some evidence that the board is actually being moderated and suggest that Goat read his own rules.
Last edited:
I beg to differ. Just recently in this thread I criticized both sides of our political system. Both sides. Political debates are in reality each candidate stating all the great things they have done and can do if given the opportunity for our country. A lot of the time it is simply BS. The fact that Trump and Carson are leading in the polls reflect that people believe the BS, are ill-informed, and that is sad. I feel the same way about Hillary in polling. Personally I don't think Hillary has accomplished much of anything in and outside of politics. She is using her sex openly to appeal to her sex as she did in the debates and in emotional appeals because of her sex. It's like, "I am woman hear me roar". In reality she is trying to win not only due to being female but the wife of Bill who is still extremely popular. Trump, Carson and Fioronia are doing the same thing as "outsiders" as opposed to Hillarys sex comments. For me being a conservative the Dem debate was a contest to see who could give away the most freebies, castrate the one percent, appeal to minorities, and with little said about what all of it cost and how to pay for it. Their comments on illegal immigrants was a direct appeal for the Hispanic vote. The cost of all these freebies has been estimated to be up to 18 trillion in a decade and raising taxes to extreme highs as they suggested would generate only 4-6 trillion. Having said that I think the Republican debates was almost a clown show or the anti-Trump show. I think the majority of all running on both sides equate to sad choices for the country.
So wait, CO you're defining income how? How does one end up with unequal income if their pay is equal? Forget the words, let's see that math.
It's basic math, I'm sure we can grasp it if you can prove it. Just prove it with numbers and save your words.
It's basic math, I'm sure we can grasp it if you can prove it. Just prove it with numbers and save your words.
Last edited:
LOL!!! Ok, fine, it's the law.
Well, the law and what's actually implemented are two different things. Ask the local hospital here why they are getting their asses sued off by a female surgeon who found out she is making substantially less than the male surgeons who have less experience and do less invasive procedures. When I say "substantially", I mean she found out she's making just over half of what the other general surgeons are making. Of course this suit will never see the light of day so no one outside the hospital will know about it. The hospital knows this is a loser for them and they'll pay up to keep things quiet.
If you read with comprehension you'll see that on one hand we have a poster who routinely employs intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies in support of false claims that derail threads. On the other hand we have a frustrated moderator whose rules aren't sufficient to constrain what is in effect trolling, by a poster who likes to be "provocative". And now we have you questioning the moderator's intelligence, when you aren't bright enough to see what's actually going on.
The real problem here is that the mods have too much patience with bullshit and nonsense. Instead of bashing them you should exult them. But for their patience you'd have many fewer posts.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Says the guy whose previous post was chock-full of logical fallacies. Let's put it another way, when many people are scrolling through their threads, they stop and carefully read when Goat and Rockfish post. Maybe you should start trying to figure out why they've attained that status and worry less about a typo.
You proved my point
In part anyway. If the employer is violating the law, they ought to get their asses sued. Been ther, done that. But you should also know a couple of things about this. First the laws we have provide aggrieved females relief. Second and more importantly most of the unequal income problem is not fixable with more laws.
Elsewhere I mentioned the engineering school enrollment at one university. It is 85% male. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that elementary ed students are mostly female and they make less than engineers. Do you propose legislation to equalize pay between engineers and teachers? If not wtf are you even talking about.
The real problem here
Is that the liberal orthodoxy about sex differences in pay is nothing but vacuous talking points. As usual you have nothing important to say about the merits of this discussion so you post stupid crap about me. You are irrelevant.
The AAUW misrepresents it's on research and report. What they generally report is the pay gap when choices aren't included (i.e. degrees, jobs, time out of workforce due to child raising, etc.) so what we often hear from them and what many Democrats (purposely or ignorantly) claim is the pay gap is not the actual pay gap. When the President said it was 77 percent he was either purposely or ignorantly using that statistic. The AAUW webpage linked earlier, the first factoid they put out there is that women were paid 79 percent of the pay of men. When you look at their full report (linked on that page) that data's in there and they say it does not include the "personal choices" of women and men in the work force. On page 8 of the report they say that including those factors (and I can't cut and paste - for some reason my PC is balking at cutting and pasting from the PDF today) that the gap one year out of college is only 7 cents on the dollar and 12 cents on the dollar 10 years out. However, that's probably not correct either as this explains:
I recommend reading that and the linked reports. The bottom line is that there is likely a gap, but it's actually far smaller than what many would like us to believe (saying women are paid only 77 or 79 cents on the dollar paid to men is dishonest by leaving out important details), and as CO correctly points out, it might not be something that a law can do anything about..
What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents.
I recommend reading that and the linked reports. The bottom line is that there is likely a gap, but it's actually far smaller than what many would like us to believe (saying women are paid only 77 or 79 cents on the dollar paid to men is dishonest by leaving out important details), and as CO correctly points out, it might not be something that a law can do anything about..
This isn't that hard
The equal pay laws apply to individuals in same or similar positions. The unequal pay talking points applies to the average income of large groups (male/female) over ALL occupations.
If you had made such a comment about someone else, I'd have banned you already. As you made this despicable comment about me, I will simply tell you to go **** yourself and give you exactly one more chance.
Rock is right about one thing. We are showing you people far too much patience.
I criticized the content of CO.H's post. I didn't question his character. That someone who thinks it's just dandy to insult someone for not finding a job can't tell the difference shouldn't surprise me. You remind me of the "friend" who used to ridicule me for working in a restaurant while I was in law school. He was a republican, too.
I tried very hard these past few weeks to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm done. You say you want proof this board is actually moderated? Keep it up, and you'll get it very quickly.
That's calling his post stupid, not him? I think not and you directly questioned CoH's integrity. You haven't had anything to give me a break about because I haven't posted anything outside of the rules with the exception of a joke that I agreed was a little over the top. Meanwhile, you've let people on your side of the fence run rampant with personal attacks, stalking, and trolling. I've simply ignored the ones directed at me. I challenge you to find a single post of mine that violates one of your rules other than one in this thread that gave you a dose of your own medicine.
I'll happily accept that challenge, but am off to a family reunion. Enjoy your posting privileges until I get back.
And this is your addition to the conversation? You're the one that should be banned. At least the others included some of the discussion, this is nothing but a sophomoric attack.
You are bright enough? That is very interesting. For some time, I’ve been wondering how this person got a degree from IU. IU must have fallen in quality since I left.
RBabbitt is right, though. That he (RBabbit) is still around is an evidence that the moderators are too lenient.
Last edited:
You are just flat dead wrong
Nursing is primarily a salary or wage based occupation. If the pay differences are based upon sex, the situation would have been resolved by the EEOC or private actions decades ago. The overwhelming conclusion is that if there are indeed sex pay differences for nurses, the differences arise from permissible considerations apart from sex. Same for teachers.
The bank bonus situation I described elsewhere and litigated on behalf of a female loan officer was defended on the basis the high-paying customers didn't want to deal with new females. In other words, they thought the good ol' boys network provided a defense. They even brought in out of town lawyers to try the intimidation route; you should now know that doesn't fly with me. We won a favorable settlement because I know the law and I know how this stuff works. You obviously do not.
Your link does not "address" the issue. It merely provides more statistics about a sex-based income difference. It doesn't address the causes. If anything it presumes a cause which presumption is never supported.
I keep asking you to provide some legislative ideas about how the fix the "problem" you keep talking about and you continue to refuse. I think I know why; but if you have ideas about how to fix this difference, I am all ears.
In the meantime, you Hillary, and the rest of the liberal commentariat who complain about unequal incomes are just blowing smoke, pandering, or both.
I'm not complaining about unequal incomes. All I did was point out that one of your statements was importantly inaccurate. Other than that, this entire debate is only happening in your head. And you say I'm the one obsessed with you!
Similar threads
