Bernie Sanders

[CO. Hoosier]

Why does society make laws in the first place? (He asks a lawyer rhetorically. :crazyeye: ) Because that society concludes too many people are behaving in a specific manner that is detrimental to the well being the the society. So, yeah, CO, there are people who break the law. Their behavior preceded the law and as we all well know, unless they decide to agree with the law, they continue their behavior, which is newly classified as a violation of the laws of the land.

So are we debating your point that there exists a law on the behavior? No, CO, no one is debating that point. We're not that stupid, CO. We get it. There is a law. End of that debate. Even if we were ignorant enough to not be aware of that law, we're smart enough to run with the datum, once presented it. Okay? Ready to move on?

What we are debating is whether it is still an issue, despite the law, and whether it makes any sense for Hillary to bring it up in a political debate. Your implication, correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not an issue because we have a law. Well, guess what, a whole lot of people adopt a more pragmatic view of life, namely, that women still get screwed big time, despite 50-year-old laws, and it's an important issue. I personally think it's a hugely important issue for society, for our economy, for our children, for everyone, even as it has consequences on you, whether you agree or not.

So I applaud Hillary for raising the issue. Onions to all the candidates, male or otherwise, who give it short shrift. I consider them to be ignoramuses in that regard.

Sorry for this delayed response

I didn't see your post until now as I am killing time watching some football.

You actually raise a point that deserves a response. My purpose in pointing out the 50 year old law relates to whether unequal income is a legit campaign issue, or is it just a talking point used to attract votes, like honey attracts bears.

First, keep in mind the distinction between unequal pay and unequal incomes. We have laws addressing the former. As has been illustrated in other posts, the fact that we have a law about pay discrimination doesn't eliminate the problem. So noted. As an analogy, think of a 75 mph speed limit. Just because people drive faster than 75 mph doesn't mean we don't have a speed limit. If enough people violate the speed limit, the authorities will step up enforcement. Same with equal pay. If we have many violators, the EEOC will step up enforcement. Moreover, unlike speed limits, the individual aggrieved parties can enforce equal pay laws. I think enforcement of equal pay is actually pretty good. All that being said, I don't think the current politics is about equal pay. Instead it is about . . . . .

Equal income. This is a much different issue. There are many, many, factors that enter into incomes that have nothing to do with pay discrimination. This is why I brought up the unequal incomes about the professional golfers that generated so much hoo rah rah in this thread. Most likely the largest determinate of income is occupation and education. Unequal incomes have more to do with the numbers of men who work in higher paid occupations vs the numbers of women who work in lower paid occupations. I mentioned the very low numbers of females in engineering school vs the high numbers of females in elementary education as an example of this point.

Nobody disputes that men on a whole make more money than women as a whole. If this is indeed the result of pay discrimination, then I am in favor of laws to fix it. I have asked many times in this thread for suggestions of new legislation and all I get is smoke blown up my ass.

This is why I think unequal income is a phony issue. The law has gone as far as it can go. If there are no more laws to be passed, there is no campaign purpose to talking about the income difference, EXCEPT TO EXPLOIT THE ISSUE FOR PANDERING PURPOSES. If equal incomes is a worth while public goal, then lets figure out a way to have more females enroll in STEM curriculums as a start. That's okay with me, but we can't pass a law to do that.

 

[iuwclurker]

Sorry for this delayed response

I didn't see your post until now as I am killing time watching some football.

You actually raise a point that deserves a response. My purpose in pointing out the 50 year old law relates to whether unequal income is a legit campaign issue, or is it just a talking point used to attract votes, like honey attracts bears.

First, keep in mind the distinction between unequal pay and unequal incomes. We have laws addressing the former. As has been illustrated in other posts, the fact that we have a law about pay discrimination doesn't eliminate the problem. So noted. As an analogy, think of a 75 mph speed limit. Just because people drive faster than 75 mph doesn't mean we don't have a speed limit. If enough people violate the speed limit, the authorities will step up enforcement. Same with equal pay. If we have many violators, the EEOC will step up enforcement. Moreover, unlike speed limits, the individual aggrieved parties can enforce equal pay laws. I think enforcement of equal pay is actually pretty good. All that being said, I don't think the current politics is about equal pay. Instead it is about . . . . .

Equal income. This is a much different issue. There are many, many, factors that enter into incomes that have nothing to do with pay discrimination. This is why I brought up the unequal incomes about the professional golfers that generated so much hoo rah rah in this thread. Most likely the largest determinate of income is occupation and education. Unequal incomes have more to do with the numbers of men who work in higher paid occupations vs the numbers of women who work in lower paid occupations. I mentioned the very low numbers of females in engineering school vs the high numbers of females in elementary education as an example of this point.

Nobody disputes that men on a whole make more money than women as a whole. If this is indeed the result of pay discrimination, then I am in favor of laws to fix it. I have asked many times in this thread for suggestions of new legislation and all I get is smoke blown up my ass.

This is why I think unequal income is a phony issue. The law has gone as far as it can go. If there are no more laws to be passed, there is no campaign purpose to talking about the income difference, EXCEPT TO EXPLOIT THE ISSUE FOR PANDERING PURPOSES. If equal incomes is a worth while public goal, then lets figure out a way to have more females enroll in STEM curriculums as a start. That's okay with me, but we can't pass a law to do that.

Thanks for the clear response. I agree with your points except that I suspect that pay discrimination is much harder to address for women affected by it. Probably women will have to address it differently, that is,by simply being better and tougher. Not fair, but realistic. That sort of falls into the category you're describing for unequal income--make people more able.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Bernie now has more donors than anyone in history at this juncture in a campaign, over 750,000.