There's no standard like a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
Printable View
There's no standard like a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
It's definitely from a right wing source but here's what they found...Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Quote:
In her Senate office's most recent six-month disclosure, covering the period from April 1, 2018, through Sept. 31, 2018, the median male salary disbursement was $34,999 and the median female salary disbursement was $32,999, leaving women with just 94 cents of every dollar paid to men.
The gender pay gap for the previous six-month period, during which the median male salary was $27,167 and the median female salary was $25,749.97, was a nearly identical 6 percent.
The pay gap was even greater during the first full month of Harris's presidential campaign in February—the median female salary disbursement for the month, $5,763.97, was about 87 percent of the median male salary disbursement, $6,632.23, a further analysis of her campaign filing found.
The Harris campaign came closer to gender pay equality in March, when the median female disbursement was about 95 percent of the median male disbursement.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/men-...-and-campaign/Quote:
It is unclear based on the available information whether men and women were paid equally for equal work—both Senate offices and campaign are required only to disclose how much money is disbursed to individuals, not details such as annual salaries or hours worked.
A spokesman for Harris's campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the gender pay gaps in her Senate office and on her campaign, and whether either would be granted "equal pay certification" under her proposed system.
I fail to understand your attempt at a cheeky point. But I'll do my best to play along.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Is "equal pay" a right enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments? I've never seen it. But, as you said: "It has no real basis in fact. But, I'll grant that it is incredibly effective."
Or, are you implying that existing discrimination/wage laws are not "equally" accessible or "equally" enforced? Again, as you said: "It has no real basis in fact. But, I'll grant that it is incredibly effective." The EEOC isn't turning away wage discrimination complaints at the door. Federal District Courts aren't dismissing wage discrimination cases out of hand.
Now, the argument could be that our current discrimination/wage laws are insufficient. That's not an "equal justice under the law" argument. It's a policy argument that the Federal government should have greater control over private enterprise. If that's the case, well then we do have a debate over socialism, communism, or whatever new word the left comes up with to hide their anti-free market ideology. To be clear, Constitutionality and policy debates over economic policy are not the same thing. Well, unless Harris really thinks she can usurp congress and pass her plan via executive order. But that's another issue.
Harris isn't the only one doing this. How about the proposal from Elizabeth Warren last year, the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would mandate that every corporation with $1 billion or more of annual revenue obtain a federal charter forcing such corporations to hold elections in which employees would fill 40% of board seats—enough to give them a blocking position on any major transaction. https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsro...capitalism-act
This is one of the debates we are facing in this election. And it's a damn important one.
Perhaps you do don't agree with Harris and Warren on these issues, or at all. I don't know. But saying stuff like "You and I know socialism is a system whereby the government controls the means of production. I don't know of any democrat that believes we should have that" and then hiding behind some snarky "equal justice" meme when confronted with evidence is totally insincere.
But hey. I'm just one of the "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" "basket of deplorables" that will proudly vote for Trump next year. What could I know.
What is it when Trump gives farmers 28 billion along with 25 billion more in subsidies? Our tax dollars. No wonder they like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash
So, your answer is YES.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
There's nothing cheeky about my response, and nothing about women seeking equal wages for equal work that is some sort of perverted socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OH.X.MI
They fact that they are still going to court to be treated the same as men, on an equal footing, should be all you need to know to understand that there is still work to be done in a lot of areass.
You can say that work is "socialism" to scare people, but perhaps it's just people seeking the promise of America; equal justice under law.
It never ceases to amaze me when people like you pivot to buzz words like “liberty” and “justice” while simultaneously accusing conservatives of fear mongering rhetoric. Yeah. Every conservative out here is working their damndest to keep women from earning money. Caught us! We’re the ones who don’t believe in liberty! At least own up to what your party wants; especially when confronted with evidence that fits your own definition of “socialism.” I’d at least respect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
CEOs of organizations would be stupid to hire men as they could save MILLIONS paying women to do the same job.
The fact is, the disparity is a statistics lie. That is why men and women are hired. Average social workers make less than engineers.
So the stats are on jobs, not sex.
My definition of socialism is where the government controls the means of production.Quote:
Originally Posted by OH.X.MI
Here is my party's platform. I invite you to find where there is any evidence that fits my definition (and most dictionaries) of socialism in the platform.
https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/
Soooooooooo Where's the Consensus? This baby has been going on for 2 1/2 years and the names and opinions have been exactly the same over that entire time. I don't care, but I'll check into this thread every several months just to see if anything is being accomplished by the dialogue. I've decided the answer is no, due to entrenched ideology on both sides. But, if there's a catharses that takes place by typing the same thing over-and-over on one side, only to see the same response over-and-over from the other side, then that's great, I guess. One thing all political conversations and chat boards have taught me personally over the past years, is no one ever changes anyone's mind. We all just keep talking past one another in this endless and fruitless effort to get the other person onto my side, instead of speaking, listening with an open mind, learning from someone, resolving and moving on. Even if we feel the same as when the whole discussion started, we should at least understand and respect the other side of my opinion. However, in this shout past each other world in which we live, that doesn't happen. It's a binary situation: Losers and winners, but no resolution. William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal must be rolling over in their graves.