1 2 3
Double post for some reason.
10/3/2012 1:45:33 PM
On the contrary, my logic is consistent. The same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining who can and can't marry is the same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining pay rates: both involve contracts between consenting adults.
This of course is besides the question that we can really determine "same work", as if they could be divorced from a myriad of other factors that go into wage considerations.
10/3/2012 1:50:51 PM
@The Crimson Ghost
You'd be wise to look up the genetic fallacy and the red herring fallacy, because your response includes both.
10/3/2012 1:54:53 PM
@#1454701: If you believe that than at the very least employers should completely disclose their salaries for the relevant position during the interview. You talk about a contract between consenting adults, but it doesn't seem to matter to you if that contract, or if the situation in which the contract was signed, is equitable. Like in my example, a woman might agree to a lower salary during an interview simply because the employer intentionally failed to tell her that her salary is lower than what he would pay a man in the same position for?
So then what happens if the woman later on finds out she agreed to a raw deal? Do we just tell her tough shit go find another job in this economy? Let's stop making policy based on some perfect world where no one is a dick to anyone else and make policy based on the real world.
So while your logic is consistent, it doesn't take into account how the world actually works.
10/3/2012 1:58:35 PM
Why do I keep double posting?
10/3/2012 1:59:50 PM
I see the libertarian nutjobs are having a party today, well let's use my Economics Abitur some:
If it would happen at only one company the argument "find another job" would work, the problem is, it isn't just one company but ALL of them. That's because greed knows no honor or morality, and wanting to turn a profit is greed. If you don't think so, take a good look at the world, or study basic economics.
Let's say it wasn't equal pay, but equal pricing. Let's say a company that makes water makes the decision to take 1.30 monetary units from every male customer and 1.50 monetary units from every female customer. Most of us would deem this to be disgusting, simply because it would be. Let's change that product from water to condoms - still everybody disgusted? Probably not. Now you could argue by morality - call it slut profit - if she wants it this bad, she's gonna have to pay extra.
All these examples you can argue with should be legal, because a woman could simply buy her condoms/water from another producer - the problem is: they all do this. In this case the laws of supply and demand would be changed by what doesn't have anything to do with the supply or the demand, but the part were they both meet - the pricing.
Before somebody accuses others of not knowing economics, check your damn theory. It is common knowledge that pay is and can be determined by the laws of supply and demand. A culture in which it is believed that even though women work the same there work is inherently worth less than a man's work, is manipulating the laws of supply and demand, the same way unequal pricing would manipulate the marked, unequal pay manipulates the market.
If a woman works less in the same job (30h instead of 40h) she should of course be paid less, but that's because she isn't working the same amount of hours. If a woman and a man work on provision and the woman sells less units (doubtful), of course she should get less, 'coz she sold less. But if your only reason is "she agreed to it" or "she's gonna have family anyway" that's just high-end BS [commonly knwon as libertarianism].
10/3/2012 2:29:22 PM
I think it might be faster for us to just acknowledge that pretty much everything this man says is fundie. Like, give him his own category or something.
10/3/2012 3:47:46 PM
Filin De Blanc
"On the contrary, my logic is consistent. The same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining who can and can't marry is the same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining pay rates: both involve contracts between consenting adults."
Women don't usually consent to being paid less, they consent to contracts that unbeknownst to them have them getting paid less. Consent doesn't apply where a party has misrepresented an element of the contract. It's not like whether gay marriage is legal or not, it's like whether in an environment where it is, a woman may terminate her marriage because of a serious misrepresentation on the part of her wife.
10/3/2012 5:10:18 PM
I see the libertarian idiots (but I repeat myself) are out in force.
10/3/2012 5:21:00 PM
They become members of government to do the sacred task of defending the rights and freedoms of the people! That means making sure government doesn't do anything!
Doesn't have anything to do with the pursuit of power and greed. Nope. Nothing.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
10/3/2012 5:35:02 PM
Like anyone needs any more reasons to hate Todd Akin.
10/3/2012 7:08:44 PM
The Crimson Ghost
@ robert-And you would be wise to learn how to read.
And way to duck the question-he prefers trying to sound smart rather than actually defend his original gibberish. Conclusion-TROLL.
Have a nice day.
10/4/2012 6:14:05 AM
Balthazar The Wise
I always thought that the laborer was worthy of his/her hire.
10/4/2012 6:31:03 AM
"So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble."
And a member of said government who says 'legitimate rape' has gotten you in all kinds of trouble.
Your point, Todd?
10/4/2012 7:35:30 AM
@Filin De Blanc, @Robert
Also, it is the government's job to see to it that marriage contracts between couples afford them the same rights regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual couples, just as it is the government's job to make sure that employers do not discriminate in what they pay employees who fill the exact same position.
10/4/2012 9:01:51 AM
I remember when this site had lots of genuinely funny idiots from all over the internet rather than just posts from politicians who happen to be right-wing and random sexists. Right-wing economics are not fundie, unless you start screaming things about hardcore Objectivism.
Though this quote is ironic considering what else this guy supports.
10/4/2012 5:30:39 PM
Can't help but notice he didn't actually answer the question.
What he did say is a company should be free to screw over employees any which way they please.
Is he TRYING to look like a jackass? I know I'd have to really work at being this unlikable.
10/4/2012 6:20:28 PM
*sigh. I guess I shouldn't bother. But let's try this one more time.
You and I both fancy ourselves as auto mechanics. We both take a full-time job as an intern/trainee at a parts shop, and we get paid the same. If you were getting paid less at this point I'd have a problem. But six months come around, and you want to take a 3-month sabbatical. Cool. We won't pay you for your time off, but that's fully within your right. Now suppose you come back, three months pass, it's a year later, and it's time to negotiate a raise. Who do you think deserves to be paid more? The employee who has 12 months of auto-repair experience, or the employee who has 9 months?
If any of you can cite a study that accounts for the relative productivity and experience of women vs. men in the same field (showing both genders are equally experienced/productive but women still get paid less) then I'm open to changing my opinion.
10/4/2012 9:24:04 PM
By the way, I don't think the libertarian argument is "let employers run amock and pay whoever less if they decide". I'm not a libertarian, but I am a fence sitter more often than not. As far as I know, libertarian's (in a definition that includes people like Mencken but not Nietzshce) would be for upholding equal pay as a basic civil right, and against doing so with legislation and government oversight. Companies that have paid women less based on sex can be taken to court because it's a civil rights issue. If a law is passed forcing government oversight it takes the power away from the individual women and leaves the decision up to a bureaucratic body.
10/5/2012 2:53:26 PM
If you're a libertarian living in Missouri you don't want Todd Akin anyways.
Jonathan Dine is the libertarian candidate.
10/7/2012 3:45:10 AM
@ Filin the Blank
You think about it that could eventually that will be appropriate depending on how much we progress, once all the right policies are in place then a government that does nothing other than pass the budget bill to keep those policies funded would be preferable to one that is bored and looks for random things to do.
But we're incredibly far away from that.
11/24/2012 5:40:10 PM
1 2 3