Valerie Jarrett, longtime consigliera to Barack Obama since she hired Michelle Obama a couple of decades ago to work for Mayor Daley, op-edizes in the WaPo:
Closing the wage gap: It's a matter of survival for working families
America first put an equal-pay law on the books in 1963, when women earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man. While this legislation was landmark at the time, its core provisions require updating if it is to fulfill its promise.
Nearly 50 years later, the wage gap has narrowed by only 18 cents. ...
In this harsh economic environment, the consequences of the pay disparity put women and their families, as well as our economy, at a significant disadvantage. We are still emerging from the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And while we have added private-sector jobs for eight straight months, we remain short of our goal of putting every American who wants a job back to work. Today, too many struggling families are still waiting to feel the benefits of economic progress.
That's why women's wages have perhaps never been more important. Women are the sole or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families. For them and their families, equal pay is not only a matter of principle; it's a matter of survival.
It is for this reason that President Obama applauds the work of the House of Representatives and strongly supports passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the Senate. It is common-sense legislation that will give women the tools they need to obtain equal pay for equal work. The House passed this legislation 256 to 163 in January 2009. The bill is on the Senate calendar and should come up for a vote this month. ...
It will also eliminate a loophole that some employers use to avoid paying women equal wages. Under the act, while employees will still have to prove that discrimination has taken place, employers will be required to prove in court that any wage differences were based on factors other than sex -- such as education, training or experience -- and were consistent with business necessity. The act will provide victims of sex-based pay discrimination the same remedies under the law that victims of other forms of discrimination have. ...
The Paycheck Fairness Act will also improve federal agency access to wage-related data, while protecting confidentiality. When it becomes law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will have access to important information from employers that, with time and analysis, will strengthen our ability to ensure compliance. The Labor Department will also be able to begin education and outreach efforts that will increase both employer and employee knowledge of their respective responsibilities and rights regarding equal pay.
For these reasons and more, the Paycheck Fairness Act merits swift passage. America cannot move forward, prosperous and faithful to its ideals, if the pay gap is allowed to persist for another 50 years. This act is not only good for women, it's good for working families, for business and for the American economy.
Posts
29 comments:
No comment necessary? I'll give ya a comment. Perhaps we can have a "mancession" fairness act.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mancession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
They can't really be serious. Obama is in a very weak position now; sponsoring legislation like this might lead to open revolt.
According to the BLS (see chart on page 10):
"A disproportionate share of fatal work injuries involved men relative to their hours worked in 2009."
HOURS WORKED BY GENDER
Men: 56%
Women: 44%
WORKPLACE FATALITIES BY GENDER
Men: 93%
Women: 7%
Make some progress on this gap and maybe then we can talk about "paycheck fairness".
It's as if inventors could be taken to court to prove that their designs "make sense" according to some board of bureaucrats.
These bozos would even sue the creator for discriminating against women regarding height and brain size. Will he be required to prove in court that any such differences were based on factors other than sex and were consistent with survival necessity?
She sounds like the President ('too many families are struggling...") but with added creepiness.
No comment is necessary, however, any comment I can think of about this post would probably include a lot of cuss words. Is there any use in fighting this, or do we sit back, wait for the world to go to hell and pick up the pieces?
Uh-oh. From Jarret's comments, it sounds like the burden of proof between plaintiff and defendant may be reversed, as in Disparate Impact analysis.
If passed, this will be a real job-killer, as if the Obama administration and Congress haven't done enogh of that aleady.
The civil rights movement is a vehicle without brakes, they will never ask "have we achieved enough" or "does this still make sense?" the only question is "how can we pass the next piece of legislation?"
The Democrats aiming to shore up the coalition of 'Everyone but white, heterosexual, gentile men'.
Of course the gender pay gap is a demonstrable nonsense. If employers could pay women 77 per cent of what they pay men and get the same amount of output, they'd be falling over themselves to employ more women and less men. But they don't.
Make some progress on this gap and maybe then we can talk about "paycheck fairness".
Indeed, there's all kinds of room for using progressives' own "logic" against them. Er, all except the logic of "me have bullhorn, me talk, you listen."
But it's nice to dream, right? Be nice to see them trying to figure out how to "close the gap" without locking women in mines or forcing them up onto scaffolds, meanwhile they're not getting their way.
These bozos would even sue the creator for discriminating against women regarding height and brain size.
That would make an awesome movie, lol.
The civil rights movement is a vehicle without brakes, they will never ask "have we achieved enough" or "does this still make sense?" the only question is "how can we pass the next piece of legislation?"
For fundies there's never "enough" faith or piety.
If women get paid 73 cents on the dollar for the same level of work, then some entrepreneur should start a company filled with women, undercut their competitors prices by 10%, and get rich. Right?
Of course that wouldn't make the lawyers richer like this proposed act will.
Valerie Jarrett might want to ask her boss why he took down the CONSAD report from the Dept. of Labor website two days after he got in office. This was the study of studies that put beyond doubt the fact the “pay gap” due to discrimination between men and women is now well under 5%. The rest of the gap is can easily be explained by choices men and women make such as taking time off for families, working outdoors, travel, etc. The hogwash about how women only make 80 cents on the dollar due to discrimination that constantly keeps getting regurgitated by feminists is simply a lie. The funny thing is that the US Chamber of Commerce sued the DOL under the freedom of information act to find out who yanked it. Their concern is for their members who keep getting sued and forced to payout unnecessary costs for bogus discrimination lawsuits.
"all except the logic of 'me have bullhorn, me talk, you listen.'"
LOL
Women are the sole or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families.
I love the way this isn't broken down into its two separate components at all. The conflation of interest between women who work as well as their partner and women whose partner doesn't work (if they have one) and the implication that women are the more important breadwinner in America, period. Plus, if we presume to equalise pay by moving things to the average of male&female (which seems like the most likely move when your only concern is "the gap") rather than simply raising women's wages, this will only help one of these groups.
...
The main reason to me that women would get less pay for the same work and same hours (which can really be our only concern) would seem to be that they take positions with other responsibilities and then suffer responsibility creep, rather than forcing the organisation to make new positions for them before they take on greater responsibility (sometimes with the employer planning this beforehand, but more generally something that happens organically). I'm not sure how a government could begin to tackle this in a way that wasn't perverse towards businesses (I'd guess the clean legislative response is to say, "If people end up doing more than is in their stated role, then you get sued" but that seems like it would have horrible consequences for business, even if we limit it to women in an arbitrarily discriminative fashion).
What gender pay gap?
Black females make more than black males.
It's because so many black males are unemployed, incarcerated or six feet under.
Sweetheart jobs with Uncle Sam will do that for you.
Is there any use in fighting this, or do we sit back, wait for the world to go to hell and pick up the pieces?
I think it would be prudent to include a little pro-activeness during the sitting back & waiting period.
I favor wage discrimination by sex. It certainly used to be the case back in what we now refer to as the "good old days". The fact that women made less money was one of the reasons those days were so good.
The custom of men taking women out to dinner used to be based of the common fact that the women were hungry. Hungry women equal horny women paying for their evening out in the only coin they had.
In the sixties musical "How to Succeed in Business" there is a number called A Secretary is Not a Toy - but of course she was. And a serving girl. Men had private offices and had these female subordinates dependent on the man's opinion and therefore eager to please him.
Marrying the boss was an honorable form of advancement for young women. They used to come in from the sticks to the big city and start in the secretarial pool. Soon they advanced up to "private" secretary and then to wife.
I usually had one or two secretaries from the time I was 25 until I was about 45. They always said "Yes, sir" and they fetched me coffee. Some of them could type.
Some speak of the "Sexual Revolution" of the sixties (which of course took place in the seventies). It might be better termed the "Sexless Revolution".
Women make more money today but white people no longer breed, and Whiskey is lonely.
Albertosaurus
When the leftist man-hating trolls arrive, ask them to respond to:
"Among adults working between one and 34 hours a week, women's earnings are 115 percent of men's." 2002
from the same article:
"June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's."
Black society is a matriarchy; the women are the ones supporting their mostly illegitimate children. So behind this supposed concern for women's wages is the real interest she has for how blacks fare. If blacks had no stake in the issue she wouldn't give a whit about it. Behind the neutral presentations just look for the black interest in these issues. That's all that matters to these folks, their focus is only upon themselves, sometimes openly, sometimes disguised.
Over at Mangan's, some conspiracy minded person keeps talking about some Chinese conspiracy to destroy America's competitiveness by putting lead into toys to dumb down kids and thus future generations.
My question is: Why would they bother? No such conspiracy is needed. Far easier to fund all the victimology groups in the US.
Hey, illegal immigration is closing that wage gap real good!
What, libs don't get that gaps can close both ways? As Steve (or is it Derb? Sometimes I can't tell you apart) says, you can close the race gap in IQ by hitting all whites and Asians over the head with a hammer. It's simpler and less expensive than NCLB.
"That's why women's wages have perhaps never been more important. Women are the sole or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families."
This is actually part of the cause of the wage gap.
Smart married women increasing family income from $200k to $400k, instead of having another kid or two.
The other part is the low wage nanny she hires.
There is a big gap between $20k nanny and $200k doctor.
The smaller the gap the less likely each woman is to work.
I wonder how much this yo-yo would complain about my husband, a working-class white guy, landing himself a $70,000 a year job right out of high school back in the early 1980's.
Oh, wait. He landed himself a real job involving real work, not just a salaried position, because he was willing and able to do things few men, let alone women, choose to do.
Crab Fishermen on Deadliest Catch
(We did meet one woman who told us she had signed up as a commercial crab fisherman. She admitted she lasted only a couple of days before she had them helicopter her back to shore.)
Then of course, there's the fact that the reason women have all those jobs "networking" and pushing paper and otherwise working indoors in minimally hazardous conditions, is due to our technologically advanced society, the technology of which was largely developed by those privileged white guys.
Jarret writes: "For women of color the [wage] gap is larger."
It could be worse, Val. Instead of badgering an overwhelming white, male Congress to close the wage gap that disproportionately affects women of color, you could be over in Uganda badgering the black men there to dig pit latrines for their households and close that pesky sanitation gap.
Katine Amref Health Strike
An impressive assemblage of mendacious nonsense.
"That's why women's wages have perhaps never been more important. Women are the sole or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families. For them and their families, equal pay is not only a matter of principle; it's a matter of survival."
When she mentioned this, I knew she was talking primarily about blacks. Of course, it will be white women who mostly avail themselves of the provisions of this act.
"It will also eliminate a loophole that some employers use to avoid paying women equal wages. Under the act, while employees will still have to prove that discrimination has taken place, employers will be required to prove in court that any wage differences were based on factors other than sex...."
Yeah, that whole "presumption of innocence" loophole is a real burden to women - women like Christine O'Donnell - who want to sue thier way into the upper middle class.
"The Paycheck Fairness Act will also improve federal agency access to wage-related data, while protecting confidentiality."
If it aids the federal government in getting this information, then clearly it does not protect confidentiality. The federal government is the chief institution from which information should be held if you want to keep it confidential in any meaningful sense.
Perhaps we can talk about pay equity when women will pay their fair share of taxes.
On average, 65-year old men today will receive only 43.6% of the net benefits that women receive, and young men today can expect a net tax burden over their lifetimes that will be 3.4 times greater than for women.
Of course the gender pay gap is a demonstrable nonsense.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Apparently if you correct for behavior (maternity leave, sick days, air-conditioner preference, etc) the wage gap disappears; I wouldn't be surprised if men are actually paid less after correcting for all that stuff.
Men are sent to prison or jail about 10 times as often as women.
Men have a life expectancy at least 5-6 years lower than women.
Men have a lower college graduation rate than women.
Boys are more likely to get suspended or expelled from high school than girls.
It was recently announced that women now earn more doctorates than men, a fact announced with pride by feminists everywhere.
All of those disparities will be excused by "biology" - begging the question of why certain other gaps cannot be excused by biology, as well.
Add to this the fact that earnings disparity isn't all it's cracked up to be, either, when viewed from the perspective of what women get to spend, rather than what they earn.
Women collect social security and Medicare benefits about 50%-100% longer than men do.
Widows can collect social security at their deceased husband's rate, if it was higher than theirs.
Widows live in homes often paid for, all or in part, by the labors of their husbands.
Widows live off the pensions, 401(k)s, and other savings accrued by their deceased husbands.
Hell, for that matter, women can benefit from senior citizen's discounts for longer than men.
My grandmother lived in the house bought by my grandfather for 30 years after his death, plus the proceeds from the sale of his business. My other grandmother did so for 20 years, and collected my grandfather's pension. My sister's mother-in-law, who's never had a job, goes on about 10 cruises a year paid for by the pension of her deceased husband, who died shortly after retirement and never had the chance. Another sister's mother-in-law has lived for 20 years in the house left her by her late husband, a man she was only married to for two years before his death.
Single mothers, including single black mothers, are more likely to collect any kind of welfare than probably any other demographic category - food stamps, TANF, SSA survivor's benefits, etc. - even when adjusted for income.
I have a modest proposal: you know all those bumper stickers with the equal sign? Change them to >=. Because that's what the equality movement really is about: in any sphere of society considered important, minorities and women are entitled to equal representation at least, compared to white, male gentiles. Over-representation is perfectly acceptable.
The hogwash about how women only make 80 cents on the dollar due to discrimination that constantly keeps getting regurgitated by feminists is simply a lie.
It's a double lie. First, it's not true. Second, it's not important. There's no reason to oppose such discrimination since men and womed are inextricably linked. The resources of one are the resources ofthe other.
I don't think women are expecting to live anymore on men's earnings for the rest of their lives. You are living in the Philip Wylie generation? As a matter of fact, my mother died 11 years before my father; my best friend's mother died 20 years before her widower; my other friend' father outlived his wife by 35 years and yet another's friend's mother died 12 years before her husband. Indeed, I count so many friends and relatives of a certain generation (mine) whose fathers outlived their mothers, that I wonder if it's a trend that is showing up in the stats.
In any case, I don't why men here diss feminism so much. There have been the absurd PC excesses, but a lot of "feminism" needed to happen for mens' own good.
It has actually forced a very large percentge of women to fend for themselves, and sometimes for their husbands. Those female PhDs who now apparently outnumber male PhDs will at least be less likely to bother the male for a lifetime free lunch.
And btw. Prior to the 20th century, men outlived women on the average. Reading 17th and 18th biographies is an education in that regard. Until the 20th century when it wasn't really necessary in developed countries any more, I don't recall reading of any females whining over it. It was just life.
Marrying the boss was an honorable form of advancement for young women. They used to come in from the sticks to the big city and start in the secretarial pool. Soon they advanced up to "private" secretary and then to wife.
I usually had one or more secretaries from the time I was 25 until I was about 45. They always said "Yes, sir" and they fetched me coffee. Some of them could type.
Are you sure you're not mixing your memories with a recent viewing of the deathless film, 9-5? Did any of your secretaries look like Dolly Parton btw?
Post a Comment