Remember that time in my post where it explained "government" as being "the federal government so far"? I hope that clears up the US States = government issue for you.
Understand that my position is more nuanced than "US federal v. State governments." Note how I'm not at all in favor of the main arm of any government: legislation--hence, my supporting common law, tort, and all that. My position would curtail the power of any government to impose its methods on others because the laws which I support would arise from elsewhere and not legislation. I don't think you noticed the implications of that, so that should have clarified what the acceptable role of any government would be.
I'm note sure why you're so hostile against my "Americo-centric" reasoning. When discussing political, economic, and social issues, it helps to have a relevant frame of reference. Mine is the USA. It isn't Britain because the actions of that government generally aren't influential to me. Furthermore, I don't find a universal approach to be more useful.
I find it odd that I have to explain to you why "A is interesting, and B is not; therefore,I don't talk too much about B."
Remember that time in my post where it explained "government" as being "the federal government so far"? I hope that clears up the US States = government issue for you.
Understand that my position is more nuanced than "US federal v. State governments." Note how I'm not at all in favor of the main arm of any government: legislation--hence, my supporting common law, tort, and all that. My position would curtail the power of any government to impose its methods on others because the laws which I support would arise from elsewhere and not legislation. I don't think you noticed the implications of that, so that should have clarified what the acceptable role of any government would be.
I'm note sure why you're so hostile against my "Americo-centric" reasoning. When discussing political, economic, and social issues, it helps to have a relevant frame of reference. Mine is the USA. It isn't Britain because the actions of that government generally aren't influential to me. Furthermore, I don't find a universal approach to be more useful.
I find it odd that I have to explain to you why "A is interesting, and B is not; therefore,I don't talk too much about B."
I think I acknowledged that you use the word "government" in a fairly weird and Americo-centric way in my post, and I pointed out the flaw in the way you used the term both generally and in terms of US politics.
Your points are nonsensical because you deploy the term "government" without any real sense of what you mean. Is government bad when states decide?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
thegreekdog wrote:The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?
That is the basic problem. But in this case, there are a good many who really don't want it to end.
Yeah... so what's the answer? Let's say there is conscious instutitionalized sexism with respect to how much a woman is paid and there is subconscious sexism as well (example 1: "She's going to want to take maternity leave, so let's pay her less;" example 2: "She's great and we should hire her as VP of marketing (who makes less than VP of operations.").
I can think of some options, but all of them involve government intervention: namely, that a certain number of executives must be women or all women must make the same salary as men regardless of length of service, hours worked, etc. I can think of zero non-government options, other than self-regulation which has apparently not worked.
how about encouraging more men to take traditionally female roles? e.g. sta-at-home dads.
there's change through culture, through ideas which don't require government mandates.
Remember that time in my post where it explained "government" as being "the federal government so far"? I hope that clears up the US States = government issue for you.
Understand that my position is more nuanced than "US federal v. State governments." Note how I'm not at all in favor of the main arm of any government: legislation--hence, my supporting common law, tort, and all that. My position would curtail the power of any government to impose its methods on others because the laws which I support would arise from elsewhere and not legislation. I don't think you noticed the implications of that, so that should have clarified what the acceptable role of any government would be.
I'm note sure why you're so hostile against my "Americo-centric" reasoning. When discussing political, economic, and social issues, it helps to have a relevant frame of reference. Mine is the USA. It isn't Britain because the actions of that government generally aren't influential to me. Furthermore, I don't find a universal approach to be more useful.
I find it odd that I have to explain to you why "A is interesting, and B is not; therefore,I don't talk too much about B."
I think I acknowledged that you use the word "government" in a fairly weird and Americo-centric way in my post, and I pointed out the flaw in the way you used the term both generally and in terms of US politics.
Your points are nonsensical because you deploy the term "government" without any real sense of what you mean. Is government bad when states decide?
if you knew what the word "legislation" means, then you could probably answer your own question...
Remember that time in my post where it explained "government" as being "the federal government so far"? I hope that clears up the US States = government issue for you.
Understand that my position is more nuanced than "US federal v. State governments." Note how I'm not at all in favor of the main arm of any government: legislation--hence, my supporting common law, tort, and all that. My position would curtail the power of any government to impose its methods on others because the laws which I support would arise from elsewhere and not legislation. I don't think you noticed the implications of that, so that should have clarified what the acceptable role of any government would be.
I'm note sure why you're so hostile against my "Americo-centric" reasoning. When discussing political, economic, and social issues, it helps to have a relevant frame of reference. Mine is the USA. It isn't Britain because the actions of that government generally aren't influential to me. Furthermore, I don't find a universal approach to be more useful.
I find it odd that I have to explain to you why "A is interesting, and B is not; therefore,I don't talk too much about B."
I think I acknowledged that you use the word "government" in a fairly weird and Americo-centric way in my post, and I pointed out the flaw in the way you used the term both generally and in terms of US politics.
Your points are nonsensical because you deploy the term "government" without any real sense of what you mean. Is government bad when states decide?
if you knew what the word "legislation" means, then you could probably answer your own question...
Cute reply, I can wait for your serious response.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
I believe Symmetry started with the cute replies (the government is an employer).
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
Now, can we please have a normal discussion without everyone pretending not to know what the point is? Thanks.
thegreekdog wrote:I believe Symmetry started with the cute replies (the government is an employer).
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
Now, can we please have a normal discussion without everyone pretending not to know what the point is? Thanks.
It wasn't a cute reply. The government is a major employer, saying that the government shouldn't involve itself in employment law is just plain stupid. It's not cute to point that out, it's obvious, and objecting to that obvious point suggests that you're wedded to a certain form of rhetorical formula that associates employment with the private sector.
Now can we have a normal discussion that acknowledges that people are employed by the government? I understand you'd like to ignore that element, but I don't think it's fair to say that I'm being cute pointing out a major part of the economy.
Last edited by Symmetry on Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
thegreekdog wrote:I believe Symmetry started with the cute replies (the government is an employer).
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
Now, can we please have a normal discussion without everyone pretending not to know what the point is? Thanks.
It wasn't a cute reply. The government is a major employer, saying that the government shouldn't involve itself in employment law is just plain stupid. It's not cute to point that out, it's obvious, and objecting to that obvious point suggests that you're wedded to a certain form of rhetorical formula that associates employment with the private sector.
Now can we have a normal discussion that acknowledges that people are employed by the government?
People are employed by the government.
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
thegreekdog wrote:I believe Symmetry started with the cute replies (the government is an employer).
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
Now, can we please have a normal discussion without everyone pretending not to know what the point is? Thanks.
It wasn't a cute reply. The government is a major employer, saying that the government shouldn't involve itself in employment law is just plain stupid. It's not cute to point that out, it's obvious, and objecting to that obvious point suggests that you're wedded to a certain form of rhetorical formula that associates employment with the private sector.
Now can we have a normal discussion that acknowledges that people are employed by the government?
People are employed by the government.
The point is this: The government (federal or state or local) should not be legislating or regulating private companies with respect to this particular issue.
Hmm, you've gone a little vague.
1) Why shouldn't they?
2) Why shouldn't they on this issue?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Is this a "you go first" thing? I kind of thought you had your arguments in place, but I'll give you a bit of time to reason them out. It's fairly clear at this point that your conclusion comes first, and your rationale for it takes a bit of time to work out. Take your time TGD.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Is this a "you go first" thing? I kind of thought you had your arguments in place, but I'll give you a bit of time to reason them out. It's fairly clear at this point that your conclusion comes first, and your rationale for it takes a bit of time to work out. Take your time TGD.
You being condescending in this thread is rather ironic.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Is this a "you go first" thing? I kind of thought you had your arguments in place, but I'll give you a bit of time to reason them out. It's fairly clear at this point that your conclusion comes first, and your rationale for it takes a bit of time to work out. Take your time TGD.
It's a you go first thing because currently the government does not legislate or regulate private companies as to making sure that women are paid the same as men regardless of hours worked, degree, and whether the person takes leave. Further, the government does not legislate or regulate private companies as to their subconscious thoughts as to women and their roles in the workplace.
So, I'd like you to indicate why (and how) the government ensures that women no longer earn 77% of men.
I dont really feel common law is good enough in this case. Sure theres plenty of examples where the little guy (or girl) won but from my hugely indepth knowledge of US common law (from watching Boston Legal on TV) isnt it usually a case of who has the best lawyer wins? (rather than who has the point of law).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Because history shows that we can be rather discriminatory when left to our own devices.
Government is also our own devices (for whatever that's worth). I just don't like government mandated affirmative action of any kind. It smacks of condescension.
Lootifer wrote:I dont really feel common law is good enough in this case. Sure theres plenty of examples where the little guy (or girl) won but from my hugely indepth knowledge of US common law (from watching Boston Legal on TV) isnt it usually a case of who has the best lawyer wins? (rather than who has the point of law).
It is not the case that who has the best lawyer wins. Common law should solve these types of problems on a company by company basis.
Is this a "you go first" thing? I kind of thought you had your arguments in place, but I'll give you a bit of time to reason them out. It's fairly clear at this point that your conclusion comes first, and your rationale for it takes a bit of time to work out. Take your time TGD.
It's a you go first thing because currently the government does not legislate or regulate private companies as to making sure that women are paid the same as men regardless of hours worked, degree, and whether the person takes leave. Further, the government does not legislate or regulate private companies as to their subconscious thoughts as to women and their roles in the workplace.
So, I'd like you to indicate why (and how) the government ensures that women no longer earn 77% of men.
That's not what you asked, or indeed what I replied to. I think employers should not discriminate, and that the government is an employer. I don't think it's "cute" to point out that the government is a major employer, and that it's fairly ridiculous to suggest that the government should have a say in employment law.
That's simple common sense.
As to private employers, government should clearly have a say as a point of principle. The level of governmental interference is clearly up for debate, but ruling out any form of governmental interference is at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Okay, seriously? I didn't even address you original reply in my post. Why are you hanging on to it? I thought we'd moved on. The government has employees... great, wonderful, grand. Let's move on (again)... there is literally no point in debating something that is universally acknowledged as true.
Symmetry wrote:As to private employers, government should clearly have a say as a point of principle. The level of governmental interference is clearly up for debate, but ruling out any form of governmental interference is at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.
Why? What do you mean by a point of principle?
Also, for purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming all federal, state, and local laws government workplace discrimination with respect to gender are valid. Therefore, we're only talking about new laws or regulations.
Our recent Catalyst report, The Myth of the Ideal Worker , reveals that women do ask for raises and promotions. They just don’t get as much in return.
The research focused on career paths of high-potential men and women, drawing on thousands of MBA graduates from top schools around the world. Catalyst found that, among those who had moved on from their first post-MBA job, there was no significant difference in the proportion of women and men who asked for increased compensation or a higher position.
Yet the rewards were different.
Women who initiated such conversations and changed jobs post MBA experienced slower compensation growth than the women who stayed put. For men, on the other hand, it paid off to change jobs and negotiate for higher salaries—they earned more than men who stayed did. And we saw that as both men’s and women’s careers progress, the gender gap in level and pay gets even wider.
thegreekdog wrote:Okay, seriously? I didn't even address you original reply in my post. Why are you hanging on to it? I thought we'd moved on. The government has employees... great, wonderful, grand. Let's move on (again)... there is literally no point in debating something that is universally acknowledged as true.
Symmetry wrote:As to private employers, government should clearly have a say as a point of principle. The level of governmental interference is clearly up for debate, but ruling out any form of governmental interference is at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.
Why? What do you mean by a point of principle?
Also, for purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming all federal, state, and local laws government workplace discrimination with respect to gender are valid. Therefore, we're only talking about new laws or regulations.
As a point of principle, that people should earn the same level of pay if they do the same job. And that the government is a major employer. Indeed, to take it further, few so called "private" companies are separate from the government in any meaningful sense.
I sense that you want me to explain the flaws in your received arguments before you attempt to explain the logic behind what you've been told is true.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
You're arguing ideals here Sym, when TGD is talking about pragmatic policy and whatnot.
I think we are all in agreement in the ideals space: Woman and Men who do the same job, with the same qualifications should be paid the same. Or more generally: People should be paid based on their merits, not whats between their legs.
Thats not what we're debating.
We're debating on how best to get from where we are (with somewhere between 2% and 25% difference in wages depending on who you listen to) to the above ideal situation.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
bedub1 wrote:Of course men make more than women. There is nothing wrong with this situation.
Take off that phatscotty hat bro, it doesnt suit ya.
If you dig into the context beyond what he is saying he can still say it while being consistent with what I said above:
Currently femnazis will tell you that men make 25% (or whatever) more than woman; but only a small fraction of this difference is because of discrimination.
Most of it will be made up by woman doing different (and more often than not lower paying) jobs than men. No discrimination; you just dont pay a nurse the same you pay a doctor.
Now are there some inherent failure in society where we push woman into nursing school, but men into medical school? Maybe; but that is certainly making good progress as society breaks down old fashioned attitudes.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
