Why is it wrong is an employer chooses to pay his male employees more than the female employees? Why should the employer be forced to pay them equally? If a business owner is paying the men more, there could be either two reasons. He could just be giving extra money to the males. What is wrong with that? Anyone is allowed to give money to whichever other people they choose. If the employer wanted, he could just pay all his employees less— both male and female. Or perhaps women are just willing to work for less money than males. So if an employer was forced to pay both his male and female employees equally, could not the employer just hire all women so he could pay all his employees less and save money? What I am saying is that forcing employees to be paid equally, regardless of gender, will not necessarily help women. The employer might just stop paying the males more, and keep paying the females the same ammount. This could potentially hurt women, because there are many stay-at-home moms that are financially supported by their husbands. All these types of anti-gender discrimination laws do is require businesses to pay women more if the owner wants to pay men more. Does paying men more have any benefit for the business, or is it mostly just an act of charity by a business owner who cares more about men than women? I would suggest that the employee incomes are much affected by how much the workers demand to be paid. If workers are not willing to work for a low ammount, the business will have to pay them more. It seems apparent that women are just willing to work for less than what men are willing to work for. So if an employer does not pay men more, he will likely end up with many more women working for him than men. There are several arguments that can be made for why a skewed gender ratio may not be good in certain types of workplaces. Anti-gender discrimination laws will not solve the inequality — men will just flock to certain occupations that pay higher wages. Forcing more businesses to pay their male employees less will just drive more men into gender-segregated industries. These higher paying occupations will be types of work that are more difficult or less pleasant for women to do, for a variety of reasons. If it was not, it would not be a male-dominated job. As soon as women enter into a previously male-dominated occupation, the incomes begin to fall (we can see this in psychology, university teaching, and medicine). Women simply appear to be willing to work for less. In nursing for example, if hospitals were suddenly required to only hire male nurses there would be a big rise in wages; not because hospitals want to pay men more than women, but because hospitals would have to pay much more to attract men into an occupation they would be reluctant to work in. More men are now unemployed than women. Anti-gender discrimination laws will probably widen the divide. What feminists and those who are trying to create "equality" fail to understand is that there is significant statistical differences between men and women — both social, biological, and psychological. Trying to force equality is going to create unintended consequences. Now, I agree that in former times there was indeed blatent discrimination against women, and that this was not a good thing. I believe there would be some basic protections for women in the workplace. But now things have gone too far. Many women are now complaining if the average woman earns 20% less than the average man, even when there are plenty of other statistical differences between what men and women choose to do in their life. I would argue that the average woman now has more opportunity than the average man, if she chooses to pursue these opportunities. But the central fact is that women have children, and take care of children. This is by far the biggest reason that women earn less. We can discuss what can be done to help make things more fair for this majority of women, but trying to force equal gender outcomes is just ignoring this central issue.
Payment of workers dependent on the nature of their genitals is a bit silly unless you're running a brothel.
I agree, with the possible exception that women have that special time of month and can get a little irritable. But if some employers want to pay men more, what is the problem? Trying to legislate equality is going to subjugate businesses to potential lawsuits. It should be remembered the court system does not always act in a fair and rational way. For this reason businesses have to hire expensive lawyers, and even the potential threat of a lawsuit, however baseless, forces businesses to implement ridiculous and cumbersome protocals just to help defend against possible allegations of gender discrimination. Most of these protocals do absolutely nothing to actually help women. And many businesses even institute gender quotas, thinking there is a greater risk of not using discriminative quotas than the unlikely possibility of legal trouble because of the quota policies. If there by chance become many more men than women, or a few of the men are promoted but not any women, it creates risk of a lawsuit. Laws designed to merely "protect women from discrimination" have other effects from which they were intended. The effects result not so much from the law itself, but rather the selective application of the law, by employees, prosecutors, the judge, and even general public opinion that constitutes a jury. The unintended consequence is often injustice to the affected business.
i would have thought the only reason a person gets paid more than someone else would be because of the job they're doing. it could work both ways a woman might get paid more than a man because the job required more comprehension and as she had it she got paid more, same with a fella if his work load was 20% more than a female colleague although doing the same type of work you'd expect the one doing the additional 20% would be paid more, its not that the person is better its just that they had the resources to handle more, perhaps this could be why bonus' were introduced instead. Additionally, similar to how anders pointed out, would a man with an extensive family and extensive social calender be able to handle a workload to that of a single woman that only enjoys bikerides and has a pet goldfish? then the question would be - should the man with the larger family get a larger payload despite not doing as much work... again the boss understanding the need for resources in a large family would realise that they could do with a larger pay packet because the fella does a great job and is a credit to the company and his family would have a larger financial need than that of a goldfish (terance), and this could be said vice versa with a woman with a large family and social calander and a single male with a collection of stamps. But then would the singlton benefit more socially by being able to afford golf clubs? sod it, flat rate with bonus' would be the best determined by company profit and position and responsibility of employee, although the thread topic being answered 'nothing' is justifyable and understandable when not mixed up with sexism, but even if misunderstood by a person to be sexism, its explainable and the suggestion of sexism becomes dismissable.
WTFO? First of all, a key word in your own phrasing is can. Not all women get irritable. You do not punish all for the ill symptoms of others. Secondly, men are natually more aggressive. So should they be paid less for being more irritable more often? No. That is stupid. Private enterprises are free to do whatever they please, but they are preventing the hiring of the smartest members of the other half.
Well yes, no doubt men and women deserve equal treatment. But what if the employer, for whatever reason, wants to give his male employees more money? How does that directly negetively impact the female employees?
Generally women don't do equal work. Also when they do work as productively as men they get paid the same, if not more because we all know women can be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es and they know how to menstruate their way to the top of the corporate ladder.
It consigns women to second-class citizenship. It treats women as being of less value than men in society over-all. It is just plain arrogant and piggish behavior on the part of the snivelling little punks who can't stand not being able to push half of society around. If they want to reward men for their productivity, compared to women (which is the ONLY justification they ever had for that sort of bull (*)(*)(*)(*),) they can award bonuses based on that productivity, as long as there is a clear measurement standard and as long as women who meet the same standards also recieve the same bonuses. If you let one dirtbag get away with treating women like that, the rest of the dirtbags will try to pull the same (*)(*)(*)(*), just like they do with the minimum wage.
There is no wage gap between women and men. Look, I already debunked all of this nonsense with my post below here in this section titled..."No Wage Gap Between Women and Men...another liberal lie" You'll notice that there are only a couple of responses to that post because the facts are just too overwhelming for libs to deny the truth.
is there actually any proof of this? If a business bases the rate of pay solely on someones gender it is wrong. The question is does it happen at such a rate that the government needs to get involved, I doubt it.
Your latter reason, than women are willing to work for less, is not valid. Just because someone is willing to work for less doesn't mean they should, as they would gladly work for more. As for why should it be OK for someone to pay a woman less, it can't be. We passed laws that say you can't do that. As a society we have felt that goes against the ideals of equal opportunity. If a woman has no chance of making the same as a man, she has no chance to equal opportunity. Not at all. If you believe in the free market at all, you know that what will happen is the opposite. If they try to pay men less, men will look for jobs elsewhere and no business can make profit without labor, it's impossible, so they will have to pay both men and women the same or face going out of business. No, it only hurts women who aren't married, which has long been the strategy of those who oppose women's right, just like it was the strategy of those who opposed equal rights for blacks. When you pay someone less based on gender or race, you effectively keeping them from succeeding as in America, money equals power. This has been proven incorrect. Both women and minorities have been found to be paid less in many studies. Not only that, but often times, they are not extended offers of employment as often as white males, which means it's not just a matter of how much they are paid but how often they are considered to be hired in the first place. That shows that if they did demand more, it's more likely that the employer would simply go hire a white man and maybe even pay them more. No, it won't completely solve gender inequality, but how will not having laws solve it? You're conclusions are wrong. There is no evidence women are willing to work for less. There are males who work in nursing already and they don't necessarily raise the overall wages of nurses. In fact, some of them may even be paid less than women nurses. The data doesn't really support this conclusion simply because we don't measure everyone who is out of work. Perhaps at this point, there are simply more men looking for work and are being counted whereas fewer women are for what ever reason. Forcing equality may have unintended consequences, but they are far less of a concern than the CERTAIN consequences of a society that allows inequality as the norm. According to the data, there is still inequalities both in pay and opportunities for women. Those inequalities are not welcomed by women nor are they chosen. They are simply inequalities that white men wouldn't tolerate and lobby their government to fix so why shouldn't women and supports of equality do the same? Your discussion of women having babies means they earn less isn't accurate, it's about the amount they are paid for the job. If a man gets 20 bucks an hour and a women gets 18 for the exact same job and performance, what does it matter if she has a baby or not? Irrelevant. You are using the same tired old excuses men have used for centuries. There is nothing new to your argument despite what you may think. What can be done to make things fair for women is simple, pay them the same rate for the same performance you would pay a man. Do that, and all the other stuff doesn't matter because you have acheived equality. Problem solved.
There is no law dictating equal salary between the genders. Even the local ones are unenforceable. Not to mention that most equal pay hoosefudge is delegated to individual companies and employers. Next topic. To ad the EPA is not such a law, if you intend to go their.
