its amazing how 99% of the time someone says "its simple/basic economics" they say something super wrong
I disagree with equal pay legislation only because those statistics citing pay differences ignore the fact that men work more dangerous jobs and more/worse hours. Having said that this letter is stupid to argue that men are a families primary breadwinners and thus deserve higher pay. That hasn't been true for decades and the idea that pay would be tied to your familial role is just wtf.
Democrats need to get themselves out of the fetal position and win this fucking election. Republicans are going to dump a truckload of money into this race.
People that think that way about women are so god damned weird. I can't even comprehend how you get to that point.
socially isolated + finding some real dark parts of the internet = mens rights activists which have seemingly all turned into Nazis/Trumpers
like the /redpill subreddit is monitored similarly to the KKK type portions of the internet if that tells you anything
I've been in Cincinnati for 15 years, which historically is as Republican as Republican gets, from Salmon P. Chase through the Taft dynasty to John Boehner. I have never seen the city/county as blue as it is now. John Cranley, Connie Pillich, and Aftab Purveal have been to every major law firm in town for lunch or happy hour in the last month. I'm encouraged for 2018, the D's are out early here. Cranley is the Democratic mayor, declared Cincinnati a sanctuary city, and has taken complete media momentum away from State Treasurer Josh Mandel, who ran unsuccessfully for US Senate against Sherrod Brown in 2012. Mandel made immigration his issue, pandering to the base and eyeing 2018. Cranley has lined up a corporate Who's Who against the anti-immigrant nonsense among international employers like Procter & Gamble and GE Aircraft. He's basically running as the Chamber of Commerce Republican attacking Trump making Mandel look like a fool. Pillich already declared for governor and is raising money. Purveal is a 34 year old who took the Hamilton County Clerk race, literally, for the first time since 1912. Trump's bullshit is acting like fertilizer here.
I don't doubt that women end up being paid less for the same roles at times but I don't think the problem is as pervasive as the 74 cents per dollar rhetoric. And there's cultural factors like women being less likely to negotiate for a salary.
When you account for experience and education, the pay difference shrinks to about 1% or so. The issue is that there are many institutional and societal (and biological.... re: pregnancy) reasons that keep women from attaining that equal experience and education necessary to compete.
I assumed you did. I know it's just anecdotal and it's certainly not the hill I'm gonna die on, I just think wages isn't the battle the women's rights movement should focus on.
I'm all for promoting girls in STEM education, much better way to address earning disparity than wages.
This is very much my thought. I work as a software developer, this is a field where there has been a magnifying glass on the lack of diversity outside east/central asian heritage. I would love to have lots and lots of people form non-traditional white/male backgrounds, but the fact of the matter is that you have to address this (and other fields) as an issue where change must be focused on those who are young rather than getting upset why things aren't magically better right now.
Right. That has to be cultivated during high school and college. My undergrad was pretty good with girls in biology classes, but the comp sci department's students were pretty exclusionary with girls until a bunch of legit good people worked into the meat of the projects and clubs. The environment has changed ridiculously fast for some schools, not so fast in others. Not for lack of trying, but being a dick to boy/girl classmates doesn't usually happen in full view of faculty, so attitudes are hard to mediate sometimes.
Ooh, while we're talking wage inequality. Adoption of paternity leave so men also have large gaps in employment would also be beneficial.
Lmao youre going to make him go line item by line item then convienently attempt to strike down every presented example. Real life Steve Harvey of Fresno. Ill throw out the US Womens Soccer team. Spare me of pointing out why you, erroneously, want that to be wrong.
Serial numbers are registered at purchase and I'll pass on a yearly registration fee for obvious 2a reasons. Background check is $5, maybe raise it to $10 or $20 at purchase. On the economic side, a yearly Ad Valorum tax of say 2% for something worth a few hundred dollars is more trouble than its worth and couldn't self fund the program, labor, or systems required.
Just read a book called "economism" about this. People take their intro to macro/micro classes for their business degree, then erroneously Apply those simplified models to real world problems "but if you raise the minimum wage it reduces employment bro"
i mean, the answer from my understanding is Obama had to get 60 votes for a mostly unpopular idea when part of the 60 Dems were to the right of the Heitkamp/Manchin types now and others knew they'd get primaried killing their political careers basically forever when they cast that vote. people forget how radical some of the ideas that were part of Hillarys platform were just in '08, gay marriage was a non-starter but now it'd torpedo any Dem candidate who opposed it for example. the right has swung wildly right in the last eight years, but the Dem base has also swung to a lesser degree left. so they hemmed and hawed, worked with big pharmaceutical and insurance companies to craft a piece of legislation that could get them 60 votes, Joe Lieberman being basically a Republican killed any chance of a public option today Obama would have gone nuclear and jammed something through with 50 votes that was much more progressive, but his weakness has always been assuming good faith on behalf of those working against him. feels like another example of assuming intent instead of just reasonable outcome based on parameters set
I can no longer find even a tether to anything reassembling a rational basis for the current Republican policy decisions. Most major corporations believe in climate change, but elected Republican lawmakers want to kill the EPA for maybe 5 years of decent profits for energy companies.