[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Equal pay for equal work (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/22/2015 6:34:14 PM EDT
|
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable."
That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking. 
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. 
|
|
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. They should be paid the same. if they provide the same work, and are smart enough to negotiate for it when they are accepting the job. |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-yearly-reminder-that-the-gender-wage-gap-is-due-to-choice-not-discrimination/article/2563010
Uh, it's fake. On average, women choose jobs that require less travel, less overtime, less weekend work, less night work, and that are in more desirable locations, and men choose jobs that pay the most, regardless of all the other undesirable stuff. |
|
i'd be deconstructing the question, myself--the classifications are ambiguous, since they are based on both gender and ethnicity. 'comparable' is also a problem--you can compare anything to anything. the question is just poorly formulated, especially since it is in the passive voice.
"should employers determine wage rate based on gender or ethnicity?" absolutely not. |
|
Quoted:
WILL NOT DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU I don't need help with my homework. I started this thread to see if anyone else thought this question was ambiguous. Look at this crap: Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "The US should close its boundaries to all immigration." This type of stuff is so open ended you put down damn near anything. |
|
some jobs just are not equal, you would think getting a little head of hanging onto a sub would be easy for lara croft but it took Indy to keep the ark out of nazi hands. No way a girl is not looking at whats in the box.
the real position should be best person for the job but many women and minorities would be out their govt/city job. I used to watch the firefighters run a hose up a 5 story building in north hollywood the female candidates time was way behind the males. There are plenty of occupations a women surpasses the males at as well. but not every job is equal. |
|
Quoted:
They should be paid the same. if they provide the same work, and are smart enough to negotiate for it when they are accepting the job. Quoted:
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. They should be paid the same. if they provide the same work, and are smart enough to negotiate for it when they are accepting the job. Question is irrelevant, employees are not paid based on what they do. They are paid based on their skillsets, knowledge and experience. In short, what they know how to do with proficiency. That is why, equal pay for equal work is hogwash. Put everyone on piece work, commission or flat rate shop pay and the cream rises rapidly. Turds do not float they sink to the bottom. Majority of hourly non incentive workers are clock watchers and only produce to the minimum. 
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlR6CdJtRWM
Explains my position... |
| People should be paid based on suitability for a job and effectiveness at performing the work without regard to distinctions of race or sex. This means however that the only people who are paid equally are those who are equally suitible and effective. This will never be applied perfectly but the correct answer to the resulting issues of fairness lays in reinforcing a culture of looking to merit over largely irrelevant factors such as sex or race. Blindly asserting equal payment based on sex or race over pure merit does not erase unfairness or inefficiency, it merely redistributes it. |
|
The whole thing is a union scam to raise the wages of lower skilled jobs to that of trades or higher skilled jobs. You will find it has nothing to do with comparable work.
We have already had this scam run on us in Canada by .gov unions. They argued, for example, that laundry/snack bar workers in a gov hospital should be paid the same as the stationary engineers that ran the physical plant. Laundry/coffee was just as important to running the hospital as heat and air conditioning. Court/labour board agreed and now we have the highest paid gov laundry/snackbar people in the world with fully indexed defined benefit pensions. Some hospitals tried to outsource laundry services but a quick picket line nixed that. |
|
Equal pay for equal work is a no brainer. That's the way it should be, although some are better at negotiating a salary, but if you get Federal money and you aren't famn close to that, you get to explain it. (I've had those conversations, they aren't fun. Nobody is happy when you answer, because those black kids are the sons of a VP's gardener and he wants to do them a favor in the Summer. And the Notre Dame Qb, as a well know son of USC, I would prefer you get the story form the people that brought him in and made the salary decisions)
The kicker is that some feel that Engineer with a Masters in EE and Several Patents or an MBA from Harvard Business on the short track to a Nobel Prize is comparable work to a person with a Masters in Women's Studies with a Masters thesis on distinctions in petroglyphs working as a buyer supporting the facilities department are "comparable" work. Good performers and bad performers doing the same job are not performing equal work and their salaries usually reflect that. Equal work and comparable work have been battling buzz words for 3 years. |
|
a person should be paid what the job they will do pay. the idea of equal pay is faulty.
<insert your favorite reason> just wants the advantage, perfect case in point. The Crossfit Games. The announcers exhaust themselves to point out that the male and female competitors are paid the same amount, but they do not perform the same amount of work. Females are required to lift a lesser amount of weight than the males, yet they are rewarded equally. Why is equality such a difficult issue? Because people don't want equality, they want the advantage to themselves. |
|
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. They want you to kowtow to the social justice warriortard view but their view is naive because they chose to ignore reality. And the reality is, it will never be the "equality" they want to see. This is why: 1) Not every employee has the same quality work. The better employees SHOULD get better raises and higher pay. The ones who do the bare minimum should be paid the same as what they do. If you start paying everyone the same, regardless of how well they work you'll only end up with good employees saying, "why the fuck should I work so hard if the careless people make just as much as I do?" 2) Not everyone has the same experience. The employee with 20 years of experience SHOULD make more than the new guy. That's life. And again, if you start paying everyone the same regardless of experience it'll only tank your quality. 3) Not everyone works in the same region. Wages already vary per region. 4) Not everyone works the same job. How many women have you met who who are plumbers? Or trash-collectors? Hell even fork-lift drivers? I'm in a factory right now and in a year I've only seen THREE women driving forklifts. And likewise how many men do you see working in salons? The problem is, the social justice warriors only look at average wages. They always ignore everything else, especially factors I've mentioned above. |
| One of my shipmates was dating a Japanese TV "on scene reporter" from a local Japanese station. When asked, "Does it bother you that male reporters get paid more than you?" Without hesitation she replies, "Of course not, they know I will get married and quit to raise my children but the men will make this a career." I don't think that Asian Logic will get you an "A" at an American university. |
|
If I didn't care about grades, I'd troll with something like:
"Women shouldn't be in the workforce. The nation is better served by women tending to their domestic duties--primarily rearing children. Ethnic minorities should be repatriated to their country of origin. A more homogeneous workforce yields a more cohesive workforce." |
|
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. Here is the difference my friend it is not all equal that's how the rhetoric is spouted and thrown at us but it's BS. Here's a good example: at my work they consistently give me shit, and use the berate style of management. Time and time again they treat the females nicer don't scrutinize so hard because it's clear they don't want to hurt their feelings. |
|
My issue is that the people chanting "Equal pay for equal work" really only want the "equal pay" part of the equation. Female coworkers at one job I worked at, felt they should be paid the same (they were) but that men had to handle all the dangerous tasks... while female co-workers are kept safe. Also... all the shit jobs, heavy lifting, etc... all went to the guys. If women want equal pay, they better shoulder an equal burden at work. It *SHOULD* be Equal pay for Equal work... not Equal pay for Equal job title. |
|
Quoted:
Not every employee has the same quality work. The better employees SHOULD get better raises and higher pay. The ones who do the bare minimum should be paid the same as what they do. If you start paying everyone the same, regardless of how well they work you'll only end up with good employees saying, "why the fuck should I work so hard if the careless people make just as much as I do?" And then they either slack off or go work for better wages for a competitor. |
|
Had a similar class a LONG time ago when the internet was in its infancy like 1992/93. We got asked a similar question by our female economics instructor and told to come prepared next class.
At the time the CT State University system accidently posted up what each professor was making. I found it. I came in and asked the instructor how come she was a phd, was more senior then many of the men in the department but she was making 20% less overall. I asked her who she felt about that... wow what a shit storm THAT information started on campus. |
|
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. Just reply "they already are should be. if it were cheaper to hire people in one group to do a given task to the same standard than people in another group then the first group would be in high demand for the cost savings alone" This leads to the 'other factors' thing in economics whatever it's called, but it is a defensible position. |
|
I'm going to start a new company that only hires women. Since I only have to pay them 77 cents on the dollar, I will have dramatically lower costs than my competitors and be able to price my products much lower. Of course that's nonsense but it's the logical outcome of a capitalist system if what the liberals are saying is true.
I just did a quick search for a bureau of labor study done a few years ago that debunked that myth. I couldn't find it which makes me think it got pulled because it didn't mesh with the Whitehouse narrative. |
|
Quoted:
Briefly state and justify your position on the proposal: "Woman and minorities should be paid the same wage as white males, provided the work is comparable." That is the first question for the new Labor Economics class I'm taking.
Am I reading too far into this or does this sound like an unclear trick question? I'm not sure how you could argue not to pay people the same for the same job, all else being equal of course. Now I'm sitting here questioning what the prof means with "comparable" and if wages means like hourly wages or lifetime earnings. It'll get you flunked but ask him which companies have different wage scales for women & men and if we know this goes on why doesn't the Department of Labor do something about it. The answer of course is no such wage disparity exists. If a woman gets a job at McDonalds she makes exactly what the man makes with all the same promotion opportunities. If a woman works for 5 years, quits her job to raise kids for 5 years then gets back into the work force is her pay compared to a man with 10 years on the job, 5 years on the job or a new worker? Is someone who's been out of the job for 5 years worth what someone who's been in the job for 5 years is paid? |
|
Quoted:
Porn star salaries seem to go the other way. I demand men be paid the same as women on porn sets.  LOL, I'd do it and take whatever for pay. 
Course, if the porn starts were in a Union. Then, the oldest actresses (in the industry) would be getting all the work. Because of seniority rules. Ugh... Aloha, Mark |