namelesstavern.net

Tikker wrote:err, what's wrong with equal pay for equal work?

microeconomics 101

Joe, Garry and Steve work same job, employed by Gullible Inc; Joe been there for 6 years, busts his ass and makes $15hr, Garry works just hard enough not to get fired and makes $11hr after 7 years there, Steve is a new hire, staring at base pay of $10hr. New law by President "I made promises that sound good but hurt economy" Obama, forces Gullible Inc to provide Joe, Garry an Steve "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Now Steve gets $1 raise for no reason, and Joe offered to take $4 cut or look for new job.

I don't think "equal pay for equal work" has anything to do with that. More experience almost always equals better wags, as you're just better at your job.

What equal pay for equal work about would be the case of:

Company hires Guy A right out of college into Job 1, and pays him 50k a year.

Same company hires Girl A right out of college into the same Job 1, and pays her 45k.

Same background, same job, same employer, but what happens with some frequency now, the guy will make more than the woman will, even though they're doing the same work. That's what equal pay for equal work is meant to stop. Not anything to do with paying someone more because he's got 5 years experience as opposed to the new guy.

-Arlos

Ganzo wrote:

Tikker wrote:err, what's wrong with equal pay for equal work?

microeconomics 101

Joe, Garry and Steve work same job, employed by Gullible Inc; Joe been there for 6 years, busts his ass and makes $15hr, Garry works just hard enough not to get fired and makes $11hr after 7 years there, Steve is a new hire, staring at base pay of $10hr. New law by President "I made promises that sound good but hurt economy" Obama, forces Gullible Inc to provide Joe, Garry an Steve "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Now Steve gets $1 raise for no reason, and Joe offered to take $4 cut or look for new job.

Ganzo, where did you get that info, Arlos is right re: the intent of Obamas plan is more an equality amongst the sexes.

Arlos wrote:I don't think "equal pay for equal work" has anything to do with that. More experience almost always equals better wags, as you're just better at your job.

What equal pay for equal work about would be the case of:

Company hires Guy A right out of college into Job 1, and pays him 50k a year.

Same company hires Girl A right out of college into the same Job 1, and pays her 45k.

Same background, same job, same employer, but what happens with some frequency now, the guy will make more than the woman will, even though they're doing the same work. That's what equal pay for equal work is meant to stop. Not anything to do with paying someone more because he's got 5 years experience as opposed to the new guy.

-Arlos

That 5k is for the month she'll probably be taking off after she got her new job.

Ok bad analogy, I was just trying to say that this will not cause raise in pay for working females, but cut in pay for working males. Let market take care of this, legislating has never solve anything in long term

I didn't realize you feel superior to women . Not sure you even realize what you are saying. What is going on is wrong, are you for blacks, asians, mexicans, etc getting paid less too?

Women, best bow down to Ganzo /snicker

Ganzo wrote:Ok bad analogy, I was just trying to say that this will not cause raise in pay for working females, but cut in pay for working males. Let market take care of this, legislating has never solve anything in long term

it's more like you don't know wtf you're talking about

Tikker wrote:

Ganzo wrote:Ok bad analogy, I was just trying to say that this will not cause raise in pay for working females, but cut in pay for working males. Let market take care of this, legislating has never solve anything in long term

it's more like you don't know wtf you're talking about

that's the good way to prove your argument

ClakarEQ wrote:I didn't realize you feel superior to women . Not sure you even realize what you are saying. What is going on is wrong, are you for blacks, asians, mexicans, etc getting paid less too?

Women, best bow down to Ganzo /snicker

No I'm against legislating free market, what is happening is wrong but that's not the way to go about fixing it.

You act like the market is free, what gives you that idea LOL. If it were a free market there wouldn't be a need to have legislation like this.

Employers know what they're doing and aren't changing it, what motivation does a free market provide to force any change at all outside of a price they put on the product they produce?

You act like there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Or that unions didn't serve a purpose. Neither of those are things the free market wanted or welcomed but without both of them we'd all be screwed because employers will find any way possible to fuck you over. Don't think they care about you; you're a fool if you think they do.

I'll ask this then; How do you propose a free market fix the descrepancy in pay between women and men when they hold the same job? I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this question. Keep this in mind, no market will willingly adjust if it is cost prohibitive. If they can make more cash for shareholders, they'll fuck their mothers.

I see you're able to point out the problem, I could point out several problems too, but I tend to at least try and offer a solution even if I get shat on for doing it (can you say gun ban LOL)

EDIT side/bar derail
I'll use OPEC as an example (I know it isn't the same but to show you free markets aren't really "free"). So oil drops down to under 100.00 a barrel, the MiddleEasternerns say woooo there buddy, lets slow production to keep the cost per barrel at or above 100.00, my wallet is growing nice and thick, hey and look, all those dumbfucks are still paying at 4.00 a gallon. Point here is the folks put in place to help control the market are IMO abusing it to make more money, this isn't a supply / demand thing, this is a controlling body taking advantage of the situation.

ClakarEQ wrote:You act like the market is free, what gives you that idea LOL. If it were a free market there wouldn't be a need to have legislation like this.

Employers know what they're doing and aren't changing it, what motivation does a free market provide to force any change at all outside of a price they put on the product they produce?

You act like there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Or that unions didn't serve a purpose. Neither of those are things the free market wanted or welcomed but without both of them we'd all be screwed because employers will find any way possible to fuck you over. Don't think they care about you; you're a fool if you think they do.

I'll ask this then; How do you propose a free market fix the descrepancy in pay between women and men when they hold the same job? I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this question.

I see you're able to point out the problem, I could point out several problems too, but I tend to at least try and offer a solution even if I get shat on for doing it (can you say gun ban LOL)

Just because I oppose a solution that you support, does not mean I'm obligated to provide a counter solution. I am a believer in free market and I oppose economic legislation's. It is a fact that minimum wage laws harm people they are intended to help and the only reason they were enacted is to win an election. Labor Unions served a purpose 80 years ago but now became a burden on economy.

Pay discrepancies like you are describing, have steadily been on a decline, because it is in a direct interest of an employer to retain best work force to maximize profits. The only reason this topic has been brought up by Obama is to gather votes.

Ganzo wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Ganzo wrote:Ok bad analogy, I was just trying to say that this will not cause raise in pay for working females, but cut in pay for working males. Let market take care of this, legislating has never solve anything in long term

it's more like you don't know wtf you're talking about

that's the good way to prove your argument

well, your "microeconomics 101" example was 100% incorrect

and just for the record, I've taken micro and macro economics, and work in an equal pay/equal work environment (and have for the last 10ish years since we converted)

your assertions are 100% wrong


what actually happens is that the traditional female roles end up overpaid, and the higher tech roles complain about the arrangement

it's got absolutely nothing to do with bumping up slackers, and bringing down go-getters

So, Ganzo, are you also against:

Anti-monopoly laws?
Anti-employer-discrimination laws?
Whistleblower protection laws for employees who report criminal acts?
Anti-pollution laws?
Laws that force firms to provide honest accounting data?

I could go on, but I think you get what I am driving at: There is no such thing as a completely "free" market. There is ALWAYS legislation in order to protect either the consumers or the work force. Without such laws, only employers would have any power, not the workers, and we'd have monopolies in control of pretty much every sector.

No, I don't think that that's a good idea, myself. A certain amount of control and legislation is vital for the market to work correctly. The equal pay for equal work idea is just an extension of anti-discrimination laws.

-Arlos

Tikker wrote:
and just for the record, I've taken micro and macro economics, and work in an equal pay/equal work environment (and have for the last 10ish years since we converted)

your assertions are 100% wrong


what actually happens is that the traditional female roles end up overpaid, and the higher tech roles complain about the arrangement

it's got absolutely nothing to do with bumping up slackers, and bringing down go-getters

that was your company's choice, not a law
I do not oppose a notion, just legislation

Anti-monopoly laws? - No
Anti-employer-discrimination laws? - No
Whistleblower protection laws for employees who report criminal acts? - No
Anti-pollution laws? - Yes to some of them
Laws that force firms to provide honest accounting data? - No

Well I think I've mispoken a bit and made a connection that didn't belong.

Free markets and pay aren't connected at all so I think both are arguements are misguided.

A free market is when a producer sets a price on their product that the consumer AND the producer agree with.

Pay and salary isn't connected to that at all so there is zero effect of pay equality to a free market.

Labor unions have become IMO what they were created to stop, a big business who doesn't take care of their staff.

I'd like to see how min. wage has hurt the people they're intended to help, statistics do not agree with you on this and have been proven to help. Even though every time a min. wage hike is coming all the righties talk about job loss BS and it is just that, BS.

Pay descrepancies like I'm describing are declining because of pressure, not because employers are trying to retain the best work force. Again, they don't care about the work force so long as the product is being produced, if what you say were true, they'd fire all the over paid men and put lower pay equally responsible women in their place.

I think there should be some big oversight on public AND private companies (it won't happen but still). I think folks would be a bit shocked to see how even smaller companies abuse power and screw folks over just to make the owner, shareholders, etc "rich".

See, you made my point, Ganzo. You're obviously not against legislative controls over the market, you're just opposed to THIS one. That's fine, it is certainly your right to oppose whatever laws you wish, but you may want to examine deeper for yourself why you oppose it, since you obviously don't have a problem with the fundamental concept of government placing restrictions on the market.

Personally, I don't see a law forcing employers to pay equally qualified and experienced candidates equal pay for the the same jobs, regardless of race, creed or sex to be fundamentally different than laws that forbid employers to turn people down for jobs due to any of those three factors.

-Arlos

Most companies have a pay scale. Those companies have a right to offer a salary within that tier of a payscale based on education, experience and past work ethics and references (yes, they do check those). Then most companies offer a personality assessment form. If applicant A and B seem equal on education and experience. Then based on interviews with past employers and references, and how well you fit the company's profile (and possibly physical) all fit in to the final offer the company might make to someone. Right there is 90% of the reason why applicant A is offered 5k more than applicant B.

Hi Kaemon =)