Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

what part of 'Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year.' is a half truth? what part of that is a 'liberal lie'? as i said.. willfully ignore or too blind to see.. it's ok teyates.. i understand you've invested lots of time and money into being a republican.. no way to back out of the argument, now... and you can't let those pesky facts stop you, either! 

So is that stat based on people in the same profession? Does it compare people with the same education level, experience, and skill level? 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

what part of 'Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year.' is a half truth? what part of that is a 'liberal lie'? as i said.. willfully ignore or too blind to see.. it's ok teyates.. i understand you've invested lots of time and money into being a republican.. no way to back out of the argument, now... and you can't let those pesky facts stop you, either! 

So is that stat based on people in the same profession? Does it compare people with the same education level, experience, and skill level? 

 

 

_______________

YES!!!

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

______________________________

where do you come up with these questions? no where does the bill state any of these things.. i don't suffer your 'trolling', well..sorry.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

what part of 'Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year.' is a half truth? what part of that is a 'liberal lie'? as i said.. willfully ignore or too blind to see.. it's ok teyates.. i understand you've invested lots of time and money into being a republican.. no way to back out of the argument, now... and you can't let those pesky facts stop you, either! 

So is that stat based on people in the same profession? Does it compare people with the same education level, experience, and skill level? 

 

 

_______________

YES!!!

No link you posted said that. Are you saying that a female engineer with the same experience as a male engineer in the same field of engineering is making 77% of her male counterpart??

 

that is complete and total bs

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

______________________________

where do you come up with these questions? no where does the bill state any of these things.. i don't suffer your 'trolling', well..sorry.

 

 

I came up with this question because you posted this:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

My question to you and anyone who knows is will Employeers have to prove in advance of giving a pay raise to a man that they are justified in doing so? Or, do they have to have to justify it after the fact?

 

As a business owner do you think this is efficient?

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

and nowhere does the bill state the 'business has to justify a raise'..  that's as ignorant as your trolling questions.. if the need should arise, i.e. lawsuit, complaint.. whatever.. the company would have to show why one's pay was below the other.. now, enough with the 'sideshow'.. and more facts.

Last edited by Crash.Override

No my justification is that there are likely differences in the job.  Women working at the coal mines of WV do not usually do the same labor.  I know, I have been there and seen it.  There may be two women on a shift at the mine, but rarely if ever are they in the coal mine salvaging coal.

The article points out that there may be discrepancy in professionals in the NE for the simple reason that some may commute to jobs that pay more.  They live in the same area but actually work in different places.  Women arem ore likely to work part time, so they can have time off for kids, etc.

NOWEHRE did I say that a aman and woman who do the same job, in the same place, at the same hours, deserve to be paid differently, and according to the lady in the OP that is the norm.  When you compare people in the same job, same hours, same experience and education, there is no statistical difference in their pay.

 

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

I never said your statement wasn't true, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

your statement does not compare professions. It compares the workforce as a whole. This means that they are comparing a female teacher to a male investment banker. Of course the female teacher makes less.

 

do you really not see the fallacy in this or are you going to cling to the political talking point?

Last edited by Kenny Powers
Originally Posted by teyates:

No my justification is that there are likely differences in the job.  Women working at the coal mines of WV do not usually do the same labor.  I know, I have been there and seen it.  There may be two women on a shift at the mine, but rarely if ever are they in the cola mine salvaging cola.

The article points out that there may be discrepancy in professionals in the NE for the simple reason that some may commute to jobs that pay more.  They live in the same area but actually work in different places.  Women arem ore likely to work part time, so they can have time off for kids, etc.

NOWEHRE did I say that a aman and woman who do the same job, in the same place, at the same hours, deserve to be paid differently, and according to the lady in the OP that is the norm.  When you compare people in the same job, same hours, same experience and education, there is no statistical difference in their pay.

 

________________

so, despite all the facts saying women make less then men, for the same job, starting straight out of college.. with the same zero experience.. is just a liberal lie.. and the census bureau and the bureau of labor and statistics are both in on it? this just gets crazier and crazier, by the minute.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by teyates:

No my justification is that there are likely differences in the job.  Women working at the coal mines of WV do not usually do the same labor.  I know, I have been there and seen it.  There may be two women on a shift at the mine, but rarely if ever are they in the cola mine salvaging cola.

The article points out that there may be discrepancy in professionals in the NE for the simple reason that some may commute to jobs that pay more.  They live in the same area but actually work in different places.  Women arem ore likely to work part time, so they can have time off for kids, etc.

NOWEHRE did I say that a aman and woman who do the same job, in the same place, at the same hours, deserve to be paid differently, and according to the lady in the OP that is the norm.  When you compare people in the same job, same hours, same experience and education, there is no statistical difference in their pay.

 

________________

so, despite all the facts saying women make less then men, for the same job, starting straight out of college.. with the same zero experience.. is just a liberal lie.. and the census bureau and the bureau of labor and statistics are both in on it? this just gets crazier and crazier, by the minute.

You have yet to post anything saying that women with the same experience and performance level as a man make less than a man doing the same job. 

 

All you keep parroting is that quote from Barack that does not compare people in the same professions.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

I never said your statement wasn't true, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

your statement does not compare professions. It compares the workforce as a whole. This means that they are comparing a female teacher to a male investment banker. Of course the female teacher makes less.

______________

kenny.. one more time.. my figures compare like jobs.. like individuals... like conditions.. and yet, you are telling me that they don't. i think i know what i'm reading a LITTLE better then you know what i'm reading. stop trolling... i'll not be answering you again. i've asked you repeatedly to worry about what 'kenny said'.. and stop posting what 'crash said'.. i can make my own posts.. if you can't follow them, don't blame me!

Even, CBS gets it ...

 

"The White House is getting, as you indicated Norah, roughed up by its own pay equity rhetoric," reported Major Garrett. "In an analysis of White House salaries, which nobody here disputes,  shows that the median income of female staffers is 88 percent of that of male staffers."

 

"Now the study also showed that men and women with the same White House jobs earn exactly the same salary. Now the White House said its gender pay gap is tied to job experience, education, and hours worked among other factors. This matters because those explanations, according to the Labor Department, explain a good deal of the gender pay gap nationally. The big difference in these stories: When President Obama discusses this issue nationally, he doesn't mention those other work variables, only the broad figure, that 77 cents for every dollar is what women earn compared to men," said Garrett.

 

"When the factors that the White House used to defend its gender pay gap are used nationally, the Labor Department says the difference in median wages between men and women shrinks to about 5 cents to 7 cents on the dollar."

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...rhetoric_786675.html

 

Even, the old established MSM isn't buying the Obamessiah's silly sermons.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

I never said your statement wasn't true, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

your statement does not compare professions. It compares the workforce as a whole. This means that they are comparing a female teacher to a male investment banker. Of course the female teacher makes less.

______________

kenny.. one more time.. my figures compare like jobs.. like individuals... like conditions.. and yet, you are telling me that they don't. i think i know what i'm reading a LITTLE better then you know what i'm reading. stop trolling... i'll not be answering you again. i've asked you repeatedly to worry about what 'kenny said'.. and stop posting what 'crash said'.. i can make my own posts.. if you can't follow them, don't blame me!

You did no such thing and you linked no such thing In this thread.

 

your numbers do not compare like jobs and professions and you linked nothing proving that.

 

you are accusing me of trolling because you have been called out.

Last edited by Kenny Powers
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

______________________________

where do you come up with these questions? no where does the bill state any of these things.. i don't suffer your 'trolling', well..sorry.

 

 

I came up with this question because you posted this:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

My question to you and anyone who knows is will Employeers have to prove in advance of giving a pay raise to a man that they are justified in doing so? Or, do they have to have to justify it after the fact?

 

As a business owner do you think this is efficient?

Crash, are you going to address this?

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

bahahahah! hoob.. i'd LOVE for the entire forums to see your 'explanation'! there would be more entertainment value in your explanation than 20 movie tickets. you are living proof why the rest of the country believes alabama, and the south,  to be 'low information voters' and not worthy of their 'campaign dollars'.  you wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the nose.


Typical deflection as an attempt to hide your stupidity.  We all know, that cat was let out of the bag many posts ago.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

______________________________

where do you come up with these questions? no where does the bill state any of these things.. i don't suffer your 'trolling', well..sorry.

 

 

I came up with this question because you posted this:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

My question to you and anyone who knows is will Employeers have to prove in advance of giving a pay raise to a man that they are justified in doing so? Or, do they have to have to justify it after the fact?

 

As a business owner do you think this is efficient?

Crash, are you going to address this?

_____________

how many times to you want me to 'address' it? i have twice!

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

I never said your statement wasn't true, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

your statement does not compare professions. It compares the workforce as a whole. This means that they are comparing a female teacher to a male investment banker. Of course the female teacher makes less.

______________

kenny.. one more time.. my figures compare like jobs.. like individuals... like conditions.. and yet, you are telling me that they don't. i think i know what i'm reading a LITTLE better then you know what i'm reading. stop trolling... i'll not be answering you again. i've asked you repeatedly to worry about what 'kenny said'.. and stop posting what 'crash said'.. i can make my own posts.. if you can't follow them, don't blame me!

You did no such thing and you linked no such thing In this thread.

 

your numbers do not compare like jobs and professions and you linked nothing proving that.

 

you are accusing me of trolling because you have been called out.

____________________________

ok, kenny.. one more time...

 

 

 

http://www.americanprogress.or...ffers-by-occupation/

 

ok, kenny.. .here's the facts.. now , what's the argument?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you can't have a sane argument with a group of people who are either blind to facts.. or willfully ignore them. thanks.

Crash I just asked for clarification. 

 

Will a a business's owner have to justify afterwards or petition the govt in advance of giving a man a pay raise and not a woman?

 

As a business owner, do you think this is effecient?

______________________________

where do you come up with these questions? no where does the bill state any of these things.. i don't suffer your 'trolling', well..sorry.

 

 

I came up with this question because you posted this:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

My question to you and anyone who knows is will Employeers have to prove in advance of giving a pay raise to a man that they are justified in doing so? Or, do they have to have to justify it after the fact?

 

As a business owner do you think this is efficient?

Crash, are you going to address this?

_____________

how many times to you want me to 'address' it? i have twice!

no you didn't. You didn't answer the question I asked you above. I will post again below. If you don't want to answer then so be it.

 

I came up with this question because you posted this:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

My question to you and anyone who knows is will Employeers have to prove in advance of giving a pay raise to a man that they are justified in doing so? Or, do they have to have to justify it after the fact?

 

As a business owner do you think this is efficient?

 

 

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

bahahahah! hoob.. i'd LOVE for the entire forums to see your 'explanation'! there would be more entertainment value in your explanation than 20 movie tickets. you are living proof why the rest of the country believes alabama, and the south,  to be 'low information voters' and not worthy of their 'campaign dollars'.  you wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the nose.


Typical deflection as an attempt to hide your stupidity.  We all know, that cat was let out of the bag many posts ago.

------------------------

once again.. no facts.. just more rt. wingnut bs.... i'd expect no less from the 'king of the low information voters'... you just can't help being an idiot.. perhaps you could get a 'check' for that?

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

and nowhere does the bill state the 'business has to justify a raise'..  that's as ignorant as your trolling questions.. if the need should arise, i.e. lawsuit, complaint.. whatever.. the company would have to show why one's pay was below the other.. now, enough with the 'sideshow'.. and more facts.

 

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

and nowhere does the bill state the 'business has to justify a raise'..  that's as ignorant as your trolling questions.. if the need should arise, i.e. lawsuit, complaint.. whatever.. the company would have to show why one's pay was below the other.. now, enough with the 'sideshow'.. and more facts.

 

Crash, you posted this earlier:

It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

 

 

Ok, crash. If you give a raise to a man and not a woman then you will have a pay disparity. Do you have to justify that pay disparity before or after it happens? 

 

Im not trolling. That is an honest to god question.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny, i have no definite answer.. i'd say.. if the need did arise, you'd have to prove it, otherwise... why would you? do you think the government is going to set up a department to 'approve' all pay raises, across the country?

I think what it will do is force business owners to take more time away from running their business as they will have to document any raise given. It will also open up the door to lawyers knocking on the door of your place of business if a female doesn't like that her male colleague got a raise and she didn't.

 

this will result in you paying legal fees and taking further time away from running your business, which results in lost productivity. You extrapolate this over an entire economy and you see the drag that all of these regulations and laws have on growth.

 

these are the "unintended consequences" of regulations as they force business owners to divert their time and resources away from productive ventures That generate revenues and create jobs.

Last edited by Kenny Powers
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

kenny.. the fact that you don't believe it.. makes it no less true. do your own research.. come to your own conclusions.. and good luck.. you won't like it.

I never said your statement wasn't true, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. 

 

your statement does not compare professions. It compares the workforce as a whole. This means that they are comparing a female teacher to a male investment banker. Of course the female teacher makes less.

______________

kenny.. one more time.. my figures compare like jobs.. like individuals... like conditions.. and yet, you are telling me that they don't. i think i know what i'm reading a LITTLE better then you know what i'm reading. stop trolling... i'll not be answering you again. i've asked you repeatedly to worry about what 'kenny said'.. and stop posting what 'crash said'.. i can make my own posts.. if you can't follow them, don't blame me!

You did no such thing and you linked no such thing In this thread.

 

your numbers do not compare like jobs and professions and you linked nothing proving that.

 

you are accusing me of trolling because you have been called out.

____________________________

ok, kenny.. one more time...

 

 

 

http://www.americanprogress.or...ffers-by-occupation/

 

ok, kenny.. .here's the facts.. now , what's the argument?

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting. A couple of points:

 

-insurance sales and finically advisors are all commission. That is not an "equal pay" issue unless you think we need legislation forcing consumers to buy insurance from female agents or become clients of female advisors.

- loan officers are largely paid based on what they produce. They have a smaller base and bigger bonus. Once again, not an "equal pay" issue.

 

-the education administrators is surprising to me. It doesn't make sense . Is that saying that a female principal makes less than a male principal??

 

-I will admit that some of those show there is still work to be done, assuming they take into account a full work week and the women are not working part time.

 

-I have not seen anyone in here say that a women should not be paid the same as a man if they are doing the exact same job and have the exact same skills, experience, and education level.

 

-I work for a large investment bank/asset management firm. What I can tell you is that women doing the same job as I do do not make less unless they are producing less. My wife works in hr for an engineering firm here in Chicago. Female engineers do not make less thaN their male engineer counterparts at her firM, assuming experience is equal. 

There are some occupations where pay is equal, pharmacists for example, although men tend to make more overall because they are willing to work more hours (overtime) .

Yes, women have come a long way baby , (Virginia Slims notwithstanding), and yes there already is current law to force equal pay , including the Lilly Ledbetter law , the first that Obama signed, which I believe had not one yea vote from a Republican .
On the other hand, the House has passed some 40 odd bills to end the ACA, and almost that many bills to strip women of their Constitutional right of choice, and several Paul Ryan budget bills that strip the dignity of the elderly , and reward the mighty (thank God we have a Democratic controlled Senate and President) , so it seems to me that passing another bill that may close some of the loopholes (if there are any) in pay inequality is not too big a stretch to ask for, even if it is redundant over again.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

10001345_664217130281003_851141286_n

Not in the Tea Party but a true statement never the less!!!

Only a teabagger would make that statement.

 

No just someone who is tired of paying for others irresponsibility according to USA Today Stay at home moms are increasing, sounds good but as always the devil is in the details.  Traditional stay at home moms that are married with working husband has fallen from 41% to 20%.   Surprise surprise while the percentage of stay at home moms increased the increases are in the not married category how do they stay at home with no one else working outside the home????

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...others-work/7468163/

 

I am not against birth control but the opposite one pregnancy allowed while on government assistance of any kind.  Have any more kids while on government assistance no increase in funds available from the government.  Have kids like the rest of us do when you can afford them!

Last edited by HIFLYER2
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

10001345_664217130281003_851141286_n

Not in the Tea Party but a true statement never the less!!!

Only a teabagger would make that statement.

 

No just someone who is tired of paying for others irresponsibility according to USA Today Stay at home moms are increasing, sounds good but as always the devil is in the details.  Traditional stay at home moms that are married with working husband has fallen from 41% to 20%.   Surprise surprise while the percentage of stay at home moms increased the increases are in the not married category how do they stay at home with no one else working outside the home????

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...others-work/7468163/

 

I am not against birth control but the opposite one pregnancy allowed while on government assistance of any kind.  Have any more kids while on government assistance no increase in funds available from the government.  Have kids like the rest of us do when you can afford them!

================

Again, for the 100th time, if you call your congressman and senators and tell them to support a living wage, for a minimum wage , and that bunch up in Tn actually listens and does that, that would clear out roughly 85% of the people on assistance, and many of those are too old to have kids. 
Things do not happen in a vacuum , and that picture of that cute little hippie girl has more captions than just the one you posted.

 

Which would, in turn, explode the unemployment among the very young beyond its already historic highs. Leaving, in its wake, young people with no idea of what it means to work or a work ethic,  Sorry, but sixteen year olds aren't worth $10.10 an hour.  Of course, goods and services would rise as pay rose increasing the stagflation. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Which would, in turn, explode the unemployment among the very young beyond its already historic highs. Leaving, in its wake, young people with no idea of what it means to work or a work ethic,  Sorry, but sixteen year olds aren't worth $10.10 an hour.  Of course, goods and services would rise as pay rose increasing the stagflation. 

__________________________

poor dire.. he can't help spreading the republican lies and propaganda!

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Which would, in turn, explode the unemployment among the very young beyond its already historic highs. Leaving, in its wake, young people with no idea of what it means to work or a work ethic,  Sorry, but sixteen year olds aren't worth $10.10 an hour.  Of course, goods and services would rise as pay rose increasing the stagflation. 

__________________________

poor dire.. he can't help spreading the republican lies and propaganda!

Simple economics !

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Which would, in turn, explode the unemployment among the very young beyond its already historic highs. Leaving, in its wake, young people with no idea of what it means to work or a work ethic,  Sorry, but sixteen year olds aren't worth $10.10 an hour.  Of course, goods and services would rise as pay rose increasing the stagflation. 

__________________________

poor dire.. he can't help spreading the republican lies and propaganda!

Simple economics !

___________________________________________
Even the French hard line socialists are giving in to reality.  The gods of the copybooks may be ignored, but they won't be mocked.  Reality bites.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×