Establishing the Idiocy of the people making discrimination laws

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

This is a link to a California law that prohibits differences in pay by gender. Making it illegal to pay men more than women based on gender(they want to add race to this law)


It sounds good and it sounds like they're really making a difference in the lives of working women(and now Minorities)

The reason they cite for a need for this law is as follows


"SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) In 2014, the gender wage gap in California stood at 16 cents on the dollar. A woman working full time year round earned an average of 84 cents to every dollar a man earned. This wage gap extends across almost all occupations reporting in California. This gap is far worse for women of color; Latina women in California make only 44 cents for every dollar a white male makes, the biggest gap for Latina women in the nation.
(b) While the state’s overall wage gap is slightly lower than the national average of 78 cents to the dollar, the persistent disparity in earnings still has a significant impact on the economic security and welfare of millions of working women and their families. Collectively, women working full time in California lose approximately $33,650,294,544 each year due to the gender wage gap. The wage gap contributes to the higher statewide poverty rate among women, which stands at 18 percent, compared to approximately 15 percent for men, and the poverty rate is even higher for women of color and single women living with children.
(c) California has prohibited gender-based wage discrimination since 1949. Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code was enacted to redress the segregation of women into historically undervalued occupations, but it has evolved over the last four decades so that it is now virtually identical to the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)). However, the state provisions are rarely utilized because the current statutory language makes it difficult to establish a successful claim.
(d) Pay secrecy also contributes to the gender wage gap, because women cannot challenge wage discrimination that they do not know exists. Although California law prohibits employers from banning wage disclosures and retaliating against employees for engaging in this activity, in practice many employees are unaware of these protections and others are afraid to exercise these rights due to potential retaliation."


the very reason they cite has been proven wrong time and time again. So they base laws on nonsense to start with


Whats worse.... They exempt the very causes of any disparity at all


1197.5. (a) An employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite *** for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates:
(1) The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
(A) A seniority system.
(B) A merit system.
(C) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.
(D) A bona fide factor other than ***, such as education, training, or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a ***-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, “business necessity” means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.


All the reasons that could possibly attribute for any gap at all are exempted by the very law that wants to decrease the "16 cent" wage gap that women face in California.


What's the difference between this and what trump is doing? Playing off people's fears to buy votes while actually accomplishing nothing. I've been saying this about the democrat party for quite some time now

You must be registered for see links

Meh, guess you'll never learn

IT is sad how a feminist myth has actually had an effect on legislation at all.

 

[Claymantan]

It's a political maneuver to score points, gender equality isn't actually unpopular with voters. The law itself has no teeth, and proving gender discrimination costs more than it's worth. So I agree that this law is pretty useless in practice.

That said, I can believe that you believed the things you said in other threads, but this is just trolling:

All the reasons that could possibly attribute for any gap at all are exempted by the very law that wants to decrease the "16 cent" wage gap that women face in California.

Even if you think gender discrimination does not exist, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against gender discrimination.

At the very least, the law serves to establish an ethos against gender discrimination.

 

[slimreaper]

It's a political maneuver to score points, gender equality isn't actually unpopular with voters. The law itself has no teeth, and proving gender discrimination costs more than it's worth. So I agree that this law is pretty useless in practice.

That said, I can believe that you believed the things you said in other threads, but this is just trolling:



Even if you think gender discrimination does not exist, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against gender discrimination.

At the very least, the law serves to establish an ethos against gender discrimination.

if the law is as ill formed as this one, then yes we shouldn't have them


lets do away with discrimination laws and see women flourish

[video=youtube;hsIpQ7YguGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE[/video]

 

[Claymantan]

if the law is as ill formed as this one, then yes we shouldn't have them

A bad application of a principle does not invalidate the principle.

 

[slimreaper]

A bad application of a principle does not invalidate the principle.

there is no good way

[video=youtube;hsIpQ7YguGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE[/video]

 

[Claymantan]

there is no good way

His argument is premised on the idea that women cannot be productive as men in the same jobs; you need to demonstrate this to prove your/his point.

In a modern service economy, there's no reason that women cannot be as productive as men. Additionally, his definition of "equal work" is suspect. Equal work to most people means equal output. Seems like his means "equal occupation."

Feel like you're taking this video out of context. Or, the speaker is taking feminist arguments out of context.

 

[ComplexCity]

You both are like SB and NB


But I guess I don't have a right to talk :Sparks:

 

[slimreaper]

His argument is premised on the idea that women cannot be productive as men in the same jobs; you need to demonstrate this to prove your/his point.

In a modern service economy, there's no reason that women cannot be as productive as men. Additionally, his definition of "equal work" is suspect. Equal work to most people means equal output. Seems like his means "equal occupation."

Feel like you're taking this video out of context. Or, the speaker is taking feminist arguments out of context.

His argument is premised that women can be as productive as men and it's up to them to prove it.(obviously his argument applies to typical men jobs such as construction, automotive repair, industrial work, science etc.)


If they offer to work for less money, then the employer must bear a cost for his prejudice. If the women are truly as capable as the men then they will prove it and be compensated. And if they aren't compensated, they will have still had the ability to learn some skills that they can use as a negotiating chip.


Either way discrimination won't be a factor. Ether the women will be proven inferior workers to the men, or they benefit.

 

[Claymantan]

His argument is premised that women can be as productive as men and it's up to them to prove it.(obviously his argument applies to typical men jobs such as construction, automotive repair, industrial work, science etc.)

If they offer to work for less money, then the employer must bear a cost for his prejudice. If the women are truly as capable as the men then they will prove it and be compensated. And if they aren't compensated, they will have still had the ability to learn some skills that they can use as a negotiating chip.

Either way discrimination won't be a factor. Ether the women will be proven inferior workers to the men, or they benefit.

I don't see why the assumption is that women cannot be as productive as men.

I don't know what reason you think people work for, it's money, male or female. If the person isn't pulling their weight, fire them. But don't expect equal work for less pay.

This is basic, man.

 

[slimreaper]

I don't see why the assumption is that women cannot be as productive as men.

I don't know what reason you think people work for, it's money, male or female. If the person isn't pulling their weight, fire them. But don't expect equal work for less pay.

This is basic, man.

The first sentence is literally the basis of gender discrimination. Do you think men just don't want to be around women all day? It's actually the opposite, most men would love having women around them all the time. However, the assumption(whether it's true or not, not my call) is they are inferior workers when it comes to physicality and math related topics.

It's the same concept as minimum wage you can't seem to grasp. When the options are low wage, or no wage, people tend to choose the low wage and build their resumes.

As far as i'm concerned keep equal work for equal pay laws intact, it keeps women at a disadvantage against me.

 

[Claymantan]

The first sentence is literally the basis of gender discrimination. Do you think men just don't want to be around women all day? It's actually the opposite, most men would love having women around them all the time. However, the assumption(whether it's true or not, not my call) is they are inferior workers when it comes to physicality and math related topics.

I'm saying I don't see why the law should try to reflect the flawed assumptions of individuals. That's just a bad basis upon which to build law.

It's the same concept as minimum wage you can't seem to grasp. When the options are low wage, or no wage, people tend to choose the low wage and build their resumes.

False dichotomy, I wasn't saying women would choose not to work for lower pay, I'm saying that women might work but not work at the same level as men because they don't have the same incentive. It's an obvious setup for a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of employers and male coworkers.

As far as i'm concerned keep equal work for equal pay laws intact, it keeps women at a disadvantage against me.

Okay.

 

[slimreaper]

I'm saying I don't see why the law should try to reflect the flawed assumptions of individuals. That's just a bad basis upon which to build law.



False dichotomy, I wasn't saying women would choose not to work for lower pay, I'm saying that women might work but not work at the same level as men because they don't have the same incentive. It's an obvious setup for a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of employers and male coworkers.



Okay.

When you're new on a job, do you work any less hard than the oldest man there because you're being paid less? Or do you work hard so someday you can be on his level?


If the woman was the one who negotiated with the man to get an opportunity only because she offered to work for less... why would her incentive be compromised?

 

[Claymantan]

When you're new on a job, do you work any less hard than the oldest man there because you're being paid less? Or do you work hard so someday you can be on his level?


If the woman was the one who negotiated with the man to get an opportunity only because she offered to work for less... why would her incentive be compromised?

There's no reason for the woman to not be on the level of a man if they're both new people starting the same job, all other things equal. We can't assume that their output is going to be unequal. Your example is flawed because the oldest man there has a greater income for a very obvious reason; he has/has had a greater output than I have.

If you negotiate a lower salary that's a different story. The California law wouldn't really cover that. But this is a hypothetical. I'm saying if you made it legal for employers to just across the board say "Well, women are probably worth less, so let's just give them lower starting salaries for all these positions," that would be a baseless assumption that creates an unfair job market.

 

[slimreaper]

There's no reason for the woman to not be on the level of a man if they're both new people starting the same job, all other things equal. We can't assume that their output is going to be unequal. Your example is flawed because the oldest man there has a greater income for a very obvious reason; he has/has had a greater output than I have.

If you negotiate a lower salary that's a different story. The California law wouldn't really cover that. But this is a hypothetical. I'm saying if you made it legal for employers to just across the board say "Well, women are probably worth less, so let's just give them lower starting salaries for all these positions," that would be a baseless assumption that creates an unfair job market.

The California law actually does cover that, by preventing the woman from doing just that. By law they can't pay her less, even if it's the only way they'll hire her


With the bolded quote, you're operating under the assumption that everyone believes like you do. Some people do believe women to be inferior workers. The way to punish someone for holding this belief is to make him bear a cost for not hiring women. We've already been over this.


You're last fake example isn't one that would take place. It would be to not hire women at all because they are deemed inferior and to just hire men.

It has to be the women to initiate the lower pay paradigm for it to work

 

[Claymantan]

The California law actually does cover that, by preventing the woman from doing just that. By law they can't pay her less, even if it's the only way they'll hire her

It says if they can show some other reason. If someone chooses to negotiate their salary a certain way, the company can't be sued for a discrimination lawsuit.

With the bolded quote, you're operating under the assumption that everyone believes like you do. Some people do believe women to be inferior workers. The way to punish someone for holding this belief is to make him bear a cost for not hiring women. We've already been over this.

The market doesn't need to change people's beliefs, it needs to function and give people an income. I don't really give a crap what people think, just pay the workers what they're owed. I've said it before, if the employer's feelings are hurt by having to give people a fair income, that's their problem.

It's just plain unfair to have the law fail to protect people from discrimination in order to teach some people a lesson. Who cares. It's not worth the cost to the employees, it's not worth the cost to the employers. Just make the law forbid discrimination, and let things like quotas prevent employers from just only hiring men.

You're talking about a problem that as far as I know doesn't exist. You even said that women's wages are increasing to match men's. This has happened alongside increasing regulation of discrimination in America. While correlation does not equal causation, I don't see how it can be showed that the discrimination laws are hurting, even if some of them are just for show in effect.

You're last fake example isn't one that would take place. It would be to not hire women at all because they are deemed inferior and to just hire men.

It has to be the women to initiate the lower pay paradigm for it to work

I don't understand this on a semantic level.

 

[slimreaper]

It says if they can show some other reason. If someone chooses to negotiate their salary a certain way, the company can't be sued for a discrimination lawsuit.



The market doesn't need to change people's beliefs, it needs to function and give people an income. I don't really give a crap what people think, just pay the workers what they're owed. I've said it before, if the employer's feelings are hurt by having to give people a fair income, that's their problem.

It's just plain unfair to have the law fail to protect people from discrimination in order to teach some people a lesson. Who cares. It's not worth the cost to the employees, it's not worth the cost to the employers. Just make the law forbid discrimination, and let things like quotas prevent employers from just only hiring men.

You're talking about a problem that as far as I know doesn't exist. You even said that women's wages are increasing to match men's. This has happened alongside increasing regulation of discrimination in America. While correlation does not equal causation, I don't see how it can be showed that the discrimination laws are hurting, even if some of them are just for show in effect.



I don't understand this on a semantic level.

No it just says they need to be able to prove it was a business necessity

Quotas? So now we hire women for the sake of hiring women?

You must be registered for see links

Isn't hiring people only based on one characteristic like gender and not on merit the definition of discrimination?

Womens wages are quite literally the same today as they were in the sowell video's I keep posting.

It's funny, that you claim progress when Sowell is quoting the same figures 30 years ago. What is actually happening is females are lurching ahead in categories due to discrimination against men in the last ten years or so

 

[Claymantan]

No it just says they need to be able to prove it was a business necessity

Quotas? So now we hire women for the sake of hiring women?

You must be registered for see links

Isn't hiring people only based on one characteristic like gender and not on merit the definition of discrimination?

Womens wages are quite literally the same today as they were in the sowell video's I keep posting.

It's funny, that you claim progress when Sowell is quoting the same figures 30 years ago. What is actually happening is females are lurching ahead in categories due to discrimination against men in the last ten years or so

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant to refer to the wage gap closing.

Just to clarify, I'm never talking about entry-level work because as far as I'm concerned there's literally no justification for (nor do I expect there to be) discrimination at that level; I'm talking about jobs that require education or have upward mobility.

Affirmative action is supposed to operate in the sense that where merit is not an obviously deciding factor, you take steps to include an underrepresented identity. This is much easier to do with women than with minority races (half the population and more than half the graduating population consists of them), and obviously you would tailor a quota to the demographics of what applicants a company receives. Quotas are usually in-house anyway. I'm saying that these are better ways to deal with the issue of women not being hired based on a company's personal biases than just conceding that they should start off paying women less income and to just concede that if discrimination occurs, there's no legal recourse.

I strongly doubt that there is a case to be made that a company should be allowed to exclude women - this is why quotas exist.

 

[slimreaper]

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant to refer to the wage gap closing.

Just to clarify, I'm never talking about entry-level work because as far as I'm concerned there's literally no justification for (nor do I expect there to be) discrimination at that level; I'm talking about jobs that require education or have upward mobility.

Affirmative action is supposed to operate in the sense that where merit is not an obviously deciding factor, you take steps to include an underrepresented identity. This is much easier to do with women than with minority races (half the population and more than half the graduating population consists of them), and obviously you would tailor a quota to the demographics of what applicants a company receives. Quotas are usually in-house anyway. I'm saying that these are better ways to deal with the issue of women not being hired based on a company's personal biases than just conceding that they should start off paying women less income and to just concede that if discrimination occurs, there's no legal recourse.

I strongly doubt that there is a case to be made that a company should be allowed to exclude women - this is why quotas exist.

As far as Affirmative Action goes I find this video hilarious

[video=youtube;eUbOcgj8AjQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUbOcgj8AjQ[/video]

The Self proclaimed leftist professor claims affirmative action hadn't worked because "how fast do you expect these changes to happen" This discussion was 30 years ago and still not enough time has passed

But lets talk about entry level work

I went to work in a machine shop set to learn a trade. The starting pay was 10$ an hour. It required no education for me to obtain this job, just a will to work, and for someone to give me an opportunity(and for me to pass drugs tests).

I surmise you believe that because one isn't formally educated they can't make real money if they start at the ground level.

I now make 21.25$(not counting the 8 hours of guaranteed overtime a week) an hour with no education, and that's not my ceiling. My brother who works in a different plant but has the same skill set as me makes 24.50$ an hour and still may have a promotion or two to look forward to.

Are women as likely to work as a machinist? No, why? Because they are viewed to be lacking physically. I would say discrimination at the ground level is very important, because in a lot of fields the only way in is at the top or at the bottom.

 

[Claymantan]

The Self proclaimed leftist professor claims affirmative action hadn't worked because "how fast do you expect these changes to happen" This discussion was 30 years ago and still not enough time has passed

How much time did you expect a pay gap of 50% to need to close?

I surmise you believe that because one isn't formally educated they can't make real money if they start at the ground level.

I now make 21.25$(not counting the 8 hours of guaranteed overtime a week) an hour with no education, and that's not my ceiling. My brother who works in a different plant but has the same skill set as me makes 24.50$ an hour and still may have a promotion or two to look forward to.

Are women as likely to work as a machinist? No, why? Because they are viewed to be lacking physically. I would say discrimination at the ground level is very important, because in a lot of fields the only way in is at the top or at the bottom.

Why do you think I believe this? I'm excluding entry level because I've never heard anything about a corporation getting away with discrimination or even trying to discriminate at the entry level. I'm not under the impression that your plants get a lot of female applicants to begin with. If you know of employers literally saying "Well we're not gonna hire women because machining is for men," then sure, but that'd be anecdotal anyway. Employers don't have a real incentive to discriminate at the entry level because it'd just be arbitrary, and it's much harder to show to courts diversity in resumes that would justify a choice based on discrimination.

In any case I'm familiar with this kind of experience, I'm not a stranger to entry work.

I've said this before, discrimination in hiring isn't really the issue. It's more about what happens after hiring. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against discrimination, and there's definitely no reason to just suddenly allow employers to pay women less.

 

[slimreaper]

How much time did you expect a pay gap of 50% to need to close?



Why do you think I believe this? I'm excluding entry level because I've never heard anything about a corporation getting away with discrimination or even trying to discriminate at the entry level. I'm not under the impression that your plants get a lot of female applicants to begin with. If you know of employers literally saying "Well we're not gonna hire women because machining is for men," then sure, but that'd be anecdotal anyway. Employers don't have a real incentive to discriminate at the entry level because it'd just be arbitrary, and it's much harder to show to courts diversity in resumes that would justify a choice based on discrimination.

In any case I'm familiar with this kind of experience, I'm not a stranger to entry work.

I've said this before, discrimination in hiring isn't really the issue. It's more about what happens after hiring. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against discrimination, and there's definitely no reason to just suddenly allow employers to pay women less.

I actually meant to post this discussion

[video=youtube;L5BMGYkVdX8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5BMGYkVdX8[/video]

well it's been 55 years.

You must be registered for see links

SO we're back to the decisions that females make and because they don't apply they can't be discriminated against.

My original point is this california law won't change anything,

Women are still going to make decisions that cause a 16 cent overall gap.