colourwheel

I'd love to see an instance where this was actually a recorded thing. Even looking at starting salaries, how much a person is paid initially can depend on exactly when they were hired, how much demand was needed, how much that person had to bargain with for a higher salary, past experience, number and quality or recommendations, and countless other subjective figures. I am a living example when I got my 1st job out of a college program over a decade ago. I was being paid almost $1,500 less a year than a friend of mine who is male. We both graduated the same class and year at the same college and I had a higher grade point average than him. Neither of us had anymore job experience in the field than the other, in fact my male friend had no job experience at all before this job other than working at a pizza restaurant when he was in high school and I was working as a waitress before while i was still going to college.... I didn't find out about the difference in our pay till a few years later and this was after I had found new employment... I don't like to bring up personal work situations so much because a lot of time there are far deeper issues of sexism within the work place where I have had to deal with where I had to sue when employees have touched me in inappropriate ways... part of the settlement led to me signing a disclosures to not publically persecute the actual company or the people involved... Although my example is not a recorded incident I am sure there are far more stories like this than you even realize.... Back then I was young and very naive and recently realize how wrong this type of blatant discrimination is in the work place and realize this can change if we want it to change....

One of the reasons why America ended up with the way the healthcare mandate as it is now is because the opposition party was even more so totally against a single payer plan for it leans more towards a socialized way of governing, despite the fact singer payer plan would make more sense. Ideology has gotten in the way of bringing America a better way to deal with healthcare even though socialized medicine has it's problems too...

This issue is not about compensation for their services either.... Even if two "people" are hired doing the exact same job with equivalent performance and education history there is no reason why one should be paid more than the other... You could come up with as many excuses as you wish, but like I have stressed before you could come up with just as many counter excuses in opposition... The reality is there is no reason why we should keep to a culture that has repressed women being paid less in the work place over their male counter parts. A way to help with this is to pass legislation to insure that this type of discrimination won't perpetuate.

@TRaoches I think your missing the point. If two people are hired at the same time to do the same exact thing, over all both people should be paid the same amount regardless if they are male or female... The issue has never been about performance in the work place...

Unlike "anti-discrimination" laws in the past, It is far more difficult to make a case whether one person is being discriminated on based on trivial factors... It's a little bit more easier to make the case on how much a person is being paid over someone else doing the exact same job. The amount of yearly income doesn't lie.

I can agree there is a cultural issue here. But to help address this issue legislation is needed to help prevent this type of discrimination. Whether you believe it's because of the factors one could argue why women are paid less then men, every factor listed from women working less to over all amount of time a women would spend in the field of their career could be countered by just as many factors why men shouldn't be paid anymore than women... You might as well go as far as saying men are more likely to get into car accidents, men are more cost liable when it comes to their life expectancy, men are more likely than women to...etc.. etc ...etc... the point is you can come up with many statistical excuses why one gender should be paid more than the other when it basically comes down to it shouldn't be this way in the 1st place.... You could even go as far as suggesting maybe one of the reasons why women do not work as much as men is because the fact they have always been paid unequally granting a total disincentive when looking at the history of women in the work place reaching a glass ceiling... There are far too many cases where as women in the work place will be put in the position to train male workers who inevitably will exceed their female trainers rank in the work field. This is not because the women are not qualified to excel beyond their current rank but more so a culture that has repressed how far a women should succeed... In order to start a cultural change, we need to ensure this type of discrimination is protected by law....

If there is going to be such a demand that can't be handled the logical thing would be to open up a new facility and create more jobs... There has never been a shortage of pharmaceutical medicines. The only reason why some medicines are so high priced is because of the uncommon use and the cost to manufacture them, not because they have a shortage of them.... You seem to be over looking this....

@HeyYou Your premise is assuming that our country has a shortage of emergency rooms, hospitals, and medical facilities which it doesn't... To my understanding of basic economics ...When people are buying or using more don't prices usually go down if anything? I am not suggesting this being the case with medication since pharmaceutical companies have a monopoly on prices. But your argument I don't think quite make sense... if something uncommon becomes more common doesn't mean the supply is shrinking, just means more people are using which usually makes up for the uncommonly high prices... Just because you have a computer built that is worth an uncommon price of $10,000 then all of a sudden the number of people who decided to buy this uncommonly high priced computer jumps up, this factor usually drives the cost down.... the 1st thought of the company isn't going to fabricate a price hike just because more people are using and buying.... That's not how supply and demand works unless you are assuming this is going to lead to a shortage of snake bite venom...

I agree. I have always been for a single payer plan too. But your agreement holds very little weight to put this blame on the ACA... If you look at past incidents seems snakebite venom has always been outrageously over priced in this respect..... If looking at it compared to even the last few years seems this person got a deal in comparison to other cases.... Remember this person in your "example" had to have four-vial dose of the medication as well. Your example the person ended up actually paying only $20,227 because of a contract with Ferguson's insurer. In the end, he paid $5,400 of his own money for his deductible and co-pay.... http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/04/23/cost-of-snakebite-therapy-may-squeeze-victims-wallets/comments These 3 examples I have posted above happened before the healthcare mandate .... If you ask me do we need to fix this? Yes... But this hardly calls for a cry to totally dismantle a law all together that has taken years to just recently implement, one of which has given millions of Americans healthcare for the 1st time ever in their lives... Not to mention there being no evidence of this being the cause of the new healthcare mandate...

This is no more different than single parent father out there and hardly amounts to justify why men should be paid more than women in the work force for doing the exact same job... If you don't think women should be paid equally to men in the work force then lets just leave it as you just disagree with me since it seems this is going no where.

Unless there is a job that is specific to the need of a certain personality, it's hardly reasonable to discriminate for this.... In fact there are other laws that already protect people from this type of discrimination, in various anti-discrimination acts in the work place. In regards you to your reply to my example.... Whether or not you believe what the employer did as being the "moral" thing to do for a man who put his time defending the country who lost one of his hands, seems more like the employer "pandering" to him to me when you look at other situations where as if women loses a limbs from battle who hardly even get the same "opportunity"... Not even taking into account usually a female would just be let go from their job and this is not even taking into account they were probably being paid less than their male counter parts to begin with.... Don't get me wrong this is just my opinion on her situation. She ended up quitting her job and started her own successful company anyways....

@Varant0 Maybe age was a bad example.... But I hope you get my point regardless of age....

Let me tell you something... Quite the the contrary women's liberation organizations would feel their goal would be complete if it came to including males getting grants and scholarships in fact it would probably completely reform the organizations to include equality for males. You see organizations reform all the time when their ultimate goals are met..... When I go out on a date, I never "expect" a man to pay for my dinner. Usually they feel compelled to pay for the date.... I would rather pay for my own meal instead of feeling like I owe them something (which translate to sleeping with them) for paying for my part (in fact I have hardly ever paid for any dates I have been on the last year even though I know I make more money then most males I have dated... ). But you see Pay equity isn't solely about just making sure women are paid equally. In fact it's larger than that. It's about insuring no matter your race or gender you will be paid the same amount for doing the same job.... There is nothing wrong about gender roles. The point is gender shouldn't be a factor on how much one is paid in the work place no more than it should be a factor on age, race, or even personality... Edit: Let me give you a prime example.... A man comes back from a military tour and unfortunately loses one hand. A friend of mine finds they are still being paid the same amount and is able to keep his job (rightly so) once he comes back. She finds out later that over the past two years she was being paid almost $2,000 less than her co-worker a year who had to take leave for military even though she has never missed a day of work in her life (sadly there is not much she can do about it now). In fact the man got a raise even though she is able to perform almost twice as better than him after he has lost one of his hands. Do you think this man should be paid less now that he has one less working hand? More so why isn't she being paid the same amount as her co-working who ended up leaving the work place for almost 4 months?

Why do you think this is happening then? If you ask me it's the cause and effect of the same people who try to specifically place people into gender roles to begin with.... Actually, it's because you have people placing more emphasis on trying to "correct" for those gender roles rather than acknowledging that men and women are not biologically equal, so there will always be some amount of inequality. You cannot praise and fight for one side while making light of the other. You cannot build up the roles of women while you erode the roles of men and expect to have a functioning society. Just as it isn't right to force a person into a given role and value the entirety of their being just on what plumbing they happen to posses, it is also wrong to say that their gender is of zero consequence when clearly this is not the case. Like you have articulated before, the world is not fair... Maybe it's not fair, but doesn't mean we can't strive to make them fair regardless of gender.... pay equity is a strive for fairness even if biologically we are not equal.

Why do you think this is happening then? If you ask me it's the cause and effect of the same people who try to specifically place people into gender roles to begin with....

@ Vagrant0 I really don't mean to call you out but eventually women won't be obligated to physically bare children. It is proven a child can be born outside of a woman's womb. As technology arises I can see it becoming more social acceptable for this to become the norm, especially when women becomes more dominate in the work field. This won't change unless males gets their act together when it comes to higher education. After all, who would have thought only 20 years ago some of the things that we are able to do this day was completely incomprehensible.... It is a political agenda when one party is clinging to a social ideology about gender roles to stop progress when indefinitely it seems the tables will turn on them in the future at the current rate of opportunity for all.... I will state it again... If we live going on forward as just accepting things they way they are because the world isn't fair, nothing will ever change... Edit: I will just disregard TRoaches last post....

Let us pretend for a moment that this has already happened, and now there is a 6% pay gap in favor of women. What would you propose that we do at that point to remedy the situation in fairness to the now underpaid men? In 2012 the Republican's in the senate blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, A bill that would have ensured women are paid the same amount as their male counterparts and vise versa could have addressed this....

@TRoaches Diana Furchtgott-Roth - Testimony on the Gender Pay Gap "Corporation, prepared for the Labor Department, shows that women make around 94% of what men make. The remaining six cents are due to unexplained variables, one of which might be discrimination." Then why not fix the 6% and insure that companies can't get away with pay discrimination towards women? After all republican's pushed for voter ID laws to insure that .00001% of voter fraud could not happen when none of the fraud that has ever taken place was even remotely connected to in person fraud. What is the real deal about Republicans being against pay equity for women, unless it's not about gender roles? I can guaranteed you once the tables flip at the rate according to what Diana Furchtgott-Roth points out where as women are being paid more than men eventually in the work force there will be a Republican push for pay equity....

So you think this justifies women not being paid the same as their male counterparts? Color, please point out where I mentioned anything about inequality of pay between men and women in my comment. I was merely correcting, what was surely an oversight by you regarding women entering the workforce/jobs and wanting/not wanting kids. I wasn't claiming anything about your comments was merely just asking a question.... Just as much such numbers and examples can be skewed in statistics where as to justify why women are more likely to leave during work to attend family matters... Which brings back to the point then why are women paid less then men? Using the justification as to women should be the ones as caretakers or take leave to start a family is more irrelevant than one would think when it comes to pay....

Aborting a child out of inconvenience.....shameful Alright lets switch it around .... if men were the child barer's I doubt this would even be a debate... let alone inconclusively claiming what someone does with their own body as "shameful"... Or how about the inconvenience of a male having an erectile dysfunction? Where is the uproar of a ban on these types of medication to help males get up being mandated to be provided by insurance companies under the new law? Yet a huge push to limit access to "birth control" through the healthcare mandate as if it is something evil.... The hypocrisy, It's phallic if you ask me... Edit: Anyways going back to the topic... Here is something i found interesting .... Men are considerably more likely than women to have an accident or to die at work. Almost four out of every five (79.5 %) serious accidents at work and nineteen out of every twenty (94.9 %) fatal accidents at work in 2009 involved men.... makes one wonder why women are still paid less than men if these statistics are true... With these numbers one would think hiring a man in general would be more of a liability than a woman any day despite the difference in pay between them....

So you think this justifies women not being paid the same as their male counterparts?

@Vagrant0 If we live going on forward as just accepting things they way they are because the world isn't fair, nothing will ever change... In regards to women leaving the work force to have children, shouldn't it be in the best interest of a company to help a women to plan for when they wish to have children, instead of making it a consequence to force a woman into having children when in a sexual relationship? How about women having the choice to have an abortion because she is just not ready to start a family when she does happen to subsequently get pregnant? Too many republican policies are against a woman to actually have the chance to pursue "opportunity" when their policies limit their rights to their reproductive system despite the disparity of pay they make in the work force.... Most women in a serious career either already have children or do not intend to have children when hired into the work place. How much pay a women gets shouldn't be an issue regardless if an employer is trying to save money in their better interest. An employer might as well be blatant about it and just say... "You not being paid the same amount as your male counterparts because you're a woman!" Pay inequality, this is something that can be changed....

@Lisnpuppy If you look at the stance in most Republican social policies all of them are against the inevitable change in our society. From limiting or restricting a woman's rights to access contraceptives to trying to abolish a woman's right to an abortion completely. It is an empirical fact that a majority of college and law school graduates are female by far in comparison to males. Being against pay equity is just at the bottom of republican's social agenda to stunt the stigma that females shouldn't be the bread winners in a family while giving the illusion of being for "opportunity" of women in the work place... If the Republican party is for "opportunity" for women in the work place then why all of these other social policies that indirectly contradict this goal? Edit: I looked up some studies done about males over females suddenly abandoning the work place in order to take care of family matters dealing with their children and statistically shows the female leaves before a male would do so when both members of the family are working. Yet the studies don't take into account how much more a male or female is making in difference between each other or the opportunities each one faces down the line within their career. Looking at other studies done where there is only a father or a mother taking care of a family shows no evidence where as a mother would abandon her job any more than a male would when in need to take care of family matters dealing with children. Which makes one wonder if a mother is making more money than the father in a family where as both work during the same hours of the day who would be the one to indefinitely abandon or leave the work place to take care of family matters? This is taking into account "if" there was no disparity between how much females or males would be making doing the exact same job because ultimately a male already has more "opportunity" with the empirical evidence from my previous post that illustrates only 3% of Fortune 500 CEO's and only a third of law firm partners are female when a huge majority of college and law school graduates are actually women....

Sorry if you missed my comment earlier I will repost because people posted while i was editing... According to "Newsweek," women earn just 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns, which can add up to a $500,000 difference in earnings over a lifetime. Looking beyond pay, women represent just 3% of Fortune 500 CEO's, and make up only a third of law firm partners. These gaps in pay and power continue despite the fact that women make up the majority of college and law school graduates. If you ask me I think the cause is the threat to men, that giving the "opportunity" of equal pay for women will eventually take over the traditional thought of that a women should be the home caretakers. Breaking this stigma most likely will make men feel less masculine threatening to a trend where as women will more or less become more dominate in the work place leaving the man in a family to become equal to women as the home caretakers....

The issue isn't about women accepting jobs at lower wages then they are worth. The issue is protecting women from being hired into a work place when it is found later they are making less than their male counter parts for doing the exact same jobs...