Romney on pay equality for Women

[ydoaPs]

What is Romney's stance on pay equality? In the debate, his "answer" was to tell a story which launched a thousand "binder" memes. Internet jokes aside, not only does it not indicate he is in favor of pay equality for women, that his story was a lie may indicate the opposite.

 

It turns out that his "binders full of women" were created by a bipartisan commission before he even took office and was then pushed on him. While he did use the binders forced on him to hire women, none of the major positions were filled by women.

 

I don't see how anyone can vote for Romney; there's literally no way to know what his position is from day to day.

 

[Phi for All]

I think it was obvious from his own words in the debate that he finds it difficult to find qualified women, partially because if you do they'll have to be given special privileges to deal with their families, privileges that he doesn't think qualified men would need.

[ydoaPs]

I think it was obvious from his own words in the debate that he finds it difficult to find qualified women, partially because if you do they'll have to be given special privileges to deal with their families, privileges that he doesn't think qualified men would need.

 

 

Ah, yes. I forgot about the fact that men don't have families.

[Phi for All]

Ah, yes. I forgot about the fact that men don't have families.

Qualified men don't have families, or don't have families that need them at home much. Of course, this has been part of the new corporate business model for the last decade or so; 50-60 hour weeks, no complaints, bare-bones benefits, don't take your two weeks vacation all at once or your job may be up for grabs, bring your own coffee, and oh, be thankful you even have a job (at the same pay you've had for the last eight years).

[iNow]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU8OapnZPdI

[swansont]

Qualified men don't have families, or don't have families that need them at home much.

Of course not. He has a wife to do all the home-stuff.

 

One point I saw raised was that, even if his story were true, it implied that he had no qualified women working on his campaign that fit into these high-level jobs, because you generally give those people jobs in your administration. He hired those women because it was politically expedient, but it's clear that that's his M.O.

 

It's not that he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, it's that he has no convictions at all. He's Renault from Casablanca "I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."

[randomc]

 

It's not that he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, it's that he has no convictions at all. He's Renault from Casablanca "I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."

 

I don't understand that. What's automatically superior about a conviction poilitician, a believer? It's a peculiarly american political thing, at least from my perspective, a faith in faith.

[swansont]

I don't understand that. What's automatically superior about a conviction poilitician, a believer? It's a peculiarly american political thing, at least from my perspective, a faith in faith.

I can't trust that someone will try and follow through on a promise if that promise was made only to get my vote, rather than something the candidate truly believes. While I think that "flip-flopping" is overblown at times — being swayed by a truly convincing argument or pile of facts is legitimate — if you change your position so easily, you can easily change it back.

 

I don't believe candidates in other counties don't have unique positions on issues, based on ideology. There would be no need for political parties.

[randomc]

i suppose the flip side of that is that a believer is more likely to ignore inconvenient facts. I prefer nuts-and-bolts politicians .

 

I don't suppose it's starkly different elsewhere, just less pronounced.

[Anders Hoveland]

What exactly does "pay equality" mean?

 

Because to me, it sounds just like a way to expose employers to more pointless and expensive lawsuits.

 

If an employer wants to pay men more than women, what is wrong with that? If women are willing to work for less, won't there be other employers that want to hire all women because they can save money and get a better value? If I, as a private business owner, want to give a cash gift to one of my male friends, but not a female friend, is that wrong too?

 

You want to focus on "equality" and "fairness" ? Take a look in the government sector and the schools. There is plenty of unfairness there. People at the top giving themselves all the pay raises and funding for new buildings and office equipment. A hierarchy of seniority, with little mobility, while those on the bottom must endure much smaller salaries and lack of benefits.

[John Cuthber]

"What exactly does "pay equality" mean?"

Erm, how about paying people the same money for the same job?

 

If paying women less gets you sued, then you can avoid "pointless and expensive lawsuits" by not paying them less.

"If I, as a private business owner, want to give a cash gift to one of my male friends, but not a female friend, is that wrong too?"

It is if you want them to stay friends with you.

 

"Take a look in the government sector and the schools. There is plenty of unfairness there. People at the top giving themselves all the pay raises and funding for new buildings and office equipment. A hierarchy of seniority, with little mobility, while those on the bottom must endure much smaller salaries and lack of benefits. "

So, it's exactly the same as the private sector then?

 

 

As far as I can tell that's two breaches of our rules in one post.

[Anders Hoveland]

If paying women less gets you sued, then you can avoid "pointless and expensive lawsuits" by not paying them less.

So who determines whether women are being paid less "for the same work" ? That seems to leave a lot of room open for interrpretation.

 

As much as you might like to, you can't legislate fairness. It is the business owner making the hiring decisions. Ordering him to make certain decisions, and then trying to go back and sue him when you think he didn't follow the right criteria is just absurd.

 

I absolutely object to the notion that you have the right to tell someone who they have to work with.

 

video:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/05/20/stossel-calls-for-repeal-of-public-accommodatio/165049

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[swansont]

What exactly does "pay equality" mean?

 

Because to me, it sounds just like a way to expose employers to more pointless and expensive lawsuits.

 

If an employer wants to pay men more than women, what is wrong with that? If women are willing to work for less, won't there be other employers that want to hire all women because they can save money and get a better value? If I, as a private business owner, want to give a cash gift to one of my male friends, but not a female friend, is that wrong too?

It's not a matter of being willing to work for less if the jobs simply pay less. Yes, it's wrong.

 

You want to focus on "equality" and "fairness" ? Take a look in the government sector and the schools. There is plenty of unfairness there. People at the top giving themselves all the pay raises and funding for new buildings and office equipment. A hierarchy of seniority, with little mobility, while those on the bottom must endure much smaller salaries and lack of benefits.

It's too bad to be be forced to work for the government. Oh wait, we aren't. Government pay at the top is not so nearly lopsided as it is in the private sector. We don't have government officials making millions of dollars a year, and one of the complaints about government workers being overpaid in the US happens because workers at the bottom actually do get benefits.

[John Cuthber]

"As much as you might like to, you can't legislate fairness."

That's exactly what most legislation seeks to do.

 

"I absolutely object to the notion that you have the right to tell someone who they have to work with."

Just as well that's not what's happening then isn't it.

Or was it another logical fallacy (specifically a strawman)?

Edited October 21, 2012 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

So who determines whether women are being paid less "for the same work" ? That seems to leave a lot of room open for interrpretation.

Not really. Two people hired for the same job description are nominally doing the same work.

[Phi for All]

If an employer wants to pay men more than women, what is wrong with that?

Substitute any nationality or skin color for the word "women" and you should have your answer.

 

What Romney (and Hoveland, apparently) have forgotten is the word "qualified". If people are equally qualified for a position, using race or gender or any other metric that has nothing to do with capability is unproductive and discriminatory.

[ydoaPs]

If an employer wants to pay men more than women, what is wrong with that?

 

Are you serious?

[Moontanman]

Are you serious?

 

 

Of course he is, he has nothing against women, he thinks everybody should own one...

[-Demosthenes-]

It's obvious Mitt will say anything he thinks voters want to hear. But the thread brings up some interesting points.

 

Why shouldn't private entities be able to practice discrimination? I don't know, maybe because it's really lame. Ideally, in the world where ultraconservatives live, society would take care of itself without major government intervention. Discriminatory businesses would be boycotted and driven out of business. This is, however, not the case. The people can then use the government to make laws to solve these problems.

 

Ironically, in order for a law to protect a racial or gender group it must single out the group. Race or gender based protection is just that, race or gender based. So we have the Grutter v. Bollinger case that ruled colleges can consider the race of potential students. Does a college that preferentially accepts minorities racist? Perhaps, but maybe not in a negative way. Is a law that creates equal pay for women discriminatory against men? Perhaps, but it would exist in a world where men already benefit from discrimination more often than women do.

[ecoli]

Does a college that preferentially accepts minorities racist? Perhaps, but maybe not in a negative way. Is a law that creates equal pay for women discriminatory against men? Perhaps, but it would exist in a world where men already benefit from discrimination more often than women do.

 

So you're saying that there's positive racism?

[Greg H.]

So you're saying that there's positive racism?

 

Please. Call it by it's proper name: Affirmative Action.

[JohnStu]

Equal <> Same.

 

 

 

Equal means equivalent.

 

Same <> Equal

[imatfaal]

Equal <> Same.

 

 

 

Equal means equivalent.

 

Same <> Equal

 

Hmm - not sure what you are getting at but I think I agree; well I agree if you are saying that one rule for all might be discriminatory if the playing field is uneven to start with.

[swansont]

Hmm - not sure what you are getting at but I think I agree; well I agree if you are saying that one rule for all might be discriminatory if the playing field is uneven to start with.

I read it as treating people equally doesn't mean you treat them the same. The (partial) solution, for example, to discrimination against women in sports was not to have mixed-gender teams or offer the exact same sports to both genders, i.e. equal treatment, but to make sure that there were equal opportunities to play various sports.

 

However, that stems from the reality of sexual dimorphism, for which there is no analogue in the pay equality discussion.

[imatfaal]

I read it as treating people equally doesn't mean you treat them the same. The (partial) solution, for example, to discrimination against women in sports was not to have mixed-gender teams or offer the exact same sports to both genders, i.e. equal treatment, but to make sure that there were equal opportunities to play various sports.

 

However, that stems from the reality of sexual dimorphism, for which there is no analogue in the pay equality discussion.

 

Ah - but there are analogues in the arena of pay equality; if you have automatic increments for long service, which many (especially unskilled) position have, then if you make it a requirement that the service is unbroken (which was very common); men (who do not tend to take paternity leave) benefit massively against women who may well take a few breaks (often longer than statutory maternity leave) when they have children. The result is that the first 15 years of the woman's career tends to contribute less to long-service benefits than a man's first five years. Another example - if you have different laws and protections governing permanent part-time employment and permanent full-time employment (almost universally less protection and benefits for part-time employees); the upshot is that women, many of who are part-time and who are the majority of part-time employees are treated differently than men who tend to be the full-time employees. Same laws for everyone - but those laws have a non-deliberate (?) structural penalty to women workers