Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This question is posted here by a male American citizen (and one who is even a senior now). Over the decades, I've wondered at times about the controversy of "EQUIAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK FOR WOMEN" in the USA (though it certainly can prevail elsewhere as well in the world-at-large outsde the USA). I've at times wondered, even as a male, the following question:
"For those in the U.S. population-at-large who do NOT suppport the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" (believing instead that females should always or nearly always get paid less than males for the same job positions doing the same type and degree of work), what justifications would they give for supporting such a point-of-view?
That is, why is this issue still being fought over to this very day in the USA? I wouldn't normally think that one has to be a liberal or radiclib or leftist or a male or female feminist to support the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work". I would think that, even if I were a conservative or libertarian or moderate on a range of issues, supporting the idea of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law should just be a matter of basic human decency. Is it reaqlly my place, as a male, to tell the entire female half of humanity that, across the board, they are less meritorious and less worthy than me of being paid equially for the same type, level, and degree of work simply because they have female genitalia instead of male genitalia? As competent and gifted as I am, I have worked with and among women in the same type of positions who were as competent as I and sometimes even more competent than I . . . and yet I should still always get paid MORE than they do because I am male rather than female? What kind of common sense and what kind of moral sense does such a position make?
So, to all male Americans (or even non-American males) who are reading this thread and who are opposed to the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally, please explain and justify your position. I'm genuinely curious and intrigued as to what you would say about the matter. And please find it in youself to be intellectually honest here and hence to give a wholly truthful portrayal of what you really think and why you think this way.
And, for that matter, are there any WOMEN here who, even though being a women, you as well do NOT support the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally. If so, please explain & justify your own position of being opposed to the presented concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally.
Because I don't believe in arbitrary rates of pay for anyone for any reason.
Salary is something that is negotiated between you and your employer.
In our current "pink-collar" economy, women have more economic edge than men.
The unequal concept is a fallacy. The reality is; however, men are made to be primary components to the workforce. Women have children and need maternity leave, call off more, etc.
In our current "pink-collar" economy, women have more economic edge than men.
The unequal concept is a fallacy. The reality is; however, men are made to be primary components to the workforce. Women have children and need maternity leave, call off more, etc.
I can think of many situations where I would hire a man over a woman, because I (like you) live in the real world.
So if I work somewhere and have 20 years seniority, have accumulated raises over the years, etc. and then my company hires a women who will be doing the same job as me, you think she should get paid the same as me on day 1?
If your seniority is so worthless that you can't do any better than a new hire, then yes the pay should be the same. In fact, I'd argue that you are being paid too much and should have a salary reduction.
If your seniority is so worthless that you can't do any better than a new hire, then yes the pay should be the same. In fact, I'd argue that you are being paid too much and should have a salary reduction.
Generally speaking, people with seniority typically have more experience. In many jobs, that experience adds value which is reflected in pay.
Then why do people, to this very day, STILL talk about this issue in the public realm as though it is still an issue being fought over? Example: Hillary Clinton, for example, has brought it up in speeches during her latest Presideintial run and even after her Presidential run and so have other women and some men to my seeming recollection (unless I am misremembering things, which may be possible).
You wanna know what's funny?
Politicians (especially Democrats) like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton preach for equal pay laws (which we already have). Yet they pay their female staffers less.
The best companies have clear positions. Salary caps, seniority or ways for people to move up. I knew a lady worked there 30 yrs. of course started at $4.25 hr- she never moved positions- I came in 2007, same job and of course I left her behind in starting pay at the same position. That's the new norm. Seniority does not always mean higher salary .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
