Todd Akin #fundie

Todd Akin #fundie thinkprogress.org

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom. If someone what’s to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.

71 comments

old comment by anon

Women don't get paid less because everyone in the private sector hates them. Women get paid less because they take time off to raise and have children. We don't need the govt. to correct for that.

Edit: and if any of you actually took a basic economics course (god this site is just as fundie as what it's mocking) you'd know that the free market is not without inefficiency, failures, and deadweight loss. The govt. can and should step in to correct natural monopolistic pricing that arises from pure capitalism, and to correct social deficiencies (water manufacturers don't care if you die of dehydration because you're poor.) But women are paid less precisely because they produce less. They contribute less to the gdp, because they forego education and career advancement to take care of children. That is the free market working precisely as it should.

We had someone enter the company I work for on a govt. visa. She was doing the same job as everyone else, but the govt. mandated that she be paid the average wage of everyone in the company. Sounds good, except that the normal payment structure started at 40k, with a 5k raise every six months for 2 years. This is appropriate because as you learn on the job, you become more productive. Unfortunately, we had to pay her the same wage as people who had been working there a year. She proved not to be worth that extra wage, and was summarily fired.

old comment by Mattiedef

@Anon

That's a research fallacy. True, there have been unweighted studies and most women tend to go into careers that are paid less (Teachers and social workers), not about raising families (That's just sexist, you prick). Though I'd say the fact Teachers and Social Workers, who's very purpose is to ensure the psychological health, physical health, and intelligence of our future should be one of the HIGHEST paid people in our system... which traditionally being female positions instead receive one of the least pay compared to most in similarly educated positions.

Secondly, in studies of JUST women in EQUIVALENT POSITIONS as men revealed a 72-86% discrepancy, depending on the exact position. Or they are denied advancement, like female professors have a much harder time gaining tenure compared to male professors. This is de facto sexism.

And I'm pretty sure the Government does nothing of the sort if said things are still true. Are you in the USA? It just disallows discrimination in employing people in certain positions. Usually they use the "You can negotiate for more" To make women get paid less since Women are traditionally taught to accept what's given to them.

Ugly, ugly circle of education, de facto sexism, and male domination already present. Realising that feminism still has a long way to go is a huge deal in modern society. Same with civil rights. De Facto racism still exists, even if De Jure racism and sexism are all but dead.

Todd Akin is a turd brained douche.

old comment by Osiris

What if that person only agrees to the salary because when they were being hired they had no idea that salary was lower than what a person of the opposite sex would be earning? And then what happens when that person finds out and demands their boss pay them the same as what the man who works the same job for the same number of hours makes? And what if the boss says no? Honestly are we at all surprised that Todd "Legitimate Rape" Atkin would opposed legislation designed to prevent earnings discrimination based on sex?

And finally Todd "Legitimate Rape" Atkin, (no I will not stop calling you that) what got us into trouble was the government going as completely hands off as possible and putting our entire financial infrastructure on the honor system. A financial infrastructure that all you Atlas Shrugged fanboys also believe should be motivated exclusively by greed.

@anon
When a woman applies for a job and you decided that she should earn less because she's just going to run off and raise a family in a few years THAT IS CALLED SEXUAL DESCRIMINATION! You really have no idea what that person is like and what her aspirations are, the only information you have is her sex, and using that alone to make a judgement about her is sexist. And you are promoting that kind of sexism in business. What if it turns out that she, like my girlfriend, doesn't want kids and wants to be a childless adult? Those women do exist.

This is why I propose we adopt something that Norway is doing and it works wonders. Namely when a couple has a baby both parties take maternity leave, at different times. This means that business can no longer discriminate, because everyone who wants to raise a child, regardless of gender has to take maternity leave. And it doesn't even have to be the woman who takes it first.

old comment by Osiris

@Mister Spak
So when the government tells me that I can't murder people in cold blood for no reason, that's wrong?

Look the government is about telling people what to do, because that's what rules and laws are all about. Deciding that the very act of a government bossing people around is inherently bad is retarded, why even have a government at all? Instead what we need to do is look at every issue individually and decide does allowing or not allowing this benefit our society. Telling people who they can and can't marry is bad for society because it is a promotion of discrimination. Telling people they have to pay everyone who works the same job the same pay regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation is good for society because it removes discrimination.

old comment by Osiris

@#1454701: If you believe that than at the very least employers should completely disclose their salaries for the relevant position during the interview. You talk about a contract between consenting adults, but it doesn't seem to matter to you if that contract, or if the situation in which the contract was signed, is equitable. Like in my example, a woman might agree to a lower salary during an interview simply because the employer intentionally failed to tell her that her salary is lower than what he would pay a man in the same position for?

So then what happens if the woman later on finds out she agreed to a raw deal? Do we just tell her tough shit go find another job in this economy? Let's stop making policy based on some perfect world where no one is a dick to anyone else and make policy based on the real world.

So while your logic is consistent, it doesn't take into account how the world actually works.

old comment by UHM

I see the libertarian nutjobs are having a party today, well let's use my Economics Abitur some:

If it would happen at only one company the argument "find another job" would work, the problem is, it isn't just one company but ALL of them. That's because greed knows no honor or morality, and wanting to turn a profit is greed. If you don't think so, take a good look at the world, or study basic economics.

Let's say it wasn't equal pay, but equal pricing. Let's say a company that makes water makes the decision to take 1.30 monetary units from every male customer and 1.50 monetary units from every female customer. Most of us would deem this to be disgusting, simply because it would be. Let's change that product from water to condoms - still everybody disgusted? Probably not. Now you could argue by morality - call it slut profit - if she wants it this bad, she's gonna have to pay extra.
All these examples you can argue with should be legal, because a woman could simply buy her condoms/water from another producer - the problem is: they all do this. In this case the laws of supply and demand would be changed by what doesn't have anything to do with the supply or the demand, but the part were they both meet - the pricing.

Before somebody accuses others of not knowing economics, check your damn theory. It is common knowledge that pay is and can be determined by the laws of supply and demand. A culture in which it is believed that even though women work the same there work is inherently worth less than a man's work, is manipulating the laws of supply and demand, the same way unequal pricing would manipulate the marked, unequal pay manipulates the market.

If a woman works less in the same job (30h instead of 40h) she should of course be paid less, but that's because she isn't working the same amount of hours. If a woman and a man work on provision and the woman sells less units (doubtful), of course she should get less, 'coz she sold less. But if your only reason is "she agreed to it" or "she's gonna have family anyway" that's just high-end BS [commonly knwon as libertarianism].

old comment by Filin De Blanc

"On the contrary, my logic is consistent. The same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining who can and can't marry is the same reason why government shouldn't be involved in determining pay rates: both involve contracts between consenting adults."

Women don't usually consent to being paid less, they consent to contracts that unbeknownst to them have them getting paid less. Consent doesn't apply where a party has misrepresented an element of the contract. It's not like whether gay marriage is legal or not, it's like whether in an environment where it is, a woman may terminate her marriage because of a serious misrepresentation on the part of her wife.

old comment by anon

*sigh. I guess I shouldn't bother. But let's try this one more time.

You and I both fancy ourselves as auto mechanics. We both take a full-time job as an intern/trainee at a parts shop, and we get paid the same. If you were getting paid less at this point I'd have a problem. But six months come around, and you want to take a 3-month sabbatical. Cool. We won't pay you for your time off, but that's fully within your right. Now suppose you come back, three months pass, it's a year later, and it's time to negotiate a raise. Who do you think deserves to be paid more? The employee who has 12 months of auto-repair experience, or the employee who has 9 months?

If any of you can cite a study that accounts for the relative productivity and experience of women vs. men in the same field (showing both genders are equally experienced/productive but women still get paid less) then I'm open to changing my opinion.

old comment by motobreath

By the way, I don't think the libertarian argument is "let employers run amock and pay whoever less if they decide". I'm not a libertarian, but I am a fence sitter more often than not. As far as I know, libertarian's (in a definition that includes people like Mencken but not Nietzshce) would be for upholding equal pay as a basic civil right, and against doing so with legislation and government oversight. Companies that have paid women less based on sex can be taken to court because it's a civil rights issue. If a law is passed forcing government oversight it takes the power away from the individual women and leaves the decision up to a bureaucratic body.

Todd Akin #fundie thinkprogress.org

71 comments

Confused?