Paycheck Fairness Act

[Irish]

Is the ride over? I'm sick and I want to get off. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69746

The Obama administration is backing legislation that includes regulations requiring U.S. businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to the sex, race and national origin of employees.

In an orchestrated effort that included a statement by President Barack Obama and an event at the White House featuring Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the president and his cabinet endorsed the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The House approved the act in 2009, but the Senate did not approve it. In the 111th Congress, both the House and the Senate have offered legislation that covers a wide range of workplace requirements and regulations, including training girls and women to become better at negotiating pay and benefits, and the establishment of a data base of U.S. workers’ pay in both the public and private sector.

At the White House on Tuesday, Biden was the keynote speaker at a Middle Class Task Force event where he told invited guests that the Obama administration is “on the right side of history” by passing legislation to ensure women are paid the same as their male counterparts.

“Women make up nearly half of all workers on U.S. payrolls, and two-thirds of families with children are headed either by two working parents or by a single parent who works,” Biden said.

“Yet, the workplace has, for the most part, not changed to reflect these realities – and it must. Closing the gender pay gap, helping parents keep their jobs while balancing family responsibilities, and increasing workplace flexibility – these are not only women’s issues, they are issues of middle class economic security,” he said.

Biden said Congress should pass the bill, which includes language requiring employers to provide information about employee pay. In Section 8 of the bill, entitled Collection of Pay Information by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it calls for an amendment to Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--

"(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws; and

"(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the collection of pay information data from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees."

Attorney General Eric Holder was at the White House event with Biden and pledged to crack down on American businesses that discriminate against employees based on sex, race or country of origin.

In a White House-issued press release, the “enhancement of enforcement” is described as “a pledge by the Department of Justice and other enforcement agencies will coordinate and collaborate through investigations, litigation, policy guidance, data analysis, and public education efforts to make meaningful progress in closing the wage gap,” the press release stated.

“Already, the Justice Department, in conjunction with the EEOC and four of its district offices, has launched a robust and intensive pilot program to coordinate the investigation and litigation of charges against state and local government employers,” it added.

But critics charge that the Paycheck Fairness Act will be harmful to small businesses and the economy. The National Association of Manufacturers issued a statement about the bill in April.

“The Paycheck Fairness Act, which purports to prevent instances of illegal gender-based discrimination, could outlaw many legitimate practices employers use to set employee pay rates, even where there is no evidence of intentional discrimination and employers act with reasonable belief that their pay policies are lawful,” the statement said.

“Manufacturers strongly oppose unlawful discrimination in any form, but the Paycheck Fairness Act would impose unparalleled government control over how employees are paid, among even the nation’s smallest businesses,” it added.

“It would drastically alter the Equal Pay Act to allow unprecedented penalties of unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases of alleged discrimination,” the statement said.

James Sherk, Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at conservative The Heritage Foundation, said that the law would be a boon to trial lawyers seeking damages from employers for their clients and would allow the courts to “micro-manage” American businesses.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Obama said it was discrimination in the workplace that is harming the economy and American families.

“In America today, women make up half of the workforce, and two-thirds of American families with children rely on a woman's wages as a significant portion of their families' income,” the statement said.

“Yet, even in 2010, women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. The gap is even more significant for working women of color, and it affects women across all education levels,” the statement said.

“As Vice President Biden and the Middle Class Task Force will discuss today, this is not just a question of fairness for hard-working women. Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income. And with so many families depending on women's wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole. In difficult economic times like these, we simply cannot afford this discriminatory burden.”

[variablebinary]

Is the ride over? I'm sick and I want to get off. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69746

I would be interested in seeing an independent study done of professionals in the same age demo, with the same level of education and experience, of all races as sexes and how their compensation ranks.

I've been hearing for years that woman are soooo underpaid. I think its garbage BS, but I would like to see hard data rather than stats spit out.

[RancidSumo]

Another attack on property rights is all this is. If i want to pay someone $2 an hour and pay another person $50 an hour for the same job, thats my business and if the $2 person doesn't like it, they don't have to work for me.

[Irish]

The last thing we need is more government intrusion from the likes of people who haven't worked in the private sector in decades.

[ChicagoTex]

If i want to pay someone $2 an hour and pay another person $50 an hour for the same job, thats my business and if the $2 person doesn't like it, they don't have to work for me.

This really is one of the areas where the private sector really needs little coaching, as it's in the best interests of the employer to pay both $26 an hour if they both do the same job at roughly the same performance. Keep more solid employees that way and dodge turnover.

Yes there are some bigoted assholes who'll screw over people on their pay based on arbitrary shit like race, religion, or gender and they'll be laughing all the way to the poor house when those good employees desert them for better paying jobs elsewhere.

A content and competent workforce is the cornerstone of most any business looking to stay in business for more than about 3 years, and the key to contentment and competency is reasonable and equal treatment and compensation - the Federal Government really doesn't need to try to save idiots who don't understand this from themselves.

[Skyyr]

This really is one of the areas where the private sector really needs little coaching

...

Yes there are some bigoted assholes who'll screw over people on their pay based on arbitrary shit like race, religion, or gender and they'll be laughing all the way to the poor house when those good employees desert them for better paying jobs elsewhere.


If any unfair employer will be ran out of business by their own actions, then there's no coaching required. On top of that, the government doesn't have a SINGLE successful capital-based venture that hasn't ended in ruins. Until they can fix the USPS, Social Security, and their myriad of other failures, they have NO merit or experience worth sharing with the private sector.

[randolph]

I read a report on the pay inequality between the sexes a few years ago. The main factor they came up with was a lot of professional Women would take off a year or two to have a child, per child. They concluded most professional women had less work experience than a man did, hence the lower pay.

[TehLlama]

Nothing Orwellian to see here.

[PrivateCitizen]

This really is one of the areas where the private sector really needs little coaching, as it's in the best interests of the employer to pay both $26 an hour if they both do the same job at roughly the same performance. Keep more solid employees that way and dodge turnover.

Yes there are some bigoted assholes who'll screw over people on their pay based on arbitrary shit like race, religion, or gender and they'll be laughing all the way to the poor house when those good employees desert them for better paying jobs elsewhere.

A content and competent workforce is the cornerstone of most any business looking to stay in business for more than about 3 years, and the key to contentment and competency is reasonable and equal treatment and compensation - the Federal Government really doesn't need to try to save idiots who don't understand this from themselves.

But there are employees who hold the same position as another but is 50% more productive than his counterpart, is not late, and has demonstrated exceptional related qualities.

As I recall, that kind of thing used to get you raises and commendations. If your co-worker has the same job but doesn't do it as well as you and consequently get paid less, TFB for him. He needs to step up.

[parishioner]

See sig line.

[ChicagoTex]

As I recall, that kind of thing used to get you raises and commendations. If your co-worker has the same job but doesn't do it as well as you and consequently get paid less, TFB for him. He needs to step up.

Oh, I agree, it's just since the subject was pay equality I decided to opt for generic "two guys do the same job equally well, one's black, one's white" example. In that situation, it's best for your business to keep them both (provided the job they're both doing is satisfactory) and the best way to keep them both from a payroll standpoint is to pay them both fairly and equally.

What I'm basically saying is a good business owner/manager should be glad to have good employees no matter what color/religion/gender they are and express their gratitude in the form of reasonable and fair compensation. Failure to do so more often than not means losing the employee (or demotivating the employee to do their current job more poorly) which means worse business overall, and at the end of the day the one who loses biggest is the business owner.

[Belmont31R]

They need coaching from people who primarily who work in government? If the government were a private business they would have gone bankrupt decades ago. They can't run anything correctly. They can't even run a post office without losing money, and people expect them to "coach" private businesses? Our president, as far as I can tell, has never worked for a private business except maybe a couple years at a law firm. The government is the absolute last place that should be telling a private businesses how to operate. That is sure recipe for disaster. The list of their "business" and "programs" that are failures is enormous.

[Skyyr]

They need coaching from people who primarily who work in government? If the government were a private business they would have gone bankrupt decades ago. They can't run anything correctly. They can't even run a post office without losing money, and you expect them to "coach" private businesses? Our president, as far as I can tell, has never worked for a private business except maybe a couple years at a law firm. The government is the absolute last place that should be telling a private businesses how to operate. That is sure recipe for disaster. The list of their "business" and "programs" that are failures is enormous.

I'd also run away from anyone the government deems as a "qualified business instructor," whether civilian or not.

[ChicagoTex]

They need coaching from people who primarily who work in government? If the government were a private business they would have gone bankrupt decades ago. They can't run anything correctly. They can't even run a post office without losing money, and you expect them to "coach" private businesses? Our president, as far as I can tell, has never worked for a private business except maybe a couple years at a law firm. The government is the absolute last place that should be telling a private businesses how to operate. That is sure recipe for disaster. The list of their "business" and "programs" that are failures is enormous.

Re-read my first sentence carefully. There's a distinctly missing "a". It's missing for a reason, which should be evident from the rest of my post.
Back down, I'm on your side on this one (I think)

[Belmont31R]

Oops.....:D

[Irish]

Shouldn't women perform the job equally to receive equal compensation? Rarely does this happen in any sort of job where you have to lift more than a writing utensil. It deviates from our tradition of chivalry, respect and our genetics. Our military's Physical Fitness Tests are a good example of women wanting equal pay but not being able to perform equally.

[kwelz]

Shouldn't women perform the job equally to receive equal compensation? Rarely does this happen in any sort of job where you have to lift more than a writing utensil. It deviates from our tradition of chivalry, respect and our genetics. Our military's Physical Fitness Tests are a good example of women wanting equal pay but not being able to perform equally.

I just can't agree with this statement. Women can and do perform just as well as men in many jobs. To believe otherwise is just plain wrong. Now if a woman can't perform up to snuff then they should not hold the job. The same goes for any man that applies for the job. There should be one set of requirements for a job. If a person can fulfill them then they can do the job. If they can't then they do something else.

I know Women factory workers and truck drivers. I sure as hell would not want to tell either of them that they can't do their jobs well.

Now is this to say that as many women are suitable to work in a factory or in the Armed forces as men? No probably not. But if they an do the job they should be hired and paid the same.

Chivalry and tradition should play no part in it.

[Irish]

There should be one set of requirements for a job. If a person can fulfill them then they can do the job. If they can't then they do something else.

That's my point. There isn't one set standard.

[kwelz]

Ahh Sorry then. I read it as you saying women can not and should not do the jobs. Ooops.

[Belmont31R]

I just can't agree with this statement. Women can and do perform just as well as men in many jobs. To believe otherwise is just plain wrong. Now if a woman can't perform up to snuff then they should not hold the job. The same goes for any man that applies for the job. There should be one set of requirements for a job. If a person can fulfill them then they can do the job. If they can't then they do something else.

I know Women factory workers and truck drivers. I sure as hell would not want to tell either of them that they can't do their jobs well.

Now is this to say that as many women are suitable to work in a factory or in the Armed forces as men? No probably not. But if they an do the job they should be hired and paid the same.

Chivalry and tradition should play no part in it.



Women are naturally suited to jobs most men are not like nursing. There are way more female nurses than males for instance just like there are virtually no women construction workers. Yes there exceptions but as a general role not all jobs are gender neutral.


My main experience with working is in the mil, and most women in the mil are there to find a hubby, get knocked up, and end up sitting at home raising kids while their husband continues serving. I don't remember the exact numbers but around 75% of the females in my unit ended up pregnant from the time we got deployment orders to the time we returned from deployment. Very few were there to a job, do it professional, and not get knocked up. None I saw were ever punished for getting pregnant while deployed, either. It was a free ticket out of there, and an easy life aside from raising a kid. One of them even got to our unit, found out we were deploying within a few months, and within a few weeks she turns up pregnant. Got to sit in the rear on light duty while we went to Iraq. Most of the ones who didn't get knocked up ended up doing office work or if they were on the line with us they did less than half the work of the males. Only 2 females that I can ever recall actually put full effort into their jobs, wanted to be there, and actually get their hands dirty. There were shitbag guys, too, but not nearly as high of a percentage.

[ChicagoTex]

Shouldn't women perform the job equally to receive equal compensation? Rarely does this happen in any sort of job where you have to lift more than a writing utensil. It deviates from our tradition of chivalry, respect and our genetics. Our military's Physical Fitness Tests are a good example of women wanting equal pay but not being able to perform equally.

I spent a year working at a major midwestern home improvement chain's primary distribution warehouse and shipping center. My job most days consisted of driving a powered tug towing skids of stuff ranging from somewhat heavyish (10lbs) to OMGWTFHeavy (100+ lbs) to one shipping staging area after another, each time getting off to remove as many items from the skid by hand as had been ordered by the store for which the staging area was designed. The workforce split was surprisingly even gender-wise (maybe not quite 50/50, but no more offset than 60/40 male/female) and it was my general observation and experience that for the most part, the women could hold their own with myself and the other men. These weren't butch steelwalking contractor archetype women, either, but your basic 5 foot something, 100-130lb women in their early to mid 20's.

The reason for this, I came to realize, was because with the exception of the extraordinarily heavy crap (talking 50lbs or more per item here) it was a game of endurance, not raw brute strength. Most of the blue collar physical jobs are actually like that and in that area, again to my observation, women seem to do about as well as makes no difference to men.

[RancidSumo]

This really is one of the areas where the private sector really needs little coaching, as it's in the best interests of the employer to pay both $26 an hour if they both do the same job at roughly the same performance. Keep more solid employees that way and dodge turnover.

Yes there are some bigoted assholes who'll screw over people on their pay based on arbitrary shit like race, religion, or gender and they'll be laughing all the way to the poor house when those good employees desert them for better paying jobs elsewhere.

A content and competent workforce is the cornerstone of most any business looking to stay in business for more than about 3 years, and the key to contentment and competency is reasonable and equal treatment and compensation - the Federal Government really doesn't need to try to save idiots who don't understand this from themselves.

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it is my right to do it as the property/business owner.

[ChicagoTex]

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it is my right to do it as the property/business owner.

Oh, I understand and agree. I'm just pointing out that if you have any hopes of staying in business you will choose not to excercise that right (at least in that manner). That's why I don't feel this is an issue that warrants any degree of legislative attention.

This is, at it's very best and most innocent, a massive waste of time and money because it is logically redundant. Alternate theories go downhill from there...

[RancidSumo]

Ok, makes sense. I agree with you here, bad business practices lead to failed business. End of story.

[variablebinary]

Ok, makes sense. I agree with you here, bad business practices lead to failed business. End of story.

Are you sure?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoCc4A-Wq_IvfWUCJOvz7051NbRAx57d5IcrAQStNWxg8dbfw&t=1&usg=__2VL5iatM_EL6HMwhYAtVtQ6I4g8=

http://www.naaapcolumbus.org/img/sponsor/Goldman_Sachs.gif

[ChicagoTex]

... Barring outside influences (read: massive amounts of taxpayer cash) applied due to the enviable and rare status of being "too big to fail".

End of story now?

[Belmont31R]

Are you sure?





In a free market they do. That is no longer the case.

[PrivateCitizen]

If a person can fulfill them then they can do the job. If they can't then they do something else.


I disagree. It is impossible to have 'one requirement'.

This is particularly true in some labor jobs or craftsman jobs.

If quota is X (widgets crafted, widgets filed, whatever) but a 1 worker in 20 can exceed that in what world is not OK to reward that individual?

You see, that is called excellence and is a motivation for those that can't meet that level to aspire to a higher level.

How is it that one individual should not be rewarded for that performance? Do you suggest they just slack off the last 15 minutes of each hour if that is the balance of the time difference for the task?

Under your position that there is no reward for greater performance what is the motivation to improve?

[PrivateCitizen]

Are you sure?



:jester:

Corporatism is alive and well. Anyone who thinks we live in a capitalist society needs to read up.

[variablebinary]

In a free market they do. That is no longer the case.

It's a fine line.

I am not for absolute laissez-faire capitalism, but I am leery of federal intervention.

Both taken to extremes are bad news for the regular joe.

[RancidSumo]

It's a fine line.

I am not for absolute laissez-faire capitalism, but I am leery of federal intervention.

Both taken to extremes are bad news for the regular joe.


I disagree. A 100% free market is the absolute best thing for all people, rich and poor. It provides cheaper and better products for the consumer while offering high profits for the producers.

[Caeser25]

Are they really that dumb thinking this is won't impact the economy.

[variablebinary]

I disagree. A 100% free market is the absolute best thing for all people, rich and poor. It provides cheaper and better products for the consumer while offering high profits for the producers.

No, this is not the case, and history is not with you. We've already seen the effects of unchecked capitalism, and it wasn't exactly peaches and cream.

http://home.comcast.net/~DiazStudents/IndustrialChildLabor2.jpg

http://www.clevelandirish.com/images/draft_lens1956481module40156252photo_1245048244help_wanted_-_no_irish_need_apply.jpg

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/salinas/students/student_sites/Spring2007/Christine_Paterson/whites_only.gif

http://online-history.org/images/smallmill.gif

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/sia/31.1/images/malone_fig11b.jpg

[PrivateCitizen]

No, this is not the case, and history is not with you. We've already seen the effects of unchecked capitalism, and it wasn't exactly peaches and cream.


Don't confuse capitalism with moral and scientific awareness of an era.

Capitalism is a economic philosophy, your pictorial examples are a window of the technological, social, and academic norms of the time and how people chose to live.

There are tightly regulated nations and economies today that drastically fail your implied shortcomings despite themselves.

[RancidSumo]

Don't confuse capitalism with moral and scientific awareness of an era.

Capitalism is a economic philosophy, your pictorial examples are a window of the technological, social, and academic norms of the time and how people chose to live.

There are tightly regulated nations and economies today that drastically fail your implied shortcomings despite themselves.

This. Additionally, we have never seen, anywhere in the world, true, unchecked capitalism.

[variablebinary]

This. Additionally, we have never seen, anywhere in the world, true, unchecked capitalism.

Exactly right. There is no standing precedent to suggest unchecked capitalism, given the ability to what it wants, wherever it wants, to whomever it wants is good for the country.

The closest we've come in a industrialized nation is the late 19th century and early 20th century America. Not exactly a period anyone wants to rewind to.

A completely amoral economic engine, with no checks and balance, run by men of dubious ethics is no place I would want to work of live near.

[Belmont31R]

No, this is not the case, and history is not with you. We've already seen the effects of unchecked capitalism, and it wasn't exactly peaches and cream.






That has nothing to do with capitalism. There are plenty of kids working in communist and socialist nations. That has to do with society that had different standards of the time, and a societal government that refused to recognize people's rights.

Just like I don't think it was wrong for people as short as 40 years ago to be getting married at 14 years old (sometimes younger). Our tech savvy society today has different standards, and other standards don't automatically become wrong just because they are different. In societies of the past marriage was common as young as 10-14. It was a necessity of the time due to the short life span.

Those kids working is from the industrial era. Nearly every case of a nation going through a similar time period has kids working because society is exploding as such a rate child labor was a necessary practice. We wouldn't be where we are today without those kids working. Now we are at a point where we don't need child labor anymore. We have enough adults as a product of the industrial area that is a thing of the past but it was necessary at the time to get us through that stage of societal development.

You can have a free market that recognizes people's rights, and when I say free market that means a market that is "largely" free. There is no such thing as a total free market. Our country was setup with the ability of the government to have some play in regulating things...see the commerce clause. When it doesn't become a free market is when gov starts making business decisions on behalf of a business outside of the scope of its basic duties. Our governments basic duties are listed in section 1-8. Obviously there is quite a bit of gray area, and its walking on a fine line. Today child labor could be said to be abuse, and Id largely agree. Do I think a farmers kid should be able to tell his parents to FO when asked to help around the farm? No... Or telling a neighborhood kid he can't mow the grass for 10 bucks to earn a little money? A kid running a lemonade stand? So obviously there are some examples where child labor is still ok today. Do I think they should be working in factories? Nope...


With regards to the racial discrimination do you think a business should not have the right to refuse service? Should they be forced to engage in business with anyone who walks through their door? What about restaurants that have a dress code, and you walk in with shorts, a ratty t-shirt, and flip flops because thats as much as you can afford? Should they be forced to provide a service to you because otherwise its discrimination based on economic status. So there are obviously also still cases where a business is able to discriminate. Theres a good cajun restaurant I go to that is operated by a group of black women. What if the local KKK chapter walked in wearing their hoods and outfits. Should the restaurant be able to ask them leave?


The world is not black and white....;)

[armakraut]

Holy crap, they're making stuff in that photo! This is outrageous. Someone needs to send a union rep to that plant, get everyone to hate the man who built the factory, drive up his costs ten fold, pester him with regulators nonstop, tax him 90% until he hates his employees, then complain when he takes his money elsewhere.

Ironically Europeans used to come over here and comment how advanced our industry was and how nicely we treated our employees.

The late 19th and early 20th century was a great time. You didn't have to live a subsistence life on a farm anymore. You could work in a factory, go into the service sector, build an empire. It was a great time for blacks too, at least compared to where they're at now. Black people actually owned a lot of businesses back then, far more than they do now. Divorce was negligible, everybody married, everybody knew each other in their community. Gun laws were laughed at. Blacks had lower rates of out of wedlock births than whites. Best of all you could move somewhere else that didn't have a-hole neighbors and not have a permanent debt/socialist-code-violation-history computer file follow you.

Good times until Hoover and Roosevelt.

Pampering your kids just creates a bunch of degenerate weirdos. Treat them like adults and maybe they'll grow into adults like the kids in the photos did, assuming they didn't fall into the machinery. I'm betting most survived and led more fulfilling lives that most people now days do.


http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/sia/31.1/images/malone_fig11b.jpg

[variablebinary]

I don't believe child labor is dead in America because business decided it was immoral.

They simply off-shored child labor to places like china. Meaning business doesn't think it is wrong, and if they could do it here, they would. The Feds just wont allow them to.

And no, I dont think business has an absolute right to discriminate because all businesses are the beneficiaries of tax dollars paid by all people.

The instant, say, someone like Intel decides it wont hire anymore Asians (LOL), just because they are Asian, the Feds should cut off all utilities to Intel facilities, because Asians pay taxes which support the infrastructure, which allows Intel to do business.

The instant a person figures out how to run a business that is 100% independent of American tax dollars and the corresponding infrastructure, they can do whatever they want.

[variablebinary]

Holy crap, they're making stuff in that photo! This is outrageous. Someone needs to send a union rep to that plant, get everyone to hate the man who built the factory, drive up his costs ten fold, pester him with regulators nonstop, tax him 90% until he hates his employees, then complain when he takes his money elsewhere.


When are you booking your ticket to get away from the evil regulations here? I hear china is great for its lack of regulation.

Like I said, it's a fine line, and cant be allowed to swing too far in either direction, but neither should have absolute power to operate with impunity

http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ap_china_pollution_071218_ms.jpg

http://fladoodles.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nm_china_pollution_070427_ms.jpg

http://cellar.org/2007/plastic.jpg

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/china_air_pollution1.jpg

http://cfs2.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzgxODg2QGZzMi50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvMjIuanBn

[Belmont31R]

I don't believe child labor is dead in America because business decided it was immoral.

They simply off-shored child labor to places like china. Meaning business doesn't think it is wrong, and if they could do it here, they would. The Feds just wont allow them to.

And its not immoral for us to purchase those items? If there wasn't a market for it those items would not be sold. There is, and where there is a demand someone will provide the supply. Just like drugs are never going to go away, alchohol never went away, crime never goes away, there will always be prostitutes. No matter how many laws you passed supply and demand trumps all. Dollars speak louder than whats written on a scrap of paper. You cannot regular morality by passing laws.

And no, I dont think business has an absolute right to discriminate because all businesses are the beneficiaries of tax dollars paid by all people.

Thats as broad of statement as saying all businesses should have no independent business choices because they benefit from tax dollars in some capacity. If you can do it for one thing whats the difference between any other? Theres no principles there just the whims of a government.

The instant, say, someone like Intel decides it wont hire anymore Asians (LOL), just because they are Asian, the Feds should cut off all utilities to Intel facilities, because Asians pay taxes which support the infrastructure, which allows Intel to do business.

So the feds have total control over the utilities? Last I checked I belong to a cooperative, and not from the government.

The instant a person figures out how to run a business that is 100% independent of American tax dollars and the corresponding infrastructure, they can do whatever they want.


So force people to pay taxes by way of intimidation, seizure, and some times as gun point...then force them to obey laws because they benefited from a tax dollar? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me. Force people to participate in an activity, and then say because they participate in that activity it gives us the power to dictate what you do? Is rape any less a rape because I held a gun to a persons head, forced them to say they wanted to have sex? Does that make it ok? You can't setup impossible situations, and then blame the person for not outperforming the situation or use it to justify something.






Mine in red.

[RancidSumo]

Exactly right. There is no standing precedent to suggest unchecked capitalism, given the ability to what it wants, wherever it wants, to whomever it wants is good for the country.

The closest we've come in a industrialized nation is the late 19th century and early 20th century America. Not exactly a period anyone wants to rewind to.

A completely amoral economic engine, with no checks and balance, run by men of dubious ethics is no place I would want to work of live near.

I've got an essay you should read by Jeffery Tucker. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

ETA: In fact, Id be willing to lend you the book if you are interested when I am done with it. It is a collection of essays that makes a strong case for a free market (including allowing child labor). Just let me know if you are interested.

ETA 2: I found them-
http://mises.org/daily/3015 Free market
http://mises.org/daily/2858 Child Labor

Lots of other good stuff on that site if you care to look around. The book is by the author of those essays and is titled Bourbon for Breakfast

[variablebinary]

And its not immoral for us to purchase those items? If there wasn't a market for it those items would not be sold. There is, and where there is a demand someone will provide the supply. Just like drugs are never going to go away, alchohol never went away, crime never goes away, there will always be prostitutes. No matter how many laws you passed supply and demand trumps all. Dollars speak louder than whats written on a scrap of paper. You cannot regular morality by passing laws.

That's changing the argument. The implication is the free market is good for the country, when clearly, when left to do what they want they will pollute and exploit at will. We see this in China, which is a dump for what we will never allow here. If no regulation is good, China wouldnt be known as environmental sewer full of exploitation.

Thats as broad of statement as saying all businesses should have no independent business choices because they benefit from tax dollars in some capacity. If you can do it for one thing whats the difference between any other? Theres no principles there just the whims of a government.

Obviously business has some autonomy because we don't have absolute regulation on enterprise. When regulation gets too oppressive we elect new politicians to roll back the power grab. There are checks on both sides, which is a good thing

So force people to pay taxes by way of intimidation, seizure, and some times as gun point...then force them to obey laws because they benefited from a tax dollar? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me. Force people to participate in an activity, and then say because they participate in that activity it gives us the power to dictate what you do? Is rape any less a rape because I held a gun to a persons head, forced them to say they wanted to have sex? Does that make it ok? You can't setup impossible situations, and then blame the person for not outperforming the situation or use it to justify something.

An example: When a University decides they don't want to allow the Military on the campus, the government has the right to yank federal tax dollars. Is that tyrannical? No

In the case of business, they don't always have a choice in the taxes they pay, but they do expect the lights to stay on, for the water to be clean, and for the roads to be maintained allowing them a stable place on which they can build and conduct business and gain wealth. They are benefiting from tax dollars.

This is nothing new. As we saw in the Whiskey Rebellion, we have to give up rights, by force if needed, so that we have the means to live in a free, stable nation. Business in this case forfeits the right to discriminate against people based upon race, sex, religion, age etc, because they are in fact benefiting on society's labor and tax dollars

Some people wrongly believe that absolute property rights extends to the ability to run a business and engage in commerce. Lets say that is true, that running the business is the same as owning a car.

Well your car is subject to numerous regulations to ensure no one person has the means to wreck the social contract made with other drivers. The car is your property, but you cant do whatever the hell you want. Same for business.

[RancidSumo]

variablebinary, your last post reveals the root of the problem. The minute you begin speaking of taxes, you aren't speaking of a free market.

[armakraut]

China doesn't really have capitalism or freedom.

We don't have to give up any rights.

Those kids in the factory probably found it much better than their previous occupation of family farm slave labor... and were maybe even getting paid. Most kids that age are turds anyway. Kids sort of act like tiny criminals. Arbeit Macht Frei.

The Whiskey Rebellion got the whiskey tax repealed. Shay's rebellion got us the constitution and right to bankruptcy against our creditors. The nullification crisis saw the tariff of abominations shredded. About the only thing that gets the job done in the USA is a good nullification crisis. A group of people with balls enough to say that screwing with my freedom is against the law, enforceable by blood and iron.

And I still won't hire no damn drunk Irishmen. :secret:

[Belmont31R]

You keep refering to the market as they and them. YOU are part of the market, too, and if there was no demand for cheaply made China crap "they" would not sell it. Its always a two way street. Just like there would be no drug dealers if there was no demand for drugs from the consumer. You always have the choice not to buy something (well until Obamacare fully becomes law). Its not changing the argument its accurately descbribing what it is.


Why is there child labor in China? Because they are where we were at 100 years ago....going through the Industrial Era. I said before when a country goes through that it explodes, and child labor is something that is usually needed to get through that.

Is it shitty? Yeah but thats the way the world works, and life isn't always fair or kind. If you stump into the natural flow of things..over the long haul you end making things worse because you keep an economy, and thus a nation, in a state of suspension. Look at what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. Within 10 years they were back on a track to natural progression. Before, due to the total control of the economy, they were not moving forward, they were stuck in poverty compared to western standards...

You also act like because a business benefits from some tax dollars then that is what gives the gov the authority to regulate them, and make them follow whatever whim the gov has up its sleeve. You really think taxation is the way to make a country move? To get people to do the right thing? You act like gov is doing them a favor by taxing them... you know there used to be private roads right? Now you cannot do that anymore. You've fallen into some type of trap to think the gov is owed a pat on the back for doing something private business used to do. The gov is slowly taking over roles private industry used to do, and you're supporting them in that takeover while they now hold a gun to your head telling you to say getting raped is ok. The gov cannot ever regulate morality. Justice is not shaping a society its getting justice for when someone does something wrong. Justice happens after the fact not before it by its very definition. You are exchanging one act for a repayment to make things square....hence the scales of justice.

If want the gov to tell a business who can they hire, how much they can pay them, who they have to provide services for you're not even close to advocating a free market OR even close to one. You're advocating a government controlled economy where how much the business makes is decided by the government just based on the fact they have near unlimited tax powers. You can decide what economy you'd like to see but don't be surprised when you end up in a soup line one day because the government has control of things. People do not starve unless its through their own wishes and choices in a free market, and a free society. People starve when you get the government controlling who does what. Its happened time and time again. Governments have killed tens of millions more than a free economy ever could dream of doing.

Last point is that the only reason driving a car is not a right is because our government has slowly been trying to take away rights, and cars came long after our country was founded. Gov has been attempting to redefine what our rights are in ways that give them more power, and give us less freedoms. Just like you need a permit to peaceably assemble. Permit = permission, and if you have to ask permission to do something its not a right. Asking for a permit to carry a gun means its not a right. Getting a permit to drive a car means its not a right. Getting a permit to build a house means building a house is not a right. We've been conditioned to accept that we need to ask our governments permission to exercise our rights all the while being told we're the land of the free. It means we are subservient to the government, and not the other way around. Heading down that road often leads to death by mass grave. There is a reason why we were setup as small of government as possible because government inherently becomes evil....the more of it we add on in the name of our security the less freedom we have. We are lucky in that our Founding Fathers gave us so little of it that its taken this long to get where we are no longer free. What comes next can been seen if you look at history.

[500grains]

I am sick of the government always pushing the race issue.

[bkb0000]

i got news for some of you guys. employers don't pay you what you're "worth," they pay you what you'll work for- which is, hopefully, substantially less than you're "worth."

have you never negotiated a salary? what do you think that is? it's you trying to get as much as you can for your work, and your employer trying to pay as little as he can for your work. the salary you arrive at is generally somewhere in the middle- where, exactly, will depend on how well you sell yourself.

this is no different than any other capitalistic endeavor- those with the drive, the intelligence, the wit, to get more out of their employer, will. as a white man, you can tell me to blow it out my ass if i offer you $50k.... is a black man somehow not capable of that?? is a woman incapable of saying "no thank you?"

as an employer, i don't give a shit what color you are, so long as you speak english as well or better than i do. that's a must. i don't even particularly care if you're a "citizen" (GASP, i know... i'm so anti-American :rolleyes:). but i do care about how much profit my business makes- and my goal is to get you to work as hard as you can for as little as you'll take. but i sure as shit cant force you to take anything. likewise, YOUR goal is to work as little as possible for as much as i'll give- and you can't make me pay you more than i want to.

[Skyyr]

You keep refering to the market as they and them. YOU are part of the market, too, and if there was no demand for cheaply made China crap "they" would not sell it. Its always a two way street. Just like there would be no drug dealers if there was no demand for drugs from the consumer. You always have the choice not to buy something (well until Obamacare fully becomes law). Its not changing the argument its accurately descbribing what it is.


This. A big, fat THIS.

Regardless of how much history, philosophy, or semantics you can argue into the free market argument, it ALL comes down to this.

People who work for minimum wage have a choice not to work for minimum wage... and if no one worked for minimum wage, then the minimum wage wouldn't be what it is. The same goes for child labor, sweat-shops, every blue-collar job, anything you can think of that applies to the free market. It quite literally goes both ways.

The ONLY thing history has shown us about the free market is that those who can't think for themselves and put themselves into the debt of others are at the mercy of those with money. Ironically, the Bible already said this 5,000 years ago. It's nothing new.

Issues like price-fixing, insider trading, etc - those are scams by another name, and therefore should be prohibited. Child labor is basically slavery and therefore should be prohibited. Sweatshops? Minimum wage? People have a CHOICE not to do those and the government stepping in is nothing more than an attempt to control us even more. It has nothing to do with helping the people (although it's paraded as such) - it's control of the market, plain and simple.

[arizonaranchman]

They need coaching from people who primarily who work in government? If the government were a private business they would have gone bankrupt decades ago. They can't run anything correctly. They can't even run a post office without losing money, and people expect them to "coach" private businesses? Our president, as far as I can tell, has never worked for a private business except maybe a couple years at a law firm. The government is the absolute last place that should be telling a private businesses how to operate. That is sure recipe for disaster. The list of their "business" and "programs" that are failures is enormous.

No kidding, a more inept, arrogant bunch of morons is hard to find than the Feds. They should be in jail for basta$*izing our country to the point of near-collapse. More and more every day it becomes increasingly clear that this administration is INTENTIONALLY driving this nation into the ground to destroy it.

[rickrock305]

People who work for minimum wage have a choice not to work for minimum wage... and if no one worked for minimum wage, then the minimum wage wouldn't be what it is. The same goes for child labor, sweat-shops, every blue-collar job, anything you can think of that applies to the free market. It quite literally goes both ways.



Do they really have a choice though? Is their choice between working for minimum wage, or not working at all? Is that a realistic choice for people? Generally most folks in minimum wage positions are unskilled, meaning they aren't qualified for higher paying jobs.

[Business_Casual]

The major reason we have so-called child labor laws is unions didn't want the competition. Feel free to research it. Secondly in other countries if those kids didn't work they would starve.

B_C

[Honu]

or the kids would be forced to work !!
or some parents in some countries sell off their kids to work camps etc...?

[RancidSumo]

Do they really have a choice though? Is their choice between working for minimum wage, or not working at all? Is that a realistic choice for people? Generally most folks in minimum wage positions are unskilled, meaning they aren't qualified for higher paying jobs.


That is a realistic choice. You do not have the right to have a job, if no employer needs you, you're out of luck. If they do they'll pay you what it takes to get your service.


The major reason we have so-called child labor laws is unions didn't want the competition. Feel free to research it. Secondly in other countries if those kids didn't work they would starve.

B_C

Exactly, see the article I linked to above for more on this topic.

[Skyyr]

Do they really have a choice though? Is their choice between working for minimum wage, or not working at all? Is that a realistic choice for people? Generally most folks in minimum wage positions are unskilled, meaning they aren't qualified for higher paying jobs.

99% of the time, it's by their CHOICE. It all goes back to choices. They wanted to spend their money on things other than an education; they chose to have kids as a single parent and are left supporting them, they chose not to have insurance and now have mountains of medical bills; whatever the case, it's almost ALWAYS because of their choices.

Choices have consequences and it's not our responsibility to bail them out when those consequences happen to be permanent and life-long.

Now, there are a FEW legitimate exceptions (but those are very rare) where the person had no choice in the matter. For those people, we should have assistance programs that allow them to go to school, get educated, and get a job - NOT get free money to lay on their back all day and draw wellfare checks.

[RancidSumo]

99% of the time, it's by their CHOICE. It all goes back to choices. They wanted to spend their money on things other than an education; they chose to have kids as a single parent and are left supporting them, they chose not to have insurance and now have mountains of medical bills; whatever the case, it's almost ALWAYS because of their choices.

Choices have consequences and it's not our responsibility to bail them out when those consequences happen to be permanent and life-long.

Now, there are a FEW legitimate exceptions (but those are very rare) where the person had no choice in the matter. For those people, we should have assistance programs that allow them to go to school, get educated, and get a job - NOT get free money to lay on their back all day and draw wellfare checks.

We should, but, it should be in the form of charity and not at the point of a gun like any government program.

[variablebinary]

I think most agree there is no right to work, or right to a great house in the suburbs, or a six figure salary.

However, that does not mean that discrimination based upon race, religion and sex in either hiring practices or in the actual workplace is unacceptable.

If someone cant do the job, dont hire them. If they suck at their job, fire them, but to actually hire someone, then tell them they will get less based purely upon sex, race or religion, not based upon performance or economics, that is not acceptable, nor is that the employers right.

To allow that would shoot our economy through the heart, and cause massive turmoil in our social fabric

[RancidSumo]

I think most agree there is no right to work, or right to a great house in the suburbs, or a six figure salary.

However, that does not mean that discrimination based upon race, religion and sex in either hiring practices or in the actual workplace is unacceptable.

If someone cant do the job, dont hire them. If they suck at their job, fire them, but to actually hire someone, then tell them they will get less based purely upon sex, race or religion, not based upon performance or economics, that is not acceptable, nor is that the employers right.

To allow that would shoot our economy through the heart, and cause massive turmoil in our social fabric

How so? You make an emotional argument but don't show WHY it will cause any problems whatsoever.

Additionally, the part in bold is completely false. It is my right to do whatever I want with my money. If someone doesn't like it they can leave me the hell alone and not work for me or buy my product.

[variablebinary]

How so? You make an emotional argument but don't show WHY it will cause any problems whatsoever.

Additionally, the part in bold is completely false. It is my right to do whatever I want with my money. If someone doesn't like it they can leave me the hell alone and not work for me or buy my product.

When you engage in commerce you lose a portion of so-called rights so that you may engage in commerce with the public, which has made it possible for you to engage in commerce through taxation which went toward infrastructure development.

It's already been determined, and there is way of getting around it. Anyone that disagrees, try and fire a woman because she is a woman. Good luck with that, but have your check book in hand because that judge is going to love slapping your ass with fines.

Dont like it, buy an island and be lord and master of a dirt rock

[Skyyr]

To allow that would shoot our economy through the heart, and cause massive turmoil in our social fabric

That's not based in fact; in fact, that statement is a knee-jerk assumption.

Let's review the facts:
1) Workplace discrimination isn't covered nor is it illegal under the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It was assumed acceptable until the latest social rights movement and is based on the 10th Amendment's commerce clause that was used as a back-door to allow the FEDERAL government to make it illegal.

2) Reviewing the founding father's documents and communications, there is no mention whatsoever of (nor any allusion to) forcing employers to hire indiscriminately. Looking closer, making "anti-discrimination" laws is itself arbitrary and not based on logic, because EVERY workplace discriminates at some level, whether it's job performance, eligibility, race, sex, etc. The point is hiring someone who's more qualified than another is discrimination, yet it's acceptable. Looking into the foundation of anti-discrimination laws reveals that they are founded on opinion-driven interpretation and are double-standard. Don't play the semantics card; discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether the outcome is good or bad. Banning one type while allowing another is nothing but arbitrary opinion based on philosophies and ideologies. The only reason it's illegal now is because someone thought they had a right to work for someone that didn't even want to speak to them.

3) Discrimination is part of the free market. If a group is openly discriminated against, then they'll take their business elsewhere. If there's no venue for them to take their business, a new business will rise to the challenge and make money off of the untapped consumers. If someone won't hire someone based on discrimination, then they'll go elsewhere for work. It's that simple. To assume that the market could go on without a company hiring said class of individuals is the equivalent of stating that those individuals have zero economic impact and are not consumers (now THAT'S a touchy can of crap, huh?). In truth, it's hypocrisy. On one hand, we're saying that we MUST show equality, but on the other, we're stating that if we don't those people will be left out without hope because their absence won't be noticed (i.e. they're not equal because they don't have the same impact as other consumers).

4) Anti-discrimination laws create even more hostile work environments. Why? Consider that before the laws existed, store owners were open about their stances on discrimination. Also consider not everyone discriminated as employers. Naturally, those who didn't would receive a higher percentage of business (not necessarily gross profits, but percentages). Now, with the laws in place, employers are forced to discriminate behind people's backs by ways of enforcing qualifications that their discriminated group has little chance of meeting, cold-shouldering in the work-place, etc. This itself has led to even more hostile environments where people look for lawsuits every chance they get because they "think" they're being discriminated against. How much easier would it be if workplaces were simply open about the subject? You can't sue someone for discrimination when they told you they were going to beforehand and you'd ultimately take your work or business elsewhere.


I'm not racist nor do I discriminate, but forcing people to hire X persons because "someone might get hurt" is simply feel-good liberal propaganda at its core and only creates more issues than it solves.

Consider you yourself as a child and being force to play with kids you didn't like. You're going to try to get in every tongue-in-cheek insult you can and you're going to try to embarrass or humiliate them at every opening. Yet, if you could simply avoid them, none of that would happen and all parties involved would be happier as they could choose their own friends. Workplace discrimination is no different.

[PrivateCitizen]

However, that does not mean that discrimination based upon race, religion and sex in either hiring practices or in the actual workplace is unacceptable.

I agree, but this is a construct social awareness and NOT something that needs to be enacted by .gov nor a tenet of an economic system.

Any society can be culturally aware of these things and deem them unaccpetable without there being a law.



If someone can't do the job, dont hire them. If they suck at their job, fire them, but to actually hire someone, then tell them they will get less based purely upon sex, race or religion, not based upon performance or economics, that is not acceptable, nor is that the employers right.

Again, I agree. And a good business person would not care. If the employer sucks and does that you, you can choose to not take the job.

On a singular scale this seems harsh, but if a society is culturally and morally aware it becomes irrelevant. Employers would lose a workforce and themselves go out of business. Even the market corrects this kind of injustice.

Laws that attempt to stifle this kind of thing really only prolong the mindsets and prevent the social evolution.

[Avenger29]

Are they really that dumb thinking this is won't impact the economy.

You are looking at this the wrong way. They aren't stupid. They know damn well it will impact the economy (negatively) and that is their intention.


Do not underestimate these assholes as being stupid. They know damn well what they are doing.

[RancidSumo]

When you engage in commerce you lose a portion of so-called rights so that you may engage in commerce with the public, which has made it possible for you to engage in commerce through taxation which went toward infrastructure development.

It's already been determined, and there is way of getting around it. Anyone that disagrees, try and fire a woman because she is a woman. Good luck with that, but have your check book in hand because that judge is going to love slapping your ass with fines.

Dont like it, buy an island and be lord and master of a dirt rock

Taxes and government built infrastructure are unnecessary for business. All of it could be privatized which would actually be beneficial to society allowing people purchase better services for cheaper prices without paying for things they don't want. Engaging in commerce SHOULD not result in the loss of anyone's rights. It doesn't happen because it is a natural law of doing business, it happens because the government forces it on people.

[variablebinary]

In red


Taxes and government built infrastructure are unnecessary for business.

It absolutely is necessary. The tax payer creates the environment that allows business to take place. You cant run a business without setting foot on something the tax payer has paid for.

All of it could be privatized which would actually be beneficial to society allowing people purchase better services for cheaper prices without paying for things they don't want.

The scope of infrastructure ensures tax payer subsidies will be required. The massive networks and grids of connectivity (power, information, T-comm, and transport) are only possible if backed by tax dollars. Commerce has greatly benefited by offloading infrastructure needs to the taxpayer, allowing the small entrepreneur and large corporations to focus 100% on business and not how to get the power grid to their business, or how to get trucking lanes from A to B.

Engaging in commerce SHOULD not result in the loss of anyone's rights. It doesn't happen because it is a natural law of doing business, it happens because the government forces it on people.

You absolutely do lose the right to absolute autonomy if you are not 100% self sufficient. As long as you are beholden to another person on any level, you don't get to do whatever you want. If that wasnt true, no one would move out of their parents house.

[RancidSumo]

I'll defer to the experts-

http://www.dullesgreenway.com/ Private road that is better than public alternatives
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=202 Private roads
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=553 Why government infrastructure is bad

[variablebinary]

I'll defer to the experts-

http://www.dullesgreenway.com/ Private road that is better than public alternatives

As I said, you dont get to do whatever you want just because you run a business.


Myth - the Dulles Greenway can charge whatever toll amount necessary

Fact - the owner of the Dulles Greenway, TRIP II must comply with the order of the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

There isn't much else to say in this thread

[RancidSumo]

As I said, you dont get to do whatever you want just because you run a business.



There isn't much else to say in this thread

You can't argue that the status quo is right for the sole reason of it is the current system :blink: That isn't a legitimate argument as to why it is better than another system.