Closing the wage gap: It's a matter of survival for working families (Valerie Jarrett alert)

Washington Post ^ | September 17, 2010 | Valerie Jarrett

[reaganaut1]

America first put an equal-pay law on the books in 1963, when women earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man. While this legislation was landmark at the time, its core provisions require updating if it is to fulfill its promise.

Nearly 50 years later, the wage gap has narrowed by only 18 cents. Despite news reports that the gap narrowed in the last year, the census report released Thursday showed otherwise. Working women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man -- and are paid less than men even when they have similar levels of experience and education. For women of color the gap is larger. During a woman's lifetime, this disparity adds up to a substantial loss in income, retirement funds and even benefits.

In this harsh economic environment, the consequences of the pay disparity put women and their families, as well as our economy, at a significant disadvantage. We are still emerging from the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And while we have added private-sector jobs for eight straight months, we remain short of our goal of putting every American who wants a job back to work. Today, too many struggling families are still waiting to feel the benefits of economic progress.

...

The Paycheck Fairness Act will also improve federal agency access to wage-related data, while protecting confidentiality. When it becomes law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will have access to important information from employers that, with time and analysis, will strengthen our ability to ensure compliance. The Labor Department will also be able to begin education and outreach efforts that will increase both employer and employee knowledge of their respective responsibilities and rights regarding equal pay.

[reaganaut1]

Note the last excerpted paragraph -- the government wants to tell employers how to set pay. How high do these idiots want unemployment to go? Doesn't it occur to them that businesses that discriminate against female workers will lose them to other employers?

Jarrett, like the Obamas, is a lawyer. They think they can use the law like a magic want to eliminate any "disparities" they notice. Businessmen are bigots who must be brought to heel.

[alexander_busek]

Working women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man -- and are paid less than men even when they have similar levels of experience and education. For women of color the gap is larger. [...]

Ssshhh! This secret information mustn't be allowed to become common knowledge! Otherwise, every coldly-calculating businessman interested only in his company's bottom line would have no recourse but to fire all of his male employees and replace them with (preferrably black) female employees (who would then be paid only 77% as much for doing the same job).

In other words: If this article were true, only idiots / hopeless romantics wouldn't fire all their male employees and replace them with cheaper, but equally well-qualified and equally hardworking females.

Regards,

[wiggen]

While i’m sure some disparity exists due to bigotry the issue is actually generational. If you go back 30-40 years ago most women had lower paying jobs because that’s what they went for. Secretarial and the like. Hence men had an advantage in pay due to the particular job they performed. As more women entered the workforce in a greater variety of jobs that began to change. That still left men with an advantage but this one was of time which equates to seniority. As older men retire the wage disparity will take care of itself.
Rather than address an old pay issue that’s resolving itself why doesn’t old Valerie face one that is ongoing today? I would very much like to be paid like a government employee with all the perks and benefits they enjoy well after retirement.

[hsalaw]

The comments at the article are uniformly negative and disparaging of Jarrett’s intelligence and analysis - and this is the WaaCompost, house organ of the dems!!

[screaminsunshine]

Another Socialist engineer who would be happily rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic plunges to the bottom.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

What this Valerie Jarrett thinks she is doing is beyond me — these people just don’t have any clue about how the real world works.

Women work different types of jobs for them in, and this is the reason why you often get lower pay, but there are occasions when they get higher pay, equal pay, lower pay and great benefits, their health care costs more, etc.

Every single thing the Communists and the Democrats do, they claim it is to make the world more fair — fair use of the Internet, which means Democrats get to use it more — fair use of the radio waves, which means the Democrats get to shout and scream on it more — fair pay at the office, which means that every single minority group in the United States of blacks, browns, greens, purples, uneducated, not trying, not working, not getting married, not paying taxes, lesbian, gay, chopped off my own penis, and let’s not forget all the poor said women who only get 77% of the pay of those evil white men — these are the only groups that Democrats want to take care of, the only groups that they pass laws for, they are destroying our country with their madness and the craziness.

[jimfree]

There is no wage gap - there is a value gap. The value of labor cannot be established by fiat.

[4buttons]

Again with the “working families” BS... I dislike this term almost as much as I do the word “folks” when Obama uses it.

[DugwayDuke]

“If you go back 30-40 years ago most women had lower paying jobs because that’s what they went for. Secretarial and the like.”

If you read the article closely, you’ll notice they is exactly what they’re trying to ‘fix’. What they want to do is to define various job categories dominated by women as ‘comparable’ to others dominated by men.

IOW, a teacher’s pay should be comparable to an ‘engineer’ since both require a college degree.

[Rome2000]

Hang the communists.

Every last one of them

[wiggen]

That’s because Jarrett is a moron. Just like her boss. None of this is ever about pay anyway but votes.

[Liz]

Who the heck cares what this jerk thinks?

What does this Chicago nightmare in the WD do? Lay awake nights scheming up ways to screw America?

We need to runs this crew out of town ASAP.

Jarett—GTH out of my White House and take the rest of the Chi-mob with you.

[Just A Nobody]

...our goal of putting every American who wants a job back to work.

What about those who do not want a job and prefer to lay on their couch and get high with their welfare money?

Will those who "want" a job continue to be robbed to support those who do not want a job?

[TalBlack]

“Rather than address an old pay issue that’s resolving itself ...”

It’s more than jist resolving itself.

When a study a few years ago looked at engineers hired circa 1970 they found that the females WHO NEVER LEFT THE PROFESSION were making the same money that the males were.

Me? I’d call that resolved.

[central_va]

There is no wage gap - there is a value gap. The value of labor cannot be established by fiat.

Oh yes it can, it's called Communism.

[bert]

She is begging for inflation. In a noninflationary economy, wages don’t rise unless there is merit. No merit no raise.

The reason there is not merit increase is because the workers are not holding up their end of the bargain. They are pretty much lazy and unwilling to expend the effort to make themselves more valuable.

America is prosperous in spite of lazy progressive electoral fodder because a few rise above the common riff raff and move and shake.

[Oceander]

Ssshhh! This secret information mustn't be allowed to become common knowledge! Otherwise, every coldly-calculating businessman interested only in his company's bottom line would have no recourse but to fire all of his male employees and replace them with (preferrably black) female employees (who would then be paid only 77% as much for doing the same job)

Absolutely correct, and just another sign of the absolute intellectual vacuity of the left/libs because, from the other side of their mouths, they're always complaining about how greedy businessmen (why is it always just the businessmen who are greedy, and not also the businesswomen?) are always cutting costs and laying off their higher-paid employees and hiring cheaper employees (e.g., outsourcing overseas or hiring younger, usually single people). They cannot have it both ways, no matter how much they think they can. Either businesspeople are bigots who engage in uneconomic behaviour (in which case, the "enlightened" "progressive" nonprofits run by "high minded" liberals like Valerie would have run all of those businesspeople out of business - which hasn't happened), or else they're cost-conscious people who, within the confines of human nature, rationally seek to maximize their return to investment by cutting their costs, which would necessarily entail, as you point out, firing all of their white male employees (or as many as they could without killing the business) and hiring black women.

Proving, yet again, that liberals are thicker than bricks.

[maggief]

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/20/gird-your-coins/

Gird Your Coins: Obama Endorses ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’
By Doug Powers • July 20, 2010 03:03 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

Uh oh — Obama and the Democrats are talking about “fairness” again, which means we’re all on the brink of being screwed, but more fairly than ever.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57R45I20090828

(Reuters) - The “pay czar” tasked by the U.S. government with ruling on the eye-popping compensation of some of Wall Street’s top earners is far from a stranger to big paychecks and the trappings of wealth.

Kenneth Feinberg made $5.76 million last year as a partner in his Washington law firm, Feinberg Rozen LLP, according to a government ethics filing obtained by Reuters.

And his assets, which include a stake in his law firm, two homes and dozens of investments, are worth anywhere from $11 million to $37 million, according to the filing, which places assets in broad value categories.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1338

H.R. 1338:

Paycheck Fairness Act

Sponsor:

Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT3]

Text:
Summary | Full Text
Cost:
less than $1 per American over the 2009-2013 period.

This is computed from a Congressional Budget Office report, merely by dividing the estimated cost of $15,000,000 by the U.S. population. The figure is extracted from the report automatically and may be incorrect. See the report for details.
Status:

Occurred: Introduced Mar 6, 2007
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Occurred: Reported by Committee Jul 24, 2008
Occurred: Amendments (6 proposed) View Amendments
Occurred: Passed House Jul 31, 2008
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote (did not occur)
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President (did not occur)
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Last Action:
Aug 1, 2008: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Related:

See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Votes:

Jul 31, 2008: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 247 Ayes, 178 Nays, 9 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

[Chode]

almost ALL jobs have a RANGE of pay, these mutts want new hires to get the same pay as someone that has been there some time... insanity

[Pearls Before Swine]

As older men retire the wage disparity will take care of itself.

You are neglecting the effect of career interruption due to child bearing and rearing. Or, maybe you're not, but the statistics are.

When a person exits the workforce for a period of years and then returns, she effectively "loses" some experience. In law, accounting, engineering, and I'm sure other fields, the fields change, and some retraining is necessary to get back up to snuff. I doubt the statistics account for this.