Comments on: ‘Comparable Worth’ Rears Ugly Head in the Age of Obama

By: A.T.

A.T. — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:07:49 +0000

The data from the CATO institute in “Women’s Figures” has been discredited. Way to use wrong information to front a ridiculous claim. You should just quit, Jennifer Rubin, because your investigation skills are obviously bass ackwards.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:22:24 +0000

Jack T;

You’re a tool. The ‘homeless problem’ began in 1982 thanks to your beloved ACLU, which forced the disgorgement of thousands of mental patients from asyla onto the streets. Look it up.

And (although nobody but libs uses the term) wealth most assuredly did trickle down- the most prolonged peacetime boom, the longest period of prosperity, in American history.

But you want to boo-hoo about it because you didn’t get your free pony. WAAAAA! Get over it. No economic system will produce a utopia, but capitalism does better than any other scheme- certainly better than that discredited failure, socialism.

The notion that Reagan gave Saddam ‘tons of money and weapons’ is a lefty LIE. It’s a malicious fabrication by the no-blood-for-oil morons. Saddam’s weapons came from the Russians, the Chinese, and our ‘allies’ the French.

(BTW, the Japanese who bought up overpriced US real estate wound up taking a bath on it- he who laughs last and all that.)

By: JackT

JackT — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:01:41 +0000

Actually, electing Ronald Reagan was a cockamamie idea. Prosperity never trickled down. The age of the homeless arrived during his terms, we shipped millions of jobs overseas, the Japanese bought up most of our real estate, Reagan created Sadam Hussein giving him tons of money and weapons, etc, etc. Please don’t get me started on Reagan.

By: PT

PT — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:26:34 +0000

So if my female office clerks are lower paid, but deemed comparable to my male garbage truck drivers, why on eath would I, as the owner of the trucking company, not maximize my income by canning all my male drivers and replacing them with lower wage female office clerks?

By: Don

Don — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:09:24 +0000

Before we worry about those sneaky schools of higher education and public hospitals evading the random walk of the market place while undervaluing the feminine mystique, how about we deal with the not so subtle first? If we can’t have equal pay for equal work without gaming the system with comparable worth, at least we can have equal dying for equal pay! Getting killed is up front, personal, and unambiguous, which is why war works—it’s so unsubtle. Women have been politically liberated with the vote since the twenties, the U.S. Army was racially integrated by executive order in the late forties and was successfully integrated by the mid fifties in the absence of affirmative action; it was called the draft. Yet in the midst of the modern “women’s movement” the kill ratio between male and female soldiers during the Vietnam War was ten thousand to one. Those dastardly free-fire zones were just to discriminatory, to the advantage of women. Today, the gender kill ratio between males and females is forty to one, so there has been some improvement, but Title Nine does not apply to the draft and National Security, and so there is no equal dying for equal pay in the military–Britney and Paris Hilton have skated again. Meanwhile the ratio of males to females graduating from American law schools is 1 to 1, and without comparable worth.

By: LakeLevel

LakeLevel — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:21:05 +0000

25 years ago, the lefty Minnesota state government decided it’s state workers should be paid by comparable worth. A study was done with all concievable factors considered and a ranking by computer was done.

Low and behold, jobs were being paid pretty much what this measure of comparable worth said they should. Well, that couldn’t be right, women need to be paid more and they wouldn’t let logic stand in the way. So, they took out the factors of the dangerousness of a job and unpleasant working conditions and then they got what they were looking for, raises for the female dominated office jobs. Not fair, not a real comparison of worth but then this was never about that. It’s just a political assualt on men by the Democrat party.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:31:06 +0000

The Paycheck Fairness Act is not about comparable worth. Comparable worth is certainly a strategy that is out there but lets not conflate that with the two pieces of legislation that are mentioned in this article. Neither the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act nor the Paycheck Fairness Act are about comparable worth or even mention the words.

According to a recent Cornell study, 90% of wage discrimination suits are decided in favor of the employer. The burden rests on the employee to prove discrimination. I am McGehee, bitches:Are you saying that those were not decided on merit but rather should have been decided in favor of the employee?

By: Charles Perry

Charles Perry — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:27:37 +0000

Back in the Eighties, somebody at the Washington Times did a comparable study of various states’ comparable worth laws, and it became plain that the worth assigned to various jobs was 1) arbitrary; wildly different in different states and 2) strongly skewed to high pay for jobs which women tend to choose, such as teaching, nursing or librarianship, which were always “worth” as much as or more than trucking or steel puddling.
We already have the most accurate comparable worth mechanism possible: the market.

By: trapper

trapper — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:57:52 +0000

These are just government mandated wage controls for whatever reason and will not work.

By: I am McGehee, bitches.

I am McGehee, bitches. — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:38:36 +0000

If your are a business owner who does not discriminate, you have nothing to fear. There will be no costly lawsuits to defend against…

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Merit has nothing to do with whether a lawsuit gets filed, any more than being right or wrong has anything to do with the outcome of said lawsuit.