the reason women's pay has become closer in line with men's pay is primarily a function of decreasing male wages.
yeah, we're reaching parity...because men are finally getting shafted nearly as much as women.
that's what the data says.
don't think anyone other than employers should celebrate it.

My interprtation of the bills proposed was to make it more punitive for employers guilty of pay discrimination based on sex. The connection in my view is that punitive damages are already available. I don't see other values of the bills proposed. Perhaps there would be added value to trial lawyers, but I do not advocate for them.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 53 : 12-----
I don't find the wording clear, if your interpretation is correct, I agree. However, if the law allows for more than nominal damages during employment, proved compensatory damages, and Punitive damages if applicable, then I disagree. And I guess it goes back to - what is the point of the proposed legislation?

The old...if a tree falls in the forest...question. If you don't know you were discriminated against, how do you find out, how do you prove it. It takes effort.

But again, I go back to McCain and his point about education and training. People who are educated, trained and have marketable job skills, will be able to easily leave an employer paying them 70% on the dollar and go to an employer paying the full market rate. Being proactive is the best way to eliminate wage discrimination, assuming all other factors are equal.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 58 : 18-----
In a competitive market for employees, how can employers get away with paying people less than what they are worth? Do you assume the market for employees is not competitive? Could there be other factors affecting real wages? Factors like globalization, immigration, increases in non-wage costs for employees, slowed productivity growth, mechanization, etc.

I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the bill you quoted was incorrect.
"Back pay" is not punitive damages, if that's what caused you to bring up the fact that you felt punitive damages are already addressed adequately in the law.
Back pay is compensatory damages after a plaintiff has already proven that pay should have been rendered that wasn't. So if you and I worked at the same company and, all things proven to be equal, you were payed $200 dollars less than me over our term of employment for no other reason than you were not a liberal, then you would get your $200 dollars in back pay.
Punitive damages would be awarded by proving that the failure to pay non-liberals the correct amount was intentional and egregious and the jury finding that they want to punish the company severely enough to make them never do it again.

You were the one who posted the reasoning behind the new bill, and it wasn't based on rectifying damages.
[quote]The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.[/b]

Whether the market is competitive for employees is irrelevant to what I posted. All the factors you listed obviously have a factor in wage depression, but the point I raised was that wage equalization between the sexes is due to male wage depression rather than female wage increases.

The only assumptions I make are that you are a male poster and not the CEO of a global corporation, so arguing over the benefits of male wages dropping in real value over the past decades strikes me as....well, a dumb argument for two men to engage in.

Female wages were marginally increasing, while male wages were drastically reduced, hence "equality" of wages.
Doesn't seem like anything to be proud of, for either of us.

There is the legal definition of punitive damages and then there is legislation that imposes punitive costs or damages. If a person is damaged while employed with an employer and they leave by choice not related to discrimination but then they are allowed to recover nominal damages and on top of that back wages for up to 2 years while not employed with that employer, I call that punitive.



It is relavant to the issue of resolving the problem. Isn't that the goal of the law and at the base of the dispute between Obama and McCain. I see McCain's response as one wanting to solve the problem - I am not sure what Obama's goal is. The legal system is not the answer.

I don't agree and I am not sure why my sex would be relevant to the discussion.

I ignored this once. Nominal wages have not dropped. Real wages have not dropped. Our standard of living has not dropped. I am not sure where you get this information or what it is based on.

I don't see the point of this discussion if you're going to employ your own definitions of words rather than their meaning within the law and then outright ignore the data regarded wages over the past decades.

I recommend you take a class on income inequality and/or read some books on the topic if you want to be able to participate in informed discussion with those of us who know what we're talking about.

Excuse me, but your accusation is too vague for me to understand what you are getting at.

The word "punitive" has meanings in a legal context and the word has meaning in a general linguistics context. I don't know what "data", you claim that I have ignored. I do appreciate your conclusion that this is going nowhere, I agree.

The words 'nominal' 'actual' and 'punitive' have very specific meanings in a legal context. If you want to avoid being misunderstood, you should probably use the words in the correct way when you're discussing a lawsuit. In any case, I fail to see why you think it's unfair for someone who is being paid less just because she's a woman to be able to sue to recover the difference between what she actually made and what she would have made, had she been a man. Because those are the only damages the statute allows, unless I'm misreading it.

This statement right here is a wonderful example of why economics should come with a disclaimer stating "results not typical". Do you really think the job market is that fluid, that switching employers is just a matter of education, training and marketable job skills? Perhaps you should spend more time trying to get jobs...

That's the problem with believing the in the work of invisible hands: it's too easy to forget that, in reality, work is done by people who aren't omniscient.

fairy tales about the labor market are conservative staples--they've been current since the reagan period during which it was de rigeur for conservatives to ballyhoo the expanding walmart sector as a viable alternative to well-paying jobs in production, which were fast being vertically integrated out of the united states. the right has never had and seemingly never cared to have a coherent narrative about this--they preferred therapeutic narratives the primary function of which was to enable conservatives to not look at what was really happening. instead, they looked at the Amazing Actions of Metaphysical Entities like the Fabulous Invisible Hand, which not even alan greenspan believes in any more.

but there'll always be a market for reductive fictions.

as for the main topic of the thread, i've read through it and cannot for the life of me figure out the grounds for ace's problem with people who are screwed at the level of wage levels because of gender or anything else for that matter being able to recoup the effective loss. i suspect that, at bottom, it falls under another conservative bromide from the reagan period, which holds that all lawsuits that damage republican-friendly interests are by definition frivolous. the reason for this has nothing to do with what the right claims for it, and everything with limiting redress, making economic activity as minimially accountable as possible--just as privatization was not about efficiency, but about minimizing political risk for the (conservative-dominated) state.

Yes the most job markets are that fluid. There are some job markets that are not. for example prevailing labor rates using union labor are negotiated and are often fixed, switching employers in the same market won't make a difference in wages. Using education to switch industries may lead to a person receiving pay based on their individual value rather than a "group" value.

What was the point of the comment about me trying to get jobs? You don't know anything about my experiences, what I have come from and how I did it.

Given the above, how would you apply it to the real world. I believe the more information or knowledge you have the better off you will be even if it does not reach the level of knowing everything.
-----Added 26/10/2008 at 03 : 48 : 06-----
This issue is riddled with confusion because no one can explain the point of the new legislation. People who are wronged have recourse under current law. People who break the current law can be liable for the damages they incur on the victims including punitive damages. What more is needed? Why is this an Obama campaign issue? How does Obama conclude McCain (and by inference those who support McCain) don't support equal wages, especially given the records of both men concerning their own staffs?

What's your favorite index for job market fluidity? Do you have one, or are you just pulling this out of your ass? You're aren't doing much to dispel the notion that amateur economics is nothing more than the practice of misapplying anecdotal evidence.

Are you accusing me of being presumptuous? Because that would be an odd thing to be concerned about, given how casually you seem to presume that the fluidity of the job markets makes wage discrimination a nonissue.

Well, I wouldn't apply it to the real world. For me personally, an Idea Which Explains Things Satisfactorily is not predicated on invisible appendages. I'm not religious for the same reason.

Clearly, the market is a complex thing that can only be explained in generalities. That being the case, it is foolish to act as though one particular perspective is always useful or accurate. More information only useful if it is applied with wisdom, and I don't think there is much wisdom evident in presuming that any of the typical popular economic theories du jour are anything but approximate.

On the issue of pay equity and other issues important to women, a network of more than 40 university economists from across the country have graded McCain and Obama based on their voting records, policy positions and public statements.

The overall grades:

McCain - D, with two Fs
Obama - B, with two As

Economists' Policy for Women's Issues

I generally look at macro level data from the Department of Labor.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics