Town Square

Post a New Topic

Paycheck-fairness bill introduced by Eshoo

Original post made on Jan 25, 2013

Fifty years after a fair-wage bill became law, women still earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing equal work. And that disparity costs each individual, couple or family $400,000 to $2 million over a woman's career, according to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 24, 2013, 3:52 PM

Comments (16)

Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside
on Jan 25, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Another absurd bill written by people that don't understand economics. If women are unjustly underpaid, then why don't you start a company entirely consisting of women, and outcompete the rest?


Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jan 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm

'Another absurd bill written by people'

Another absurd comment. Written by a man.


Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm

What does that have to do with it? Absurd, counterproductive measures are equally so, regardless of who comments on them, or proposes them.


Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm

"If women are unjustly underpaid, then why don't you start a company entirely consisting of women, and outcompete the rest?"

And if we pay black folk less, we can start a company with all the cheap labor and out compete the rest?

If some refuse to serve blacks at lunch counters, then the free market will open up a lunch counter for black folk and be really profitable.

Libertarians: please feel free to move to a libertarian country. Try the government-free paradise of Somalia.


Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Indeed, I think that's what would happen, under both scenarios you posit.


Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm

"Indeed, I think that's what would happen, under both scenarios you posit."

Big fan of Rand Paul, aren't you?


Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:59 pm

CrunchyCookie is a registered user.

Wait a sec, I thought the long-quoted "77 cents for every dollar" (isn't it 79?) thing was understood to be a raw, unadjusted figure encompassing ALL salaries -- a gap that isn't all that vast once you account for women working fewer hours and disproportionately coming out of school with unmarketable horsecrap degrees.

Which is it? Anyone know?


Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm

LMGTFY

Web Link

"unmarketable horsecrap degrees"

Unlike your horsecrap degree, which apparently keeps you from googling the info yourself.


Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm

CrunchyCookie is a registered user.

A quick Google search wouldn't supply an answer, since I've read plenty of articles from legit news sources that state the contrary.
And sorry, I really don't care enough to sift through a 95-page report. I just thought I'd throw the question out there to invite some fun discussion.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Interesting report. Looks like the biggest factor for income has nothing to do with gender -- it's whether you are Asian. (Can I say that here?)


Posted by CrunchyCookie, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jan 26, 2013 at 8:35 am

CrunchyCookie is a registered user.

You can, as long as you make a footnote that after adjusting for household size and educational levels, all minorities (including Asians) lose compared to whites. Replace "median" with "mean" and I'll bet it becomes a matter of multiples.

Also, I was bored and browsed the report after all. My suspicions were mostly right: the 77 cents thing came from the numbers on page 7 stating women earned $36,931 against men's $47,715. But the only criteria was being a "full-time worker", so we have one pool loaded with $100,000 engineers and financiers and another pool largely skewed by $40,000 K-12 teachers and $30,000 social workers. Weak journalism on the PA Weekly's part for assuming "equal pay for equal work".

Proper discussion of discrimination entails having the right facts first.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jan 29, 2013 at 7:53 am

Oh give me a break. There is no wage disparity between men and women who do the same jobs. The only 'disparity" comes from women who choose careers that pay less, and/or drop out of careers to stay home and raise kids and lose time/experience, and/or choose less demanding jobs with same degrees in order to be with our kids.
That is our choice, don't make it harder to choose those routes by stupid laws.
Please stop trying to "help" us, you hurt us every time. This will just make it harder for women to find the kind of work they want to do and still have kids.


Posted by Young Jose, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:58 am

I don't believe that there is wage disparity. I just thionk that uneducated people believe there is


Posted by Old Mary, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm

If there is no wage disparity (despite evidence to the contrary) then, no harm, no foul.

But if all we have to go on is Young Jose's "I just thionk that uneducated people believe there is" then, all I can do is say:

Thank you Rep Eshoo!


Posted by FemaleEngineer, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 27, 2013 at 10:18 am

I work for a NASA contractor and I am aware of female contractors earning less than male colleagues for the same work.

Pay discrimination is real and this bill will help women like me affirm our right to equal pay. By the way, a women does not deserve to be exploited based on the degree she picks in college. Our school teachers deserve to be paid as much as an engineers because they do very important work.

There are some very close minded "Perspectives" on this board.


Posted by Enforce, enforce, enforce, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm

my experience is that it is really hard to enforce this. I have had three jobs in which male employees in lower positions for a much shorter period of time than me quickly surpassed me in income. I also had to endure comments about "not straining my ovaries", and had to return to work 21/2 weeks after three days of labor and preeclampsia. Then I was forbidden to pump breast milk during break time, because the process takes longer than the 10-minute break. And this was only eight years ago!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 47 comments | 1,906 views

Custom pizza joint on its way to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 1,751 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,195 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,071 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 817 views