Thursday, May 03, 2007
No time for love, Rep. Jones
Dear Representative Jones:
First of all, I simply must say this: There are a lot of older women who wear saucy clothes in an attempt to look half their age, but you ... you really pull it off! It's a cliché, I know, but you are goin', girl! Or, maybe, it's "You go, girl!" Either way, you look good enough to have rumors spread around Legislative Plaza concerning your love life. Wait ... you did have rumors spread around LP 'bout your love life, didn't you?
Anywho, I seen you on this week's Legislative Report expressing your support for Rep. Mike Turner's Pay Equity in the Workplace Act. [Note for readers: The Pay Equity in the Workplace Act seeks to stop "employers from discriminating against women" when it comes to compensation.] You said, and I quote:
"It's on record that we do discriminate. ... I heard a report on TV ... talking about how we discriminate against women in the workplace."
Where, pray tell, is this "record?" Which highbrow boob-tube show featured a report on rampant gender discrimination in the workplace?
Unfortunately (for you and Rep. Turner), the Heritage Foundation put a bullet in the belly of the women-don't-get-their-fair-share-cause-men-are-pigs canard many, many moons ago. I suggest you chew on the following passages a bit and get back to me with your "record" and TV viewing habits:
"Because the typical woman earns 73 percent of what the typical man earns, [left-wingers] claim that employers are discriminating against women. To fix the problem, [left-wingers] propose the federal government slap heavy fines on offending businesses and make it easier for lawyers to sue them. ...
"There are [several] fundamental problems with [the left-wingers'] approach -- mistakes that illustrate why their plan has nothing to do with "equal pay for equal work" and why it could actually wreak havoc with the American economy.
"First, [left-wingers are] misinterpreting the data on wages. Male workers and female workers cannot be compared so easily. Men choose higher-paying professions. They have more education, and they tend to be more experienced. Most importantly, they also work more.
"In her recent book, lawyer-turned-journalist Laura Ingraham explains: 'Men take time-outs from employment for less than 2 percent of their working lives, compared to 15 percent for the average working woman. If you suspend and restart your career a lot, you're just not going to have the same pay vector, whether you're a man or a woman. Even full-time women workers typically put in eight to 10 hours a week less than men do.'"
"Second, [left-wingers assume] business owners are so determined to discriminate that they are willing to deliberately sacrifice profits by hiring higher-paid men when they could hire equally capable women for less cost. This is a rather novel theory, particularly coming from [those] who often accuse private businesses of being greedy and profit-driven.
"But, for the sake of argument, let's assume [they're] right: Employers are engaged in a silent conspiracy to forego profits by discriminating. For this bizarre scheme to work, investors have to be in on the plot as well. After all, if there is systematic discrimination, new companies could be started that would undercut existing firms by hiring women to produce the same goods and services for lower cost -- and they would have to be stopped to keep the system working.
"Needless to say, this conspiracy theory is preposterous. Yes, some employers do discriminate in their hiring, and they certainly deserve our scorn, but there's no evidence of an economy-wide plot to oppress female workers." [Emphasis mine]
I certainly look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially,
Joltin' Django
Nashville, Tennessee
First of all, I simply must say this: There are a lot of older women who wear saucy clothes in an attempt to look half their age, but you ... you really pull it off! It's a cliché, I know, but you are goin', girl! Or, maybe, it's "You go, girl!" Either way, you look good enough to have rumors spread around Legislative Plaza concerning your love life. Wait ... you did have rumors spread around LP 'bout your love life, didn't you?
Anywho, I seen you on this week's Legislative Report expressing your support for Rep. Mike Turner's Pay Equity in the Workplace Act. [Note for readers: The Pay Equity in the Workplace Act seeks to stop "employers from discriminating against women" when it comes to compensation.] You said, and I quote:
"It's on record that we do discriminate. ... I heard a report on TV ... talking about how we discriminate against women in the workplace."
Where, pray tell, is this "record?" Which highbrow boob-tube show featured a report on rampant gender discrimination in the workplace?
Unfortunately (for you and Rep. Turner), the Heritage Foundation put a bullet in the belly of the women-don't-get-their-fair-share-cause-men-are-pigs canard many, many moons ago. I suggest you chew on the following passages a bit and get back to me with your "record" and TV viewing habits:
"Because the typical woman earns 73 percent of what the typical man earns, [left-wingers] claim that employers are discriminating against women. To fix the problem, [left-wingers] propose the federal government slap heavy fines on offending businesses and make it easier for lawyers to sue them. ...
"There are [several] fundamental problems with [the left-wingers'] approach -- mistakes that illustrate why their plan has nothing to do with "equal pay for equal work" and why it could actually wreak havoc with the American economy.
"First, [left-wingers are] misinterpreting the data on wages. Male workers and female workers cannot be compared so easily. Men choose higher-paying professions. They have more education, and they tend to be more experienced. Most importantly, they also work more.
"In her recent book, lawyer-turned-journalist Laura Ingraham explains: 'Men take time-outs from employment for less than 2 percent of their working lives, compared to 15 percent for the average working woman. If you suspend and restart your career a lot, you're just not going to have the same pay vector, whether you're a man or a woman. Even full-time women workers typically put in eight to 10 hours a week less than men do.'"
"Second, [left-wingers assume] business owners are so determined to discriminate that they are willing to deliberately sacrifice profits by hiring higher-paid men when they could hire equally capable women for less cost. This is a rather novel theory, particularly coming from [those] who often accuse private businesses of being greedy and profit-driven.
"But, for the sake of argument, let's assume [they're] right: Employers are engaged in a silent conspiracy to forego profits by discriminating. For this bizarre scheme to work, investors have to be in on the plot as well. After all, if there is systematic discrimination, new companies could be started that would undercut existing firms by hiring women to produce the same goods and services for lower cost -- and they would have to be stopped to keep the system working.
"Needless to say, this conspiracy theory is preposterous. Yes, some employers do discriminate in their hiring, and they certainly deserve our scorn, but there's no evidence of an economy-wide plot to oppress female workers." [Emphasis mine]
I certainly look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially,
Joltin' Django
Nashville, Tennessee
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, May 03, 2007 
