Post: #1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06...00361.html

Sorry if this has been posted before but I just wanna see RVF's opinion on this

"""""President Barack Obama will sign two new executive orders on equal pay for women Tuesday, Politico reports. The executive actions coincide with "Equal Pay Day" -- the date that symbolizes how far into 2014 women must work to earn the same amount of money men earned last year.

Both executive orders mirror provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress has twice failed to pass. One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other. The provision is inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, the namesake of the first bill Obama signed on equal pay in 2009, who worked for nearly 20 years at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. before discovering that men in her same job with equal or lesser experience were earning significantly more money than she was.

The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race.

Women who work full time in the U.S. make an average of 77 cents for every dollar men make -- a number that has remained stagnant for a decade. Researchers who have taken into account factors that may contribute to that gap, including industry, education, college major and location, still find that men get paid 7 percent more than women, according to the American Association of University Women, a non-profit that works to increase equity for women and girls. The gap widens over the course of a woman's career, especially if she has a college degree.

AAUW called Obama's actions "a victory for working families nationwide."

"AAUW applauds the president for ensuring these workers have the freedom to talk about their salaries without fear — a kind of openness that can help close the gender pay gap," said Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations for the group. "The executive order also sends a clear message to companies awarded government contracts that they cannot discriminate with taxpayer money."

Meanwhile, the Senate will vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act Tuesday, even though the GOP-controlled House is unlikely to bring it to the floor. The bill would codify Obama's two executive orders, which only apply to federal contractors, for most other employers. It would also strengthen penalties for equal pay violations and require employers to demonstrate that salary differences among male and female employees doing the same work are based on factors other than sex.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, made it clear at a hearing last week that he opposes the bill. He called it a political move by the Democrats that would only result in "more lawsuits," not equal pay for women.

"We have great differences of opinion here," he told colleagues."""""

This pay gap issue really boggles my mind, Are we as men really being payed more for doing the same work as women?

This whole concept of the wage gap is quite new to me (feminism is non existent where I come from)

Post: #2

(04-07-2014 09:15 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  This pay gap issue really boggles my mind, Are we as men really being payed more for doing the same work as women?

This whole concept of the wage gap is quite new to me (feminism is non existent where I come from)

No. In fact, if you're younger than 35 or so, women your age are making 8 to 10 percent more than you for the same jobs.

Post: #3

So how long until the USA Govt is the ONLY entity creating new jobs in America? How long until firms respond and simply just stop hiring?

What is the trade off? Women make 8-10% more now, but historically they made less because they chose to siphon off more benefits over a greater wage, or they negotiated under what their talent level warranted.

Women will cheer this continued trend of Obama by-passing congress and using Exec Orders like they are going out of style. Women will cheer that the democratic process was completely absent to give all women essentially a 15 cent boost in pay for simply just having a cunt.

Lol @ America. And how can you even protest this openly in the PC climate? Any business leader whom speaks out against this will be tossed into the flames, no female businesses leader will speak against the consensus/sisterhood. This will go unchallenged in the mainstream entirely

Post: #4

I look forward to taking my federally mandated maternity leave.

Post: #5

(04-07-2014 09:15 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  Researchers who have taken into account factors that may contribute to that gap, including industry, education, college major and location, still find that men get paid 7 percent more than women, according to the American Association of University Women

lol

Post: #6

I actually can't wait until the Mexicans take over. They'll squash every pussy law like this. They'll probably squash things like AA too. Sure, it'll be an economic shithole, but at least family values and logic (on social issues) will make a return.

Worked with about a half dozen or so. Liked all of them. Worked hard, smiled and actually took care of their families and children. In a bunch of ways, their role models for the average Caucasian urbanite.

Post: #7

"One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other. The provision is inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, the namesake of the first bill Obama signed on equal pay in 2009, who worked for nearly 20 years at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. before discovering that men in her same job with equal or lesser experience were earning significantly more money than she was.

The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race."

The first provision is actually not bad, though it may be unenforceable. If your boss cans you for disclosing your salary, its your word versus his and his huge legal war chest. If he says you were fired for some false reason like incompetence, how will the court know who's telling the truth?

As for the second rule, collecting information precedes state intervention. Once the government has data in hand that minorities or women are paid less, it will bring charges against the companies for discrimination. It won't matter that the better paid whites and Asians or men are more credentialed, or paid in line with their performance. The companies will settle behind closed doors with the government with a renewed public commitment to diversity that means in point of fact more affirmative action, and everyone lives happily forever after.

Along the same lines, tech companies refuse to release demographic data because it can only crucify them before the progressive lynch mobs.

Post: #8

"One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other"

Is retaliation allowed anywhere in the U.S for this?

The central tenet of a free market is clear and transparent information. Finding out the price of labour is pretty central to what information is desired.

Post: #9

(04-07-2014 09:19 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:15 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  This pay gap issue really boggles my mind, Are we as men really being payed more for doing the same work as women?

This whole concept of the wage gap is quite new to me (feminism is non existent where I come from)

No. In fact, if you're younger than 35 or so, women your age are making 8 to 10 percent more than you for the same jobs.

What are those same jobs though? Secretary? Public relations? HR manager? I'd like to see a study that shows your average female stockbroker making 10% more than your average male stockbroker. Just the thought of that seems ridiculous to me.

The way I see this is that employers will be more likely to hire men for certain jobs if they're forced to pay us the same. As everyone reading this forum knows, men are better at logic and problem solving than women. That naturally puts us at an advantage in certain areas of expertise (computer programming, sales, physical labor, etc). If there's equal pay, then the better person is going to get the job, period. That's competition and that's the type of thing that should be encouraged.

I see no problem with this.

Post: #10

(04-07-2014 09:54 PM)kosko Wrote:  This will go unchallenged in the mainstream entirely

Yes, it will just have the hidden side effect of making employers hire fewer people and especially fewer women - as you said. Or hire people abroad. Or take on private contractors who don't have to obey these laws but will all happen to be white men.

Government distorting the free market only makes things worse for the people they're trying to help - it tries to cure the symptoms not the actual cause (in this case, women provide less value to their employers). Unfortunately women and liberals are too stupid to realize this fact.

Post: #11

This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

(04-07-2014 11:02 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:19 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:15 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  This pay gap issue really boggles my mind, Are we as men really being payed more for doing the same work as women?

This whole concept of the wage gap is quite new to me (feminism is non existent where I come from)

No. In fact, if you're younger than 35 or so, women your age are making 8 to 10 percent more than you for the same jobs.

What are those same jobs though? Secretary? Public relations? HR manager? I'd like to see a study that shows your average female stockbroker making 10% more than your average male stockbroker. Just the thought of that seems ridiculous to me.

The way I see this is that employers will be more likely to hire men for certain jobs if they're forced to pay us the same. As everyone reading this forum knows, men are better at logic and problem solving than women. That naturally puts us at an advantage in certain areas of expertise (computer programming, sales, physical labor, etc). If there's equal pay, then the better person is going to get the job, period. That's competition and that's the type of thing that should be encouraged.

I see no problem with this.

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

Post: #12

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

(04-07-2014 11:02 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:19 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:15 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  This pay gap issue really boggles my mind, Are we as men really being payed more for doing the same work as women?

This whole concept of the wage gap is quite new to me (feminism is non existent where I come from)

No. In fact, if you're younger than 35 or so, women your age are making 8 to 10 percent more than you for the same jobs.

What are those same jobs though? Secretary? Public relations? HR manager? I'd like to see a study that shows your average female stockbroker making 10% more than your average male stockbroker. Just the thought of that seems ridiculous to me.

The way I see this is that employers will be more likely to hire men for certain jobs if they're forced to pay us the same. As everyone reading this forum knows, men are better at logic and problem solving than women. That naturally puts us at an advantage in certain areas of expertise (computer programming, sales, physical labor, etc). If there's equal pay, then the better person is going to get the job, period. That's competition and that's the type of thing that should be encouraged.

I see no problem with this.

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

To be accurate it will be more debt. Since taxes only cover the interest on the US federal debt and little bit extra. Program funding is largely funded via debt expansion, so bring on more of those debt ceiling hikes!...

Post: #13

Looks like mainstream journalism is starting to cover the bull crap that is the 77% myth.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...ding_now_1

Notes things that were all part of the RoK article back in January. Turns out the gap is more like 2-4% in most jobs which is nothing when factoring in the myriad of benefits that woman revive in the US today.

Post: #14

Hey,

I'll just leave this Goebbels quote here

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


History will always repeat itself as human nature very rarely changes. The majority of people can be relied upon to go with the path of least resistance not because it's the easiest option. It's that they do not know another way of thinking.

Post: #15

Obama and the Democrats have been getting destroyed lately. IMO the only thing keeping Obama from having to step down is the major media outlets keeping the average Joe in the dark to how bad things are getting.

The economy is collapsing. The IRS scandal is heating up and it sounds like someone in the Obama administration decided to use the IRS to harass and intimidate US citizens for simply disagreeing with the president's stances. He laughed at Romney for saying Russia was a threat and made it into a joke and now Russia is kicking our asses. He went to Europe demanding they spend more on military to help control Putin and they blew him off as a clown. Obamacare is becoming increasingly unpopular, with up to 60% of the people already wanting it repealed and he is trying to double down on it.

This is a last desperate attempt to divide and conquer, pander to the largest voter base, tell them they are victims, and then tell them he has the solution.

It might work, the voters are pretty stupid.

Post: #16

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Post: #17

Agree and amplify.

Risk-taking is inherently masculine - by extension, what could be more manly than hiring women at equal pay?

Post: #18

(04-08-2014 03:56 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing you said made any sense.

Secretary at the white house isn't going to be compared to senators and president because they aren't working at the same agency, or the same job.

A much different and more realistic scenario is some federal agency, like the Department of Transportation, where one guy is responsible for finding and hiring contractors to manage the country's road system.

Meanwhile, there is some chick whose job is to answer the phone calls and respond to potential contractors.

The guy who hustles and does the hard work gets the same pay as the woman behind the desk. All that needs to happen is for the woman to be given the same title as the man, so she can be considered an "equal worker."

But of course, men always do most of the work, so what ends up happening is women now have a powerful law they can use to bend wages to their advantage.

Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output.

It's just another terrible socialist policy enacted by a retarded socialist president supported by a large ignorant electorate who have never opened a single economics book in their entire lives.

Post: #19

(04-08-2014 05:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:56 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing you said made any sense.

Secretary at the white house isn't going to be compared to senators and president because they aren't working at the same agency, or the same job.

A much different and more realistic scenario is some federal agency, like the Department of Transportation, where one guy is responsible for finding and hiring contractors to manage the country's road system.

Meanwhile, there is some chick whose job is to answer the phone calls and respond to potential contractors.

The guy who hustles and does the hard work gets the same pay as the woman behind the desk. All that needs to happen is for the woman to be given the same title as the man, so she can be considered an "equal worker."

But of course, men always do most of the work, so what ends up happening is women now have a powerful law they can use to bend wages to their advantage.

Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output.

It's just another terrible socialist policy enacted by a retarded socialist president supported by a large ignorant electorate who have never opened a single economics book in their entire lives.

Exactly. In the end all it is, is the liberal govt. stealing from men to give to women, so women don't want or need men in their lives. And the men slave away and get less and less in return.

Post: #20

Obama's team needs to get its act together. The President makes a big show of signing the order and his people can't even get actual women in the background for the photo op.

Trigger Warning: Boner Death

Post: #21

(04-08-2014 05:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:56 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing you said made any sense.

Secretary at the white house isn't going to be compared to senators and president because they aren't working at the same agency, or the same job.

A much different and more realistic scenario is some federal agency, like the Department of Transportation, where one guy is responsible for finding and hiring contractors to manage the country's road system.

Meanwhile, there is some chick whose job is to answer the phone calls and respond to potential contractors.

The guy who hustles and does the hard work gets the same pay as the woman behind the desk. All that needs to happen is for the woman to be given the same title as the man, so she can be considered an "equal worker."

But of course, men always do most of the work, so what ends up happening is women now have a powerful law they can use to bend wages to their advantage.

Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output.

It's just another terrible socialist policy enacted by a retarded socialist president supported by a large ignorant electorate who have never opened a single economics book in their entire lives.

My secretary/president thing was just an analogy meant to show you how ridiculous your "equal pay no matter what the job" scenario sounds. You described the exact same thing with the lady who calls/answers phones getting paid the same as a guy who performs a much different, much more demanding job. The only difference in what we're saying is that you seem to think that these women are going to be paid the same for doing a completely different job. I think that's a ridiculous assumption.

Post: #22

(04-08-2014 06:14 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 05:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:56 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing you said made any sense.

Secretary at the white house isn't going to be compared to senators and president because they aren't working at the same agency, or the same job.

A much different and more realistic scenario is some federal agency, like the Department of Transportation, where one guy is responsible for finding and hiring contractors to manage the country's road system.

Meanwhile, there is some chick whose job is to answer the phone calls and respond to potential contractors.

The guy who hustles and does the hard work gets the same pay as the woman behind the desk. All that needs to happen is for the woman to be given the same title as the man, so she can be considered an "equal worker."

But of course, men always do most of the work, so what ends up happening is women now have a powerful law they can use to bend wages to their advantage.

Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output.

It's just another terrible socialist policy enacted by a retarded socialist president supported by a large ignorant electorate who have never opened a single economics book in their entire lives.

My secretary/president thing was just an analogy meant to show you how ridiculous your "equal pay no matter what the job" scenario sounds. You described the exact same thing with the lady who calls/answers phones getting paid the same as a guy who performs a much different, much more demanding job. The only difference in what we're saying is that you seem to think that these women are going to be paid the same for doing a completely different job. I think that's a ridiculous assumption.

What will happen is Federal contractors will be forced to hire women over more qualified men to make sure the pay is equal between men and women.

Then the women will not be of the best quality, plus they will go home early and burn every vacation day ASAP. So the men will be forced to work longer hours (salary) and do harder/more stressful work, and get paid the same as the women who are at home enjoy the TV.

Happens over and over. Anytime the liberal govt. gets involved, it will fail and the men will bear the brunt.

Post: #23

(04-08-2014 06:14 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 05:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:56 PM)tawillionaire Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Thank god.

<quote snip>

Unfortunately, it won't mean less women get hired, because federal agencies probably are mandated to hire a certain amount of women.

But now, the secretary will make as much as the guy doing the actual work.

The only way to cover the wage hike for women will be with more debt and taxes, since taxes are what fund federal agencies.

All in all, this is just another nail in America's coffin. More debt and taxes are never a good thing.

I don't see anything that says the secretary at the white house is going to make the same amount of money as senators and the president. That would be ridiculous. All I see is that a man and a woman with the same job title are going to make the same amount of money.

Affirmative action and quotas for companies to hire a certain number of women are a different story and I don't agree with that. But this, by itself, can only be a good thing. Equal pay forces people to hire the best man for the job.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing you said made any sense.

Secretary at the white house isn't going to be compared to senators and president because they aren't working at the same agency, or the same job.

A much different and more realistic scenario is some federal agency, like the Department of Transportation, where one guy is responsible for finding and hiring contractors to manage the country's road system.

Meanwhile, there is some chick whose job is to answer the phone calls and respond to potential contractors.

The guy who hustles and does the hard work gets the same pay as the woman behind the desk. All that needs to happen is for the woman to be given the same title as the man, so she can be considered an "equal worker."

But of course, men always do most of the work, so what ends up happening is women now have a powerful law they can use to bend wages to their advantage.

Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output.

It's just another terrible socialist policy enacted by a retarded socialist president supported by a large ignorant electorate who have never opened a single economics book in their entire lives.

My secretary/president thing was just an analogy meant to show you how ridiculous your "equal pay no matter what the job" scenario sounds. You described the exact same thing with the lady who calls/answers phones getting paid the same as a guy who performs a much different, much more demanding job. The only difference in what we're saying is that you seem to think that these women are going to be paid the same for doing a completely different job. I think that's a ridiculous assumption.

Do you really not understand the following sentence:

"Employers will be unable to base a person's salary on what they do, and instead must regulate wages based on job titles. So now the system becomes a process of sucking up even more in order to secure lucrative jobs that pay the same wage regardless of output."

Think about it. If women must be paid the same amount of men, regardless of their performance, what incentive do women have to work hard?

Post: #24

I used to get angry at this shit. Used to. Now I just accept it. Goddamn though, I used to get mad. My dad would just tell me "Shit happens."

Shit happened again. And guess what? You, me or the rest of the forum can't do shit about it besides get mad over our computers and foam over it. I'm saving my foam for if I OD on heroin, not over Obama pandering to his voter base. There's no use in getting angry over this. But there is use in creating solutions and ideas. I aim to create value, not anger so I will provide the following points:

1. If you're a young guy, there are only 2 paths to success - get a specialized degree or start a business/ start investing. Corporations will be more reluctant to hire workers, regardless of sex, because of the increased bureaucracy. James Altucher has written extensively on how temp-hiring will be the future of human resources. Start a temp-hiring business or invest heavily in these. They will pay heavily in the long run. Or become super-specialized in your field. Specialists will still be needed during the empire's collapse. And they are always paid handsomely.

2. Invest heavily in software. Considering the trend in increasing bureaucracy for businesses, excellent software will become crucial, not just peripheral. As a matter of fact, I'm going to invest some $$$ in SAP and Oracle stocks today.

3. Invest heavily in outsourcing. You don't hear East and South Asians complaining about "pay-gaps". In fact, they're glad to just get a job. A lot of accounting, HR and customer-support functions will be outsourced to the East because of the bureaucracy. Find a way to invest in this and you will become a richer man.

Making money off bullshit is easy. Sip some whiskey in your hot tub while the idiots who run shit turn everything to dust. There's going to be a ton of money on the top, therefore you want to be there.

Xpat out, get rich my brothers.

Post: #25

(04-08-2014 02:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is an executive order. That means it will only apply to federal employees, not all businesses nationwide.

Actually, it appears to apply to federal contractors, not employees. Federal employees have pay schedules that dictate salary. Contractors can pay what they want.

The more I look at this, the more I think Obama actually slipped something potentially very libertarian - and good for American labor - through under the guise of "womens issues" and "equal pay."

The first order prevents retaliation for wage sharing, which allows labor to share the same information employers have, removing asymmetries and resulting in a more efficient clearing wage.

The second promotes transparency. Don't you want to know which assholes are getting paid fat sums in sweetheart or kickback contracts to do 'privatized' government work? I do.