Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
PricedOutNative

Government Wants To Regulate People’s Pay

Recommended Posts

Harman calls for equal pay target

It seems to be beyond the understanding of people like Harriet Harman that people doing the same work do get the same pay, it’s been that way since the 1970’s, the reason statistics show that men earn more than women is because most men do not stop working for a number of years to do the vital work of bringing up children, also women make up a high proportion of workers in lower pay roles such as retail and admin, most people that earn 'loads of money' work hard for it.

If this type of simplistic policy is pursued and the government interferes constantly with business the UK will see its international competitiveness diminish further.

One affect of this sort of incompetence is that it will further deepen the Great Crash II.

I wonder what will happen to all the benefit payments and over sized public sector when money gets really tight; will they increase tax dramatically to keep these things going, causing the middle class to grumble or do they cut back risking rioting?

Anyhow this is yet another list of triggers for the coming HPC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job. Its prob hard to accept this is true for people who have grown up post-feminism. But it really does happen still.

But also, it seems that the HPC forum cant make up its mind, sometimes it moans about the government not stepping in and taking control of the housing market, and other times it seems pro allowing market forces to work in their own magical way.

Perhaps Ive hit upon the answer. Its OK to have a nanny state - when it's required. If so, lets at least recognise that rather than in one post we are all full of hate for the nanny state and in the next we cant have it quick enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all the result of negative freedom thus we are not well designed to cope with running things like the NHS or any such device where profit maximization is not the goal.

nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job. Its prob hard to accept this is true for people who have grown up post-feminism. But it really does happen still.

But also, it seems that the HPC forum cant make up its mind, sometimes it moans about the government not stepping in and taking control of the housing market, and other times it seems pro allowing market forces to work in their own magical way.

Perhaps Ive hit upon the answer. Its OK to have a nanny state - when it's required. If so, lets at least recognise that rather than in one post we are all full of hate for the nanny state and in the next we cant have it quick enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job.

Now, of course, you're going to give us some actual examples.

Few companies would risk paying women less for doing the same work when they can be sued to hell and back in the feminised court system.

And no, paying dinner ladies less than bin men doesn't count as 'women getting lower salaries for doing the same job'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't women accept that as a group they are different?! Men get paid more because in a business environment, employers are usually more worried about losing them. Women have babies. Most don't want to go back to full time work after that. It's not sexist it's practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job. Its prob hard to accept this is true for people who have grown up post-feminism. But it really does happen still.

Not in my job. Which is (thankfully) recession-proof.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charlie The Tramp
Not in my job. Which is (thankfully) recession-proof.

B)

The only job IMO which is recession proof is an Undertaker. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only job IMO which is recession proof is an Undertaker. ;)

********. Stick 'em in a cardboard box and build a bonfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't women accept that as a group they are different?! Men get paid more because in a business environment, employers are usually more worried about losing them. Women have babies. Most don't want to go back to full time work after that. It's not sexist it's practical.

I agree totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Magrathea
But also, it seems that the HPC forum cant make up its mind, sometimes it moans about the government not stepping in and taking control of the housing market, and other times it seems pro allowing market forces to work in their own magical way.

The so called housing market has unique propertries; firstly it IS, or more precisely, rests upon a continuous government intervention and secondly the underlying supply (land) is fixed and the source of all human liberties. You cannot in any consistent way argue for a free market in land / housing because land itself is a government product and the eal estate market is trading liberty, which is presumed to be available freely in a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
but then again women can legally take more time off than a man.

Woopy-doo! ... if you are going to have children. Otherwise I get a reduced salary and none of the 'perks' (which let's face it, aren't actually perks but necessities). I think next time I go for an interview I will quietly slip a medical note under the table saying that I am infertile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job. Its prob hard to accept this is true for people who have grown up post-feminism. But it really does happen still.
If you’re male colleague is getting paid more than you because he’s a man, and you think you can prove it… Sue. :ph34r:
But also, it seems that the HPC forum cant make up its mind, sometimes it moans about the government not stepping in and taking control of the housing market, and other times it seems pro allowing market forces to work in their own magical way.
Housing (i.e. the planning and building of) is a heavily government regulated market. There would be no housing shortage if people were able to build the houses they want where they want them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the bottom of the article.

Why have a democracy if people dont understand the importance of voting.

In the USA, dont some schools have a voting system, for some position of respectability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
Why can't women accept that as a group they are different?! Men get paid more because in a business environment, employers are usually more worried about losing them. Women have babies. Most don't want to go back to full time work after that. It's not sexist it's practical.

Jobs in computing and engineering don't last that long anyway. It is in your interest to change after two or three years whether you are male or female as otherwise your career stagnates. And remember, not all women can or will have babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And remember, not all women can or will have babies.

But no men can or will have babies. So, on average, a female employee is going to take more time off work than a male employee for that reason.

Since no employer would get away with a contract that required female employees not to have babies, they have to assume that any female employee may do so and treat them accordingly; at least until they're too old to have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Men get paid more because in a business environment, employers are usually more worried about losing them.

Sorry mate, that's bullshít. By your argument, employers would be more worried about losing women, and would thus pay them more, as an incentive to stay at work instead of starting a family.

If a woman and a man with the same qualifications can do the same job to the same standard then they should be paid the same. I can see no reasonable argument to the contrary.

Women have babies. Most don't want to go back to full time work after that.

Not all women choose to have children, and many of those who do are happy to return to work. And it's hardly a trade-off society can afford to make - someone has to have children, and that means some women have to bear them. And it means they need to be looked after as infants and brought up somehow, but the implicit assumption that that's solely women's responsibility is pretty shady.

From a company's point of view, no manager wants to invest in training their staff only to see them walk away before that training pays its dividends. But people change jobs so often nowadays that there's just as much risk of a male employee doing that.

If you'd rather, we can stop this stupid child-bearing business altogether and rely on immigration to grow our working-age population. What do you think? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry mate, that's bullshít. By your argument, employers would be more worried about losing women, and would thus pay them more, as an incentive to stay at work instead of starting a family.

Why would a company prefer to pay women more rather than just hire men who won't leave to have babies?

If a woman and a man with the same qualifications can do the same job to the same standard then they should be paid the same. I can see no reasonable argument to the contrary.

Indeed. The problem is that most women can't do the same job to the same standards, and then they whine that they get paid less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31
nah, women do actually get lower salaries for doing the same job. Its prob hard to accept this is true for people who have grown up post-feminism. But it really does happen still.

I've heard about this in the news but never seen any evidence to support this. Women at my workplace get paid the same as men.

Perhaps it's more NuLab left wing propaganda bull?

I'm sure this govt is trying to bring about civil unrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jobs in computing and engineering don't last that long anyway. It is in your interest to change after two or three years whether you are male or female as otherwise your career stagnates. And remember, not all women can or will have babies.
Sorry mate, that's bullshít. By your argument, employers would be more worried about losing women, and would thus pay them more, as an incentive to stay at work instead of starting a family.

If a woman and a man with the same qualifications can do the same job to the same standard then they should be paid the same. I can see no reasonable argument to the contrary.

Not all women choose to have children, and many of those who do are happy to return to work. And it's hardly a trade-off society can afford to make - someone has to have children, and that means some women have to bear them. And it means they need to be looked after as infants and brought up somehow, but the implicit assumption that that's solely women's responsibility is pretty shady.

From a company's point of view, no manager wants to invest in training their staff only to see them walk away before that training pays its dividends. But people change jobs so often nowadays that there's just as much risk of a male employee doing that.

If you'd rather, we can stop this stupid child-bearing business altogether and rely on immigration to grow our working-age population. What do you think? ;)

Hey guys please note my use of the words 'usually' and 'most'! Carefully placed political-rhetoric style disclaimers! I was of course generalising... Or is that not allowed anymore? I thought this forum was just the place for a bit of unwarranted generalisation.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule but my statement still stands tall and proud. Benj, you might think it's bullsh*t but your salary is based on your long-term value to an employer. They pay you more to keep you with them - they don't want you to work elsewhere if you're of value - obviously as men are more likely to be around longer, there's more incentive to raise their salaries higher - so I'm sorry - but unless the woman in question can make it clear she's not going anywhere, the employer isn't very well motivated to pay equally. I don't agree with the principle, but that's the reality of the situation.

Men and women are different, they are supposed to be so. Pretty bored of the minority who think we all have the same opportunities in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
Indeed. The problem is that most women can't do the same job to the same standards, and then they whine that they get paid less.

You've just shown yourself up to be a prejudiced idiot and therefore not worth replying to.

If you would like to follow me please Sir, the door is this way ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys please note my use of the words 'usually' and 'most'! Carefully placed political-rhetoric style disclaimers! I was of course generalising... Or is that not allowed anymore? I thought this forum was just the place for a bit of unwarranted generalisation.

Yeah, you got that bit right. :)

...your salary is based on your long-term value to an employer. They pay you more to keep you with them - they don't want you to work elsewhere if you're of value -

With you so far.

...obviously as men are more likely to be around longer, there's more incentive to raise their salaries higher - so I'm sorry - but unless the woman in question can make it clear she's not going anywhere, the employer isn't very well motivated to pay equally.

Still don't understand the mechanics of that.

I can go to my employer and say "give me a 10% raise or I will leave", whether I am male or female, and for whatever reason I want. The more serious they think the risk of my leaving is, the more likely they are to give me the raise. In the case of a woman, you would argue that the risk is innately higher. So why would the woman not be more likely to get the raise? Yet I've seen numerous salary surveys in economics texts that show women are consistently underpaid relative to men in the same profession, and I think it's wrong. All other things being equal, the pay should be the same.

I think the real discrimination comes at the hiring phase, where women of childbearing age are turned down for jobs because employers don't want to take the risk at all in the first place.

Thing is, no-one of either gender signs up for a job nowadays on the assumption that they're going to do it for a long time. If you hire a 28-year-old guy today he could well be out the door by the time he's 32. That's the chance you take when you hire people.

In my personal experience, though: my manager, who's the most senior, most highly respected and almost certainly the highest paid engineer in our department, is also the only woman. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've just shown yourself up to be a prejudiced idiot and therefore not worth replying to.

If you would like to follow me please Sir, the door is this way ...

:lol:

Indeed. Probably yearns for a return to the days of Maggie Thatcher too. She'd sort out these airy fairy feminist types wanting equal pay no problem, and the public sector whilst she's at it. And the immigrants. And the layabouts. And the socialists.

In my personal experience, though: my manager, who's the most senior, most highly respected and almost certainly the highest paid engineer in our department, is also the only woman.

Aye, the two of the most respected scientists/engineers I know are women. They are slightly doolally though, I think the recognition that they need to work twice as hard as a man to earn the same status in their chosen profession means that only the slightly deranged women really make it. They're both brilliant company though.

Edited by frozen_out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.