Even comparing pay within the same company or the same industry can be tenuous at best. Take public accounting for example. Average pay for a Manager at a public accounting firm in X city might be $100k. The average pay for a tax manager is probably not going to equal the average pay for an audit manager, which isn’t going to equal the average pay for a manager in M&A, but they’re all “accountants”. Three accountants could all have MST’s from UB while working at the same firm for the same amount of time could easily all make different salaries. Men, women, whatever. It wouldn’t make a difference. Some managers are harder to negotiate with. Some managers push for higher pay for their performers. Some people bounce around chasing $. Some stay at a firm and are rewarded. So on and so forth.
So much noise.
This is a prime example of how trying to compare gender pay at such a high level is extremely difficult at best and disingenuous at worst.
To expand upon this, there are even bigger reasons it’s so insanely difficult to compare gender wages. It’s intentionally not tracked.
The company I work for handles job placements and contingent labor. Between us and our parent company, we place more warm bodies every month than any other company on the planet. And apart from a few countries that legally require it, we don’t even track gender for data purposes (for a slew of reasons).
So the companies that actually have the data necessary to understand if a wage gap exists cannot. And the ones that track gender aren’t big enough to care about.
Re-read my post. Having laws and regulations isn’t authoritarian. It’s against the law to murder someone but that law existing doesn’t trample on my individual rights. It protects it.
I get that. But what is murder? Self defense? Manslaughter? Negligence? Outlawing those could easily result in infringing on individual freedoms. It’s not cut and dry.
In any case, I thought you were saying I was authoritarian because I think the government needs to force it’s citizens to follow laws and regulations. If that’s not it, why am I authoritarian? Which personal freedoms am I in favor of removing, that don’t negate someone else’s personal freedoms? (Akward sentence I know)
Haha I’m not against it, I just disagree with that as the overriding moniker to describe my political beliefs.
Also, it seems like I am being painted as an insane, SJW authoritarian. How are my politics more extreme than the liberalism of the Democratic party during the slick Willy days?
Again, I’m showing you an example of how laws can exist while not infringing on individual liberty. Self defense is protecting your individual liberty that someone else is trying to infringe upon. Why would you outlaw those? That doesn’t make sense.
You are for the government using guns to force people to do what you think is right. That is my issue and that is authoritarian.
I don’t think you are insane, nor do I hate you but I wholeheartedly disagree with your ideas. I would be interested to know what else you want the government to force people to do. Give up their guns? Shut down what you consider hate speech, perhaps?
It’s practically the definition of authoritarian. What I think is more telling and more dangerous is his reason why the people should be forced to do what is right.
Individuals are selfish (nevermind individuals gave $286.65 Billion to charity in 2017 alone), but the individuals running the government are, idk, benevolent I guess.
So I’ll ask the same two questions again. How is the government supposed to enforce laws and regulations without the threat of force? And as far as you know, are my politics vrliefs any more extreme than those of the 90’s Democratic party?
That’s how laws are enforced, force or threat of force, but it’s by the consent of the governed.
There’s a difference between the threat or use of force to uphold laws consented to via representation and forcing people to “do the right thing” via force because you believe people are selfish assholes and the government must force said assholes to do the right thing.
How is that even relevant? It’s not the 90’s and we aren’t talking about policy being created in the 90’s.
I don’t know where the hangup is. You want to force people to do the right thing based on what you believe is the right thing. It’s authoritarian. What else would you call it?
Wanting laws and regulations in place which I think are right is authoritarian? Huh, weird. I guess pretty much all of our political leaders and population have been authoritarian throughout our history. For example, welfare, the FDA and EPA, welfare and Medicaid. If taxes were eliminated, all that would happen is massive inflation, the same 250billion donated to charity, and all tax money for government programs would vanish. So yes, I think people need to be taxed to fund programs I think are good. Do you not want taxes for programs you think are good?
I’m asking if I am more extreme because, like I said, I have been described as an insane SJW liberal in this thread. And the fact is, I’m not. But folks have taken to looking at the opposite viewpoint and labeling it as an extreme ideology in order to denigrate it.
So the govt should use force to enforce violent crime laws? Obviously. What about the other 99.999% of laws and regulations not directly combating violence?
Taxes will not be eliminated. Is anyone advocating for the elimination of taxes?
Why do you think massive inflation would occur if taxation ended? Why in the world would that $250B just vanish?
If taxation vanished (not sure why we’re even talking about this) then, theoretically, the government no longer exists so neither does our fiat currency, and we’re back to some other form of consideration (gold or bottle caps for all I know). Again, in theory, it actually eliminates or really mitigates inflation not the opposite.
I’m happy for you, but that’s not what you originally advocated for. I think people need to be taxed at 40% to pay for a $1T+ military for their own good. Am I right?