CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Women Don't Deserve Equal Pay Unless They Do As Good A Job As Men
Hillary Clinton brought up the most ridiculous nonsense about equal pay for women. She accused Trump of saying "Women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men." She framed this as something negative. Do you think the quote from Trump is appropriate to be said?
This is incredibly backwards and proves that Clinton (and feminists) don't want equal pay. They want more pay for women than they deserve. If you don't do as good a job you get paid less. That's how it is for men competing with other men, why should women competing against men not be held to that standard? Why should women get equal pay for doing a worse job?
I think this was poorly articulated, and I assume she meant to refer to arguments against equal pay that allude to things such as maternity leave, as opposed to quality of work.
But that's giving her a bit tooooooo much benefit of the doubt.
No he actually said it. She worded it correctly. He was asked the question about women's pay and if he felt they should get paid the same and he said Yes, as long as they do the same job. He is saying he will pay for the job not the person and people spun it as he did not want equal pay. It is a twist on his words.
Makes sense to me. You shouldn't be given a one-up just because you're a woman, you should be treated the same as a man and be paid on merit and performance.
In a capitalist society everyone should be paid and appointed exclusively on merit, and other issues such as gender should not enter the equation at all.
Once a society imposes ''positive discrimination'' laws, (which is happening in the U.k.,) then the efficiency of it's industry, commerce and government will go into decline.
The success of a company is almost always attributable to the intuitive senses of it's boss(es) and their business acumen.
Once their freedom to use their natural intuition is removed then the wrong people will be appointed into key positions for all the wrong reasons and the business will suffer.
This principle applies to people being paid/appointed due to their race, gender, political persuasion or religion, or just to facilitate whatever whimsical law of the day exists and not because of their suitability and qualifications to fill the post available.
Second, the flaw in your argument is it explains that women nationwide make 77% what men make because their work isn't as good. How is it physically possible in a nation more than half women that essentially either all of them do horrible horrible jobs, or, that a handful do reasonable jobs but the rest must be so bad it's a miracle they aren't fired in droves? Ahem. The fact that nationwide women earn 77% simply cannot be explained by they don't do as good of jobs. It could only be true if the most severe of sexist stereotypes were actually true.
Third, since men hold the majority of power the judgment on whether or not women have done as good of a job rests in male power. Self serving.
Do me a favor, go home, and tell your mother and your wife and your sister exactly the argument you just made here on this debate website and see how it goes. Odds are you only dare say these things to the men in your lives. That's a terrible mistake.
the flaw in your argument is it explains that women nationwide make 77% what men make
You forgot the key part "According to the White House,". It doesn't fucking matter what figure lying Obama gives, that statistic is bullshit.
How is it physically possible in a nation more than half women that essentially either all of them do horrible horrible jobs, or, that a handful do reasonable jobs but the rest must be so bad it's a miracle they aren't fired in droves? Ahem.
Because they do different fucking jobs.
The fact that nationwide women earn 77% simply cannot be explained by they don't do as good of jobs.
It's that they don't do the jobs that men are doing.
Third, since men hold the majority of power the judgment on whether or not women have done as good of a job rests in male power. Self serving.
Conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do me a favor, go home, and tell your mother and your wife and your sister exactly the argument you just made here on this debate website and see how it goes.
My mom is a Republican. She says that it is fucking stupid to pay her more if she doesn't accomplish as much.
Odds are you only dare say these things to the men in your lives.
My argument is that we shouldn't be looking at the gender of the person to decide their pay. Who is the sexist one here?
As for women doing different jobs, no, what century do you live in? Women doctors make less than the male doctor next to them, same as office managers, bus drivers, and on and on.
As for "conspiracy!!" - history is rife with the group in charge taking advantage of individuals from groups which aren't - Blacks, Native Americans, immigrants, and on and on.
As for your mom being Republican and agreeing with you - that explains a lot about you and your family.
And as for gender shouldn't have to be a part of the decision - I can agree with that - so show me men paying women fairly because they earned it. Show me please. Because I don't believe that's true most of the time. My wife and I are in different fields but we both have Masters degrees. I make substantially more than her. And it wasn't because she stopped to have kids along the way, no, we're just now doing that. And it isn't because she doesn't know what she's doing or doesn't do a good job. And it is indeed true that she has male peers comparable to her at work who already earn more. It's a racket. And you and Trump making your daring statements about it are only alienating more women.
As for women doing different jobs, no, what century do you live in?
21st. Join us.
Women doctors make less than the male doctor next to them, same as office managers, bus drivers, and on and on.
Except they don't.
As for "conspiracy!!" - history is rife with the group in charge taking advantage of individuals from groups which aren't - Blacks, Native Americans, immigrants, and on and on.
History is also rife with people complaining just to complain.
As for your mom being Republican and agreeing with you - that explains a lot about you and your family.
Yeah, we are smart and educated.
And as for gender shouldn't have to be a part of the decision - I can agree with that
Liar liar, pants on fire.
so show me men paying women fairly because they earned it.
I manage Site Services for a local branch of a company, involving 6 buildings. Although I have a masters technically anyone could grow to learn and do my job. The closest peer to me on the job is a woman with a higher job title than me and yet lower pay.
My wife has three professional teaching licenses and a masters and teaches in a large urban high school in a diverse but expensive community. She knows male teachers with fewer licenses and fewer years of experience drawing better pay.
We have talked openly about what we would do if we ever needed one of us to stay home full time to take care of our kids. The irony is we both consider her career far more meaningful to society yet I make so much more than her we really couldn't justify making me the stay home parent while she continued her career.
Those are just our two examples.
Look, it's a complicated world and there's a blend of what's out there. Indeed some women are paid fairly. But it's really naive to declare with blanket statement that any woman who thinks her pay isn't fair just isn't doing as good of a job as men. As much as you and others on this site like to get mad over raw deals you think are BS it's incredulous that you don't believe it's possible that women ever get a raw deal.
As much as you and others on this site like to get mad over raw deals you think are BS it's incredulous that you don't believe it's possible that women ever get a raw deal.
No, what is really naive is thinking that every single man in the country isn't getting a raw deal.
You are saying that as long as women are paid the same amount as men there will be no raw deals for women. If it isn't a raw deal for a woman, why would it be a raw deal for a man? Therefore, you ARE claiming that men aren't getting any raw deals.
Nope, I never said fair pay solves everything. But what you're saying is meh, they already get what they deserve. That's cavalier, oversimplifying, and the type of reason most women hate Trump. You two can keep it up, just don't forget women can and do vote.
3. Every study currently available shows that when controlled for choice, profession, hours worked and negotiated pay the gap lowers to about the average of the hours worked differential.
"Nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away."
Merit is what you get done. If you don't base the wage on what the person actually does you are forcing inequality. If person A does a good job and deserves a raise it shouldn't affect how much you pay person B.
It would be enforced equality of income for the same job in a capitalist economy(capitalist framework).
No. Equality in a capitalist system is one based on merit. If you want to make more money you can. In communism you get the same thing as everyone else. That's what you are suggesting.
No. Equality in a capitalist system is one based on merit. If you want to make more money you can. In communism you get the same thing as everyone else. That's what you are suggesting.
So, you are saying that if there is state restrictions and controls(even if on pay) in a capitalist economy, it isn't capitalism anymore? If that's the case, then we aren't living in a capitalist system anyways, since we have a minimum wage.
Are you saying that pay by merit is what characterizes capitalism? and equal pay in a job necessarily characterizes communism?
"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
How do you pay them without money?
So, you are saying that if there is state restrictions and controls(even if on pay) in a capitalist economy, it isn't capitalism anymore?
If it restricts it in a non capitalist way it is no longer capitalism. I didn't say anything about all restrictions.
If that's the case, then we aren't living in a capitalist system anyways, since we have a minimum wage.
Having a minimum amount to pay someone for the work they do is not related to eliminating the idea that you are paying them for the work they do. So, nope.
Are you saying that pay by merit is what characterizes capitalism?
Yes. That is a key to Capitalism. It is the driving force behind competition.
and equal pay in a job necessarily characterizes communism?
If you say that you are paying someone because of their abilities and needs (just because they are a person) and not based on what they actually accomplished then yes, that characterizes communism.
"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
How do you pay them without money?
That is an incorrect definition of communism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless that is built upon common ownership of production.
If it restricts it in a non capitalist way it is no longer capitalism. I didn't say anything about all restrictions.
That is true of course, but the mixed economies in our modern day restrict a lot of things. However, private ownership and the profit motivation still exist, which characterizes capitalism.
Having a minimum amount to pay someone for the work they do is not related to eliminating the idea that you are paying them for the work they do. So, nope.
You can't hire someone who's merit is under the minimum wage, it is a wage floor.
Yes. That is a key to Capitalism. It is the driving force behind competition.
Not inherently. Capitalism is up to the capitalist and possibly negotiations, not by how much work you have done. The entrepreneur is trying meet demand and make profit while beating its competitors, that is what capitalism is built around. Not a system where everyone's work is measured by calculations of all the factors and given the equivalent wealth in money. You don't really get paid according to the amount of labor you do because then there would be no profit from your labor.
If you say that you are paying someone because of their abilities and needs (just because they are a person) and not based on what they actually accomplished then yes, that characterizes communism.
Not if there is a capitalist(private owner) and profit. There are no workplace class wage relations in communism.
If a business owner decided to pay its workers based on their abilities and needs, it would still be capitalism. If the state enforced it, it wouldn't be communism since there is no state in such a society anyways.
That is an incorrect definition of communism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless that is built upon common ownership of production.
Not according to the article you provided. Communism is the ideology to get to the communist society. Money becomes superfluous once that ultimate goal is reached. You can have communism before that ultimate goal is reached.
Wikipedia does a good job explaining it:
Except it doesn't explain at all how there can be no money, no classes, and no state. In communist thought eventually it happens just because.
That is true of course, but the mixed economies in our modern day restrict a lot of things. However, private ownership and the profit motivation still exist, which characterizes capitalism.
Private ownership still exists, but you are trying to eliminate profit motivation.
You can't hire someone who's merit is under the minimum wage, it is a wage floor.
You are proving my point, not yours. If they can't do the bare minimum on the job you fire them, you don't make sure to pay them what everyone else gets.
Not inherently.
Yes it is.
Capitalism is up to the capitalist and possibly negotiations, not by how much work you have done.
How much you get done is what you described.
The entrepreneur is trying meet demand and make profit while beating its competitors, that is what capitalism is built around.
So, it isn't about making sure everyone succeeds the same amount. Weird.
Not a system where everyone's work is measured by calculations of all the factors and given the equivalent wealth in money.
No one was suggesting that.
You don't really get paid according to the amount of labor you do because then there would be no profit from your labor.
No one suggested that. In fact, it was actually pretty dumb to say at all.
Not if there is a capitalist(private owner) and profit.
You are describing something that isn't capitalism.
There are no workplace class wage relations in communism.
You are trying to eliminate workplace class wage relations.
If a business owner decided to pay its workers based on their abilities and needs, it would still be capitalism.
Why do you get to pick which parts of capitalism fit? You are describing half capitalism half communism. Why does your half mean that it is 100% capitalism?
If the state enforced it, it wouldn't be communism since there is no state in such a society anyways.
Before the state can be eliminated it represents the public sphere. You are discussing the ultimate goal of communism.
Not according to the article you provided. Communism is the ideology to get to the communist society. Money becomes superfluous once that ultimate goal is reached. You can have communism before that ultimate goal is reached.
No, it is the end goal that is communist society. Marx called the transition "socialism". Communism as an ideology contains a means to the goal, but it is nevertheless, the communist society that is "communism".
Except it doesn't explain at all how there can be no money, no classes, and no state. In communist thought eventually it happens just because.
It is explaining what communism is, not how such a society is possible.
Private ownership still exists, but you are trying to eliminate profit motivation.
No, there is still a profit motivation. It doesn't go away when there is a regulation on pay.
You are proving my point, not yours. If they can't do the bare minimum on the job you fire them, you don't make sure to pay them what everyone else gets.
You wouldn't have to if there was no minimum wage. You can pay them less, cheap labor. It regulates pay by setting a minimum.
Yes it is.
No, it isn't. It is supply, demand, and the competition. Not inherently merit based pay. The employer may standards of merit they pay you by, but capitalism isn't inherently on fixed merit equivalent exchange.
How much you get done is what you described.
I was talking about the working class and capitalist wage negotiations. If you do a certain amount of work, the capitalist is not obligated to pay you by your specific merit, and would be impossible anyways since there is so many factors in the merit of production. It is usually some set standard in the workplace to go by.
So, it isn't about making sure everyone succeeds the same amount. Weird.
No, not inherently.
No one was suggesting that.
No one suggested that. In fact, it was actually pretty dumb to say at all.
You said pay by merit for everyone working in the system. According to you, if the capitalist doesn't go off someones specific merit, it is not capitalism. That isn't even in the definition.
You are describing something that isn't capitalism.
Capitalism is private ownership and profit motivation.
You are trying to eliminate workplace class wage relations.
Yeah, communists want it eliminated.
Why do you get to pick which parts of capitalism fit?
I am not, I am going off of the definition.
You are describing half capitalism half communism.
There is no, half capitalism half communism. They are both completely different structured systems.
Why does your half mean that it is 100% capitalism?
Capitalism is private ownership of production operating for profit. I am not talking about "half" capitalism.
Before the state can be eliminated it represents the public sphere. You are discussing the ultimate goal of communism.
Fine, for now on, I will be assuming you mean the "socialist" transition society to communism.
No, it is the end goal that is communist society. Marx called the transition "socialism". Communism as an ideology contains a means to the goal, but it is nevertheless, the communist society that is "communism".
Whatever you described is still not "capitalism.
It is explaining what communism is, not how such a society is possible.
Well, I asked you how you accomplished paying people without money. You claimed that there is no money and the article explained it. It still doesn't explain it, it just states it.
No, there is still a profit motivation. It doesn't go away when there is a regulation on pay.
You aren't just advocating any old regulation. You are advocating the elimination of profit motivation since you want everyone to be paid the same.
You wouldn't have to if there was no minimum wage. You can pay them less, cheap labor. It regulates pay by setting a minimum.
I am still not claiming that all regulation on pay involves eliminating profit motivation. I am claiming that the specific regulation you want is doing that.
No, it isn't. It is supply, demand, and the competition. Not inherently merit based pay. The employer may standards of merit they pay you by, but capitalism isn't inherently on fixed merit equivalent exchange.
If I supply more labor that the company demands they should be allowed to pay me more. You want to eliminate that. So, you are against supply and demand.
If you do a certain amount of work, the capitalist is not obligated to pay you by your specific merit, and would be impossible anyways since there is so many factors in the merit of production.
He is obligated to pay me by my merit if he wants to keep me working there.
You said pay by merit for everyone working in the system. According to you, if the capitalist doesn't go off someones specific merit, it is not capitalism. That isn't even in the definition.
That doesn't fucking mean pay them 100% of your profit. It means make the pay they get based on what they do.
Capitalism is private ownership and profit motivation.
You are eliminating part of the private ownership with government control.
Yeah, communists want it eliminated.
So, you are advocating for something that communists advocate for.
I am not, I am going off of the definition.
You have parts of communism.
There is no, half capitalism half communism. They are both completely different structured systems.
Your system fits neither.
Capitalism is private ownership of production operating for profit. I am not talking about "half" capitalism.
And you are taking away part of the private ownership by controlling the decisions.
Fine, for now on, I will be assuming you mean the "socialist" transition society to communism.
You know Cartman, ideologically speaking he is right about Communism and Capitalism. You are conflating Capitalism as a concept, and Capitalism as it is applied in modern Western society, as well as Communism as a concept, and Communism as it has actually be applied.
It's ultimately a purely theoretical conversation at that point, mind you.
I am consistently using Capitalism as it is applied and Communism as it is applied. He is talking about Capitalism and Communism that don't actually exist and that have no actual explanation for how they can exist.
Ok, women that work as hard as men do deserve equal pay. Now this being said, women have traditionally strived for office jobs sitting in the air conditioning with little to no physical requirements. For the most part men physically built this country. If women truly want to be equal you need to do your part too. All the cries for equal pay involve office jobs. There arent any women who are mechanics, electricians, ect. that are good at their job complaining about equal pay because there arent issues of equal pay in those fields. You need to get your hands dirty just as men do and have throughout this countrys history. I have worked with female mechanics just as or more capable than their male counterparts at hands on work so i know it can be done but when i bring these ideas to women they pull the well im a women card and cant be expected to do these things.
1) It is true. Women really aren't paid less. The pay gap is a lie.
Both sides are hyperbolic on this issue - the discrepancy is more than 0 as some would suggest and the average pay for a woman and the average pay for a man aren't the numbers to compare as others repeatedly use.
1) Your second reference is not comparing equal work. They are comparing all jobs men have and all jobs women have. Men do jobs that women will simply not do and those jobs pay more. There is no pay gap.
2) The Equal Pay Act is law. The Paycheck Fairness Act is bullshit that isn't needed because we already have the Equal Pay Act.
1) I should have called out the part I thought was relevant:
"Economists believe that the gender pay gap is caused by complex factors. However, even when all those factors are taken into account, as much as 40 percent of the pay gap may be attributed to discrimination."
2) The Equal Pay Act has fairly ambiguous language for one of the exceptions "(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex" - the Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to tighten that language, expand the anti-retaliation language, and increase the ability to take cases to court.
Economists believe that the gender pay gap is caused by complex factors.
There is no gender pay gap.
However, even when all those factors are taken into account, as much as 40 percent of the pay gap may be attributed to discrimination.
40% of 0 is still 0.
The Equal Pay Act has fairly ambiguous language for one of the exceptions "(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex" - the Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to tighten that language, expand the anti-retaliation language, and increase the ability to take cases to court.
Since there is no actual pay gap there is really no need for these lawsuits. Since there is no need for the lawsuits there is no reason for Hillary's bullshit.
I posted the references showing there still is some gender discrimination and with experiments showing bias. You're free to post a study showing that there is literally NO gap.
"Both sides are hyperbolic on this issue - the discrepancy is more than 0 as some would suggest and the average pay for a woman and the average pay for a man aren't the numbers to compare as others repeatedly use."
"Yes, men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities."your source
Your source focused on only a small subset of jobs and says nothing about the total amount of gender-based discrimination overall. My rough gauge of the totality of studies is that the gap based solely on employer discrimination narrows to somewhere around 7% (varying wildly based on race, job field, etc.)
So, while I do think one side is a bit more hyperbolic, the idea that the gap is a myth is also exaggerated.
Your source focused on only a small subset of jobs and says nothing about the total amount of gender-based discrimination overall.
My study also doesn't focus on unicorns because they don't exist just like the discrimination.
My rough gauge of the totality of studies is that the gap based solely on employer discrimination narrows to somewhere around 7% (varying wildly based on race, job field, etc.)
And those studies are very likely to be highly inaccurate.
So, while I do think one side is a bit more hyperbolic, the idea that the gap is a myth is also exaggerated.
It's a myth because it doesn't exist the way it is described. Zeus is responsible for lightning. Lightning existing doesn't mean calling Zeus a myth is an exaggeration.
1) I pointed out that 6 jobs are not representative of the entire job market, and pointed to specific examples where this was not the case:
"Male staffers with up to five years of experience, for example, earn an average of 13.5 percent more than female staffers at the same level — and even slightly more than the category of women who've been on the job for twice as long."
"This includes everyone employed by Dow Jones who's represented by the union — a group of about 1,400 across North America, including writers, copy editors and customer service representatives. (The union does not represent workers in supervisory roles.)"
That's different locations, different employers, and different jobs. Someone listed as a copy editor in Los Angeles will have different duties than the copy editor in Louisiana.
If a single company has the same position in different location do different duties, that's a horribly managed company. Occupational inconsistency is an organizational nightmare with a company structure.
If a single company has the same position in different location do different duties, that's a horribly managed company.
Why? In more populated areas you will have more people doing the same jobs. In less populated areas you will need the same people to take on more tasks.
Occupational inconsistency is an organizational nightmare with a company structure.
Really? Is the CEO really concerned with whether everyone who has a particular job title in every facility does the exact same thing or are the concerned with the product being created?
"even when women join men in the same fields, the pay gap remains. Men and women are paid differently not just when they do different jobs but also when they do the same work. Research by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, has found that a pay gap persists within occupations. Female physicians, for instance, earn 71 percent of what male physicians earn, and lawyers earn 82 percent.
It happens across professions: This month, the union that represents Dow Jones journalists announced that its female members working full time at Dow Jones publications made 87 cents for every dollar earned by their full-time male colleagues."
Comparing people who just joined the workforce will have lower pay than the long time veterans. I don't make as much as the guy who has worked at my company for 30 years. Is that a wage gap?
"Male staffers with up to five years of experience, for example, earn an average of 13.5 percent more than female staffers at the same level — and even slightly more than the category of women who've been on the job for twice as long."
What the fuck does at the same level even mean? Your side uses vague terminology to pretend the wage gap exists. Why should I believe the second sentence when the first sentence is bullshit?
