Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 426
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)Page 18 of 31    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

I didn't mention income tax on the rich. I said corporations will push more production off shore, or even subcontract it to countries outside the USA. Remember its a world market, and they sell volumes outside the USA.

You are missing the point of that is what they have already been doing and if they could do it at a faster pace they would and the amount of tax someone pays is not going to affect that anymore.




Since I started 30 years ago, the regulations and costs have doubled or tripled

If you looked at what you charged for either what you where selling or providing, has that not gone up at-least 3X, or are you still charging the same rate as you did 30 years ago?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 427
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 5:18:27 PM

Any increase in the amount of money that the low wage earners get


Of course there won't be any. An employer that can afford 15 employees at $10 an hour, if now forced to pay $15 an hour, will just let five of its employees go to keep its payroll the same. The economic effect is to increase unemployment among the people who most need jobs. Nothing has hurt young, low-skilled people much more than minimum wage laws, but they are a perennial draw for the economically illiterate.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 428
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 5:47:05 PM
This has nothing to do with the OT. But neither do your fat/ugly comments, so I guess this is as good as it gets.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 429
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 6:14:34 PM

This has nothing to do with the OT


Actually there is a "Paycheck Fairness Act" before the senate right now that Republicans are prepared to vote against.
In what marks their latest anti-woman position, Senate Republicans are prepared to vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act. This would provide a much-needed update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to make it fit our modern times.

At its core, this law enforces actions against employers who discriminate against an employee's compensation based on gender and it strengthens penalties for equal pay violations.

Sens. Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bob Menendez and Debbie Stabenow have joined together to demand immediate passage.

http://passpaycheckfairness.com/?code=Menendez
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 430
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 6:46:39 PM
Aristotle,

I assume when you say companies leaving the country, you are speaking of Canada, or Nova Scotia ?

part_ duex,

You have a bad attitude. There was nothing in matchlight's post that deserved your comment. The forum does not belong to you.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 431
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 7:36:49 PM
The forum does not belong to you either, robin-hood, so you can't just change the disscussion to one of minimum wage when the topic is about Republican backed bills that affect women's rights.
If you had read Match's earlier posts, you would have understood my comment.
 BalderDog2
Joined: 1/6/2011
Msg: 432
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 7:47:08 PM

Of course there won't be any. An employer that can afford 15 employees at $10 an hour, if now forced to pay $15 an hour, will just let five of its employees go to keep its payroll the same.


An employer has 15 employees because they need 15 employees. If the rate of pay suddenly goes up, they still need those 15 employees. They will have to make adjustments in their business--find places to cut expenses, or raise the price of goods if the market can endure it. Or perhaps they will invest in mechanical or technical upgrades that will reduce man-hours and labor cost, so a few employees might lose their job; but this will result in an increase in employment in other places, like at the businesses that manufacture the products that allow for the upgrades. The employer may even have to live with less profit.

Either you know nothing about business, or you are posting things you know are untrue. Which is it?
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 433
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 9:23:16 PM
pat_deux,

Your right the topic got deflected, but I just had to post a comment regards Twilight's msg #476. So may I ask what women's rights are regards the same subject in Canada, or Quebec.

What is Canada's or Quebec's laws for abortion? Are they the same throughout Canada?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 434
view profile
History
The War on American Women
Posted: 5/8/2012 9:36:43 PM
An employer has 15 employees because they need 15 employees. If the rate of pay suddenly goes up, they still need those 15 employees. They will have to make adjustments in their business--find places to cut expenses, or raise the price of goods if the market can endure it. Or perhaps they will invest in mechanical or technical upgrades that will reduce man-hours and labor cost, so a few employees might lose their job; but this will result in an increase in employment in other places, like at the businesses that manufacture the products that allow for the upgrades. The employer may even have to live with less profit.

Either you know nothing about business, or you are posting things you know are untrue. Which is it?


Wait... so you are really going to use the argument for trickle down economics to support a raise in min wage. baaaahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha hahahahaha ahahahahahaha

Why has no one come up with an argument for supporting the Violence against women act that isn't related to unsupported claims of some possible lesbians being turned away from shelters... Maybe because its all made up?

Here let me help you. There is ONE case where the act describes a situation that is actually real. The only problem is you have be a bit specific. The "GAY" part of the gay and lesbian argument. There are extremely FEW shelters for battered men. This does mean that if a gay male is in an abusive relationship with an abusive male that it is likely that HE will not have a shelter to go to. If he finds a shelter he will likely be turned away due to his gender. Also, very important is that this same scenerio exists for straight men as well. Gay was just an easy case to make. However, women are just as abusive against men and in a world where if a claim is made someone is going to jail it is exceptionaly easy for women to effectevly batter the strongest male. As long as he maintains a strict 'no jail' policy in his life.

So again... where is there anything remotely realistic in the real world that lowers rights or women’s quality of freedom or rights of due process or protection of law?

From what I can tell men are the victims. Although I have to admit... There are a lot of resources just not likely one in every city
http://www.safe4all.org/resource-list/

So, what is the point of pouting that additional money above and beyond what is already being spent justified.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 435
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 10:31:05 PM

An employer has 15 employees because they need 15 employees. If the rate of pay suddenly goes up, they still need those 15 employees.


Gosh--I can see you know a lot about business. Maybe you can explain what happens if a law suddenly requires the employer to increase his fifteen employees' pay not from $10 an hour to $15 an hour--but to $100 an hour. And why not? If a modest raise is good, a gigantic one's even better, right? Maybe there are some progressives in the legislature, and they're going to squeeze those mean, greedy corporations until they squeak.

And please, no niggling complaints that these employees aren't *worth* $100 an hour. They are human beings, not machines--and they have inherent worth! If the people who make the minimum wage laws say they're worth that much, then they are!

You say the employer has fifteen employees because it needs fifteen employees. You say it still needs those fifteen employees if the rate of pay suddenly goes up. So what's it do? Yesterday its payroll for the 15 was twelve hundred dollars for each eight-hour shift; today, it's twelve *thousand*. That extra ten thousand-odd bucks every eight hours is just a minor detail, I'm sure. A quick little tweak here and there, and the business will be just fine again, right?
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 436
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/8/2012 11:52:15 PM
The ironic thing about reauthorizing the VAWA and others of its kind is that 1. If they are successful in doing what they are supposed to do, shouldn't that be mission accomplished and time to reduce funding? and 2. If they are not successful, why keep reauthorizing these?

That's the problem I see with government ... when things work, the money just keeps on flowing as if it's still trying to make a dent in a problem and when things don't work, the money keeps on flowing, anyway, still trying to make a dent.

My experience of all these laws, however, is that they are often abused by women and it is men who are abused by these laws and just more ways to abuse men. I will take a wild guess and say more men are abused by these laws than are women actually helped.

I made the mistake of marrying a nutjob a long time ago and after insulting my daughter so many times that my daughter refused to come home on weekends until the woman was gone......I let her know that she was going to have to leave my home in the near future. I came home from work at the usual time and found cops at my door ........SHE was going to stay in MY house and I had to get a hotel! Her plan was to try to steal my house for as long as she possibly could.

I filed for divorce soon after and right away she had a RESTRAINING ORDER and a STALKING ORDER on me. Of course, my EMPLOYER was notified and some employers will dismiss a man because their HR policy has "zero tolerance" for violence against women inside OR OUTSIDE the workplace. The judges are paternalistic and figure it doesnt harm a man, so they'll go on a woman's word alone.

I couldn't go anywhere near MY OWN HOME, which I'd owned for 11 years by that point. She kept calling me, trying to set traps so I could be arrested..........in Oregon it was FIVE YEARS for violating a stalking order. In the divorce counter petition, she demanded that I continue to pay all the bills on my house, including utilities, during the course of the divorce, which takes a minimum of a year. In short, it was hell and cost a huge amount of money but we succeeded in getting her out of there. My house was trashed, anything valuable I had in it was gone, family photos torn up......all of it just fine because we were "married".......I made the rounds at the pawn shops and tried to get things back...........pure hell.

As you might guess, I am not real "sensitive" to more laws protecting women from men. It's the men who need protection from these laws.

I really want to see that violence against women statistics are up because on the White House pdf on this bill, it says the numbers are DOWN, way down........and if that is the case, they why reauthorize the bill or at least reduce it, not raise it?
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 437
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 12:02:16 AM
matchlight,

Real easy one, look at the last time the minimum wage was raised and see what the effect was? Did small businesses go under? Did prices shoot up?

My recollection is that the cost was quietly absorbed........because the employees were under paid.

Show some causality from actual life and experience, not the usual bogeyman stuff.

"What if" it were quietly absorbed because people are under paid and "what if" people were just a little, tiny bit better off?
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 438
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 12:06:53 AM
well EP it is now stated that its the war on AMERICAN women so yes, the
thread title is now not in dispute so i shall read and be fascinated as i read
all the posts fron knowledgable canadians (does ANTHING ever happen in canada?
the zombie thread has more pages than the canadian one) who know more
than you shermans.

good luck with your war and may the best side win without using foreign
mercaneries in support.

toodle mcpip
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 439
view profile
History
The War on American Women
Posted: 5/9/2012 3:38:35 AM
Vlad,
Surely you must know from past experience, ie. Bush lapdog Blair and the Iraq debacle, that the US can oft times be a petrie dish of bad ideas. Canadians, in such close proximity, have every right to be concerned with infectious pathological ideas south of their border that may work their way north. The US far right serves as a warning.
http://thisweekinharperland.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-war-on-canadian-women-begins-a-year-after-harper-promised-not-to-wage-one/



Not to be outdone by US Republicans, Canada’s fundamentalist Tories will hold an abortion debate in the House of Commons in April, one year after Harper promised never to have one.

In April 2011, during the election campaign, Stephen Harper promised not to reopen the abortion debate.


A Conservative government won’t allow the abortion debate to be reopened in Parliament, because it’s “not the priority of the Canadian people,” Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Thursday.

Apparently his majority is not about keeping promises to the electorate but of fulfilling the ideological need of a few old white men to control the wombs of Canadians.


A controversial proposal from a Conservative backbencher to legally define fetuses as human beings — and reopen the abortion debate — will have its day in the House of Commons.

Tory MP Stephen Woodworth wants Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as “human beings.”

A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.

If parliamentarians agree to Woodworth’s request, a special committee would review Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which says a child becomes “a human being . . . when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”

That section of the Criminal Code says a homicide on a child happens when someone “causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 440
The War on American Women
Posted: 5/9/2012 4:54:29 AM
Saying there is a war on women is a bunch of liberal Bs.... Reality is that there is a war on fetuses and unwanted babies..disguised
by the bs womens reproductive "rights" misnomer...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 441
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 9:21:03 AM

because the employees were under paid.


What does "underpaid" or "overpaid" mean, in an open labor market where wages are freely bargained for? Nothing. Employees earn as much as they can demand, and employers pay as little as required to attract the employees they need.

Tell us why the labor market is chronically distorted--why it continually favors employers until a minimum wage law is passed. And why it then gradually begins to favor them again, after a while requiring another increase in the minimum wage. What allows employers to "underpay", yet still get all the workers they need?

Next you'll be telling us women are also chronically "underpaid," that they get only--what is it, 68 cents on the dollar, compared to men--for doing work that's otherwise identical. If you do, I hope you'll explain why employers are so dumb and disdainful of profit that they haven't long ago replaced their male employees with women. Why aren't the fat cats riding around in their big black Lincolns, puffing cigars and laughing at all those dimwitted broads who slave to make them rich?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 442
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 11:20:58 AM

Next you'll be telling us women are also chronically "underpaid," that they get only--what is it, 68 cents on the dollar, compared to men--for doing work that's otherwise identical. If you do, I hope you'll explain why employers are so dumb and disdainful of profit that they haven't long ago replaced their male employees with women. Why aren't the fat cats riding around in their big black Lincolns, puffing cigars and laughing at all those dimwitted broads who slave to make them rich?


Too bad that statistics actually support the fact that women are paid less for equal work...and that the fascist crowd turns a blind eye to this.
 eeeeeezy
Joined: 12/26/2011
Msg: 443
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 12:05:06 PM

Too bad that statistics actually support the fact that women are paid less for equal work...and that the fascist crowd turns a blind eye to this.


The pay gap is a lie. Thanks for playing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

The "war on women" is what liberals call a slight, barely-traceable decline in the ongoing war on men.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 444
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 12:44:34 PM
matchlight,

Spare me the free market and free bargaining.

VERY few people get to bargain wages, only those at the top do, you take what they pay you and a lot of the time at lower income levels you don't even know until after you've been hired.

MOST low level jobs pay about the same starvation wages and MOST people take those jobs because they need a job, any job, and don't have a heck of a lot of room to maneuver.

You're living in some theoretical dream world if you think that people actually "bargain" for their wages. "OK, Walmart, I'll take your $9 an hour, but I want full health benefits, got it?". "OK, Balsamic, you drive a hard bargain, full benefits for you but only $9 an hour, not a farthing more!". "Agreed, Walmart." Yeah, right!
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 445
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 1:14:15 PM
There is no bargaining for the chronically underpaid. They are in little position to bargain and the employer knows this so they exploit them, take advantage of them, over work them and underpay them. The employer makes demands that leave employees little room to find other work or extra work by demanding overtime, creating work schedules that vary, requiring their employees to be "on call" and requiring their employees attend mandatory videos, training sessions and meetings that often use fear based tactics to keep their employees in line. Such information often insinuates that the employee is a thief or a potential thief (taking a pen we don't know about?), prone to be disloyal (Unions are BAD, they are very, very BAD so don't let us catch you talking about them, trying to organize one, handing out literature or ELSE). Then there are those quarterly evaluations that determine whether or not the employee if worthy of an annual 30 cent raise or not usually bringing out something that discredits the employee.

The underpaid have no back up resources such as a savings account. They are living paycheck to paycheck and most often day to day as emergencies often leave them short of what they need just to pay normal expenses. They have no room to bargain and employers know this.

Women have always been paid less than a man for the same job even when her qualifications are much higher and a good majority of the underpaid women are single moms.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 446
view profile
History
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 1:52:45 PM

Too bad that statistics actually support the fact that women are paid less for equal work


Yes--pity. I don't accept that any valid body of research supports what you assert is "fact." If women would do the very same work as men for less pay, explain why employers would have anyone but women doing that work. I thought those greedy capitalists wanted all the profits they could get--and if they could play women for saps to boot, they'd like it all the better, right?
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 447
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 1:55:55 PM
^^
Course not. Because it's easier for you to stick your head in the sand than it is to admit you don't have a leg to stand on. Or, heavens forbid, you were actually wrong.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 448
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 5:47:09 PM
Twilightslove,

"Women have always been paid less than a man for the same job even when her qualifications are much higher and a good majority of the underpaid women are single moms."

I don't know if there is any data to support that, so you might want to look into it.

That women's wages are, overall, less than men's......... probably. Some women are at home, supported by spouses. Some work part-time, tending to children. Some work seasonally, some not in early life but later in middle age when grown. Etc.

If you compare single women, married women without children in full time careers, etc. you might find that wages are pretty comparable between men and women.

You also need to appreciate the fact that men are the primary breadwinners for a lot of families. very few women seem to stay hitched to a man who makes less money than her, no matter HOW much they make they nearly ALWAYS want the man to make MORE, as a sign of "manliness".

You also do not find very many female breadwinners, when you do they are supporting children and not grown men, AND very often they are receiving tax benefits, alimony, child support, food stamps, subsidized day care, etc.

You will also find that just about any statistic on men shows an inverted Bell curve..........there are more male geniuses and more male idiots.........women tend to follow a Bell curve, as similar as men are dissimilar. So you will have a small number of men making a LOT of money up at the high end and a small number at the low end making NO money, thus throwing the average off.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 449
The War on American Women (feel better vlad?)
Posted: 5/9/2012 6:06:28 PM
If there was a war on women....
I think the women would win.
:-P
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 450
view profile
History
The War on American Women
Posted: 5/9/2012 8:09:49 PM

Saying there is a war on women is a bunch of liberal Bs.... Reality is that there is a war on fetuses and unwanted babies..disguised by the bs womens reproductive "rights" misnomer


Easy to say when you will never have to face that decision or be put in the situation. So how many of these unwanted children are you willing to adopt and support. Anyone who wants to have a say in how a woman decides should be put on a adoption list and the first woman who is forced to carry a child they don't want as soon at it is born, you get to have it and raise it, with all the financial responsiblities. If you are going to force your preceived morals on another I think the same politicians should force you to take care of these unwanted children, any takers.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women