1. Good Job McCain
First I would like to say I thought that there was something good that McCain did tonight. He didn't attack Senator Obama, the person. Hopefully this is not to just counter Obama doing it first, but a serious strategy change from personal attacks on Obama.
2. Who I am not what I stand for.
John McCain has made his position clear. He is not going to talk about the specifics of his economic plans, war strategy, or any real meat of the issues. He is going to try to convince us that he is a better person than Senator Obama. Why? He can't win on the issues. 80% of Americans think that the Bush economic policy needs to be changed. The problem for Senator McCain is that his economic policy is almost identical to President Bush's. Hopefully America won't get caught up who is who and vote on the issues.
3. Civil Rights?
Senator McCain said that education is the greatest civil rights issue of our time. I completely agree. However Senator McCain doesn't get to talk about civil rights, since he has fought his entire career against it. He has shot down every affirmative action that has come before. He has done everything possible to keep equal pay legislation from being passed. Senator McCain even led the fight against making Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday from becoming a national holiday. Senator McCain you sir have not earned the right to speak on Civil Rights.
4. Community Organizer
Apparently Republicans don't really know what this is. In poor communities we don't get support from most politicians, becasue we can't support their campaigns financially. Wait maybe I need to back up a little more. In America there are these communities where people don't have a lot of money. We struggle for jobs and have poor schools. I know Republican politicains have seen these communities on the news, even if you only visit them when they're under water. We need these organizers to get things done, since no one else cares about us. They serve our communites in a way that most politicians don't. This is why we as the underprivaledged Americans support Obama.
atp tennis official site in daily news
2 years ago
10 comments:
What would equal pay legislation look like?
Hi Ben,
You seem to think that being seriously concerned about civil rights entails support of race/gender-based affirmative action policies. But surely, this is false. In fact, one might think that in *opposing* race/gender-based and instead supporting need-based affirmative action policies, one is actually seeking justice and equal opportunity, not just for those of certain races, but for everyone who is at a disadvantage because of circumstances outside their control. And, as you know, thoughtful people of many races have thought that this is exactly what it means to promote civil rights
But because you *do* seem to think that being concerned about civil rights entails support for race/gender-based affirmative action policies, I'd like to hear *why* you think so.
Brandon
example of equal pay that McCain opposed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html
Brandon the reason we need affimative action is simply that certain minority groups and women are always the last to get hired, first to get hired. A recent Harvard study found that black men with a felony conviction had less than 1% chance of getting hired at job. The same study found that white men with a felony conviction were more likely to get a job than a black man with a clean record and a high school education. The problem with saying that the "best person" should always get the job is that many employers still see "best" as white male.
I'd vote against that sort of legislation too, and I know a ton of women who would as well.
The problem is that in non-scheduled-pay jobs (teachers, unions, government jobs) and non-sales jobs (where the pay is commission based) your pay has everything to do with negotiation.
If we have an equal pay setup, then an employer is going to have to pay all the people at the same level the same pay, and all those who work X hours get the same increase. The problem is that someone who works harder and smarter should be allowed to make more than someone else in the same position as them.
I've been there. I came into my job at Genex having done a horrible job of negotiating. I was making the least of anyone in my position. I know how that feels. But I learned on the job much faster than other people, and was found to work hard and got the jobs done quickly. Over time, I used this to leverage my salary and my work week. By the time I left I was satisfied with my salary - but it had to do with hard work.
Equal pay structures - and union schedules - and teachers - and government pay schedules - lead to removing the imperative to accel at your job because their is no need for growth.
It has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with being paid for hard work and doing a good job at negotiating.
Companies also take into account financial need, financial history, and so many other factors. That's a good thing. In order to hire this awesome guy into Genex, even though he was hired into my position, he came from a higher paying company...but Genex needed him, so I'm guessing they paid him more.
It's the business world, it's competetive. If any employee thinks they should just be paid the same as everyone else and get regular pay increases without asking, they're probably being paid less than everyone else at their level.
Of course you would vote against such legislation. You're a true conservative, not a claimed one that just wants more regulation for right wing issues. I don't mean that as an insult. You simply believe that the market should not be regulated that it will regulate itself. The problem with true conservatism is that sometime governmental regulation is need for real change to happen. It has taken 50 years for women to go from making 50 cents on the dollar to 70 cents on the dollar for what men make. While I understand you're argument that the system could be misused by those who don't work hard, the current system is worse. As I said women make 70 cents on the dollar to what men make for the same work. Blacks make 65 cents on the dollar to whites, and Latinos make about 50 cents on the dollar to whites (obviously immigration status plays a role in that statistic). Interestingly enough Asians make about the same as whites. Now you can't honestly say that racism doesn't play a part in this situation. In my opinion part of the governments job is to make sure all it's citizens are treated equally.
I'd be interested in reading the study if you have the link.
I've heard the "65 cents on the dollar" stuff thrown around, but am a bit slow to trust statistics like that without knowing where they come from, who and how. Do you have any data on them? I don't.
I'd be more apt to be on board with your line of thinking so long as the study computes it based on an average wage made by two groups (whites/black, men/women, whatever/whatever) are being compared in the same company, in the same position, with the same job performance identified. If any of those varibles are off, I have a hard time acceptingthe validity of the assessment.
Teachers, government workers, and (most) union employees will never have inequity in these areas.
One of the greatest moments of equal position (I'm not sure of the pay commensurating) working itself out publicly was the success of Tony Dungy and Lovey Smith in the Super Bowl (last year? two years ago?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFL's policy which likely helped lead to such a moment, aimed to aid in the advancement of non-white coaches, was to require all vacancies to have minority candidates be seriously considered for the filling of the position. While I don't know that a blanket policy like that makes sense nationally across the board, individual companies are wise to and should be applauded for doing things like that. I think that's a great example of a) a business-friendly manifestation of affirmative action and b) the market working itself out quite well.
(Do I have the NFL policy right, Ben?)
Do you agree? I'm curious.
Brandon the study was featured on the Black in America special on CNN. I don't have a link to it.
John I found several articles by using a simple search. However they all seem to site various dept of Labor studies. However I could not find the studies on the DOL website. I think you have to request the studies in paperback form.
As far as the NFL I agree that the system works. However, to my knowledge there is no other company in the USA that has agreed to interview one minority or female candidate. Prior to the rule Art Shell was one of the only NFL coaches. The rule had to be created because the owners only considered white coaches for positions. The fact that a coach like Eddie Robinson was never interviewed is a travesty. Without the players union and support from civil rights leaders these changes would never had been made. It is a good policy, but I highly doubt you'll get most companies to agree to it.
Well I don't know what to say about a study or sampling methodology I can't read for myself. Not that I doubt what you wrote, but social scientists are notorious for drawing unwarranted conclusions from paltry data.
At any rate, which of the following do you think should get a better than equal chance at getting into an elite college: (a) a child who attends an elite prep school from a well-to-do New England family, or (b)a child from a poor family who attends an impoverished public school?
Brandon the two are not mutually exclusive. I have no problem with beneficiaries of affirmative action having to meet certain economic requirements. The problem is that there are more blacks and Latinos living in poverty in this country than there are whites. The problem of poverty among minorities is mostly due to racism in our society. Take for instance where I live in Gary. In the early sixties Gary had some of the best schools in America, but then the city became a mixture of black and white. As happened in many American cities, there was a huge white flight, making Gary Indiana a "black city". Then the steel mills started to close. They layed off black workers first, and Gary along with it's schools plummeted into poverty and despair. Even though segregation is illegal. We have a social segregation in this country, that without programs like affirmative action would be impossible. Most of the kids I work with will tell you that they have two strikes against them they are poor and black. They are taught that from the time they can listen. Affirmative action is in place to level that playing field.
Post a Comment