In 2016, the Titanic (or land mass formerly known as California), passed the country's most laughable “wage gap” law.
Laughable only if you’re the state of Texas.
In this post I’m going address the new law and share a question with you that is literally unanswerable for liberals.
First of all, I didn’t even know the wage gap was still debatable. It’s been debunked by so many studies I assumed it went the way of the “earth is flat” debate. If you haven’t read anything on it just Google “gender wage gap.” You’ll see quickly why it’s a myth.
The new California law says, moving forward, equal pay for equal work isn’t enough. It’s now required you pay a woman the same for a “substantially similar” job. I can see the lawyers starting to drool.
Problem number one is, how do they define “substantially similar?” One of the articles I read used the example of a woman house cleaner, by law, having to make the same as a male janitor. Since the jobs are “substantially similar” they require the same pay. (Note: it’s perfectly acceptable to pay a male house cleaner less than a female janitor. Equal pay only matters if it’s equality for women.)
So if a woman sits at a desk, in an office, and works on a computer all day, she should make the same as a man who sits in a desk, in the same office, and works on a computer all day. Well, this makes sense. But what if the woman is a receptionist and the man is a forex trader?
We all know where this is going. Lawsuit heaven. The courts will be backed up for miles trying to determine what the words “substantially similar” mean.
Additionally, when an employer sees the cost of an employee they have to consider all factors. Wage, benefits, time off, company car, and yes, the cost of potential litigation.
This law makes it more expensive to hire women than men, and far more risky. Even though the woman isn’t getting the additional cost in the form of pay, the employer shoulders the burden of the cost and therefore will take the additional cost into consideration when hiring.
Any rational employer will simply stop hiring women. Why hire a woman to do the same job when the cost of hiring a man is less? The feminists' own law literally forces women into a position that feminists have complained about for years. Women will have to be exceedingly better than their males counter parts to get the same job.
The intent of the law is pure. But the results make the law one of the most anti-women laws since women didn’t have the right to vote. Anyone with even a little common sense can see it’s an anti-women law, but liberals don’t care. The wage gap law's intent is to treat women equally and that makes liberals feel really, really good.
The people or groups they claim to want to help, really don’t matter to them, if they did, results would matter. At the end of the day, feeling good is their true motivation.
Let’s understand the liberal approach.
They construct a narrative such that if you oppose their solution you must oppose their intent.
Take a woman with a common cold. If the liberal’s solution was leaching, they’d label everyone who opposes leaching as “someone who obviously hates women.” No real problem exists, the “cure” will most likely have a negative impact on the very person or group they claim to help. But damn it, if you don’t agree with their “cure” you’re spewing hate speech.
Intent = Results. Therefore if intent is pure, results are pure. If you challenge the results with facts and research, you are evil.
That said, if you debate a liberal friend using data, you may feel as though you’ve “won” the debate. But trust me, you’ve accomplished zero if you’re trying to persuade them.
You have to bring a gun to a gun fight. If emotion drives their thinking make your point emotional, exclude facts completely.
Here’s my secret and the trump card question for your next wage gap debate.
Start by stating what they believe.
You: “Most employers, in this unfair patriarchy, are obviously greedy men whose only concern is profit, right?”
You: “Because these greedy employers only care about profit, they’ll take advantage of women by paying them as little as possible. If we don’t have laws equaling the playing field, women will always get paid less because of the insatiable greed of the employers!”
Liberal: “Yes! It’s so unfair! All those bastards care about is profit!"
Here’s the question.
You: “So if employers are evil greedy men, whose only concern is profit, and they pay women 79 cents on the dollar, why don’t they just hire all women?”
Enjoy the silence.
I’ve yet to have a liberal answer this question.