Equal Pay Day

Yesterday was "Equal Pay Day". The premise of this day is that it "symbolizes how far into the year the average women must work (in addition to their earnings last year) in order to have earned what the average man had earned the entire previous year, regardless of experience or job type."

They have also broken this down by race as well, with Latinas coming in last (as far as I could find) with their "equal pay day" coming in November 20.

Now, all of you who are paying attention, will wonder one thing and notice another.

What you should be wondering is "How is this happening, since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still law?"

What you should notice is "regardless of experience or job type."

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 states:

"SEC. 206. [Section 6]

(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination

(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee."

In other words, if job requires "equal skill, effort and responsibility" and is "performed under similar working conditions", except in very specific circumstances, men and women must be paid the same.

This is where the thing you wondered and the thing you noticed come together.

So, how do they figure out the "pay gap"?

"The gender pay gap figure is typically calculated by first adding together all of the annual salaries of women who are working full-time, year-round, then finding the median salary — that is, the salary that's in the exact middle, with 50 percent of the women earning more than that figure and 50 percent earning less. Then the same calculation is made for men working full-time, year-round. Once those two figures are determined, you can compare them and calculate the pay gap"

What are things that they don't consider? Experience. Hours worked (beyond the designation of "full time"). Type of job. Job conditions. Time job is performed. Skills required to perform the job. Effort required for the job. Responsibility required of the job. Risk of death at job. Location of job. Different job and career choices.

So, how is it that women "make less than men"? Go back and read the last paragraph for the answer.

This comparison compares men as a whole against women as a whole. What it doesn't do is compare a specific fast-food worker with another specific fast-food worker (both with the same experience, education, hours worked, location, etc.) and find a difference.

Stated differently, if there is an open position at the local fast-food restaurant, the owner doesn't sit down and decide that she's going to pay a man $12/hour, but a woman only $11/hour. That owner is going to pay whoever she hires $12/hour, whether male or female. She can't discriminate based on the EPA of 1963. If she did, she could be punished.

But, if she hires a female manager, who makes $20/hour and works 55 hours a week (making $57,200/year), and 4 female supervisors, who make $18/hour and work 45 hours a week (making $42,120/year), and 10 male cook/cashiers, who make $12 / hour and work 40 hours a week (making $24,960/year), the wage gap would be explained as follows: Median for women: $42,120/year. Median for men: $24,960/year. Wage gap against men: $17,160.

(If you're wondering why the median for women isn't $45,136, you need to review the difference between median and average.)

According to this example, men would have to work an additional 35.75 weeks to make what women make in just one year at this restaurant, if you use the language used for "Equal Pay Day".

Does this sound like a good way to do a comparison? It doesn't take into account responsibility, hours worked, skills required, etc.

In fact, I would argue, this is one of the worst ways to do a comparison.

I don't have anything against comparisons based on gender, but I do have a problem with poorly done comparisons.

I 100% agree with the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and support it fully. Men and women shouldn't be paid a different rate or amount for the same job that requires the same skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions.

It is critical that you understand, however, that the Equal Pay Day isn't talking about that at all.

 The giant headline on CNN right now:  "RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE".

Just below that are pictures of explosions, wounded people and smoke filled air.

Another story, just below the main one, says "Russian tanks roll past CNN reporter as they appear to head towards Ukraine".

Scattered amongst the 25 or so stories on the top of the main CNN page are 3 stories talking about "Trump's praise of Putin."

We all know that CNN will do anything in its power to support the crazy leftist agenda.  

However, I would like to point out some important facts.

Mean tweets are down 95%.  

That is the end of the good news.

There have been more virus deaths under Biden than Trump.

Inflation is at record highs and will continue.  For the last 12 months ending in January of 2022, the rate is 7.48%.  That is the highest rate since June 1982.

The price of a barrel of oil was $53 when Biden took office, which had alread gone up from $39 when he was elected.  Yesterday oil was over $92 and CNN is reporting it above $100 today and "it could go higher".

Russia just invaded Ukraine.  We were told that Russia being a security concern was ridiculous.  Mitt Romney brought up Russia as a security concern during a presidential debate with President Obama.  He was widely ridiculed.

We live in a time where a person, who was formerly a man, who now identifies as a woman, is breaking records.  In fact, there are multiple situations like this.  When someone points out that this is unfair, which is plainly obvious to anyone who is intellectually honest, they are ridiculed as a bigot.  

At the same time, we are told that women can do anything men can do in the military.

We are also told that, in spite of laws requiring equal pay for equal work that date back to the 1960's, women earn $0.70 for every $1.00 a man earns.  The only mathematical way to make this actually work is to compare different jobs, different experience, and different skills.  Which should convey to anyone that women are less useful in the workforce than men, but no one will draw that conclusion.  It must be that women are discriminated against because they chose a degree in gender studies over a dirty and physically demanding career as a welder.

We are also told we need to forgive college student loan debt as a "gender fairness issue" because women hold 2/3 of all student debt.  I guess the money the man paid for welding school isn't as useful to the United States as the 6 years and 10s of thousands of dollars the woman spent in gender studies.

We are told that the rich don't pay "their fair share", yet the top 1% of U.S. earners pay 37% of all federal income tax. THe top 50% of earners paid 97% of all federal income tax.  The bottom 50% paid just 3% of all federal income tax.

We were told that Trump colluded with Russia.  There were numerous investigations, leaks, media spin, etc.  It all came down to the Clinton campaign paying someone to lie about Trump, put it in an official format, call it a "dossier", pass it around to a bunch of people, leak it to the press, and then cite all of the "smoke" and say there must be a fire.

We have been told to "trust the science" on the latest health issue in this nation.  Yet, the CDC actively withholds information from the public if they think it might not be interpreted the correct way.  The main face of this massive government overreach has stated in what he believed to be private e-mails that he shared things in a specific way to further what he believed to be the right path to follow.  He sent e-mails to scientists threatening them if they publicly disagreed with him.  Yet, we should trust the science.

A large crowd chants "F--- Joe Biden" and we are told that they are saying "Let's go Brandon".  When that lie is so widely criticized that "Let's go Brandon" becomes synonymous with "F--- Joe Biden" anyone saying "Let's go Brandon" is criticized for hate speech.  

We are told so many things that are not true, and then bullied into accepting them, and harshly criticized or banned or canceled if we dare to declare that the emperor has no clothes.

More and more, people are standing up and declaring that the emperor has no clothes.

People are tired of not only being lied to, but being forced to accept the lies.

And those of you who swallowed all of these lies and tried to force others to swallow the lies are just as guilty.

Christian Cake Bakers

https://www.dailywire.com/news/44276/christian-baker-jack-phillips-scores-major-victory-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

This article follows my theme.

"They know, like we all do, that Phillips was railroaded here. "

Abortion

Everyone knows that abortion kills a baby.

When a woman gets pregnant and is married and has been trying to have kids, no one wonders if a cat or a puppy is going to come out months later.  People never ask "What do you think the clump of random cells will turn into?" 

People ask questions like "Do you know if it is a boy or a girl?" (knowing it is a human) and "What name will you give him/her?"

Why?

Because everyone knows that when a woman is pregnant, barring events like a natural miscarriage, and unnatural events like abortion, she is going to give birth to a young human being. 

Even those who are pro-abortion know that the thing growing inside of a pregnant woman is a baby.  There is too much scientific evidence presented to refute that. 

You can tell because the current dialogue around abortion has started to move into "post birth abortion".  (Also known as infanticide).  The same people that tried to use the argument of "for the life of the mother" 50 years ago are now arguing for abortion up to the day of birth and not giving medical care to babies after a failed abortion.  How can you argue that a born baby isn't worthy of life?  Well, it should come as no surprise.  They knew the thing inside the mother was a baby all along.  They have known it was infanticide of a baby inside his/her mother's womb and called it "abortion".  So why would they stop short at the birth canal.

Their real motivations are somewhat complex.  Some see abortion as a way to keep the size of the underclass manageable.  You can see this in the fact that abortion statistics demonstrate a higher level of racial minority abortions and a higher level of poor abortions.  For their philosophy, you need a large enough underclass to keep electing Democrats with the promise of "fixing" the problem, while really not doing anything but perpetuating the problems, but without having a large enough underclass to ever propose and be able to execute a rebellion.

Some see abortion as a way to avoid consequences.  They sell the lie of consequence free sex and the only way to deliver that is abortion and the lie that there are no consequences for sex outside of God's design.  Also in this case, they know it is a child, but see it as a consequence, not a human being.  It is a "drag" on their "lifestyle". 

Some see abortion as a way to free women from the oppression of men.  It is something that only women have a say over, and men are allowed no voice.  You can see this in the double standard.  If a woman wants the child, a man is responsible to support that child for the rest of his life, as he would any other child.  If a woman doesn't want the child, there is nothing that a man can do (legally) to stop a woman from having an abortion.  A man clearly had to be involved in the creation of the child, but that same man gets absolutely no say in what happens, but must bear responsibility for that child.

Everyone knows that abortion kills a baby.

Reporters and Reviewers are biased

Everyone knows, episode 3:

Everyone knows that "Reporters" and "Reviewers" typically idolize the thing they report about, that these same people have a bias towards either what they are reporting on or certain aspects of what they are reporting on, and that their biases impact what they are reporting on negatively.

I'm going to hit a few different areas.

First, let's take a look at the video game Fallout 76. This was a game that was hyped to no end. Bethesda went to great lengths to get the positive word out there, going so far as to invite game reviewers and YouTubers to the Greenbrier Resort for a weekend of elitest hob-knobbery and free gear. When the game released a little while later, with very little changed from when these "Reviewers" played it, nearly everyone was disappointed in it. The "Reviewers" hadn't done a good job actually reviewing the game. They were just happy that they got to be part of the "in" crowd" and so many, if not all of them, padded their reviews and gave the "benefit of the doubt" to the game. They failed to bring truth to their reviews and, in so doing, failed those reading those reviews.

Second, let's look at politics. The vast majority of reporters are Democrats. It is a verifiable fact. An even larger majority of political focused reporters are Democrats. Also, a verifiable fact. There is a reason our current President calls many of them "Fake News". It is because the "Reporters" are so blinded by their biases that they couldn't report a straight news story to save their souls. They only report things from their perspective instead of stepping outside of their echo chambers and wondering what all the rest of us think on a topic. Everyone knows that Hillary lied about top secret e-mails and then had her tracks covered by Democrats serving in the FBI. Everyone knows that the entire Trump-Russia-collusion hoax is simply a Democrat smokescreen to try to explain away why Hillary lost the election. It certainly couldn't be the open disdain for certain people that she and her party has or that we all know Socialism is a lie or that she isn't physically fit enough to stand for long stretches of time.

Finally, let's look at Captain Marvel. Movie reviewers love to see themselves as "Progressive". If you've ever read anything about the crap movies (yes, everyone knows they're crap movies) at the Caanes (or however it is spelled) Film Festival, you know that they love talking about "art" and "pushing the boundaries" and other crap. Anyway, Captain Marvel actress (who cares about her name) and Marvel came out with the whole "women power", "down with white men" and "this is a feminist movie" lines. Instead of saying, "Hey, this movie reflects strong women." (which I would have supported like I did when that was said about Wonder Woman) they come out attacking men. Like their economics, these nut jobs believe that for one person to win, other people have to lose. They don't believe that we can all work together and live in harmony. For them, it is a zero sum game. For them, for women to win, men have to lose. Rotten Tomatoes (which was supposed to be a good blend between professional reviewers and movie fans) just made a pretty significant change to the way they do things because they didn't like the fact that man hating by the main actress and the parent company made men not want to watch this movie. Early reviews are in and, surprise, surprise, critics are doing whatever they can to heap praise on it, while at the same time not going far enough to long-term damage their careers. Everyone knows that they are being kind in their reviews so that they can continue to call people who don't like being insulted "closed minded".

Everyone knows that "Reporters" and "Reviewers" typically idolize the thing they report about, that these same people have a bias towards either what they are reporting on or certain aspects of what they are reporting on, and that their biases impact what they are reporting on negatively.

Democrat Governor and Taxes

Everybody knows:

Everybody knows if you elect a Democrat Governor taxes are going to go up.

During a debate, Governor Whitmer was challenged and asked if she supported a $.20 gas tax increase. She said she did not. The implication was that she didn't support a gas tax increase at all, or less than $.20, and that her opponent was trying to misrepresent her.

Governor Whitmer, according to all news sources, is going to propose a $.45 gas tax increase.

An extreme gas tax that would increase the current tax from $.263 to $.713, more than doubling the current taxes.

This would happen in stages and be complete by Oct 1, 2020 (a mere year and 7 months from now).

I can tell you that I am not shocked by this in the least. It is exactly what I expected. And, if anyone has been paying attention, it should have been exactly what they expected too.

Democrats run as moderates, until they get into office, then govern as leftist extremists. Typically, Republicans have run as conservatives, and governed as moderates. Trump and Reagan as Presidents and Newt Gingrich as Representative are the notable exceptions.

Again, everybody knows if you elect a Democrat Governor taxes are going to go up.

Men and Women and Transgender in Sports

Think I am going to make a series. I'm going to call it "Everyone Knows".

Here's the next installment:

Everyone knows there is a reason why they have a "Men's" category and a "Women's" category in sports and why that is. It is because, in many cases, men would win nearly all the time if there were not two separate categories. It isn't sexist to say that, it is scientific and true.

Anyone arguing that women can do anything men can do (and are implying that men and women are the same) is ignoring science and truth.

The reason transgender former men, now women are cleaning up in sporting competitions is because you have former men competing with women. There is a clear advantage for the former men, even with hormone treatments and anything else that is going on. At the cellular level, men are different than women, and women are different than men. Again, science and truth.

For the same reason we even have 2 categories (Men and Women) it doesn't make sense to have former men compete with women.

Everyone knows this, even those arguing for it.