GOP Will Take Control of Senate: What Now?

[zraver]

Always had a tough time getting the bass and treble in balance..

That is because you're all about that bass, bout that bass, no treble....

[tbm3fan]

More likely because I can't find this which would allow me very fine tuning of both sides...

[drhuy]

Yes, I am aware of all those efforts at pulling wool over the eyes.

And yet we have this:

Come on Jad, we all know exactly what salary negotiations go like. The employer will try to go with the lowest that they can possibly get ahead with, within the specific salary/ wage band. Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in. And this decision comes back to haunt them at each and every stage, (unless they get internal raises, which they are not supposed to ask for because of Karma and shit) as even in future they are not likely to get more than 10% of their current earnings. Even If I assume that you are right (and I don't think you are) about this lawyer-friendliness of this legislation, did they propose any alternatives or did they leave it to the Constitution, Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Eagle.

.

i dont see how thats problem applied only for women? Its like saying male employees can get paid at whatever rate they like. And you sound extremely sexist saying "Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in."

[antimony]

i dont see how thats problem applied only for women? Its like saying male employees can get paid at whatever rate they like. And you sound extremely sexist saying "Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in."

Sexist, except when its true

Why Women Don't Ask For More Money : Planet Money : NPR
Find Jobs: Find your next job and advance your career today | Monster.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/yo...aise.html?_r=0

Also, personal experience

[drhuy]

Sexist, except when its true

Why Women Don't Ask For More Money : Planet Money : NPR
Find Jobs: Find your next job and advance your career today | Monster.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/yo...aise.html?_r=0

Also, personal experience

using other sexist argument to support your sexist argument? Besides, i still dont get it, like women get paid less because of their own fault? Ok let say its true, then the solution simply is they themselves have to change.

[JAD_333]

Yes, let's see what happens.

In 2016 a larger portion of the electorate will show up and the pendulum will move towards the liberal side.

This idea of the pendulum, as I see it, covers decades at a time, not one election to another. From the New Deal of 1930s till now, the progressive mood of the country has dominated. While conservatives took power several times during that period, they could not overcome the electorate's taste for progressive thinking. Now things may be changing, or to use the pendulum analogy, swinging the other way.

It's important to remember that the pendulum represents the mood of the electorate. This fact is borne out by the effort parties make to adjust their appeal to that mood. It's also important to understand the inevitability of mood swings. For example, how long will voters go on supporting a progressive agenda in the face of deteriorating middle class living standards. Or the converse, how long will they turn a blind eye to poverty when they are experiencing flush times? But only one inevitability can exist at a time. Which is it today? It's not hard to figure out.

As to your prediction for 2016, I have to disagree for now. If the GOP plays its cards right for the next two years, e.g., ends the gridlock in Congress or appears to be trying mightily to end it, they stand a very good chance of taking the White House in 2016.

McConnell looks like a winner but that is only for now. We will see when they actually get control in January. His problem is Cruz, Rubio and Rand. Especially Cruz if I read his personality right. He is the kid in school where the teacher would complain of his constant disruption of the class starting in kindergarten. Now is his chance and I don't think he has it in him to toe the line. That isn't him. So all that Republican unity may just go out the window if the different factions in the party pull McConnell every which way. If Cruz first wants to repeal health care then look out. End result nothing gets done and they are wide open to assault in 2016.

That's a decent reading. On the other hand, Cruz, etal. will have no future chance of higher office if they buck their own leadership and act as agents of gridlock for the next 2 years. Sure, there will be differences among them and with McConnell, but most likely these will be worked out behind closed doors. Does any of this remind you of Gingrich's "Contract for America", the reforms that he promised to enact when he became Speaker of the House?

[antimony]

using other sexist argument to support your sexist argument? Besides, i still dont get it, like women get paid less because of their own fault? Ok let say its true, then the solution simply is they themselves have to change.

That's what you got out of it?

The point is that women tend to negotiate less, as the research and anecdotal evidence shows, and are more likely to be short changed.

[GVChamp]

That's what you got out of it?

The point is that women tend to negotiate less, as the research and anecdotal evidence shows, and are more likely to be short changed.

But it's not discrimination against women, it's discrimination against a personality trait (which women are more likely to have). Those are two very different things. It's not illegal to discriminate against a personality trait, and it's not even "discrimination," but the outcome of a fair negotiation.
It's also not a fair solution to simply tell companies to pay women more, because men with that personality are NOT being protected, solely because they are men.

[tbm3fan]

That's a decent reading. On the other hand, Cruz, etal. will have no future chance of higher office if they buck their own leadership and act as agents of gridlock for the next 2 years. Sure, there will be differences among them and with McConnell, but most likely these will be worked out behind closed doors. Does any of this remind you of Gingrich's "Contract for America", the reforms that he promised to enact when he became Speaker of the House?

We'll see about Cruz. I can't believe he would actually think he has a shot at higher office unless he has an ego the size of Mt. Everest. Today I can see the first itty bitty signs of things to come. Obama is expected to name Loretta Lynch as the new AG. Cruz has said she should not be confirmed by a lame duck Senate that has Dems who have lost and she needs to be vetted by the new Senate. On the other hand Graham has said he has no problem with having the hearings now and noted that other nominations have been approved during a lame duck session since she seems a solid choice. With Cruz first out the gate on this then I wonder what he is thinking when it is his turn to be in the majority on the Judiciary Committee. A pulpit?

[antimony]

But it's not discrimination against women, it's discrimination against a personality trait (which women are more likely to have). Those are two very different things. It's not illegal to discriminate against a personality trait, and it's not even "discrimination," but the outcome of a fair negotiation.
It's also not a fair solution to simply tell companies to pay women more, because men with that personality are NOT being protected, solely because they are men.

Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

[omon]

It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

and if those are women themselves? you automatically assume that it will be men by defaut, why??? what makes you think women in high managment positions, do not act the way you describe? and what makes you think they do not act the same way with males????

[tbm3fan]

Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

It would seem to me that this topic should be a different thread now since it is veering away...

[Genosaurer]

Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

Good point - equality of opportunities is insufficient, so we need equality of outcomes too.

[omon]

Good point - equality of opportunities is insufficient, so we need equality of outcomes too.

good point, and i would agree, if equality of contribution can be garranteed as well. plus, when you talking about equality you talk about equality for all, not just 1 segment of population. or it becomes special treatment, and no where near an eqauality

[JAD_333]

Okay. So does anyone have an opinion on what's going to happen on the political front starting with the new Congress in Jan. Already, Obama has said he will explore compromises with the GOP leadership, but not violate his principles, whatever that means. The GOP leadership is up for exploring for compromises. What does that mean for immigration reform, Obamacare, etc?