An MSNBC article titled, "Rubio Makes His Case Against The Paycheck Fairness Act," on first glance, seems like a reasonable piece of journalism. The title, in the way it is phrased, suggests the author will present a non-biased review of Rubio's arguments followed with quotes from experts supporting and opposing his viewpoints.
Unfortunately, it isn't that at all.
Let's get right to the arguments the article makes and refute them piece by piece.
Rubio's argument goes like this: We already have laws on the books preventing discrimination, any pay gap we have must be non-discrimination related because paying women less is already illegal, therefore, new legislation is not only redundant but unnecessary. Sound like a reasonable position? I think so.
But MSNBC says this, "Rubio has had years to come up with a proper defense for his position, and the fact that this is the best he can come up with is a little surprising."
What? Rubio made a good argument. If it is already illegal to pay women less than men, then any new legislation is unnecessary red-tape. Unless the author can demonstrate this law would significantly change current law--something the author does not do--then we must assume Rubio's argument is correct. (Indeed, if you read the Equal Pay Act of 1963, you will see that Rubio's statements are true).
Quoting the New York Times, the article states "enhance the remedies available for victims of gender-based discrimination and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity. The measure would also protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, which is important for deterring and challenging discriminatory compensation."
This statement seems to argue the new law would protect women's rights. But as noted above, they already are protected. But this argument also also assumes a pay gap between women and men exists and is caused by discrimination. Unfortunately for MSNBC, no such gap exists.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve bank has reviewed the literature and concluded that the pay gap is smaller than liberals suggest. If you take into account relevant factors--total compensation instead of wages (total compensation includes insurance and other benefits), educational choices, career choices, and other factors not related to discrimination--the pay gap is extremely small.
The BLS report liberals frequently cite when claiming women make 77 cents per every dollar a man earns is also total bunk. The report itself offers a germane caveat, the report does "not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences." (emphasis added) This statistic is media manipulation--that's it.
Another study concluded, "the gender gap largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and other workplace and job characteristics."
So, to sum it up, Rubio is in the right on this issue for a few reasons.
(1) We already have laws banning discrimination. He is right to assert any new laws would be redundant and unnecessary.
(2) The "pay gap" is a myth. It is not caused by discrimination; rather, it is caused by lifestyle choices. The law doesn't prevent women from becoming teachers instead of lawyers or working part time over full time. Even the research liberals cite to prove their claims say the data doesn't necessarily prove discrimination is an economy-wide problem.
Does discrimination happen? Yes, and it is tragic when it happens. Those people should--and under current law, already can--be punished, but there is no need to pass unnecessary laws. The wage gap is a media myth created to pander to women for votes. People who spread this myth should be ashamed--lying about public policy that affects millions is never acceptable. This hit job of a piece against Rubio is not real journalism, and again exposes MSNBC for what it really is: the left's superPAC.
(And yes, I stole the last line from Rubio).
Unfortunately, it isn't that at all.
Let's get right to the arguments the article makes and refute them piece by piece.
Rubio's argument goes like this: We already have laws on the books preventing discrimination, any pay gap we have must be non-discrimination related because paying women less is already illegal, therefore, new legislation is not only redundant but unnecessary. Sound like a reasonable position? I think so.
But MSNBC says this, "Rubio has had years to come up with a proper defense for his position, and the fact that this is the best he can come up with is a little surprising."
What? Rubio made a good argument. If it is already illegal to pay women less than men, then any new legislation is unnecessary red-tape. Unless the author can demonstrate this law would significantly change current law--something the author does not do--then we must assume Rubio's argument is correct. (Indeed, if you read the Equal Pay Act of 1963, you will see that Rubio's statements are true).
Quoting the New York Times, the article states "enhance the remedies available for victims of gender-based discrimination and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity. The measure would also protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, which is important for deterring and challenging discriminatory compensation."
This statement seems to argue the new law would protect women's rights. But as noted above, they already are protected. But this argument also also assumes a pay gap between women and men exists and is caused by discrimination. Unfortunately for MSNBC, no such gap exists.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve bank has reviewed the literature and concluded that the pay gap is smaller than liberals suggest. If you take into account relevant factors--total compensation instead of wages (total compensation includes insurance and other benefits), educational choices, career choices, and other factors not related to discrimination--the pay gap is extremely small.
The BLS report liberals frequently cite when claiming women make 77 cents per every dollar a man earns is also total bunk. The report itself offers a germane caveat, the report does "not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences." (emphasis added) This statistic is media manipulation--that's it.
Another study concluded, "the gender gap largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and other workplace and job characteristics."
So, to sum it up, Rubio is in the right on this issue for a few reasons.
(1) We already have laws banning discrimination. He is right to assert any new laws would be redundant and unnecessary.
(2) The "pay gap" is a myth. It is not caused by discrimination; rather, it is caused by lifestyle choices. The law doesn't prevent women from becoming teachers instead of lawyers or working part time over full time. Even the research liberals cite to prove their claims say the data doesn't necessarily prove discrimination is an economy-wide problem.
Does discrimination happen? Yes, and it is tragic when it happens. Those people should--and under current law, already can--be punished, but there is no need to pass unnecessary laws. The wage gap is a media myth created to pander to women for votes. People who spread this myth should be ashamed--lying about public policy that affects millions is never acceptable. This hit job of a piece against Rubio is not real journalism, and again exposes MSNBC for what it really is: the left's superPAC.
(And yes, I stole the last line from Rubio).
