One thing I’ve noticed about the Dems-who-would-be-President is that they all seem to have any number of grievances that they want to remedy by wielding the power of government as if it were the hammer of Thor. The very same people who think that President Trump doesn’t even have the right to use the enumerated powers granted him by the Constitution, and that any federal judge in Podunk can outrank and thwart him, believe that once they are in office, they will simply sign an executive order and create sweeping new laws that will make billionaires cower and mighty industries quake and the entire planet heal itself.
It’s only Tuesday, and there’s already another one of these massive government remodeling plans, this time from Sen. Kamala Harris. She says she will end the “gender pay gap” by forcing all corporations to disclose their pay policies by applying for a mandatory “Equal Pay Certification” from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Businesses would be fined 1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist for work of equal value. She says it would raise $180 billion over 10 years (translation: it would suck $180 billion out of the private sector that businesses would have to get back by raising the prices they charge consumers.)
Her campaign declared: “Kamala Harris has a simple message for corporations: Pay women fairly or pay the price.”
Well, I have a simple message for her: it’s already illegal to pay women less for the same job than men. Even the Obama Labor Department admitted that the so-called “gender pay gap” is not due to sexual discrimination but to workers’ own choices. For instance, more men choose to take jobs that are physically and financially riskier and less personally fulfilling but that potentially pay more, and to work longer hours and take fewer sabbaticals.
More women go into fields that are personally rewarding but pay less, and to work fewer hours and take more leaves, usually to spend time with their families. The “77 cents on the dollar” number comes from comparing all women in a company to all men, regardless of their jobs, work hours, seniority, etc. It’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. When you compare women to men in the same jobs with the same seniority and hours, the “gap” virtually disappears. And when you limit it to young single men and women, women actually tend to be paid more than men.
If you are against that system, then aren’t you “anti-choice”? Leftists now have an answer for that: they claim that because of “systemic sexism,” girls are raised to be risk-averse and family-oriented. We need to revolutionize society to eradicate ideas like family being of primary importance to women because women don’t realize that they don’t actually have a free choice because of their societal conditioning. That sounds like condescending sexism to me, but it’s the best argument they’ve got.
Again, to put it simply: Kamala Harris just vowed that if elected, she will seize powers far beyond the Constitutional limits of the office and replace the free market system of personal choice of work and rewards based on effort and productivity with an economy-destroying, top-down, Soviet-style government-control-of-pay system. So if you were looking for a reason to eliminate her as a viable choice for President, that should suffice. That should also apply to any Democrat who claimed that Trump shouldn’t be President because he was a wannabe dictator.