Pay Gap

Kamala Harris Wants to Force Companies to Report Pay Data to the Federal Government—and Fine Them If They Don't Offer Equal Pay

It's a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex issue.


Around the globe, governments have attempted to legislate away the gender pay gap, designing systems intended to shame employers into improving pay for women. But these efforts have not always worked quite as well as some might hope.  

In 2006, for example, Denmark attempted to equalize pay between genders by forcing companies to disclose compensation data. Although it closed some of the difference in pay between genders, it didn't eliminate the gap, according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. And in firms subject to the requirement, the result wasn't that women were paid significantly more than they otherwise would have been; it was that men were paid less than they likely would have been, via smaller raises. Meanwhile, productivity at affected firms dropped by 2.5 percent.

So men and women were somewhat more equal—but firms produced less, and, statistically speaking, no one was better off. In one sense, the policy accomplished its primary goal, or part of it, anyway. But it's far from an unqualified success.

Yet Kamala Harris now wants to replicate it, or something similar, but with an additional punitive component. In doing so, she is courting a variety of unintended consequences—and forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex issue.

Not only does she want to force companies with over 100 people to disclose salary data by gender in order to get an "equal pay certification" from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an arm of the federal government that enforces workplace civil rights, she also wants to fine companies for discrepancies in pay.

If a company fails to prove that it meets the standards of equal pay, it would be fined 1 percent of its profits for every 1 percent of the gap between what men and women are paid. This proposal would require legislation from Congress, but if no legislation were to pass, Harris, as president, would implement similar standards for federal contractors working on projects worth more than half a million. Her campaign estimates that the fines would raise $180 billion over 10 years, which she says would be used to fund paid leave programs.

Harris, in other words, wants to micromanage private employer compensation in the name of equality, penalizing firms that don't comply with her ideal. Which makes it exactly the sort of misguided idea you can expect from Harris, whose career and campaign have tended to combine hardline progressive politics with policies that emphasize punishment. (For much more on this, be sure to check out Elizabeth Nolan Brown's feature on Harris in the forthcoming issue of Reason.)

There are plenty of things that could go wrong with a plan like this: For one, it might end up backfiring if firms responded to the threat of fines by avoiding hiring women for certain types of jobs. Overt discrimination would be prohibited, but with incentives to discriminate in place, and the threat of penalties looming, some firms would probably find a way, at least at the margins. It could also encourage firms to outsource jobs that might have gone to women, in order to keep them out of the reporting data.

Indeed, managing the particulars of the reporting would almost certainly be a headache, as it has been in the U.K., which has imposed its own disclosure requirement for companies of 250 or more. Those companies were ordered to report data on 14 different data points, but doing so proved onerous and difficult, and the agency in charge of collecting the data has been accused of negligence. In the U.K., the government was criticized for being too lax in its enforcement, but it's easy to imagine an enforcement regime becoming unnecessarily burdensome as well.

Trying to determine exactly which jobs are comparable, and what other factors might be in play, is more art than science; legislation along the lines that Harris is proposing would probably result in the implementation of hard and fast rules that probably wouldn't capture the complex reality of different types of employment and individual compensation decisions. Those rules, in turn, would probably end up creating the conditions for further rules and requirements, and a large bureaucracy built up around examining (and implicitly dictating) pay for large employers.

Big firms, meanwhile, would probably respond to such legislation by seeking to standardize compensation decisions, subjecting more and more workers to pre-determined pay rates and salary bands, rather like the pay scale the federal government uses.

The transformation wouldn't happen overnight. But one-size-fits-all policies are the inevitable endgame for systems like the one Harris envisions. Instead of performance-based pay for individuals, employers would move to rote compensation schemes that treat people as anonymous groups while making little room for rewarding individual excellence or initiative.

That's bad for employers who want to provide more for workers who achieve more, and bad for employees who want to take initiative in order to stand out. And, as seen in Denmark, it's bad for the economy, which is already struggling with weak productivity growth.

It's not that compensation equality is a bad ideal, necessarily, or that gender discrimination at the workplace is pure myth. But the circumstances and particulars are often more complex and difficult to pin down than simple headline numbers seem to suggest. Analyses like the one that went around earlier this year purporting to find pay discrepancies even larger than previously known are often deeply flawed and widely misinterpreted. At the individual firm level, things become even more complicated: Google, for example, was accused of systematically underpaying women, but when it looked at its salary data, it was men who were being paid relatively less. And advocates for a legislative approach to eliminating pay gaps tend to ignore or downplay the role of women's choices: Even in Iceland—which last year put in place an equal pay law similar to what Harris proposes, and which already has one of the world's smallest gender pay gaps—women tend to take significantly more paid parental leave than men. 

But Harris apparently prefers to ignore all of this in favor of a sweeping, uniform policy that probably wouldn't fully accomplish her goals, but would almost certainly backfire in other ways. As she is wont to do, Harris is going all in on a flawed idea, consequences—intended or otherwise—be damned.

NEXT: A 69-Year-Old Great-Grandmother Was Arrested at Disney World for Carrying CBD Oil

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And I’m sure *she* will determine if the pay is “equal” or not.

    1. That’s where it all either falls apart or just becomes a weapon to use agains undesirables. What does equal pay for equal work mean? For anything beyond repetitive factory work where the quantity and quality of work can be measured in some reliable way, it seems like it would be pretty near impossible to determine. In any creative or professional job, I don’t think you can say that any two people do “equal work”. There are way too many dimensions you can measure on.

      1. Yep. If they want to come after a particular company, they will just slice and dice the numbers until they can show inequality and then fine them into submission. And for those companies that are in favor, I am sure that they will happily accept the statement from management that everything is equitable. And everyone will eventually cave since short of paying every single employee exactly the same, there would be no way to win. Perhaps not even if you did that.

      2. These cudgels are an admission by the Left that the minority group (women, in this case) either are intrinsically undeserving of equal pay, or can’t build the case on their own–so they need government intervention.
        The “patriarchy” is Just Too Powerful.

      3. So what is equal, if two car salesman one a man and one a woman, each work 40 hours, and one sells a million dollars worth of inventory and one sells a $100,000 or inventory should they be paid equally? They both worked 40 hours.
        How about entertainers, if both put on a 2 hour show and one puts 20,000 fans in the seats, and the other draws only 500 fans, should they be paid equally? They both worked 2 hours.
        How about a factory, one makes 100 widgets in a day, the other only 40. Should they both be paid the same. They both worked 8 hours.

    2. When Progs say they want equal pay they mean everyone gets paid the same. Period.
      In Cuba everyone gets $20 a month.

      1. Cubans are overpaid.

    3. She can’t even pay her own staff equally. Women on her campaign staff or her Senate staff have been making 87 to 94 percent of what the men made.

    4. So Harris is running for Handicapper General is 2020?

  2. I can’t tell who is worse, her or Biden. They’re just awful. They are if anything actually worse options than Hilary was. Amazing.

    1. Harris is worse. Biden is an idiot but Harris is downright evil.

      The more time passes the more Hillary reminds me of Mayor Bloomburg. Bloomburg was a horrible mayor of New York City and one of the worst nanny state politicians in the country. As bad as Bloomburg was, those who understood New York City politics unanamously agreed that Bloomburg was better than any of the alternatives. And sure enough, after Bloomburg left, DiBlasio came along to prove them right.

      We are finding out that as bad as Hillary was and is, she really was the best available Democrat.

      1. That’s what I don’t get about the people here who complain about Trump. Sure, he’s not my idea of a perfect President, far from it. I often cringe when he opens his mouth.

        But, geeze, look at what’s on offer from the Democrats! They’re going insane, stark raving bonkers, and competing to see who can go crazier.

        1. Hell look what was on offer from the Republicans. I defy anyone to try to explain with a straight face how Jeb or Rubio or Romney or any of the rest of them sans maybe Cruz (and that would only be in some areas) wouldn’t be measurably worse than Trump.

          1. Hell, I was bummed that Romney lost in 2012. Now I think we dodged a bullet.

            1. I feel exactly the same way. I don’t think I have ever regretted a vote more than voting for Romney.

              1. When I was 18 I voted for Carter.

                There, I feel so much better having got that off my chest.

                This is a blog that doubles as a confessional, right?

                1. My dad voted for Carter. He did so out of pure spite for the Republicans having abandoned Nixon.

                  1. Most Georgians voted for Carter; they wanted him out of Georgia for four years.

              2. I’ll top that, I voted for Mondale when I was 18.

            2. totes.

            3. You guys are lame sauce! I’ve only ever voted for shitty Libertarians who never win!

              If I lived in a swing state instead of a solid blue one though, I would have voted Republican every time I think… Which is what I generally do in local elections where the R actually has a chance. When it’s a lost cause I still vote L!

        2. One should always complain about politicians even if they are the best available option.

          1. Yes, the best thing to do is criticize things you disagree with, and give credit to things that you’re happy with. Honestly, it’s easier to do than attempting to apply strict good/bad dichotomies on to people.

          2. i complain about politicians because i’m awake.

        3. The only person worth taking a look at on the Democrat side is Tulsi Gabbard.

          1. And that is only because she is really hot. Not just hot for a politician but really hot period.

            1. She’s bangin’. Oh, and she wants to get us out of the forever war. Big fan of that.

              1. Sadly, the enemy gets a vote in that.

                1. The world is against you John, they’re all your enemy out there. Especially the brown ones.

                  1. Yes, there are people out there you really don’t want to meet and who loath this country and the people in it. And I don’t just mean Demcorats and wokeltarians. Amazingly enough, the world doesn’t revolve around you. People have their own reasons for doing things and hate you regardless of what you do.

                    It is a terrible thing for children like you to face but sometimes being nice to peole jst isn’t enough and you dont’ control the entire world’s actions by your actions. Life sucks like that.

                    1. People have their own reasons for doing things and hate you regardless of what you do.

                      Oh, so now you think people make their own decisions.

                    2. Yes Trip K they do. No one ever said they didn’t except you. You are the one claiming that we can unilaterally end wars our enemies don’t want to end.

                    3. Forever war it is then. Yay!

                    4. John he doesn’t get it, and never will. He’s probably been sheltered his whole life and never really seen the rest of the world. Which is more like this……


                    5. I want peace and would like to reserve war time for when the country is attacked.

                      But feel free to kiss the boots of the politicians sending your grandsons and granddaughters to die for oil, all while curtailing their constitutional liberties, expanding the confiscation of private property and mandating the reporting on all financial activities over $10K to the federal government, building the surveillance systems that capture every email you send and every call you make, categorize all of your communication in searchable form in the never-ending pursuit for safety from the ever-pervasive danger of terrorism.

                      But I don’t get it. I. really. don’t.

                    6. All of the infringements on your liberty are justified under the guise of national security, an excuse that is covered for using the justification “we are at war.”

              2. >>>get us out of the forever war

                tall order aren’t we like 80 years in now?

            2. I agree with BHO on that assessment.

      2. I just can’t agree. Biden is an idiot sure. But no one can be as evil, corrupt, or just a miserable person like Hillary.

    2. I’m pretty sure I’d take Biden over Hillary too.
      Say what you will about Biden, he’s the one who terrifies me the least.

      1. Biden is just less brazen. The corruption involving his kids in Ukrain and China are worse than anything Hillary was guilty of. And Biden is an even worse shameless liar if that is even possible.

        I think Biden is significantly worse than Hillary by a lot of measures. Hillary was craven and greedy but did at least have a ferel survival instinct and is not a stupid woman. Biden is just as corrupt and craven and stupid to boot.

        1. I’m not sure if smart and corrupt is better than stupid and corrupt.

          1. It is certainly a debatable point.

        2. “”Biden is just less brazen.”‘

          You don’t play the flute do you?

        3. I’ve been told for decades Hillary is smart yet I’ve never seen any actual proof.

    3. Harris. Harris is dumb. But to make up for the shortfall in intelligence she will use punitive measures against citizens to get her degenerate policies.

      Just an awful individual. The truancy story is really all you need to know about her.

      Democrats women are of low character and caliber. Hilary, Warren, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, the Three Stooges, Harris and let’s throw in Michelle.

      If my daughter is nothing like these women I’ll be happy.

  3. Economic Fascist.

    So much bad policy over a myth

  4. Next step: telling private industry what products and services they are permitted to sell (we don’t need 1243 different shades of lipstick, or 400 different choices for our ISP).

    1. ha like that would be a new development. Let us never forget that the FDA determines how many cherries must be present in a frozen cherry pie.


    2. You don’t need more than the one kind of deoderent the party gives you Albert.

      1. Between these democrat bitches we will have a political officer in every company, controls on price, identity based wage mandates, crushing regulation, and confiscatory taxes.

        It really is time to get rid of the progtards.

  5. Sounds like Harris is a strong contender for OBL’s endorsement.

    1. I’ve been saying pretty much since she announced her candidacy that she’s my #1 choice.

  6. I’ve said for months Harris is my first choice for 2020, and innovative proposals like this explain why. With women making only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes doing exactly the same job, we need bold solutions.


    1. Only hire women and save 25% on your labor costs?

    2. Let me know when you start making progress eliminating the gender gap in the most dangerous professions, the large bulk of which are 90 percent or higher male.

    3. On queue. Timing couldn’t have been better. 6/10 overall.

  7. This equal pay thing is passing from the novel twitter slogan to the downright evil- or at minimum, disastrous.

    I can think of half a dozen examples in my company, right now, where women doing “the same job” get less pay because of a combination of hours worked, time off taken to have babies and therefore unable or unwilling to travel internationally on long-term projects.

    1. We already have equal pay laws. It is illegal to discriminate against employees based on their sex. And that prohibition includes pay and benefits. So, exactly what do those demanding “equal pay” want that isn’t already the law?

      1. So, exactly what do those demanding “equal pay” want that isn’t already the law?

        Action! CONCRETE ACTION!

        1. Concrete boots?

          1. Concrete boobs 🙁

      2. Yes, but much like gun control and immigration laws, when the outcome doesn’t match your preconceived notion of how individuals should behave, we need MOAR laws to fix the current laws!

        1. I wish they’d at least tweak the current laws rather than slather on new ones. At least then we’d have less laws.

      3. You know exactly what they want– and the law has very little to do with it.

      4. Equal statistical results.

        Which is impossible in a free and diverse society.

        1. Especially given that people aren’t equal, either in ability or desires.

  8. Kamala Harris Wants to Force Companies to Report Pay Data to the Federal Government—and Fine Them If They Don’t Offer Equal Pay

    Kamala Harris says she wants to do this but politicians (especially shitty ones like Kamala Harris) say all sorts of dumb shit they don’t really mean. It could be that all she wants is to virtue-signal her good intentions in punishing white men for all the troubles in the world.

    1. I suspect that’s the case because there’s no way to administer this. Although there would be a long line of public-sector apparatchiks who’d be perfectly willing to try.

      1. There being no way to administer this is a feature in Harris’ eyes. If it is impossible to administer, it will be arbitary and authoritarians depend on the law being arbitrary. An arbitrary law gives those who enforce it arbitrary power.

        She absolutley means it. Don’t kid yourself.

      2. This is a classic shakedown, they don’t have to administer it, they just have to threaten it and call companies out publicly, then sic their lunatic progressive mobs on them.

    2. Trouble is that sometimes people signal their virtue by passing terrible, vague laws.

  9. many stupid people will not be president.

    1. The office can only be occupied by one stupid person at a time.

      1. hopes are high Ms. Harris falls far short

  10. No man would have a job if women worked for 30% with the same results. These are the same evil capitalist pig-dogs who resist raising the minimum wage to buy themselves another yacht.

  11. You have knowledge problem issues. The government will not and can not have the type of information required to make such judgements. Government bureaucrats do not have the skill or expertise to make such judgements (because if they did, they would be in the private sector). They will come to these judgments with their own biases, but will not have much incentive to curb them. This will therefore be an arbitrary mess incapable of solving the problem, which, for the most part is not an actual problem.

    As well as the simple observation that this is another nickel and dime corporatist nationalization of private enterprise by the government. Reaching the fascist version of socialism by increments.

    1. Exactly this. Even within the very companies that have pay disparities, the very people in charge would probably have a hard time explaining why “woman X” gets a lower pay than a man who’s worked the same number of years in the same basic job. It wouldn’t be until they dig through the history that they’d be able to make a determination. This is the opposite of sexism. If it were sexism they’d be able to tell you in a finger snap why she makes less. And the answer would be, “Because she’s a woman and is too emotional and doesn’t have the temperament for difficult engineering tasks.”

      1. “Because she’s a woman and is too emotional and doesn’t have the temperament for difficult engineering tasks.”

        The truth is, this is a legitimate answer in the real world for why women fail in a lot of industries. Seriously. We’re wired differently. People need to accept this. A YouTube video I was watching the other day talked in passing about some all female Elite unit in the Israeli military that was sent into action… And half of them just broke down and ran away after the real action started, and the other half basically crumpled up into a ball and cried in place.

        This isn’t to say there are ZERO women capable in that situation… Just that it’s such a small percentage as to be ridiculous. Working a high stress engineering job, maybe 20% as many women are cut out as men… But that’s a HUGE difference. People need to accept it for what it is.

  12. I said this in yesterday’s comments, but this will overall have the effect of women not getting as much help around the house.

    My wife has been working on a promotion at work, and that has led to a lot of discussions at the dinner table. She has needed to shift around some of the household duties to me. She has needed to travel more on short notice, stay later at work, and miss certain extracurricular activities.

    I am certain that if my wife knew she was going to get that promotion- or at least earn as much as others in the company, we wouldn’t have load balanced the work as much. Why would she work late nights if she was guaranteed to earn as much as the guy at the desk next to her? And for that matter, why would that guy work extra if he was not going to earn more than people who take off early for work?

    As it happens, my wife also attended a Women in Technology workshop sponsored by her employer. While there was discussion about gender bias at the work place, a significant complaint from the women at the event was how hard it was to balance work with home life, and how difficult it is to get their husbands to shoulder more of the house work. This will not get better if such mandates come down the pike.

    1. It’s pretty clear who wears the pants in your family!

      1. The dude who’s banging his wife?

        1. Well Nardz, he’s obviously not the one wearing pants if he’s so busy banging his wife for him.

          1. Fair point

      2. I’m pretty pragmatic about our situation. We have both leap-frogged one another in pay for the past 20 years. But her current company pays ridiculous amounts when you factor in equity. My job is fine, and I am at a point where I can sit comfortably, working from home 3-4 days a week. While we earn about the same, her upside potential at her company is about 5x compared to mine in the next 5 years. It only makes sense us to collectively put our chips on her advancement.

        1. Spoken like a true cis-hetero patriarchical shitlord.

  13. So, as an employer, I can choose to pay a woman more to do the same job she’s currently doing *or* I can pay a man *half* that amount to do the same job he’s currently doing while identify as a woman. To stop me, you either have to cap transgender pay and/or investigate every transgender claim for veracity and pursue fraud/tax evasion charges against employers employees for being trans.

    Your move Harris.

    1. You just tell your male employees they can either identify as female while at work and continue to get their current pay or continue to identify as male while at work and have their pay cut by a third.

      1. I was also considering if you could insinuate that access to the women’s locker rooms would be a perk or if you would just say that it would be expected.

        Either way, in a scant few years, you end up with an all-women company that doesn’t employ any females.

        1. Yes you do. A bit like how we are going to end up with women’s sports that don’t have any female athletes in a few years. I am really curious to see when Progressive women wake up to what a mortal threat transgenderism is to women.

          1. I am really curious to see when Progressive women wake up to what a mortal threat transgenderism is to women.

            That is already happening. That’s why we have “TERFs” now. The “left”, and the LGBTQIA+ (did I get them all) group in particular, have serious conflict in goals when it comes down to it. If they didn’t have “Republicans evil” and “orange man bad” to unite them, they’d be protesting each other and punching each other in the streets.

            1. I no doubt disagree with the TERFS on nearly everything. But they are absolutely right about how misogynistic the trans movement is.

              1. Another example of shithole American culture. Wouldn’t want ’em in my country. *spits*

                1. Transgenderism? Yes it is. It is one of the areas where even the radical Muslims have a point. It gets very hard to defend this country when we are so fucking retarded we think men are really women.

                  You seem to not understand how to have a realistic view of society. It is amazing how simple minded you are. You just can’t grasp the relationship between the individual and the culture at large or how complex and varied real cultures are. It is all just wokeltarian fantasy land to you.

                  1. I’m agreeing with you, so I guess that makes you simple minded. Interesting.

                    1. You are not agreeing with me. You are just being a dumb ass and thinking you are clever. Pointing out flaws in American culture doesn’t in any way mean that other cultures dont’ have flaws and that other cultures are not much worse. You are just engaging in tiresome fallacies and pretending they are interesting or clever.

                      And yes, you are very simple minded. You have a simple set of beliefs and then cram the world into those beliefs facts or reality be damned.

                    2. Haha, right. I disagreed about some conclusions you drew, then you proceeded to assume I’m for open borders, support transgenderism, throw all manor of personal attacks towards me, etc.

                      Of course I’m fucking with you a bit now, but that’s just because you’re frothing at the mouth, John. We could have had an interesting conversation, but you’re frothing at the mouth because when anyone disagrees with you on any one single thing – you jump right into thinking they disagree with you on EVERYTHING. Then you jump into the personal attacks because you take it personally.

                  2. we think men are really women.
                    And that’s where they lose me. I have no problem with people wanting to live as the other sex if they think it will make their life more bearable (and it appears to work at least for some people). But this insistence that trans-women (or men) are really, literally women and everyone has to buy into it is just absurd. And also strangely contrary to the social constructionism that people like that tend to buy into.

                    1. I agree with you Zeb. I could not care less how people live. But, you can’t insist on people telling lies and treating you as if you are something you are clearly and objectively not. You can live as a woamn all you want but that doesn’t mean you get to play women’s sports.

                    2. Totally agree with this 100%

                    3. I have no problem with people wanting to live as the other sex if they think it will make their life more bearable (and it appears to work at least for some people). But this insistence that trans-women (or men) are really, literally women and everyone has to buy into it is just absurd.

                      The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I’d say just ask any confirmed atheist but most will tell you without asking.

                    4. This is another reason we cannot have a ‘progressive’ movement in this country. It is pure poison and an existential threat to our freedom.

                    5. I’m fine with dudes wearing dresses… Whatever floats your boat.

                      But I also believe there should be reasonable limits on where some of this stuff leads. Womens sports? That’s SUPER unfair to actual women. Locker rooms? Maybe at private businesses who choose to do it, but requiring it for public accommodations? Hell no.

                      I just don’t get how these people are all so unreasonable. How can somebody not understand that some people might not want a 50 year old dude with a dick in a locker room with naked 8 year old girls at the public pool??? Even if they’re not going to rape anybody, which they generally won’t, it’s still just a weird/uncomfortable/awkward situation that regular people shouldn’t have to put up with.

            2. the “I” in that list is the only team you can’t choose to join or leave. I bet they are a bit bewildered by being included in that list.

              1. Honestly I don’t know what any of the letters beyond T mean. I just enjoy the parody and absurdity that it represents.

              2. You can identify as I.


    Austrian vice chancellor resigns after vidio shows alleged corruption involving niece of Russian oligarch. Watch the video. If he was going to sell out to the Russians, that guy picked the right niece.

    1. Russian meddling. I knew it.

    2. If he was going to sell out to the Russians, that guy picked the right niece.

      Dude looks like Brent Spiner. All I can say after looking at his wife is that “It’s good to be a far-right leaning Austrian Vice Chancellor/Deputy PM.”

      1. Have you ever been to Austria? The consensus usually is that Prague and the Czech Republic has the best looking women in Europe. And they are plenty hot. There are some dissenters who claim it is Estonia and a few that claim other places but the consensus is Prague. I disagree. The hidden gem of European women is Austria. There are more tall stacked blonds in Vienna than any city I have ever seen. Every woman in that country seems to be the perfect Germanic beauty.

        1. +1 “stacked”

          Haven’t seen that adjective in print in a long time.

          Also, don’t forget Iceland. Wow.

          1. I have never been to Iceland. It is on my list of places to visit. Everyone says the women are beautiful but the only Icelandic women I know of are Bjork and the chick from Of Monsters and Men, neither one of which do a lot for me. I am very curious to see what the women there actually look like.

            1. Hot, but they don’t bang tourists. Very in-culture.

            2. Well, they’re Scandinavian/Irish hybrids for the most part… So if you like pale skin you should be in luck!

        2. I’m definitely a pale while girl sorta guy… I have an affinity for gingers too… The only eastern European country I’ve been to was Poland, and they were all hotties… Until the hit like 60, when they turned into the grossest old people I’ve ever seen. LOL

          I should go to Austria and maybe Prague some day though. I think I’ll do the UK first though… Too many places to see!

      2. And yeah, it looks like being an far right Austrian politician beats even being a Brazillian soccer star. Damn.

      3. His wife? Tits ahoy!

  15. How does my company even know my gender when deciding my pay? I’ve never told them that information.

    1. It’s on most applications.

      1. Yeah but it’s subject to change at any time, remember?

  16. Her campaign estimates that the fines would raise $180 billion over 10 years, which she says would be used to fund paid leave programs.

    So what happens if her program succeeds in eliminating any perceived pay gap, so no fines are paid anymore? Does paid leave just get canceled?

    1. Not for women, just for men.

  17. So, the lack of female plumbers, roofers, et al would end up killing companies, huh?

    Or is it more of the usual “We want equality in the PRESTIGIOUS jobs…not the useful but not pleasant ones”?

    1. It’s going to screw over the few male nurses who do get paid more because they can physically do more (ie lift 200lb patients).

      1. My mom, who has taught nursing for decades, has long bitched about that.

        Mom: “Men and women nurses do the same work”.

        Me: “Really? When a big dude is going nuts in a room, they ask women to hold them down? I’m betting they do not.”

  18. She is a dangerous viper. Will no one rid of this meddlesome jr senator?

  19. Making the word safe for authoritarian douchenozzles, one government diktat at a time.

  20. Prosecutors gotta prosecute.

    1. ^^ Beat me to it.

  21. I wonder if this will result in less women being hired overall. Or, departments and positions being only one sex or the other. Can’t tell me that I have a pay gap if all of my engineers are women and all of my sales staff are men, or vice versa.

    Never let people of the opposite genders hold the same title or do the same work within one company.

    Maybe, by keeping all departments separated by sex, this will mitigate the specter of sexual assault in the workplace too?

    1. It won’t result in that many fewer women being hired because not hiring any women will get you sued as well. We have a defacto quota system in this country. Under the CRA, if your business has a lower percentage of a protected class than the percent of that class of those who are qualified and interested in the job, you are SOL. So businesses that are large enough to be subject to the CRA are very careful to hire enough of each protected minorities to match whatever that percentage of the general population qualifications be damned. That wouldn’t change.

      What this would do would make it impossible to reward good employees without risking running afoul with the law. So, businesses would end up structuring salary on totally objective things like time in service and credentials and discard factors than could be viewed as subjective like performance. This program would have the effect of making private sector pay akin the government pay where everyone gets the same pay for the same job regardless of performance.

      That should do wonders for productivity and competiveness on the world market.

      1. Sounds like America is a shithole country with a shithole culture.

        1. We are getting there if we are not careful. You are only as free as the society is free. The government can make you less free but it can’t make you more free than society allows. If it ever does become the case that the country is strangled by socialism, it will be largely society’s fault for letting it happen and we will be a shithole country.

          1. Yes, it will be your fault.

            1. To some degree yes. And your fault as well, although your complete inability to understand how societies and cultures work and support of importing millions of people who don’t have any commitment to democratic values will make you more responsible than me. But I will bear some responsibility for not doing more to convince people like you to stop.

              1. support of importing millions of people who don’t have any commitment to democratic values will make you more responsible than me

                Nothing better than seeing you put words in my mouth and then telling me that I don’t understand something.

      2. If we got rid of most of the progressives this could all go away.

        1. Little Shitty fuck foo, hopping cross the country, lining up the progtards and shooting em in the head……

          1. I was thinking more of a popular uprising in concert with eventual drumhead style trials for all the evil things progtards have done.

      3. Honestly, if all the other factors were still the same, but you could get away without being sued for just hiring men… I don’t think any company would hire anything but white and Asian men anymore. Every other type of employee is a massive minefield at this point because of all the crazy going on in the world today.

  22. I got to where I am by outperforming everyone around me–including white men. I refuse to work for other people in a society where people aren’t paid relative to their performance but rather because of their sex or race.

    Fuck you, Kamala Harris.

    I’d vote for Donald Trump over a protest candidate to stop Harris from getting into the White House on that issue alone.

    1. I wonder if this will apply to commission based sales people.

      1. Commission based sales is so racist and sexist.

      2. ZOMG, right?

        Of course in performance based environments men, SOMEHOW, manage to out perform women most of the time, as far as the few personal experience I have and times I have read things about it. How could that be, since we’re all equal and stuff???

  23. Why do not women simply identify as men to get more pay?

    1. It’s alright to change your gender for any reason you want –except that reason.

    2. Why do not women simply identify as men to get more pay?

      Because identifying as men would mean on average working longer hours at higher personal risk. They want to identify as women and collect men’s pay.

      1. So instead of identifying as a man, they identify as an entitled bitch.

  24. My concern is that the argument is being predicated on the “fact” there is a pay gap. It is idiosyncratic people who perpetuate disingenuous statistics to the benefit of their cause that are the issue. Therefore, if we conceded to their definition (not well defined) of pay-gap then you have already lost. Tangentially, when did we become so bemused by statistics as the only way to debate?

    1. Of course, studies that consider education, time in position, consistency of work, and all the other things that actually matter, show the pay differential is within the margin of error.
      The famous 77% bullshit is all women to all men, so you are comparing a (male) neurosurgeon with 20 years of experience to the (female) operating room nurse with 3 years of experience.
      What is intended here, beyond the obvious campaign bullshit, is to force the entire workforce into union working conditions where individual accomplishment is not only discouraged, it is denied.

      1. Also a much bigger slice of the female workforce is wait staff who are paid $2 an hour plus tips, with a number smaller than the tips factored in which drags things down. One wonders how much AOC made as a bartender vs how much was reported to the IRS.

      2. The famous 77% bullshit is all women to all men, so you are comparing a (male) neurosurgeon with 20 years of experience to the (female) operating room nurse with 3 years of experience.

        It is/was also strictly full-time, year-round work rounded out as an FTE as well. So if your neurosurgeon worked 90 hrs. a week and your nurse worked a flat 35, they’re both counted as 1 FTE.

        1. Yup. All of it disappears if the numbers are looked at correctly. I read years ago that male doctors work about 50% more hours on average than women. Women worked right around 40 hours, and men a touch over 60.

          In a sane, performance oriented world, that means we shouldn’t be sending ANY women to ever study medicine, because society gets so much less of a return on them! Ditto for every other field too…

          1. On of the smartest persons I have know said to me on the topic of economics; if anyone tells you they know macro economics they are a liar. He further went on to explain in two sentences why it’s essentially impossible. His degree was in economics from Harvard. He understood that things aren’t easily explained away or proven by a single statistic.

            1. Known*

            2. Are you trying to say I’m trying to prove something by a single statistic?

              I’m not. There are reams of statistics on male/female differences in performance in various industries, how many hours they work, etc. Men tend to come out on top almost all the time.

              A lot of this is probably just do to the hard wiring men have of being willing to work themselves to death to provide for their families, whereas women like to work IN their families. In other instances it’s different strengths/weaknesses we have on average. There’s differences in IQ distribution. There are a LOT of reasons.

              People WANT to believe we’re the same/equal… But we’re not. EVERY scrap of scientific evidence ever collected shows this… So progs deny literally 100% of evidence to suit their desire to believe. There IS overlap on all traits between sexes, but we’re very different on average.

  25. If only there was a way to price labor without intervention

  26. How many genders is she planning to equalize pay for?

    1. All of them. As many as government funded research by her campaign workers can find.

    2. Uh oh.

      I hope sexual orientation doesn’t come into this… Because gay men are one of the highest earning groups one can pull out of statistics. Gay men would have to see their salaries slashed by nearly half IIRC to match up with straight dudes.

  27. Why will no on call her out for lying? She lied. She’s a liar, Women do not make 80 cents for the exact same work, they make $1.02 in cushy white collar jobs, like at Google.

    The stat was the kindergarten teachers, daycare workers, and coffee shop waitresses make 80% of what landscapers, drywall hangers, and roofers do.

  28. Harrison Bergeron is where “equality” is headed…

    1. vonnegut saw it coming so long ago…

      1. He was a pretty awesome writer. I should read more of his stuff.

  29. “Which makes it exactly the sort of misguided idea you can expect from Harris, whose career and campaign have tended to combine hardline progressive politics with policies that emphasize punishment.”

    Progressive Democrats call this a feature, not a bug. At least as it applies to their opponents.

  30. What is it lately with the democrats and republicans with their never-ending quest for control?
    Are they really this much in love with fascism?

  31. Doesn’t Trump say a lot of really dumb things too? I’m told by those hyperventilating here that we’re supposed to pay attention to what he does, not says, right?

    1. Don’t know what point you’re going for here.
      Take a look at what Harris does and has done.
      Is that the hill you wanna die on?

  32. combine hardline progressive politics with policies that emphasize punishment

    So: typical left wing politics then.

    I mean, given that left wing economic and social ideas can’t work, they keep having to escalate punishments in order to try to force people to comply with their schemes.

  33. I depart from the commentariat a bit in my interpretation of the “unequal pay” data. It’s not all down to “women don’t work as much so they deserve less”. Studies have shown that women tend to get punished by asking for more compensation. (and not just by men) But I don’t think that more government is the solution and the information we have from other countries who have tried the equal pay thing proves it. The solution is….. Don’t work for asshole employers and be better about salary negotiation.

    I remember like it was yesterday, I had just graduated with my design degree and got a job interview with an asshole who wanted to put me on a trial freelance job making practically minimum wage. I told him that wasn’t the market rate for the type of work, he told me I was ungrateful, spoiled, etc. I proceeded to find a contract job that paid 3-4 times what he said I was worth. Government might have punished him for doing that, but he still would have been an ass to work for. And I found better pay on my own. Feminists need to stop infantilizing women.

    1. Well, here’s the thing… Have you considered that women with the same “qualifications” on paper aren’t as good as the men with the same qualifications?

      Science shows we have dramatically differing abilities intellectually. Women have better language skills on average, men are better at math. With affirmative action at colleges for decades now, they’ve probably graduated millions of less qualified people, who THINK they’re as good as the people who actually earned entrance into whatever degree program.

      Out in the real world, perhaps those studies captured that bosses realized said women were OKAY, but not worth what they were asking for… When they get in a huff about being turned down, it doesn’t occur that they’re simply not good enough to warrant the raise.

      Not saying dicks like the one you mention don’t exist… But starting with the idea that we’re actually equal is where this whole thing goes wrong to begin with. We’re not equal, therefore can never have equal outcomes.

    2. Studies have shown that women tend to get punished by asking for more compensation.

      I don’t disagree that there is an element of women accepting shittier pay. However, the majority of analyses show hours and productivity account for major portions of the gap. Ultimately, I think the two (and more) issues are intractable, even reinforcing or self-selecting. Until we get to a point where no one ever dies on a job and everybody desires to dominate the opposite sex equally, the distinction will persist. Men will always be granted the choice between doing a job or dying and women will always have the third option of having sex.

  34. Do you think these people realize that they’re fascists?

    1. They realize that they’re authoritarian and socialist–and that’s precisely what they are.

      They don’t realize they’re totalitarian but they are that, too. Most people don’t understand the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian. One of the important distinctions is that where authoritarians use the coercive power of the state to control what people do, totalitarians use the coercive power of the state to control what people think.

      “[Authoritarians] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope. […]

      [Totalitarians] claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that . . . violate internalized values and habits”

      —-Jeane Kirkpatrick, “Dictatorships and Double Standards”

      It’s not enough for Democrats to control what we do. Your ideas about sexuality, gender norms, traditional families, etc. are completely unacceptable, and there’s no better vehicle than government to correct your unacceptable thoughts. Hell, your resistance to the end of sexist meritocracy is an obvious symptom. If your thoughts were within an acceptable range, you wouldn’t protest. That is why we need to pursue policies like this–to rid society of thoughts like yours and the damage they do.

      P.S. Because Democrats think totalitarianism is a good thing, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t totalitarianism. They have a really hard time imagining that if they like something, it could possibly be bad.

      1. Good call, Ken.
        I’m glad to see you emphasizing the totalitarianism

      2. The fact that they truly want to control what is acceptable thought is the most frightening of all…

  35. They’re coming after meritocracy.

    Meritocracy is sexist and racist.

    1. “”Meritocracy is sexist and racist.”‘

      Which is to acknowledge that women, and people of color are incapable of competing with white males. Which is BS, of course they can and they do.

      Whatever happened to acknowledging that we are competing on a world scale? How will we compete if we dumb it down?

      1. The problem is dude… They can’t.

        I mean some can. But statistically white and Asian men score better on basically every meritocratic measure possible. Male/female IQ differences, including the IQ distribution, and different strong suits along sex lines explain that.

        As for race, there is a well established IQ hierarchy that lines up pretty well along ethnic lines, with a solid amount of variation within “racial” groups. But once you get down to national/regional there are very consistent average results.

        Environmental factors probably contribute some, but most studies show IQ is 60-70% genetic. Even if you reverse those numbers and it’s ONLY 30-40% genetic, that means there is a significant and uncloseable genetic gap between some ethnic groups and others. There’s a reason South Korea industrialized in a couple decades, and South America and Africa are still the way they are. Average IQ.

        Reality is harsh, but it is what it is.

  36. My christian parents keep telling me that Women weren’t created for politics. Originally; I found this idea a bit disturbing but as I get older and find it utterly impossible to deny the premise; I’m starting to see and agree with what they were saying. Equality doesn’t mean equal in EVERYTHING.

    1. Women were made for politics. They just weren’t made for comedy.

      —-Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren’t Funny

    2. Or politics wasn’t created for women.

      Women being involved politics and other things that traditionally they have not been is a pretty new phenomenon. We don’t know what it will lead to.
      That’s not a reason to exclude or be suspicious of women in politics, but it is something to think about.
      Equality should mean equal in the moral sense that we are all equal as moral agents and have equal claim to human rights and liberties. Anything beyond that requires tyranny and unreasonable discrimination.

      1. Here’s the thing dude… You have to accept they’re not the same as us. You then have to look at the differences realistically. You can then extrapolate likely outcomes.

        As I said below, with women having a say there is ZERO chance at maintaining limited government. Because they’re programmed to seek safety. Your going to get nanny state crap, emotional feel good policies that don’t work, etc.

        Look at polling on almost anything, and you see a stark divide where men choose the rational choice, and women choose feelz.

        Therefore, if you want a rationally run world… Women cannot have a direct say. The truth is, IMO, I think that 1800s and early 1900s western nations had it about as good as you can get. Women had a lot of rights by then. They weren’t treated like outright property, and were free to do lots of stuff if they wanted to. Also, men CONSIDERED their wives opinions on matters… But ultimately had the decision making power.

        I know with the women in my life I’ve considered their feelz, and sometimes they swayed me a bit. But at the end of the day I often ignored their irrational crap if it didn’t make sense, and did the smart thing. If you want a well run world, women cannot be allowed direct power.

        It may be harsh to say it… But it is true. Women = socialist nanny states guaranteed… Without women you at least have a shot at creating a decent system, even though men are pretty crap too.

    3. I don’t know about any of your parents other opinions, but they’re right on that one!

      The moment we gave women the right to vote, it was the end of any chance at having limited government, because of the way their brains are wired. They’re literally not programmed biologically in the ways that men are to think rationally and to lead. They “think” with their feelz.

  37. The endgame is unionisation since unions organise workers in collective agreements and workers then become collectivised in general.

    In countries with historically high union membership, often compulsory by law, collective agreements ruled. Individual employment contracts were a long and hard fought workers’ rights battle that unions protested with every tactic and Marxist trope they could employ.

  38. These big gov’t do-gooders are idiots! When should any two employees, regardless of gender, make the same amount of pay? Answer? Almost never. Maybe day one, with nearly identical resumes and levels of experience, after that it becomes merit-based. Thanks for offering up a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

  39. Yeah… We can come back around to this one when women work as many hours, take the same number of paid vacations, have as many years on the job, and are generally as competent as men in the same industry.

    The fact is that male and female brains are wired differently, and men simply outperform women in many areas… And vice versa. This is why men will probably always dominate math heavy industries, and women are better in things that require verbal skills or emotional intelligence.

    I straight up unleash a torrent of facts on idiots whenever they bring this crap up, because I’m sooooooo sick and tired of hearing it. They’re literally hiring unqualified women (and minorities) probably by the millions because of outright lies about this kind of shit. No more. People need to stop pretending it is anything other than a combination of biology and preferences.

  40. Does Harris know the Equal Pay act was signed into law by a white male in 1963?

  41. Can we stop using the word “gender” when we really mean sex?

    Gender is defined as “either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.”

    The question is not whether people who usually wear makeup and dresses get paid less (gender–regardless of their sex)–it’s that males are getting paid more than females (presumably).

  42. […] Suderman tackles the latest authoritarian economics whim from 2020 presidential candidate Kamala […]

  43. […] Suderman tackles the latest authoritarian economics whim from 2020 presidential candidate Kamala […]

  44. […] Suderman tackles the latest authoritarian economics whim from 2020 presidential candidate Kamala […]

  45. […] Suderman tackles the latest authoritarian economics whim from 2020 presidential candidate Kamala […]

  46. […] Suderman tackles the latest authoritarian economics whim from 2020 presidential candidate Kamala […]

  47. Its a jobs program for new SJW law grads. The Bar Association will support Harris and the government will now tell us evil business owners how to appropriate pay and raises. (Maybe a new insurance industry to cover lawsuits also?) Obviously, the government knows better than I do about the day to day running of my business; who deserves the pay they receive, the motivation, skills and competency- or difficulty- of the individual employee involved .

    1. Now.. Now… How is the left gonna steal all individual freedom if they allow the people to think, act and take responsibility for themselves? There entire (“you didn’t make that”) socialist platform would crumble if they can’t brainwash the people into stupid sheep.

  48. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex issue.

    I fail to see what the “complex issue” is supposed to be. The idea that corporations discriminate against women by underpaying them is so patently absurd that there simply is no issue at all, complex or otherwise.

    1. +1

  49. And yet the ditz doesn’t give equal pay to women on her personal or campaign staff. She refuses to say why.

  50. So ho is going to fine the government?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.