Kamala Harris

The Foolish Economic Agenda of Kamala Harris

Another bad idea from the Democratic presidential hopeful.

|

One of the many problems with politicians is that it seems like they're in the outrage business. Some act as if they won't be needed unless there is some extreme wrong or insufferable unfairness to address. That's how we end up with politicians fighting mostly imaginary battles, which they propose to address through great sound bites and bad policies.

The latest case in point is presidential hopeful Kamala Harris' plan for "Holding Corporations Accountable for Pay Inequality in America."

The Democratic California senator's stated goal is to produce a world with "equal pay for equal work." There's nothing wrong with that, of course, if there's actually a problem. In her new report, she claims, like many others before her, that this is indeed an issue and that "women who work full time are paid just 80 cents, on average, for every dollar paid to men." That's the foundation of her report, and that number is actually meaningless.

The way she calculated this pay gap was by taking everyone who works 35 hours or more a week for the full year to find the median for women and the median for men. The problem is that these numbers don't compare women with men who perform the same jobs, work the same number of hours, and have the same education. In addition, the work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, whose work is impossible to ignore on the left, has shown that when measured properly, the small pay gap that remains still isn't the product of discrimination.

Instead, Goldin finds that men and women are paid differently because women demand what she calls "temporal flexibility." As she explained a few years ago in a Freakonomics podcast interview, this means "anything that leads you to want to have more time." Others call it the "caregiver" or "mommy tax." Some women care for children or aging parents, which requires more flexibility in the workplace—a choice or necessity that leads to differences in job selection for women and men.

There are reasons to believe that as the workplace continues to evolve and with more telecommuting, maybe more paternal involvement in children's lives and a greater willingness of clients to substitute one worker for another (like when consumers go to the pharmacy and don't care which pharmacist they see because they are almost perfect substitutes to one another), we will see even greater convergence between men's and women's job selections.

In other words, Harris is barking up the wrong tree and using shoddy data. Then she doubles down with incredibly foolish public policy. Always the enforcer, she wants to require employers with more than 100 workers to go through the trouble of proving to a federal bureaucrat that "they're not paying women less than men for work of equal value" in exchange for an "Equal Pay Certification." If they fail to do so, they'll have to pay Uncle Sam "1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist."

While that may sound like a bureaucratic nightmare, it's probably even worse. Imagine the qualifying businesses having to prove that their roughly 80 million combined employees are paid according to their performance reviews and tasks. If everyone were working in factories and producing identical widgets, it wouldn't be so hard. But that's not what most businesses are like these days. Think about the work produced at think tanks, law firms, or even hospitals. How do employers report their employees' divergence in creativity, entrepreneurial risk-taking, or managerial talents? Every wage gap will become a liability that, in the worst-case scenario, could be remedied by employing fewer women or scaling back on flexibility so that every job looks as similar as possible.

Finally, imagine the cost in terms of additional employees that would be required on the employer side just to comply with the certification requirement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which Harris would task with the certification, would have to add several hundred bureaucrats to its approved staff of some 2,300 employees if it wants to certify everyone in a timely fashion. Labor attorneys would probably come out ahead with new litigation resulting from the disagreements between the commission and businesses.

Yes, candidates on the campaign trail often come up with bad and outrageous ideas. Yet, in the Hall of Fame of poor policy proposals, this one may quickly rise to the top.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Court Tosses 2015 WOTUS Rule

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “they’re not paying women less than men for work of equal value

    Yeah, and who decides that value? If you add value of less that $15 an hour, can you be paid less?

    1. Who decides? You do, when you accept the job.

  2. scaling back on flexibility so that every job looks as similar as possible.

    Or possibly making every job as different as possible so they can’t be compared. Sure, make the drone jobs all the same, pay the same. But anything even slightly creative or requiring responsibility, give them different qualifications and titles. Heck, constantly shuffle job titles so they can’t even be compared from one year to the next.

    1. My job title is a hash that includes the date and time the hash was generated.

    2. Easy solution: do not be profitable! No profits, no penalties.

      Also, what about the gender on-the-job death gap? When do employers get penalized because men represent 95% of all on-the-job fatalities?

  3. All these ideas seem to come from people that have never had to meet payroll.

    1. All these ideas come from people who are trying to find jobs for women’s studies majors…

      1. Indeed. Jobs that just measure compliance to authoritarian, arbitrary quotas.

    2. If we are going to apply equal pay for equal work then perhaps Ms. Harris should get zero pay since she doesn’t do any work. Or, for that matter she doesn’t add any value.

      Just thinking…

      1. Exactly. This wastoid does NOTHING for the country or its people while getting a ridiculous salary to come up with chit like this.

      2. But to the Left, she is battling for Social Justice & all the victims & oppressed & that be a full time hard job worthy of high pay!

  4. you mean “another bad idea from a Democratic hopeful”. it’s not just her.

    1. reason cannot help themselves giving these Democrat turds media attention.

      reason refuses to cover Libertarian candidates, LP news, and current Libertarian(ish) politicians and how its going for them.

      reason loathes to cover Trump’s actions that are Libertarian-ish and even when it does, spins the accomplishment into a Lefty Narrative wetdream.

      1. Except the LINOs: Justin Amash, Jeff Flake, Bill Weld, Mitt Romney.

        1. My god what a string of losers

        2. Mitt The Piece of Liberal Shit Romney?????…..LOL!!! Romney is no Libertarian nor a GOPer…He is a full blown LIBERAL!!!

      2. So now you’re complaining that Reason is spending too much time covering how bad the ideas of Democrats are? In almost every other thread about Trump your complaint is something like, “why didn’t Reason hold Obama accountable when he did/said X?”

        If you’re looking for a media outlet to blindly praise everything that Trump does, there are several other options available.

        1. I’m still wondering why reason ignored the declassification order.

          1. Just wait until the evidence of all the illegal stuff done to attempt this coup against Trump gets out.

            reason will aid all the other propaganda outlets in damage control to save the Democrat Party.

            The Lefties really expected Americans to fall for the coup. Instead it has blown up in their faces. Americans are more skeptical than ever of the media and the Lefties.

        2. Interesting that YOU mention Trump when I never did.

          Covering a wide range of topics/people is good.

          The media covers Lefty positions and then spins their Socialist positions and rough edges to cover for them. Even the articles that reason writes about Democrat candidates don’t go into depth about how bad the positions really are.

          One good article about Bernie Sanders and all his commie ties tied in with all the atrocities of the Communists over the last 100 years, would see a noticeable drop in Bernie support by all but his most devoted Useful Idiots.

          1. reason loathes to cover Trump’s actions that are Libertarian-ish

            Ummm…

            Even the articles that reason writes about Democrat candidates don’t go into depth about how bad the positions really are.

            This one went into pretty good depth; it talks about why Harris’s data is wrong, it explains the bureaucratic nightmare it would create, and it attempts to qualify the additional costs this would impose on business. It even went so far as to say that of all the dumb ideas from Democrats this one might be the worst. What more do you want from them?

            Honestly speaking here… You should consider that maybe you aren’t reading these articles objectively, and that you’re constantly looking to confirm that Reason is in fact what you think it is, rather than just accepting what it is.

            1. That’s just the sort of thing a Lefty would say!

              1. I must admit… I am left handed.

              2. Just what someone who cannot counter what I say would joke about.

                Lefties wanting to put all dissenters in gulags and murder us is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny.

                ha….HA

                1. I think your claim that you never mentioned Trump was pretty well countered.

                  What’s funny is your insistence that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Lefty (and apparently is also for gulags and murder now). It’s OK. I think you are actually consistent in how you use it. It’s just kind of funny.

                  1. Haha. I got lost in the indent lines.

                    This new format sucks.

                    As to calling people Lefties, if youre a Lefty you might get called a Lefty. Its not about disagreeing with me. I do short hand so I dont have to type out Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, maoists, Nazis that are Lefties.

                    Lefties are actually trying to steal everything that I hold dear, silence me and my anti-socialist statements, and put me in gulags and/or murder me.

            2. Its like gun control issues.

              reason never once mentions that ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. No background checks. No gun permits. No gun bans. No registration.

              Instead reason regurgitates the Lefty Narrative and then tries to explain how some gun control is okay, if reasonable, but the topic of the gun control article is Too Far. TOO FAR for supposedly principled reason staff.

              1. Instead reason regurgitates the Lefty Narrative and then tries to explain how some gun control is okay, if reasonable

                And you support a President who banned bump stocks.

                Reason has consistently railed against the bump stock bans.

                1. And I am against Trump allowing that to happen.

                  That ONE THING, plus a few other bad policy decisions. Trump is light years ahead of Hillary and most 2016 GOP candidates for gun rights, limiting government, limiting endless wars, and trying to get America lower trade restrictions with our trading partners.

                  Besides, I bought a whole bunch of bump stocks as I knew the ban was coming and sold them so people who wanted them would have them.

                  The bump stock ban is a BATF policy that can be changed with a pen and a phone. reason barely tackles the myriad of gun control laws (passed by state legislatures) around the USA.
                  NRA- state gun laws

                  reason does not like the 2nd amendment, so it does just enough to get web traffic without showing that this website 100% supports gun rights and is 100% against any gun control.

                2. Bump stock legislation is as pointless as bump stocks themselves. Either way I find the whole thing to be a real red herring. Reason has failed miserably in condemning the entire list of 23-24 Presidential candidates based on their Socialist and anti-Constitutional policies. None of these people should be acceptable to anyone who cares about true freedom and liberty.

                  1. +100

                3. Amazing what people manage to bitch about. There is plenty to complain about with Reason these days. But they are pretty damn consistent and good on guns as far as I can see.
                  But I guess if they don’t put the emphasis exactly where LC1789 wants it they are a bunch of no good Lefties.

                  1. + 100

                  2. As I said, one can take the position of mentioning gun control as reason has.

                    Another position is mentioning that all gun control is unconstitutional and therefore all gun laws are illegal. In other words, not let Lefties get away with trying to incrementalize gun control as “sensible gun restrictions”.

                    FYI: I also think the NRA does not 100% support gun rights and constitutional protections for gun owners. IIRC, the NRA was okay with the bump stock ban.

                  3. Its like reason and drug legalization.

                    Reason has never mentioned (that I can think of) repealing the Controlled Substances Act because that law is unconstitutional as government has no enumerated power to ban products or services. The Prohibitionists knew this to ban alcohol.

                    Instead reason says how great it is states legalizing pot and shrooms with the obligatory heavy taxation and regulation. Meanwhile many states still have not full legalized marijuana.

                    The time was ripe for total repeal of federal marijuana laws under the controlled substances act. Now there is less of an incentive because you simply go to a state that refuses to enforce federal law which has weed as an illegal substance. It bugs me to have unconstitutional and/or unenforced laws on the books . Just repeal those laws.

          2. One good article about Bernie Sanders and all his commie ties tied in with all the atrocities of the Communists over the last 100 years, would see a noticeable drop in Bernie support by all but his most devoted Useful Idiots.

            https://reason.com/2019/03/08/why-are-we-still-debating-the-merits-of/

            You’re naive if you think that Sanders’s followers would read Reason, or that they would understand the article I just linked to.

            1. Sanders got a shitload of voters on his side during the Democrat Primary of 2016. Once Hillary and the DNC implemented Operation: It’s Her Turn, Bernie has millions of voters drop him and vote for someone else, once the Super delegates sided with Hillary. Bernie had 13,206,428 voters vote for him. Hillary had 16,914,722 votes.

              Bernie is not a threat large to America because he would never be elected President. Bernie is a threat to the Democrat party because his supporters can unseat a DNC pick and then lose the national election.

              1. Of the 30 million voters you referenced, I’ll bet less than 0.001% have even heard of Reason. Why should Reason preach to an audience that it can never reach.

                I think Reason realizes it has much more in common, ideologically, with current Republican voters. It constantly picks apart Trump policy in order to try to sway those voters who are more “libertarian-ish” than anyone on the political left. Constantly railing against socialism on a libertarian site is nothing more than preaching to the choir. What’s the point?

                1. BECAUSE rEASON SHOULD PICK PRINCIPLES OVER PRINCIPALS. Or don’t. Some of us just refuse to let reason get away with saying bullshit “free minds and free markets” while lying their asses off about the staff’s real positions.

                  I can guarantee that any Lefty who cares about what their enemy is up to pays attention to reason. Its why we have some of these trolls or used to. If reason blasted Democrats as much as they do Trump, this website would be flooded with Hihn’s trying to silence dissent.

                  One reason that less and less Lefties have been commenting at reason is because reason is not a threat to them. reason staff are doing their bidding and its why most of the hacks that work at reason have other gigs at shitty Lefty rags. I wouldn’t write for WaPo if my family was going to starve, unless I could blast every Lefty Narrative unedited for content. Unless you are a tool of the Left, they wont print your words that tell the truth about Socialism.

                2. One reason that there has been a massive push by lefties to silence dissent via social media and YouTube is because election cycle 202 has started.

                  The internet is a massive threat to Socialism and the Democrats pushing that agenda. They want to control the information like any good propagandist would. Goebbels would be doing the same thing.

                3. I disagree most of the Editorial staff seems at times to be catering to the hard left. In fact one recently gloated over how much she had in common with another socialist when she sat down with her at a Socialist convention. I am not sure she was serious or just trying to hook up with the leftist. It appears to me that Reason is trying to find traction outside of the conventional right leaning markets. In doing so it is willing to sacrifice it’s adherence to Libertarian principles

                  1. I’ll say this again…

                    Honestly speaking here… You should consider that maybe you aren’t reading these articles objectively, and that you’re constantly looking to confirm that Reason is in fact what you think it is, rather than just accepting what it is.

                    1. Haha. Leo.

                      I would bet that the people bitching about reason’s shift hard Left are about as objective as Americans come.

                      Lefties really don’t think that they give away all the Socialist marbles in what they say. They do. Every time.

                  2. In fact one recently gloated over how much she had in common with another socialist when she sat down with her at a Socialist convention.

                    How the fuck did you get “gloated” out of that article? People from wildly different political movements have things in common. How is that a shocker or a scandal?
                    Reason is far from perfect, but the shit people decide to harp on is just puzzling sometimes.

      3. Seems to me that a media organization giving candidates for President media attention is entirely appropriate.
        I’m pretty good with their focus on Democrat candidates. Those are the people we need to be making arguments against the most at the moment.

        1. Of course, giving politicians shit about their positions is appropriate, especially around the 2 year election cycles.

          I am advocating more coverage of more politicians.

          As I said, reason is covering for Democrats as all media does. They lie and cover via omission. Its super easy to utterly blast Democrats for being Socialists, what Socialism is, and how it has killed over 100 million people since 1900.

          Do in depth articles about KAMALA ROUGE and her specific instances of ethical violations and locking people up for drug crimes. Make sure that she drops out of the race tomorrow because her record is so shitty. reason does not even have to pick a side, just mention the one thing good she has done in her life — drop out of the race.

          reason refuses to do this.

          1. I think you are projecting a lot onto them.
            Whatever. I don’t know their real intentions for sure any more than you do, so keep doing your thing, I guess.

            1. Reason’s actions and lack of actions speaks volumes.

      4. I know Reason hates the Trump tariffs.

        So do I.

        But wait until Trump is gone and the progressives take over again.

        We will see what happens to the libertarian agenda when the patients take over the insane asylum at that point.

  5. Hey, just a thought, maybe she isn’t making a serious proposal to address a real issue or crisis but instead is pandering to get votes?

    1. Very Amash like.

    2. That seems likely. But that’s all the more reason to argue strongly against it. Way too many people hear shit like this and think it sounds like a great idea.

    3. Of course she is a vital part of the Pandering party. Her photo is used in the dictionary to define “pandering politician”. Nothing that comes out of her mouth means anything other than that. Her policies are as vacuous as her personality. As Willie used to tell her “shut up and suck!”

  6. Pay everyone $15 an hour regardless of whether they sit at home and play vidio games or go to school for 10 years so they can perform brain surgery. That was everyone will be equal! What could go wrong? *Polititians get more though because some animals are more equal than others.

    1. $15/ hr? Just get rid of cash and pay everyone in white bread and whiskey.

  7. Another bad idea from the Democratic presidential hopeful.

    These Democrats are hopeful. Only one of these turds will make to face Trump and will lose to Trump in an even bigger EC loss than Hillary had.

    With more and more illegals being deported and not here to vote illegally for election 2020, all the Blue state that agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact will have to give their EC votes to Trump when he also wins the popular vote.

    It will be glorious!

    1. “Only one of these turds will make to face Trump and will lose to Trump in an even bigger EC loss than Hillary had.”

      Would you say 2020 is looking like a “Red Wave”?

      LOL

      1. It’s gonna look like that time of the month…

    2. EC votes for Trump 304 – 227 for Hillary.

      1. Wow. So Drumpf had a slight edge in the indefensible anachronism known as the Electoral College. In an election that was hacked by Russia on his behalf. And he still lost the popular vote by 3 million.

        #NotMyPresident
        #StillWithHer

      2. Once those 30 million illegals are deported, Trump will win by 27 million votes nationwide.

  8. Comrade Kamala Harris’ plan for “Holding Corporations Accountable for Pay Inequality in America” is simple:

    Everyone gets paid the same, no matter what they do. This way, everyone is equal.

    1. Well…women do work “harder” so they deserve more money.

      Teachers too. They work “hard”, so they need more money too. Nevermind that they don’t work 2.5 months straight in the year, plus all the state holidays they get.

    2. And let’s start by putting Harris and Sanders on a $15/hour wage – if it’s possible to find any hours they actually worked.

  9. Harris has the unlikeability of Hillary, the economic ignorance of, well, just about everybody, plus the extra asshole vibe of being a former prosecutor.

    1. I am just waiting for 2020 and her to put more red on those cheeks so I can call her KAMALA ROUGE.

  10. We Koch / Reason libertarians cannot expect Democrats to agree with us on everything. But I think it’s counterproductive to focus so much on our differences.

    In the interest of balance, can we have ENB write “The Brilliant Reproductive Rights Agenda of Kamala Harris”? Or maybe Shikha Dalmia could describe “The Libertarian Immigration Agenda of Kamala Harris”?

    #LibertariansForHarris

    1. this phony troll does get funnier as the day goes on.

  11. #MAGA

  12. Gender pay gap is akin to human trafficking; not much data to support it but the narrative is so noble you’d have to be a child hating misogynist to not jump on board. Or even question it.

  13. Women can have 100% pay equality as soon as men have 100% life expectancy equality.

  14. I wonder if the proposed policy would also apply to companies where women are paid more on average than men?

    1. Bwahahahah

  15. Have any of the D hopefuls ever worked for a living, and made a living at it?
    I know Bernie failed at everything he did.
    Pete was a ‘consultant’ for some (apparently) short period of time.
    Harris has slopped at the public trough her entire life.
    Biden was ‘a lawyer’ for a year or so before getting fixed for life.
    Booker, Deblasio, Gabbard? Nope, nope and nope.
    Gillibrand supposedly held a ‘private position’ as a lawyer, working on one of the hag’s campaign, so she learned graft from a real pro.
    O’Rourk ‘ran a business’ for 10 years, but if you look into it, it was funded by Mom and Dad; no hint he actually accomplished anything.
    Warren chased ambulances.
    Yang ran a non-profit, but hasn’t seemed to learn that most ventures have to make a profit.
    Anybody else in the entire lot who produced one goddam thing of value in their entire lives?
    I can’t find any.

    1. Wrong on Warren she spent most of her life in Academics which is the ultimate test of free markets (lol)Also she plagiarized a cookbook based entirely on her phony Native American heritage.

      1. Also Harris spent a great deal of time “working under” Willie Brown for no pay as far as we can tell. At least this pay went unreported.

      2. “Wrong on Warren she spent most of her life in Academics…”
        My mistake; did that one from memory.

  16. “The problem is that these numbers don’t compare women with men who perform the same jobs, work the same number of hours, and have the same education.”

    How is this a problem? It’s like comparing men and women for height, but only those men and women are the same height. Women and men typically don’t perform the same jobs. The Wall Street broker is probably a man and the day care worker is almost certainly a women who is paid less.

    1. “How is this a problem?”

      Should we help out the dimbulb?
      Aw, why not.
      It’s a problem in that it is used to generate faulty data.
      Is that clear enough?

      1. Its not faulty data though. They are perfectly aware of the reasons why but they just don’t care.
        They are trying (ham-handedly I admit) to eliminate the mommy tax.
        Its true, if I am an employer, I don’t see why I should shoulder the burden of what roles people decided to play in their domestic situation.
        But that is the goal of those calling to close the $0.80 gap. Closing that gap alone is not an unworthy goal, but the method in closing it is important.
        Better methods might be more like universal pre-k or subsidies/deductions for child care expenses or better options for seniors living situations. Basically, take the burden of being a domestic caretaker away from women so they can focus more on their professional careers rather than essentially having 2 careers they have to manage where one pays money and the other does not.

        1. After birth and breastfeeding, men are just as capable of being domestic caretakers as women. So beyond the biologically necessary role of women (and there isn’t much you can do about that), this is all down to choices people freely make and nobody else’s business.

          1. ” men are just as capable of being domestic caretakers as women.”

            What incentives does society offer a man to take up a career as a domestic caretaker? A 20% pay cut?

            1. mtrueman
              May.30.2019 at 1:04 pm
              “What incentives does society offer a man to take up a career as a domestic caretaker? A 20% pay cut?”

              It is not up to “society” to provide incentives for child care.

              1. “It is not up to “society” to provide incentives for child care.”

                But providing disincentives is OK. Coherent as ever Sevo.

                1. mtrueman
                  May.30.2019 at 1:54 pm
                  “But providing disincentives is OK. Coherent as ever Sevo.”

                  Actions have results; you can choose to accept them or whine about them and hope ‘society’ takes responsibility for your actions.
                  Imbecilic as ever, asshole

                  1. “you can choose to accept them”

                    You’re missing the point. Some are choosing not to accept them. I get it that you disapprove.

            2. Same incentives apply to women. After birth and the immediate aftermath, it is entirely up to a couple who takes on the domestic caretaking role. And no one is required to have children.

              1. “Same incentives apply to women.”

                You are missing the point. It’s in the disincentives to bearing children where the differences appear. Men’s salary is not cut after he has a child, but a woman’s is.

                “And no one is required to have children”

                Not required and not needed either as there are plenty of poor immigrants willing to replace the population.

                1. “You are missing the point. It’s in the disincentives to bearing children where the differences appear. Men’s salary is not cut after he has a child, but a woman’s is.”
                  Interesting claim, no proof. Cite, please.

                  “Not required and not needed either as there are plenty of poor immigrants willing to replace the population.”
                  Non-sequitur.
                  Imbecilic as always.

                  1. Cite, please.

                    Wikipedia?

        2. “Better methods might be more like universal pre-k or subsidies/deductions for child care expenses or better options for seniors living situations.”

          These are not ‘free market’ solutions but are similar to the policies of places like the USSR which offered universal health care and day care centres in the work place etc. Note, these are notoriously natalist countries and do their utmost to encourage child rearing. American attitudes differ, preferring to let the wealthy enjoy their wealth and the replacement population will be filled in via immigration of the world’s poor.

  17. “The Democratic California senator’s stated goal is to produce a world with ‘equal pay for equal work.'”

    Does this mean she is opposed to unions and seniority?

  18. She is not too pretty to do math, not sure what her excuse is.

    1. Same as the rest of ’em, wants to get paid like a man who does math without having to do the math.

  19. If you are a woman who is the primary caregiver for a child, meanwhile the father of the child is not, he will have more time to devote to work and hence higher wages.
    Mom can’t stay late with no notice because she has to pick the kids up from school. This will cause her to not make that extra hour of overtime, get passed over for promotions, not accumulate experience, etc.
    Its not that she made that substantially different a decision from what dad did, its just that she’s the woman and women tend to be in these roles. That’s just the way it is. Even those who point out the gap in the same positions is much smaller than the overall gap know this.
    It is kind of unfair to mom from the perspective of mom looking for jobs that pay more.
    I don’t agree with Harris’ proposal either though. I find it hard for an employer to level out gender pay differences if women simply don’t apply. We need a person who can go to Tokyo in 12 hours notice and the best qualified applicants are men. Women who would be better or equally qualified don’t apply because they are domestic caretakers. What is a company to do? You cannot force women to take jobs they don’t want to do and then punish the company for those women’s decisions.
    I do think it’s a problem and I do think it needs a solution, but I don’t think Harris’ proposal is it.

    1. Mom only has to be the one carry and deliver the baby. And breastfeed if they want to do that. After that, Dad could take on all of the tasks you list. So it is a choice.
      All of this really devalues parenting too. People want to ignore the fact that having a parent who can be with a child all the time is hugely beneficial to the child and act like both parents working is the ideal situation for everyone. There is more to life and a person’s value than making money.

    2. I’m curious why you think it’s a problem at all? A gap in average wages between men and women tells you nothing about whether there is any unfairness in how any woman is compensated. The “average woman” isn’t a person who exists and therefore can’t be treated unfairly.

      1. “I’m curious why you think it’s a problem at all?”

        He’s a natalist, someone who feels that society should be incentivizing and rewarding women for bearing children. In an anti-natalist society, where the rewards and incentives run the other way, punishing child rearing, society’s impetus is to spare its women the hardship of child rearing and simply import a population of poor immigrants.

        1. Seems to me that a lot of people see having children as its own motivation.
          Maybe society should mind its business and not concern itself with who chooses to have children under what circumstances.

          1. “Seems to me that a lot of people see having children as its own motivation.”

            Precisely why we can afford to punish women who choose to bear children.

            “Maybe society should mind its business and not concern itself with who chooses to have children under what circumstances.”

            How is society punishing women who choose to bear children ‘minding its own business?’

            1. More trueman bullshit:

              ““Seems to me that a lot of people see having children as its own motivation.”
              Precisely why we can afford to punish women who choose to bear children.”
              “We” are not punishing them. The mechanisms exist as a result of people desiring to make money, including ignorant assholes like you.
              If, knowing those mechanisms are there, someone chooses to have children, they are accepting responsibility for their actions, not ‘being punished’.
              Is this simple enough for you to understand? Even a cave man can do it; give it a try.

              ““Maybe society should mind its business and not concern itself with who chooses to have children under what circumstances.”
              How is society punishing women who choose to bear children ‘minding its own business?’”
              See above, you fucking ignoramus.

              1. “If, knowing those mechanisms are there, someone chooses to have children, they are accepting responsibility for their actions, not ‘being punished’.”

                A 20% cut in pay is punishment. Women choose to have children. They don’t choose to take a 20% pay cut.

        2. “He’s a natalist, someone who feels that society should be incentivizing and rewarding women for bearing children. In an anti-natalist society, where the rewards and incentives run the other way, punishing child rearing, society’s impetus is to spare its women the hardship of child rearing and simply import a population of poor immigrants.”

          Fucking ignoramus pitching sophistry.

          1. “Fucking ignoramus pitching sophistry.”

            Natalist simply means policies friendly to child rearing.

    3. If a woman chooses to be the primary caregiver of her children then she must accept the consequences of that choice. Women who choose careers over children earn the same or more than men in the same positions, and men who choose children over careers also see less pay

  20. While I accept that Harris’ economic agenda is foolish, I can’t think of a single politician whose economic agenda is anything but foolish. Not one.

    It’s like an unwritten law (but one that’s always strictly enforced): only economic retards are allowed to hold office. And this applies to both major turd parties.

  21. Politicians who mask the true effects of their policy using relativist fallacies should be drawn and quartered. 1% of profits per 1% of wage gap, per Harris’s standards of wage gap, would mean confiscating 20-30% of an average company’s profits. I really hope this statist never comes remotely close to power again.

  22. What is this article? There are no companies with 80 million employees ffs

    1. It’s saying there’s 80 million people who work for companies with over 100 employees in the US.

  23. Harris supports the green new deal. The GND would; crash and burn the financial system and monetary system, end the 24-hour energy grid, end the transportation grid, end agriculture as food goes hand in hand with transportation. Turn the means of production of these four industries over to the federal government. Harris promotes a federal banking industry also.

    Harris, or any idiot who supports the financial destruction, freezing, mass starvation of the United States should not be taken seriously. Harris is an enemy of freedom.

    1. Yet here we are.
      Sadly, what should happen is often not what does happen.

  24. The foolish economic agenda of Kamala Harris.

    There, fixed it.

    1. True, but they can’t fit all of her foolishness into one article, nor could all of her fascism and hypocrisy fit into one article. There are other _Reason_ articles about her.

  25. How is it that they can still parrot this garbage about the wage gap that has been debunked over and over again for many years?!?!

    Is this that they repeated the lie so much that they themselves believe it? Or are they using it as a tool that, God help us, appeals to some voters?

    Some voters need their vote taken away. With computers these days, you should have to demonstrate you actually understand the real issues before you can vote on them. You cannot have an opinion based on data if you are voting based on your emotions. Emotions are way to easy for others to manipulate.

  26. First off, WHY is anyone giving this nutbag any press time> She CANNOT BE president. BOTH of he rparents were non-citizens at the time she was born, thus she is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

    Second, someone should remind her of the definition of the word “fascist”. It is government control of private means of production. This is precisely what he wants to implement.

    Third, having earned her political boner fides on her back, no she never HAS had to meet payroll, job demands, or balance any books.

    Fourth, being a gummit drone, she is all about making up “work” for pther polilticians, the few thousand who would be employed in riding herd on the tens of thousands of businesses in these New Ninety States. Crony capitalistic inside buddy good deal stuff. What politicians seem to think they are made for.

  27. Dont worry about her; she’s just saying whatever pandering BS she thinks will help her campaign. Most people know her record as a phony tramp anyway, so she’s not going to get the nomination no matter what.

  28. Instead of demanding equal pay for equal work, females should just identify as men to get better pay.

  29. […] The Foolish Economic Agenda of Kamala Harris […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.