[Sasa]

It's recently been hotly debated on the "equality" especially in Europe, on the issues of gender gap, racial gap etc.

Amid the debate, few people question something fundamentally, what is equality then?

It's said that there's a notable pay gap between male and female employees in BBC in the UK, as a result, they cut off those men's salaries. The same can be applied to "racial gap" I think if they like.

So if you earn more then me while you are white/male but I'm not, it's wrong, simple logic huh?
Lets think more broadly, if both of us are white males, is it OK for a pay gap between us then? You probably think there's no problem, well how can you "discriminate" against a white male?

So there would be two possible consequences only:
Result 1.
No non-white/female workers should be paid less than their white/male counterpart. But it's fine for a white male to be paid less.

Result 2.
Everyone should be paid the same wage.

Clear enough? Result 1 means only white males deserve a discrimination.
Result 2 means communism.


That's the essence of progressiveness, comrade?

[Potemkin]

Result 2.
Everyone should be paid the same wage.

Clear enough? Result 1 means only white males deserve a discrimination.
Result 2 means communism.

Actually no, that's not communism. In the Soviet Union, workers were paid according to the amount of work they did and how skilled that work was. Stalin even described the idea that all wages should be the same as "a petty-bourgeois deviation".

[Sasa]

Actually no, that's not communism. In the Soviet Union, workers were paid according to the amount of work they did and how skilled that work was. Stalin even described the idea that all wages should be the same as "a petty-bourgeois deviation".

That's the point, even communist leaders argues that reward should be related to their work performance, how could BBC assert female workers must be paid the same as males without mentioning individual performance, in other words they tend to be more pro-communism than Stalin.

The same thing applies to "criminal discrimination". Black people constitute the majority of criminals, simply because they got discriminated against.
Black people did worse in schools thanks to "discrimination" too.

[Potemkin]

That's the point, even communist leaders argues that reward should be related to their work performance, how could BBC assert female workers must be paid the same as males without mentioning individual performance, in other words they tend to be more pro-communism than Stalin.

No, you're still missing the point. Paying everyone the same salary isn't communism. It never was communism, it isn't communism, and it never will be communism. When Stalin asserted that workers should have differential pay scales, he was being communist. Just because you think equal pay is communism doesn't make it communism. There's a real world out there that exists independently of what you think about it. A strange idea for you, I know, but there it is.

[Sasa]

No, you're still missing the point. Paying everyone the same salary isn't communism. It never was communism, it isn't communism, and it never will be communism. When Stalin asserted that workers should have differential pay scales, he was being communist. Just because you think equal pay is communism doesn't make it communism. There's a real world out there that exists independently of what you think about it. A strange idea for you, I know, but there it is.

I may be wrong on communism, but that's not what I care about, I thought communists are calling for same pay rate(they call equal pay).

Back to our topic, if the concept of same pay/equal pay is not from communism what should I call it?
My logic is simple, people get paid based on their performance regardless of their gender/race, which means the gap should always exist as people are different.

[Potemkin]

I may be wrong on communism, but that's not what I care about, I thought communists are calling for same pay rate(they call equal pay).

You thought wrongly.

Back to our topic, if the concept of same pay/equal pay is not from communism what should I call it?

You should call it what Comrade Stalin called it: "a petty-bourgeois deviation".

My logic is simple, people get paid based on their performance regardless of their gender/race, which means the gap should always exist as people are different.

Indeed, and that's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. The problem here, however, is that male and female workers were systematically being paid different salaries for doing the same job. So, unless you believe that women are inherently less able than their male colleagues, it logically follows that they were being discriminated against simply for being female. This is generally regarded as being unfair and unjust.

[Sasa]

You thought wrongly.


You should call it what Comrade Stalin called it: "a petty-bourgeois deviation".


Indeed, and that's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. The problem here, however, is that male and female workers were systematically being paid different salaries for doing the same job. So, unless you believe that women are inherently less able than their male colleagues, it logically follows that they were being discriminated against simply for being female. This is generally regarded as being unfair and unjust.

It's not convincing by just saying "you are wrong". You need to give EVIDENCE.
What's the evidence when you assert "male and female workers were systematically being paid different salaries"?
Any rules saying that males should be better paid? If not, how dare you assert it. It's the economy determined by the market, where the boss tends to maximize his profit, as a result he naturally award the worker with higher performance.

What's the evidence you can give, for example a female worker has better performance than a male counterpart but receive less salary? It can't happen in a marketed economy or the business runner is a fool, who doesn't want to make more money.

I work in a company where almost all engineers are male, not because we discriminate any women but just haven't found competent female candidates yet. You can call us discriminatory whatever you like fortunately our boss knows how to make money and we are not BBC.

[mikema63]

LMAO where'd this guy come from?

[Sasa]

LMAO where'd this guy come from?

want to fire me?
The last action leftists can take after indisputable truth was said.
The Emperor's New Clothes.

[Politiks]

It's recently been hotly debated on the "equality" especially in Europe, on the issues of gender gap, racial gap etc.

Amid the debate, few people question something fundamentally, what is equality then?

It's said that there's a notable pay gap between male and female employees in BBC in the UK, as a result, they cut off those men's salaries. The same can be applied to "racial gap" I think if they like.

So if you earn more then me while you are white/male but I'm not, it's wrong, simple logic huh?
Lets think more broadly, if both of us are white males, is it OK for a pay gap between us then? You probably think there's no problem, well how can you "discriminate" against a white male?

So there would be two possible consequences only:
Result 1.
No non-white/female workers should be paid less than their white/male counterpart. But it's fine for a white male to be paid less.

Result 2.
Everyone should be paid the same wage.

Clear enough? Result 1 means only white males deserve a discrimination.
Result 2 means communism.


That's the essence of progressiveness, comrade?

The issue in USA is blend with feminism to avoid the race discussion, the issue is really black people not white women. They throw in the white women cause because disguises the true issue: blacks can't make it on their own and they are payed less.

But let's keep pretending this is about women

[Sasa]

The issue in USA is blend with feminism to avoid the race discussion, the issue is really black people not white women. They throw in the white women cause because disguises the true issue: blacks can't make it on their own and they are payed less.

But let's keep pretending this is about women

Well I can't say white women and Black people are at the same position, but feminists are indeed campaigning in the same way as black people, and at least it appears that white women & black/Latino people are standing with each other.

Like a guy said in previous post, "women are systematically paid less than men"(same words can be applied to black/white), any body knows if "women are perform systematically worse than men"? If the latter is true, why don't they deserve a lower pay.
Have any feminists/leftists done work performance statistics yet? You know that's something they definitely shun.

[Potemkin]

There's just no reasoning with these people....

[B0ycey]

So there would be two possible consequences only:
Result 1.
No non-white/female workers should be paid less than their white/male counterpart. But it's fine for a white male to be paid less.

Result 2.
Everyone should be paid the same wage.

Clear enough? Result 1 means only white males deserve a discrimination.
Result 2 means communism.

Your results are illogical. Result one should be more basic and perhaps be split into two. Either everyone should be paid the same for a job of equal stature or you champion piecework. If a male does the same work as a female without rules set in place but gets paid more it is discrimination.

Result 2 is true Communism. Everyone works for the state and does the jobs they are capable of for it but rather than have a salary they receive what they require from the state.

[Potemkin]

Result 2 is true Communism. Everyone works for the state and does the jobs they are capable of for it but rather than have a salary they receive what they require from the state.

That's not the same thing as receiving the same wage, B0ycey. The basic rule for Communism, as outlined by Marx is: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." And 'need' is defined in terms of social expectation, as Marx made clear. For example, people in a developed society such as the USA or Britain need a telephone. A subsistence farmer in, say, Chad probably doesn't. The point, however, is that different people have different needs - the needs of someone with a physical disability are going to be different from the needs of someone who is able-bodied, and if more resources have to be expended on the disabled person to meet their needs, then so be it. As Marx pointed out in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, absolute wage equality is unjust (since people are not equal and have different needs), and is not communism.

[Sasa]

Your results are illogical. Result one should be more basic and perhaps be split into two. Either everyone should be paid the same for a job of equal stature or you champion piecework. If a male does the same work as a female without rules set in place but gets paid more it is discrimination.

Result 2 is true Communism. Everyone works for the state and does the jobs they are capable of for it but rather than have a salary they receive what they require from the state.

For result 1, there's indeed no "rules" out there, just an assumption that "gender gap" shouldn't exist, which means, the average wage of males and females must be the same.
"If a male does the same work as a female without rules set in place but gets paid more". I need to see the performance evaluation which shows males don't outperform females but got higher wages, which feminism group never provide.
If in reality, a male worker did the job as good as a female, but being paid more, his boss must be a fool, who should have fired that guy and replace him with a female, according to the rule of market economy, since the business runners always try to hire people with low cost as possible. Eventually most jobs should be occupied by females.
Why doesn't it happen. The reality of market economy perfectly disproved such ridiculous hypothesis.

[B0ycey]

That's not the same thing as receiving the same wage, B0ycey. The basic rule for Communism, as outlined by Marx is: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." And 'need' is defined in terms of social expectation, as Marx made clear. For example, people in a developed society such as the USA or Britain need a telephone. A subsistence farmer in, say, Chad probably doesn't. The point, however, is that different people have different needs - the needs of someone with a physical disability are going to be different from the needs of someone who is able-bodied, and if more resources have to be expended on the disabled person to meet their needs, then so be it. As Marx pointed out in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, absolute wage equality is unjust (since people are not equal and have different needs), and is not communism.

I never said that communism is the same as equal pay for all regardless of the skill level of the job you do. If I was to say that I would have quoted you rather than Sasa. But I will point out that the critique of the Gotha was a socialist agenda. Communism is a serenity of an absolute classless society. Under Communism there be no such thing as pay to be paid more. You work for the state. You work for you and everyone else and the job you do I expect changes on what you are capable of doing and what is required to be done. So if you do not receive a salary you cannot be discriminated against. And that should be result two.

[B0ycey]

For result 1, there's indeed no "rules" out there, just an assumption that "gender gap" shouldn't exist, which means, the average wage of males and females must be the same.
"If a male does the same work as a female without rules set in place but gets paid more". I need to see the performance evaluation which shows males don't outperform females but got higher wages, which feminism group never provide.
If in reality, a male worker did the job as good as a female, but being paid more, his boss must be a fool, who should have fired that guy and replace him with a female, according to the rule of market economy, since the business runners always try to hire people with low cost as possible. Eventually most jobs should be occupied by females.
Why doesn't it happen. The reality of market economy perfectly disproved such ridiculous hypothesis.

The short answer to this is quite simple. A corporation has to adhere to the rules set by a government but they can hire who they like for whatever reason they choose as long as they adhere to them. A labourer can also choose who they want to sell their Labour to. If the goverment sets a rule that you cannot discriminate against sex for salary pay for doing the same job (but there is no rules in the contract about the rate of work to be done for the pay you receive), then it shouldn't matter about who out performs who.

[Sasa]

The short answer to this is quite simple. A corporation has to adhere to the rules set by a government but they can hire who they like for whatever reason they choose as long as they adhere to them. A labourer can also choose who they want to sell their Labour to. If the goverment sets a rule that you cannot discriminate against sex for salary pay for doing the same job (but there is no rules in the contract about the rate of work to be done for the pay you receive), then it shouldn't matter about who out performs who.

I didn't take into account the effect of affirmative action in my example. The premise here is everything is determined by the free economy itself. But if we consider AA, OK, say the government requires the boss to hire 50% of female workers while the boss prefer more competitive male workers, so he knows females workers in his company are less productive (if not redundant) but no way to fire them, the only consequence is to pay them lower wage. This just indicates that AA doesn't help at all. But if you say, OK the government can force the boss to pay female workers the same wage as males, then it'll be totally communism, the boss has no control of his business and it's no longer market economy any more.

Any way to hinder fair competition is prone to communism.

[Tainari88]

I think the definition of equality is really about that phrase that Potemkin quoted, "To each according to their ability and to each according to their need." Humanity is diverse. You got people who have Down Syndrome, or who have speech impediments, or who have a lack of ability to perform certain tasks.

That means that society and the economy should be structured around a simple premise. Who is this individual worker? What kinds of work they have an affinity and love for doing it? Can we train and educate them in that field so they can give the society many many years of high quality work? Can we invest in them in their youth through access to a fine education that is equal in quality regardless of ethnic group, which neighborhood they are born into and what obstacles they face? Invest in PEOPLE. Give them excellent educations, reliable health care that is top drawer, and stable housing, give them guidelines of nutrition, exercise and health care. Balance the entire society for recreation, work, hobbies, study and family life. A whole complete network of development. Maximizing the potential of all people. Don't assume because people are black or Latin American or Native American or European etc. that they are superior or inferior. Acknowledge that people have varying levels of intelligence, abilities and affinities and talents. All people vary.

The society should be able to create stability in work, education, housing, and health. Cradle to grave stability. If it fails to do so because it caters to only a small plutocracy? And to hell with the vast majority? You got a dysfunctional society on your hands and instability, resentment, anger and a big waste of human potential is the ultimate outcome. Class conflict that is violent and blood filled is also the natural outcome. Who the hell loves being used, exploited, and thrown away and disrespected like trash, simply because one is a female or Black or poor or has some disability? People should be valued as they are for what they are by all of society. Not told that they are trash and unworthy because they are not rich, or not male, or not wealthy or not this or that.

In the end all of us are mortal and die from some form of disease, accident or problem. All of us. Why allow rules in which lies and ideas about being wealthy means you are better or more valuable than the next person? In the end? We are not like the Egyptian pharoahs of old. We can't take our cars, houses, toys and material possessions with us into the grave anyway. All that has to be let go of. Eventually. What makes all that material wealth useful is if we share it wisely to serve the human society and make it better for those with less abilities but great needs. Share. If you are a brilliant person with a fine mind and a great education? Teach or show or produce great things serving the ones who are not as brilliant. If you are a great carpenter or architect, or singer, or dancer, or engineer, etc. Do the job serving all the others without selfishness, greed or ignorance and discrimination involved.

You do that? You got equality. Love all people and treat them with true equality because they are human just like you. We are equal in our human frailty and vulnerable flaws. Treat us as precious resources that if cared for? Give many years of fine service. And improve all the lives of all they serve.

That way? White guilt and white this or that in a racist society is GONE. If you truly believe all are your social, economic, gender, and class equals? Conspiracy of Equals. The French Revolution. Egalite. Believe it. And do it.

That will improve society greatly. The Great Leap Forward in consciousness for human society is that. Not that everything is the same, boring and authoritarian. It is not. In fact, Marx's goal is a classless society with no need for formal structures of government control because human beings have advanced enough to know that mistreating each other and believing in arrogant power struggles and exploiting the hell out of each other is not an improvement in life. It is retrograde and prison like and headed for failure. Ultimately what humans love is to be free. Be free to be who they can be. Without heavy crap like not being allowed an education because they are poor, or a certain color or nationality or because they were born with the wrong sex organs that are not the 'top' valued one, etc. That stuff is wasting way too many people.

True equality is achieved by knowing that all of us have to work together to lift each other up. Not tear each other down. That is having a spirit of equality.

[B0ycey]

I didn't take into account the effect of affirmative action in my example. The premise here is everything is determined by the free economy itself. But if we consider AA, OK, say the government requires the boss to hire 50% of female workers while the boss prefer more competitive male workers, so he knows females workers in his company are less productive (if not redundant) but no way to fire them, the only consequence is to pay them lower wage. This just indicates that AA doesn't help at all. But if you say, OK the government can force the boss to pay female workers the same wage as males, then it'll be totally communism, the boss has no control of his business and it's no longer market economy any more.

Any way to hinder fair competition is prone to communism.

But that isn't Communism. Communism means that everyone works for everyone else and you take what you need from society. The rate or speed you work at is irrelevant. You do the jobs that are required for society as a whole. So to have equal pay for everyone is not Communism. It is actually liberalism.

But to your point about company's having to adhere to "say" a 50% gender requirement (this would never happen by the way). If the government did put that law into place, then every corporation would be handicapped by the same rule. But they still get to choose which candidates they hire. Believe it or not, women are not useless. I understand that there are biological differences in men and women which might affect the rate/speed of a job done by both sexes, but there is no job out there a woman cannot do. Also it is important to note that there are also exceptions even with stereotypes. It is not out of place to see women out perform men and there are even specific jobs out there that are more suited to the average woman too. So with this in mind, I see no reason to ever champion discrimination. There are jobs that men can (usually but not always) do better than women and there are jobs women can (usually but not always) do better than men. But I'd say with most jobs it actually doesn't matter what your sex is. And in every scenario, pay should still be equal.