Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 year ago

Fining companies where men earn more than women could provide 180 billion in revenues for government proposes Kamala Harris?

What do you think of this policy?

Should companies be required to disclose all salaries paid by race and sex and be fined if they can not prove non discrimination?

The revenues collected from fines could help fund entitlement programs like medicare for all.

49 Answers

  • 1 year ago
    Favorite Answer

    more empty rhetoric, laced with division, envy and identity politics, masquerading as economic policy....

    in other words, yet another illustration why the party establishment needed to beg Joe Biden to be their front man after watching hand-picked Harris and Warren falling 20 points behind Bernie...

  • 1 year ago

    What will frau harris do if all those companies decided to pay all their employees the same wage? Where would her drug induced fantasy about 180 billion in revenues go then?

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Nothing wrong with paying people honestly.

  • 1 year ago

    What Harris is arguing for pertains to women who hold the same positions as their male co-workers, and do the exact same job, but are paid about 20% less on the average. It's not a matter of paying woman in the mail room as much as the CEO of the corporation, or paying the woman executive as little as the male bicycle messenger.

    If you have two people working in a factory, one male and one female, and both are doing the exact same job but the male is being paid more, that's unfair. The only reason the male should be paid more is if he has seniority, in which case he would have already benefited from scheduled raises the newer female employee has yet to have acquired. Another exception would be if it were, say, a sales position, and pay is commission-based, and the male simply sells more than the female.

    Other than that, yes. Fine the company and let corporations know that females being second class citizens should have ended during the stone age. It's an absolute shame that here we are, in the 21st century, and this kind of bullshit is still going on.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 year ago

    I would refuse to hire women.

  • 1 year ago

    NO... IF a womwn accepts a job working in the same job as a man then she should be paid what she agrees to accept when accepting the job...

    IF I offer a job and I ask ( WHICH I DO AS I EMPLOYEE AN AVERAGE OF 25 PEOPLE) On my application like most I ask...

    WHAT PAY DO YOU EXPECT... IF you put 10 bucks a hour and I have another SAME QUALIFICATIONS and they say 9 bucks a hr... Same Qualifications... I AM HIRING THE ONE WHO SAYS they will work for less..

    Why should I pay you more and hire you I can get someone just as qualified for less... Makes no difference the SEX Male or Female I am hiring the one who can do the job who said they will do it for less pay...

    But also Keep in mind... I also go a lot by Looks as My Employees work close with the public so I do not hire dirty looking, sloppy looking, Tattoo covered people, gang banger looks, baggy pants etc... so DO not WASTE MY TIME OR YOUR putting in a application as I WILL NOT HIRE YOU IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAN CUT LOOKING... I also will not hire a female who looks, acts like a slut or is covered with Tats.

  • 1 year ago

    To answer your question, we have to understand a couple of things, it is not an easy question. The compagnies would have to be allowed to fill a register with race and sex of each of it's employee (wich is not the case) and that could cause predjudices... Also the races are hard to define in some case, is it how you look or is it your racial background? And if it is your racial background should we make a list with percentages and add that to the equation?

    You also have to consider the legal battle it brings, shifting the weight of the accused, meaning the compagnies would have to prove it's not guilty instead of the usual "innocent until proven guilty" wich is not the system we use in north america.

    The idea is good because it prones equality and it prones changing the market instead of forcing employees to adapt to it. Doing this could increase involvement and relief the stress it puts on employees. But I don't think it's the right form.

    Just a Normal guy reading on the issue!

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Her proposal applies to race as well as sex, but as an employer it is illegal for me to require employees to reveal their race making it impossible to comply with her policy, which is of course the point. Since businesses can’t comply, she’s basically placing a huge tax on businesses under the guise of racial and gender equality.

  • Toast
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    I think she’s another kook who thinks she can push the asinine liberal policies of her state onto the rest of the nation.

  • 1 year ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.