Yeah it's true - John key said it this morning on TV.
Of course it is all well and good for ivory tower types in cushy exceptionally well paid Government sinecures to produce rubbish conceived to cause dissent and division throughout society.
I don't know why reporters don't rip the boneheaded people promoting this inane idea a new - you know what- the way they did Alasdair Thompson last week. He appears in the Herald's story you will be unsurprised to learn and thus in my post.
Now unlike EEO commissioners for Human Rights most of us have to live in the real world and deal with it. And in the real world we find no two people are the same.
There are good dentists and bad dentists, say, gender has absolutely nothing to do with whether a dentist is a good or bad one. And all things being equal a good dentist is likely to earn more than a bad one.
Nobody chooses their dentist on the basis of gender, well nobody in their right mind that is. The major criteria when choosing a dentist are that they do a good job, don't hurt you too much and the price. Each of us will attach our own weight to the importance of each factor, as we are free to do. We also know if people are not free to choose their dentist,but get assigned one by the all wise, all knowing state the overall standard of dentistry declines markedly.
Same with real estate sales, gender has absolutely nothing to do with success or failure in this endevour. The agent who sells the most houses enjoys the higher income - full stop. If gender plays any role it may well be that an attractive well presented woman can use her personal attributes to gain an edge over her middle aged paunched male collegue. Who knows - the bottom line is how many houses get sold - regardless of ivory tower notions of "fairness", that of course being an entirely malleable concept when making a grievance case.
Whatever field of human endevour you can think of - ditch digging, cosmetic sales, non NZ on Air funded music videos and so forth, this applies - except perhaps to public servants.
You know what I think that is entirely unfair - women who in an evening leave their families to go and stack shelves in the local super market in order to pay for their children's school shoes, school camps and sports fees and who have their modest wages garnished to keep idiotic gender warriors in the style to which they no doubt feel they are entitled to.
"The Government will have a look and we will consider that issue," he told Breakfast on TV One.He also said
"What you have to be careful of is unintended consequences and privacy issues. So in a very small workplace, you could see how that create real tension."Proving once again that he is a man of common sense.
Of course it is all well and good for ivory tower types in cushy exceptionally well paid Government sinecures to produce rubbish conceived to cause dissent and division throughout society.
I don't know why reporters don't rip the boneheaded people promoting this inane idea a new - you know what- the way they did Alasdair Thompson last week. He appears in the Herald's story you will be unsurprised to learn and thus in my post.
Now unlike EEO commissioners for Human Rights most of us have to live in the real world and deal with it. And in the real world we find no two people are the same.
There are good dentists and bad dentists, say, gender has absolutely nothing to do with whether a dentist is a good or bad one. And all things being equal a good dentist is likely to earn more than a bad one.
Nobody chooses their dentist on the basis of gender, well nobody in their right mind that is. The major criteria when choosing a dentist are that they do a good job, don't hurt you too much and the price. Each of us will attach our own weight to the importance of each factor, as we are free to do. We also know if people are not free to choose their dentist,but get assigned one by the all wise, all knowing state the overall standard of dentistry declines markedly.
Same with real estate sales, gender has absolutely nothing to do with success or failure in this endevour. The agent who sells the most houses enjoys the higher income - full stop. If gender plays any role it may well be that an attractive well presented woman can use her personal attributes to gain an edge over her middle aged paunched male collegue. Who knows - the bottom line is how many houses get sold - regardless of ivory tower notions of "fairness", that of course being an entirely malleable concept when making a grievance case.
Whatever field of human endevour you can think of - ditch digging, cosmetic sales, non NZ on Air funded music videos and so forth, this applies - except perhaps to public servants.
You know what I think that is entirely unfair - women who in an evening leave their families to go and stack shelves in the local super market in order to pay for their children's school shoes, school camps and sports fees and who have their modest wages garnished to keep idiotic gender warriors in the style to which they no doubt feel they are entitled to.
Great stuff as none of my mates believe me when I tell them what judges are on a year!
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, and this is more important to him than overturning the anti-smacking legislation. I would have thought something like this would derail parliament!
ReplyDeleteI've just heard on NewsTalkZB that this is more than just being able to know what someone's pay is. It's about then enforcing equal pay if a person (woman) feels another person (a man) is getting paid more for the same type of job.
ReplyDeleteCommunism in action, this is.
The result will be, if it passes, that no one will be paid more on merit, just in case the dweeb in the office gets wind of it and wants to be paid the same. Therefore, driving down wages overall.
Would anyone doubt that attractive Women use that fact to close deals and bypass obstacles to making sales pitches?
ReplyDeleteI can think of many times seeing just such a Woman do that and know full well all the guys were enjoying her presence....just a fact of life.
In my last job the woman next to me (who earned more than her husband) told me off her own bat that she thought that I should be paid more than her, because I took on more difficult tasks.
ReplyDeleteNow were that the case, the statistics would find an "inequality". Yet the proposed bill I see on twitter looks like it would require careful consideration of whether our jobs were in fact equal or not.
In other words, the bill goes into more detail than the statistics they're trying to fix. Which to me suggests that it's not the faintest chance of succeeding in it's mission.