Vote Republican if you want equal pay, suggests the Wall Street Journal. Why? The wage gap is smaller when Republicans are president. Not counting too far back, of course.
Here are the problems with this line of thought:
- Saying the wage gap is smaller is like saying, Well, he didn’t hit you very hard.
- The whole idea that the economy does better under Republicans is particularly laughable right now, and always suspect. See 3.
- Every party magically invokes the concept of delayed effect when it suits them (“We’re just dealing with fallout from the previous administration”). Who’s to say this smaller gap isn’t the result of fallout? Bottom line: this WSJ chappie should consider the causes of his findings (if they’re even accurate). Correlation is not… you know. (You know – he doesn’t.)
- And finally, let’s say the beautiful labor market will take care of everything. What would be the big deal about taking legal steps too? Geez.
- And let’s not even get into the other Republican retreat du jour: “Well – well – but Obama pays his women staffers less than men!” Not so. Obama gives equal pay for equal work, he just doesn’t have women at high levels. This is shitty and a reflection of Obama’s problem with sexism, but it a) has nothing to do with any of the above and b) is not technically a wage gap, which is not just about glass ceiling but about unequal pay for equal work (yes, it happens) and the revaluing of work such that what women do is considered less work-y and therefore worth less.
Moronitude is so rampant it’s tiresome.