I had two nice young folks stop by my house last night canvassing for a candidate for a local State Senate race. Too much was covered in our conversation for a single post, but id like to make two points.
First, to their great credit, they were actually very interested in hearing what makes me tick and then they proceeded to try to sell me on how their candidate would represent that. but they were also very honest when i asked them questions about their positions. They honestly said, “we’ve never thought of that” in response to at least a half dozen of my questions. I told them they would get my vote if they merely began to ask themselves and their bosses why they believe what they do and if there is any chance that confounding evidence would make them reconsider.
A second point was that one of the three major platform positions they took was ensuring legislation would pass to support “equal pay for equal work.” I wasn’t about to give an economics lesson, but they were shocked to learn that a recent study of 150 major cities found that in 147 of them there was a wage premium for single women under age 35 over similar men.
They had to get going, but I would love to have asked them why they wouldn’t push for an equal pay amendment that worked the same way as this:http://savingsports.org/2012/09/24/title-ix-compliance-costs-dont-add-up/
What is particularly puzzling about the equal pay movement is that it largely comes from a group that wishes for much sharper progressive taxes on the rich as a way to equalize pay. So why not institute a “man tax” to get the same result for gender equality?
And of course, what is the policy proscription for the women they are kickin some men’s asses among recent labor market entrants?