Women can't be paid less than men based on past wages, court rules
This article focuses on the court ruling that women cannot be paid less than men, by using past wages as a benchmark for their pay. This law makes sense because as the court cited, this is breaking an equal pay legislation that is already passed into law. I believe this will help the gender wage gap that we have seen, and cannot hopefully pave the way to wage equality in the future. This will most likely increase consumption ad investment because women will have more disposable income from this ruling, which could spur the economy even more.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/women-can-t-be-paid-less-men-based-past-wages-n864236
4 comments:
It would be interesting to see whether the court ruling would help break equal pay between men and women, and how a more equitable income distribution between men and women would be beneficial to the economy in the long since a more equitable income distribution is always a good macroeconomic goal.
This is good to see because basing women's pay on past wages would just mean continued wages less than their male counterparts despite their performance.
I agree with this decision by the courts because discrimination based upon age, race, gender and religion are all unacceptable. Hopefully the government can enforce this ruling and create fair wages for all.
Seeing that there is still a difference in wages by age, race, gender, religion, ethnicity... Is something that seems unreasonable for the 21st century. Hopefully, this ruling brings us closer to a society where wages are base on productivity and not other aspects of the person that is doing the job. This would also help the economy because of more people with qualifications would be hired, and this could drive the price of labor down which could mean more people getting hired, and more growth and productivity as a whole.
Post a Comment