General Discussion

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)

99. Very Interesting indeed.

Wed Nov 18, 2015, 02:46 AM

Nov 2015

The Wal-Mart case is a tragedy.

I have a few minor gripes: One, even if the ERA was passed it would have no effect on this civil suit as the ERA would apply only to the federal government and states, not private disputes.

Also, the idea that the ERA would have any effect on the 77 cent wage gap is unfortunately unrealistic. The government cannot realistically enforce pay equity directly (see the problems they have had with managing the H1-B situation!). Anyway, I have read that most of the gap is attributable to differing career trajectories (yes, glass ceiling too but...) because of delayed time put into the career for family and childcare. From my perspective we could improve things a great deal on the pay equity side by passing Sen. Gilibrand's family leave act.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

123 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm Sorry... If We Are To Go Down This Syrian/ISIS Road To War... Reinstitute The Draft [View all] WillyT Nov 2015 OP

And women should join the selective service as well Travis_0004 Nov 2015 #1

HELL NO. Not until the ERA is passed. Not a minute before. pnwmom Nov 2015 #37

Good point. zentrum Nov 2015 #39

do it anyway. show the bums roguevalley Nov 2015 #49

Do what anyway? Draft women before there is an ERA? Who are the bums you want to "show"? pnwmom Nov 2015 #50

Forgive my certain ignorance, JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #57

In the 70's we had a huge effort to pass an amendment to the Constitution pnwmom Nov 2015 #77

Thank you. JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #88

I know I've read about specific cases, pnwmom Nov 2015 #90

Some more research reveals JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #93

The other aspect is that the 14th amendment only protects against pnwmom Nov 2015 #95

I was actually thinking the reverse JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #96

What you say makes sense. But I had just read the opposite somewhere. In the meantime, pnwmom Nov 2015 #98

Very Interesting indeed. JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #99

Are you sure about that? Is racial discrimination allowed among private employers? pnwmom Nov 2015 #100

Point taken. I think some more research needs to be done JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #101

Thank you for the interesting pnwmom Nov 2015 #102

You too JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #103

I agree. n/t tazkcmo Nov 2015 #69

Yes, women in the infantry mwrguy Nov 2015 #53

And lose the only leverage we have for getting the ERA passed? NO! No ERA, pnwmom Nov 2015 #78

I agree 100%, Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #2

Only if the politicians and the MIC Magnates are at the front of the line dickthegrouch Nov 2015 #73

No head of the lines. If it is a war important enough to fight.. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #74

How very idealistic of you Warpy Nov 2015 #3

I'll bet if newblewtoo Nov 2015 #4

Rubbish, they just ship the precious kiddies off to fancy schools offshore. Warpy Nov 2015 #21

that isn't even close to true dsc Nov 2015 #25

jfk and his older brother lancer78 Nov 2015 #35

unless you are British lancer78 Nov 2015 #34

Can you elaborate please? BlueCollar Nov 2015 #63

Even if the 1% escapes, zentrum Nov 2015 #43

Sorry, wrong. tazkcmo Nov 2015 #71

Absolutely false. former9thward Nov 2015 #82

I'm An Idealistic Guy... WillyT Nov 2015 #6

I don't get the idea "draft Jim if he wants war. Or if he's too old, draft his MillennialDem Nov 2015 #81

No abelenkpe Nov 2015 #5

In This Case... You Don't Have To Win The Vote, You Just Have To Win The Argument WillyT Nov 2015 #7

Don't see that justifes sending abelenkpe Nov 2015 #10

I Agree Completely... But... WillyT Nov 2015 #17

Hope we choose a better path. :) abelenkpe Nov 2015 #40

Thats it. zentrum Nov 2015 #47

In Europe, there never was an exemption for the rich Yorktown Nov 2015 #54

In WWll JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #8

If you have a point, it was lost the your blame-the-victim manure you smeared all over this forum. Maedhros Nov 2015 #13

Ignore and ignorant are closely related words. JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #14

How Do You Know They Don't ??? WillyT Nov 2015 #18

Point taken. Nt JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #20

Thanks... WillyT Nov 2015 #23

How do you know this? tazkcmo Nov 2015 #76

Never going to happen. I don't think people should be forced into committing murder. YOHABLO Nov 2015 #9

The military is currently turning away 80% of applicants madville Nov 2015 #11

This was basically the comment I was coming to post. Chan790 Nov 2015 #70

My experience says you are wrong. Ron Green Nov 2015 #85

Thank you for your service madville Nov 2015 #108

That is precisely a big problem. Ron Green Nov 2015 #123

I disagree tazkcmo Nov 2015 #84

The military and draftees of 50-70 years ago madville Nov 2015 #110

Ahem tazkcmo Nov 2015 #115

2000-2011 madville Nov 2015 #116

About time too and yes, many changes, some for the worse, IMO. tazkcmo Nov 2015 #118

I think the misconception in these draft threads madville Nov 2015 #119

excellent point rollin74 Nov 2015 #87

No exemptions or deferments. pa28 Nov 2015 #12

THANK YOU !!! WillyT Nov 2015 #19

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #15

Did you ever have to worry about being drafted? Andy823 Nov 2015 #16

Yeah... I Watched My Friends Older Brothers Get "Picked" By The Lottery System... WillyT Nov 2015 #22

There is a difference Willy Andy823 Nov 2015 #41

Me too. tazkcmo Nov 2015 #79

What do you think that would do, really? HereSince1628 Nov 2015 #24

Like I Said Above... It Needs To Be Put Out On The Stump/The Debates... WillyT Nov 2015 #28

If we debate a national draft, it must have a purpose HereSince1628 Nov 2015 #38

You are right as rain on this dsc Nov 2015 #26

fuck. the. draft. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #27

Fuck. War. WillyT Nov 2015 #29

The theory that providing the war machine with conscripts will prevent war Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #114

That might lull the sheeple out of their Great American slumber. Rex Nov 2015 #30

It's concerning. moondust Nov 2015 #31

Or raise taxes on the 1% to pay for it gwheezie Nov 2015 #32

I Like That !!! WillyT Nov 2015 #33

Didn't we learn ANYTHING from Vietnam? We lost 50,000 Americans in a war with a draft. pnwmom Nov 2015 #36

Exactly Andy823 Nov 2015 #45

Thank you sarge43 Nov 2015 #46

No personal offence intended but not just no...fuck no. Still In Wisconsin Nov 2015 #42

So you want to create a massively large army? hack89 Nov 2015 #44

yes...no deferments Demonaut Nov 2015 #48

LOL! Now wouldn't that start a panic?! Rex Nov 2015 #52

I agree with that. Besides, are we really getting the right people when those that wanna bomb Hoyt Nov 2015 #51

"Institute a draft and wars will be minimized." Scootaloo Nov 2015 #56

Charles Rangel figured it out years ago. It's one thing to institute a draft when you are up to your Hoyt Nov 2015 #58

History still shows the idea to be flat wrong. Scootaloo Nov 2015 #61

Show me where we had a draft at the start of a war. Hoyt Nov 2015 #62

Every war from the Revolutionary to Vietnam. Scootaloo Nov 2015 #67

The problem is Andy823 Nov 2015 #72

I believe Rangel is right about a draft where everyone is subject to being called. Hoyt Nov 2015 #107

If we reinstate the draft, then we need to start calling numbers where we left off in '72 Scootaloo Nov 2015 #55

Ya got a point but gwheezie Nov 2015 #59

I absolutely agree with this and I'm too old to be drafted at least under the current system (35) MillennialDem Nov 2015 #83

Well I do want a draft. zeemike Nov 2015 #60

How many years did the deeply unpopular Vietnam War last? pnwmom Nov 2015 #80

Well that was the war of my youth. zeemike Nov 2015 #86

Actually, the deferments were there from the very beginning, but as the war dragged on pnwmom Nov 2015 #92

Well I don't agree that it was Watergate. zeemike Nov 2015 #122

Dissenting Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #64

Agree 100%... WillyT Nov 2015 #120

Surely we only need to do that if more troops are required than in the existing army? Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #65

No SCantiGOP Nov 2015 #66

I have a fifteen year old. xmas74 Nov 2015 #68

NO THANKS! hardtravelin Nov 2015 #75

well, it only took 8 years or 58,000 dead, whichever hits first MisterP Nov 2015 #89

Hell Man... We Did That In Three Days At Gettysburg... WillyT Nov 2015 #94

Even if that were an option, I want to see the dictators of the draft enlist first! akbacchus_BC Nov 2015 #91

Ugh, not this nonsense again cemaphonic Nov 2015 #97

I think the Obama administration has done the math and applegrove Nov 2015 #104

Sure, great! But this time, let's start with people in their 60s and early 70s, and work backwards. Warren DeMontague Nov 2015 #105

do you have a 20 year old male child" 2pooped2pop Nov 2015 #106

The drone wars are alive and well. The US will not have to expend people. joshcryer Nov 2015 #109

Why? Our Military is getting enough volunteers to fight the war on terror already. ileus Nov 2015 #111

My grandson is 20. Why should he die and/or commit murder for the hawks? djean111 Nov 2015 #112

You're putting the cart before the horse. Martin Eden Nov 2015 #113

It's always straight white men who are too old to serve, never served when young enough and who Bluenorthwest Nov 2015 #117

Ah... You Are Nothing If Not Predictable... WillyT Nov 2015 #121