Should Mexican Law Require Women in Mexico Near the US Border

[Boojatta]

to be paid equal pay for work that is equal to the value of work done in the USA by men who are near the border with Mexico?

[demosincebirth]

1. Why just along the border? Why not all of Mexico

[Boojatta]

2. I don't exclude other areas.

I thought I would start with a simple kind of comparison. Perhaps there are regional variations in some kinds of economic "demand" that might create discrepancies. To avoid such complications, I thought that it would be best to begin with a simple kind of comparison.

[iverglas]

3. not again ...

I tried to explain the concept of "equal pay for work of equal value", and how that concept is and can be applied, in your other thread with a similar question. I don't know whether you read my explanation; you haven't responded.

The principle simply does not, at present, apply to employees of different employers, let alone employees of different employers in different bloody countries.

The principle depends on comparability. What is comparable between employments in two different countries? If we start with just cost of living comparisons, the whole thing collapses.

Please do read my post in your thread about public/private school teachers. Things may be clearer then.

Not knowing you, I don't know whether you are sincerely interested in the welfare of women workers in Mexico, or trying to undermine the cause of equal pay for women who are paid less than men by their common employer even though their skills are equal or higher, their efforts are equal or greater, their responsibility is equal or greater, and their working conditions are equal or poorer.

[Boojatta]

6. "If we start with just cost of living comparisons, the whole thing collapses."

That's a very good point. I certainly would not have suggested that people doing "work of equal value" should be paid the same amount if one is working in California and the other is working in Alaska. People might be unwilling to stay in Alaska unless they are paid more. I deliberately said that the people should be near each other to avoid that kind of drastic climate difference.

Your point elicits the following thought. Although the physical climate may be the same, places near each other can have very different political and economic climates (so to speak).

Would it be worthwhile to consider a slightly revised principle? Instead of "equal pay for work of equal value", one could consider "equal purchasing power for work of equal value."

Because of your comment, I am starting to wonder whether or not the "equal pay" principle makes sense. The number of dollars is not what really matters, is it? Surely the value of the money is what matters.

[iverglas]

7. different from what?

The political and economic climates of places in proximity, or at opposite poles, have precisely fuck all to do with the application of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

Your entire, er, thesis rests on the false premise that "equal work for work of equal value" means whatever it is you're pretending it means, and not what it means.

No wonder you are starting to wonder whether or not the "equal pay" principle makes sense.

What you are saying here -- notwithstanding that you seem to have a hard time coming out and saying it, and not unlike the case in every other thread I have seen you start -- has nothing to do with the principle that you are pretending to talk about.


edited to insert omitted preposition ...

[iverglas]

9. Oh. And.

People might be unwilling to stay in Alaska unless they are paid more. I deliberately said that the people should be near each other to avoid that kind of drastic climate difference.

Apart altogether from the fact that the scenario you posited in this thread had precisely fuck all to do with the principle in question and how it is applied, you seem to be pretending not to have read my post in your other thread here, still.

If you had read it, you would have seen:

In comparing occupations, four criteria are normally used: 1) Skill; 2) Effort; 3) Responsibility, and 4) Working conditions.

So, in situations in which the principle does apply or can be applied -- say, employees of the US federal government working in California and Alaska -- the "working conditions" criterion would apply to allow for consideration to be taken of extreme climate, remoteness, whatever, in determining whether wage differentials are justified under the principle.

But as long as you don't acknowledge reading something, you can just keep inventing scenarios that what you don't acknowledge having read has already shown to be irrelevant to the discussion. I guess.

[Boojatta]

11. How do you know what is included under the category "working conditions"?

So, in situations in which the principle does apply or can be applied -- say, employees of the US federal government working in California and Alaska -- the "working conditions" criterion would apply to allow for consideration to be taken of extreme climate, remoteness, whatever, in determining whether wage differentials are justified under the principle.

If we're talking about indoor work, are the actual working conditions affected by the climate? Are you classifying all of Alaska as remote, even buildings centrally located in fairly large towns in Alaska?

[iverglas]

10. waiting ...

once again.

[Boojatta]

12. A question about comparability.

I tried to explain the concept of "equal pay for work of equal value", and how that concept is and can be applied, in your other thread with a similar question. I don't know whether you read my explanation; you haven't responded.

The principle simply does not, at present, apply to employees of different employers, let alone employees of different employers in different bloody countries.

The principle depends on comparability. What is comparable between employments in two different countries? If we start with just cost of living comparisons, the whole thing collapses.

Suppose we were to consider employees working for the same employer.

For example, suppose that some employees are working in Alaska and that other employees of the same employer are working within the USA, but near the border with Mexico.

Suppose we start with cost of living comparisons. Would there necessarily be comparability or might the whole thing collapse?

[iverglas]

13. who "we", friend?

That's about all I've got to say.

But what the heck.

Are WOMEN in Alaska being paid less than MEN in New Mexico for doing WORK OF EQUAL VALUE, as calculated according to the ACCEPTED criteria, for the SAME EMPLOYER? Or is it vice versa -- the women in are New Mexico and the men are in Alaska?

Get back to me when you know the answer, and then you might have a question to go with it.

[noamnety]

14. this post needs kicking. (nt)

[iverglas]

4. I'd like some answers

Your many questions are immensely entertaining, but I just don't feel, I dunno, satisfied.

More, please.

[iverglas]

5. kickety kick

Just wondering how your conduct in this forum might be described having regard to the questions you asked in a recent post in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=841634

Some New Rules for You to Obey on DU?

1. In every Original Post, provide a statement of purpose. If a statement of purpose isn't provided, then the thread may be locked.

In addition to a statement of purpose, the following may also be required:

2. An analysis or estimate regarding feasibility. Is the purpose likely to be actually achieved?

3. An explanation of why the Original Poster is personally motivated to pursue the purpose stated.

Do you approve or disapprove of those rules? Why do you approve or why do you disapprove? Perhaps you are neutral?

I have to assume that your own answers to your questions were all "no":

- you have provided no statement of purpose
- having failed to indicate the purpose of your post, you obviously did not address the feasibility of the goal proposed
- you have provided no indication of what your personal motivation is in raising the issue, let alone in pursuing whatever purpose you may have had in mind but failed to state

and of course that you disapprove of the rules proposed (by no one, it appears), since you give no indication of wanting to follow them.

So the question arises: what was your purpose?

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Concidering they have Max. pay rates along the boarder

Concidering they have Max. pay rates along the boarder limiting what anyone is allowed to be paid. Having any type of parity between US and Mexican wages is highly unlikely. Companies I have worked for subsudized 3 meals a day and other perks just to try and help with employee loyalty as wages were capped.