State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, is reviving an attempt to eliminate pricing discrimination on the basis of gender — charging women more than what men pay on similar products.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
According to Jackson’s office, California women earn 88 cents on every dollar a man earns. Crunch the calculator, and women’s salaries lag behind men’s by more than $7,000 a year.
Meanwhile, past studies estimate that California women pay sometimes pay more money for than men for the same products.
In 1995, when the state adopted the Gender Tax Repeal Act, a study estimated California women paid $1,351 more than man every year for similar goods and services. That law prohibited businesses from charging different prices for similar services on the basis of gender. It focused on salons, tailors and dry cleaners.
Jackson’s bill would go further, banning gender-based pricing for consumer products. …
how does her pay compare to the boys. i’m all for parity BUT, how about bigger issues such as rampant taxation. Sackatomatoes/Taxifornia is OUT OF CONTROL. (yes i was yelling) how does she propose enforcing such a bill…gender tax? probably
Again the big lie by the Dems…women earn within the same or with the margin of error, 2 or 3 percent, as men of same seniority doing the same work over the same weekly hours …. if not, then the Dem plaintiffs’ lawyers will sue and win….the 88% figure is just a LIE. Sooooooo tired of constant deceit by agenda’ized Dems
Tried and true retort to the “88% fact:” Every employer would hire only women and increase profitability.
To eliminate pricing discrimination on the basis of gender, women could set up “women only” salons, tailors and dry cleaners, eliminate the “gender penalty” from their pricing, which would still preserve the profit margin necessary to be profitable, and take 100% of the female business from those nasty male shopkeepers who are ripping off the female of the species. That is, if there are such things as males and females.
Who wrote this? And who is the editor?
If Hanna-Beth had two brain cells to rub together, she’d be truly dangerous.
And what those morons in Sacto forget is that women drop in and out of the labor market to have babies and take some time to raise them. Then they go back in. My granddaughter at the age of 33 had worked her way up to a VP position for a large regional bank in Seattle. She and her husband decided the clock was running and she got pregnant, quit and is staying home for a couple of years then plans on going back to work. Will she come back as VP? Who knows but if she had of been male, then she would have gotten all of the raises and promotions that a man would have received.
All of these numbers are a lie and the premise is preposterous and pointless besides, but okay, I’ll play.
First, I thought phony greenies like Hannah-Beth Jackson and all the idiot women who vote for her don’t even use salons and dry cleaners because of the “harmful environmental toxins” they emit.
Second, isn’t this the same legislator who proclaimed that only gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” and “zhe” and “zher” and “zhog” (or whatever) were allowed to be uttered on her committee as she then proceeded to say “he” and “she” herself throughout the meeting? Look it up, it’s on video.
Hannah-Beth Jackson and her ilk are nothing but a drain on California
Pod People in Sacramento; only one of way too many:
Here is Hannah-Beth Jackson banishing “he” and “she” and then saying “he” and “she” over and over.
Statistics can be helpful, but can also be particularly selective & incomplete. Pay gap is an excellent example. For starters, the data cited in gender pay gap looks only at the median earnings of full-time wage earners. It doesn’t differentiate important factors such as education, occupation, experience, and hours…which account for nearly all the differentials between men and women. There are also discrepancies between survey data and actual administrative records that show survey data of salaries substantially underreported. And, finally…data of salaries isn’t always the supreme indicator because how does one put a price on job flexibility or a benefits package?