All women talk about how they want equal pay. When you really think about it, though, working for equal pay is really digging your own grave. Here's why:
Essentially, when a business pays someone a salary, that salary is how much a person is worth. So if Joe makes $30,000/year, then that's how much he's worth (economically speaking - as a human being, Joe is worth infinitely more than $30,000, but this is strictly economics here). If Susan wants to be paid $30,000/year just like Joe, she is making herself of equal value to Joe. Keep this in mind.
Now, whether we like it or not, women are less likely to be hired by any given business. Women are more likely to get pregnant (not to say that men are at all likely to get pregnant, but you get what I mean), more likely to go on maternity leave, more likely to need to pick up sick kids from school in the middle of the day, that kind of thing. Not all women, of course, but statistically, yes, women are more likely to do those types of things than men. So women, hypothetically, accomplish less than their male counterparts.
Back to Joe and Susan. They both value themselves at $30,000. But, again hypothetically, Joe produces more output than Susan, and for the same price. So which person is the company going to want to hire? Answer: Joe. This is why men are paid more.
But there is good news for women in this situation. Women get to be paid less. Yes, I really did just say that. Women get to be paid less. This means that a company who's scrimping on money as much as possible is going to hire women - they cost less money. Soon, all the cheaper, jobless women are out of the job market because they're employed. Supply is low, but demand for a cheaper worker is still high. What happens when supply is low and demand is high? Prices go up. Wages go up. And wages will keep going up until it is suddenly as cost-effective to hire a man as it is to hire a woman. This will happen when the man and the woman, Joe and Susan, are equal in cost - $30,000. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds just like what Susan wanted back at the beginning when she valued herself at $30,000/year just like Joe.
On the other hand, if the government artificially levels the playing field, valuing Joe and Susan at the same price, who do you think a scrimping business is going to hire? Why would they buy something that's more likely to give out on them without warning ("Hey, boss, I'm pregnant.") for the same price as something that has a much stronger track record in that area? So the company hires Joe. And Pablo. And Vladimir. And suddenly Susan is completely jobless.
So, women of America, I ask you a question: Would you rather be temporarily valued at 10% less than men, or would you prefer to be thoroughly unemployed? These, as far as I can see, are your options. Choose wisely.
(Author's note: just something to munch on between now and Tuesday. I shall disclaimer this a bit. Again, when I talk about "value of a person," I'm speaking strictly in economic terms - I actually value people quite a lot, and more than $30,000. Second, I am not a sexist pig. In fact, I am a female. The generalizations I made about why hiring women is less cost-effective are merely facts, so don't be offended by that part. Third, I didn't research on average how much less women make than men, I just figured 10% was a nice round number.
Lastly, to all those who will vote, no matter how you vote, I give tremendous thanks for being a part of our country! As one not old enough to vote yet myself, I am very appreciative when my elders take responsibility for the country by participating - you guys set a good example for my generation. Thank you! ~not Ross)