I’ve just a quick thought tonight, as I get ready to turn in.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is going on and on tonight about this “Lilly Ledbetter” legislation that President Obama signed into law. I guess it’s time for his media to start ramping up what few positives they believe they can help him with. That, plus there’s new polling out that says Romney is behind but gaining with independent women.
Anyway… this law the President signed. The idea is supposed to be “Equal work for equal pay.” I’d be good with that, except that’s not how these things end up turning out.
The truth is that in a free market, the best employees will rise to the top and earn the most pay due to their merit. As I discussed a couple of days ago about my own situation, if you’re an hourly employee trying to maintain a full 40-hour work week in a manufacturing environment today the key to success is to be better than everyone else at everything available to you and be willing to do it.
So my question is this:
If a woman had the exact same job title as me, but she were a much better employee than I, would it be reasonable of me to expect the same pay as her simply because we held the same job title? I believe it would not even be open for discussion.
So why is it okay for the same situation to be considered mandatory, when the gender roles are reversed?
Other than the typical liberal victimhood play, I can’t think of any reason why this “Lilly Ledbetter” legislature ever needed to be created.
I welcome your opinion, and I thank you for your time.
Check out @wisdomofsoloman on Twitter.