Shorter Chamber: "Woman, git yer biscuits in the oven, and yer buns in the bed!"

There's a lot of weird projection going on in that gym analogy.

A funny thing is that if you would try to spell out the implications of that kind of equlity of opportunity, you would find that it entail a rather radical leftist position on policy. Some political philosopher argue that equality of opportunity entail equality of resources, for instance. Morever, the analytical marxists, such as John Romer and GA Cohen, argue in favor of equality understood as equal access to advantage. This may be a turning point for the Chamber of Commerce. (probably not)

Capitalism doesn't work like exercise.

With exercise, if you want big muscles, then you have to work out. No one else can do it for you.

With capitalism, the workers are the ones who are doing pushups and pullups and crunches, running, sweating, and otherwise working out every day, but the fat-ass couch potato CEO gets the big muscles.

"why do so many "Progressives" excuse - or even positively approve of - envy of other persons' monetary assets?"

We don't.

Why do so many "conservatives" conflate progressive taxation with envy? Projection?

"Broad shoulders, bulging biceps, and ripped torso?" Someone at the Chamber's been cruising rentboy.com...

The obvious counter to the "gym-man" argument is "but what if it was 'office man' and his competitor did just as much 'working out' to compete for the position... but she's 'office-woman', why does she deserve less for her work out?"

so couch-potato man is like he is because he puts in so many hours at work? i call bullshit. couch potato man is like he is because he's a lazy fat slob.

It reads like a parody about parity.

"Should government force gym-man to share his beautiful babes with couch-potato man?"

Did he just call women 'babes' while defending un-equal pay for women ? The 50's just called, they want their poster boy back.

The entire article has a creepy sexual tone. Not exactly the theme you want to use when replying to an article about women.

Here's a perfect opportunity to apply the "cheap labor conservative" paradigm, i.e., everything conservatives believe, advocate, and do is in support of making labor cheaper: Women earning less than men is a great way to make labor cheaper, so naturally cheap labor conservatives see no problem with it and have no interest in ending this pay pattern.

What else do conservatives believe? I betcha you can easily see how that, too, helps keep labor cheap.

"everything conservatives believe, advocate, and do is in support of making labor cheaper ..."

If the U.S. Chamber of CEO's thought it could make a good argument for bringing back indentured servitude and child labor, they'd give it a try. I'm guessing that lobbying for the repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation, while highly desirable in their eyes, is a teensey bit over the top even for the COC. But time may prove me wrong, given the tenor of right-wing politics these days.

We've already got campaigns against the 14th and 17th amendments. Might as well go after the 19th amendment as well.

Shorter version of Chamber: If a woman deserved equal pay for equal work, she would have been born with a penis!

Could that analogy be any more f'd up?
Presumably, gym man's envious position is that he has first pick of mates and will thus get the best deal on unpaid labor for prostitution, child-rearing, and house-cleaning services.

First of all, someone at the Chamber of Commerce seems a little sensitive about his own physical shortcomings. Second, is the implication that by having children women are choosing to make less money, but are rewarded in other ways by that choice? If that's the case, why don't men with kids make less? I have a kid, but I don't see what that should have to do with my salary and opportunities.

All them sweaty mens. Must be taking PR pointers from Hucklebee.

there is only one issue... Equal pay for equal work,

potential for advancement is irrelevant (if they like fat slob so much they can promote him to a different position), number of "babes" is irrelevant as babes are not currency,

equal pay for equal work.

I think the author is gym-man who is teased by his fat ugly workers for working out all the time they call him, 'gym-boy.' He should file a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

When I was a kid, I read a Vonnegut short story called "Harrison Bergeron" (Google it, full text is online). I didn't think much of it, and went on with my life.

But some folks, like this Leonhardt fellow (of the "gym-man" analogy), probably would read it as a straight-faced warning about where liberalism is taking us. And for that, they're pitiable fools.

"Gym-man"? Really? This was no doubt lovingly crafted by ChamberPost's barely pubescent summer intern.

Nice post! GA is also my biggest earning. However, it’s not a much.

"choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home."

Why does this sounds like support of gay marriage?

Is the answer to how to execute this plan, "In the Netherlands with a partner with a penis"?

Yeah, lorelei is right. Sophomoric; literally. The kind of thing that gets published by fratboys in third-tier campus newspapers.

Seriously, though, I think a lot of people are missing the point of the "gym-man" analogy.

The Chamber is wrong about most things most of the time, but one thing they're right about is that much of the difference in pay between men and women *is* due to individual choice: choice of fields to work in, choice of time to take off from work, choice of how aggressively to negotiate or pursue advancement. When you control for these factors, much of the pay gap vanishes.

@lgoak: Men with kids don't tend to take as much time off work to raise them. Every week on maternity/paternity leave is a week you aren't earning seniority, keeping your skills up to date, asking for raises, schmoozing, etc.

Quick question, what has the US Chamber of Commerce ever done for this country? I can't think of a single initiative by this organization that has had any lasting effect on the majority of working Americans. This organization is a Fifth Column.

Steve,

I'm not sure that gender is the problem anymore. As the Leonhardt piece illustrates, a significant reason for the disparity is as a result of family unfriendly business practices. While such practices more often penalize women, it's not a gender issue.

The pay gap also stems from a how many typically "female" service jobs are paid less than "male" production jobs. To the extent that women are discriminated against in getting higher paying factory jobs, it's a gender issue. However, I think that most of the difference can be attributed to past gender bias. Once the majority of workers who joined the labor force in the 1960s and 70s retire out, I think we'll see a further equalizing of pay. While this is a gender issue, it's not particularly a current problem in the sense that it is continuing today.

I welcome some arms length study of this issue. Unfortunately, much of the analysis comes from either the right or from women's studies scholars or women's organizations - all of whom have a dog in the hunt.

Bob

Steve,

I'm not entirely sure that gender is the problem anymore. As the Leonhardt piece illustrates, a significant reason for the disparity is as a result of family unfriendly business practices. While such practices more often penalize women, it's not a gender issue.

The pay gap also stems from a how many typically "female" service jobs are paid less than "male" production jobs. To the extent that women are discriminated against in getting higher paying factory jobs, it's a gender issue. However, I think that most of the difference can be attributed to past gender bias. Once the majority of workers who joined the labor force in the 1960s and 70s retire out, I think we'll see a further equalizing of pay. While this is a gender issue, it's not particularly a current problem in the sense that it is continuing today.

I welcome some arms length study of this issue. Unfortunately, much of the analysis comes from either the right or from women's studies scholars or women's organizations - all of whom have a dog in the hunt.

Bob

This is so irritating! There's a certain kernel of truth at the heart of their argument: that you can't just take the mean or median income for each sex and compare apples to apples. For whatever reason, more women do choose to stay home with their children than do men, and so that's not apples to apples. It automatically skews the statistics to show that women are paid less. Now, if you correct for that, what are the results? I don't know, and haven't looked for the statistics to prove it, but my suspicion is that is that the scales are still tilted, but that overall, it's not as bad as it could be.

But then the crazy analogy that follows...good grief what were they doing while they wrote that? Is their new slogan "U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to make you uncomfortable with gym-porn since 2010?"

Sisyphus, those stats do not include women who don't work. That would be silly. The numbers only include men and women that work, and none on disability.

Hello there awesome short post on The Washington Monthly lqruxvahleyopc.

Thank you for the absorbing read! Happy New Year and keep up the good work in 2011!