California Leads the Way in Anti-Business Policies

California, along with a handful of other states, has the reputation of being a state that is against free market policies and in favor of central planning.  The business climate in California is particularly hostile, as more businessmen consider moving to more business-friendly states such as Florida and Texas.
Just when you think the government of California wouldn’t possibly risk enhancing its reputation as an anti-business state, now there is a bill in the legislature that does just that.
SB 1372 is a proposed bill that would have varying tax rates for companies based on the compensation ratio of the CEO.  Right now, the tax rate is just under 9 percent for corporations in California.  If this proposed bill passes, then rates would vary anywhere between 7 percent and 13 percent, depending on the compensation ratio.
The compensation ratio is determined by taking the top company salary and dividing it by the median salary of the company.  If the ratio were under 25, then the applicable tax rate would be “only” 7 percent.  There is a sliding scale all the way up to a ratio of 400.  If a company’s compensation ratio were over 400, then the tax rate would be 13%.
From a free market perspective, there are so many things wrong with this bill that it is hard to know where to begin.
First is the moral aspect, which is really about property rights.  A company should be able to pay its employees whatever it wants.  Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a particular company.  Nobody is forcing anyone to buy from a particularly company.  Nobody is forcing anyone to own stock in a particular company.  So if a company wants to pay some executive 400 times the median salary, that should be a decision for the Board of Directors and the shareholders.  This bill would be a complete infringement on property rights.
The second question to ask is how the writers of this bill came up with these numbers.  Why is the top tax rate 13% if the compensation ratio is over 400?  Why is the tax rate 9% if the compensation ratio is between 100 and 150?  Who came up with these arbitrary numbers?  Why not just tax every company at 20% that pays its executives more than twice the median salary?  Why don’t we have complete “fairness” and have companies pay everyone the same amount?
A third thing to ask is what the unintended consequences will be of such a bill.  It seems that whenever government (at any level) passes legislation with a certain stated intention, it ends up resulting in the exact opposite of the stated purpose.  In this case, it will somehow lead to executives making even more and most workers making less.
Companies will find loopholes in some way.  We can’t be certain of what they will be for this particular legislation.  Maybe companies will find a way to offer certain benefits that don’t get counted in the so-called compensation ratio.  Maybe executives will end up retiring with bigger multi-million dollar pensions.  Maybe they will end up with bigger stock options and ownership opportunities.  Maybe employees will be offered higher salaries and have benefits taken away.
Another thing we have to look at here is why this is supposedly a problem in the first place.  In almost any society, there is a big gap between rich and poor.  While the more socialist countries are supposed to even things out more, it tends to be the opposite.  There actually tends to be a greater gap between rich and poor in an economy that is centrally planned to a great degree.  The overall population also tends to be poorer.
There will always be major gaps between rich and poor and between wages.  But this is actually more exaggerated because of government policies.  The central bank tends to favor the rich at the expense of the poor.  Government regulations tend to favor big companies over little companies, as bigger companies can afford to abide by the regulations.  Big companies often push for more regulation to keep competition out by raising the barriers to entry.
I completely understand the sentiment that some people feel against highly paid executives.  Many middle class workers are working hard and generally not seeing increasing wages.  They see that the rich are getting richer.  But the problem here is the Federal Reserve and government policies.  They are making the middle class poorer, while protecting the rich.  We saw this in the bailouts of 2008.
The answer isn’t to punish companies who pay their CEO or executives an extraordinarily high salary.  Some executives actually deserve it.  It isn’t just a matter of attending a few meetings and collecting a huge paycheck.  There are vital decisions made at the top that can make or break a company.
There certainly are some CEOs and other executives who are total duds.  Their expertise and decision-making are worthless.  In fact, some of them manage to drive their company into the ground.  The problem here is that either the companies are getting bailed out by government or they are being protected from competition by the government.  In a true free market, the executives of a failing company would go down with the company and they probably would not be sought after by other companies in the future.
If this California bill passes, it is going to cause all different kinds of distortions.  It is also going to encourage more people and businesses to leave California.  The socialists in California may get what they want.  They will get rid of highly paid executives and they will get rid of businesses that want to be profitable.

Should Religion and Politics Mix?

There was a debate recently between the Republican candidates for the open senate seat in Iowa.  It turned out to be a little bit of a contest between a couple of the candidates on who could most impress the religious conservative wing of the party.
When the candidates were asked about their requirements for a federal judge, there was some discussion that a judge should adhere to God and the Bible.
Candidate Sam Clovis had the best answer (for those in favor of liberty) when he talked about natural law and natural rights.
Candidate Joni Ernst added that a judge should understand that our laws “come from God.”
Candidate Matt Whitaker had the most alarming response.  He said, “What I’d like to see are their worldview, what informs them, how do they live their lives, are they people of faith?  Do they have a biblical view of justice?”  He continued on to say that he would be concerned with a judge who has a secular worldview.
Here, I think we have to make a distinction between basing one’s views on religion and the necessity of adhering to a particular religion.
The major religions teach common law.  There are general rules that you don’t do harm to others, you don’t steal from others, etc.  When Clovis discussed natural law and natural rights, there is nothing wrong with this.  A potential judge, or anyone else, can believe in natural law regardless of whether he holds particular religious beliefs.
If someone believes in natural law and believes those laws are derived from God, there is certainly nothing wrong with this as long as the person is not trying to use force (government or otherwise) in imposing those views on others.  But it is also wrong to simply disqualify someone if he believes in natural law but does not derive those beliefs based on his religion.
When some people hear comments such as those made by Whitaker, it makes them run in the opposite direction.  I am convinced that there are a sizable number of Democrats out there simply because they fear people like this who want to shove their religion down other people’s throats.  And in the case of Whitaker, he is not just trying to use persuasion.  He is trying to use the force of government to impose his personal religious views on to others.
In a free society, politics and religion shouldn’t mix.  It doesn’t mean that religious people should be kept out of politics or that politicians have to keep quiet about their religious beliefs.  It also doesn’t mean that you can’t derive your own moral code based on your religion.
The big question for anyone is if they will allow others to be free.  Will they impose their religion, or even certain aspects of their religion, using the force of government?
Any politician running for office, who says that a potential judge should hold certain religious beliefs, is not a friend of liberty.  It is a scary thought.
Requiring a judge to have some kind of belief in natural law and natural rights, whether or not those beliefs are derived from God, is positive.  If a judge believes that individuals have certain natural rights that can’t be overridden by government laws, then this would be a good thing.
Many of the laws on the books today are not really laws at all, at least in the natural sense.  They are only enforced by the use of force.  They are not natural and they are not just.  You don’t have to be religious to understand that.

FOMC Statement – April 30, 2013

On April 30, 2014, the FOMC released its latest policy statement.  The Fed is going to continue with its so-called taper.  This is the fourth straight meeting where it has announced another reduction of $10 billion per month in asset purchases.

Throughout 2013, the Fed was buying assets (creating new money) at a pace of $85 billion per month.  It will now be down to $45 billion per month.  This is still a lot of money, but it is still a reduction in the rate.

For this reason, I believe there could be some major economic turmoil in the near future.  While stocks are hitting all-time highs, there has also been a lot of volatility lately.  If the economy goes down, the stock market will probably lead the way.

If the Fed continues to taper, I think a recession becomes more likely in the short term.  The big question will be what the Fed’s response is after the recession hits.  Will the Fed keep tapering in the face of a new recession?  I doubt it.

I am really cautious right now in terms of investments, particularly regarding stocks.  The latest boom in stocks was built on the Fed’s loose monetary policy.  As that is removed, the support for stocks is removed.

It will be interesting to see if Yellen and the Fed keep tapering.  The next meeting and policy announcement will be on June 18, 2014.

Is Military Spending Exempt From Corruption?

DynCorp International, a company that contracts with the federal government, has taken in $2.8 billion from 2002 to 2013 for supposedly rebuilding Afghanistan.  This has accounted for 69.3% of the government’s spending on rebuilding projects during this time.
DynCorp is in business because of government, and in particular, because of government wars and interventions overseas.  About 96% of the company’s revenue comes from government contracts.
If this weren’t bad enough, much of the contract money has gone to train police and drug warriors in Afghanistan.  There are even accusations that money was used to hire “dancing boys” to perform for the contractors.
Of course, DynCorp isn’t the only one.  PAE Government Services, a former subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, saw one of its managers and his wife go to prison for fraud and kickbacks.
While these companies are referred to as defense companies, it is hard to see what any of this has to do with defense, especially when you start looking at the details.
While many conservatives are good at recognizing government waste and corruption, there are too many otherwise good conservatives who can’t seem to grasp that the same waste and corruption that politics inflicts everywhere else, also applies to the military and overseas spending.
Whenever politics and money are involved, there is always going to be abuse of power and corruption and waste.  Sometimes waste is preferable to the spending that just does further damage.
Politics plays just as much of a role in so-called defense contracts as it does anywhere else.  Eisenhower got it right when he referred to the military-industrial complex.
If a politician listens to lobbyists and special interests when it comes to welfare spending at home, why would anyone think it would be any different when it comes to overseas spending?  Why would these politicians all of a sudden become noble and well meaning when it comes to military spending or anything referred to as defense spending?
Government Contracts Does Not Mean Privatization
Some quasi-advocates of the free market make the mistake of thinking that when the government contracts out services to a for-profit business, that this a reflection of capitalism.  But this is really just fascism or cronyism.  When the government is spending money, even if to award contracts, this is not capitalism.
By this standard, you could say that Obamacare is capitalist because some of it is administered by private companies.
Sometimes contracting out services can be even worse than if the government just used its own employees.  When contracts such as these are awarded, there is little accountability and a lot of politics involved.  Lobbyists and special interests will actually just encourage even more spending and bigger contracts by returning favors and lining the pockets of the politicians who support them.
It doesn’t matter if it is food stamps, Obamacare, or rebuilding Afghanistan.  When politics and money mix, there is sure to be waste and corruption.  It doesn’t matter if it is 5 miles away or 5,000 miles away.

The Non-Aggression Principle and Libertarianism

You can ask many libertarians what makes a libertarian and you will get many different answers.  But perhaps the most common answer is that you have to advocate the non-aggression principle (NAP) in order to qualify as a libertarian.

If I have ever said this in the past, I take it back.  I don’t really like this definition, even though I generally consider myself an advocate of the NAP (not to be confused with sleep).  Ironically, I think there are many libertarians who will say they advocate the NAP, but really don’t.

If you advocate the NAP, then this means you have to be an anarchist or panarchist.  I suppose you could also be a minarchist if you also advocate that tax collections can only be strictly voluntary.  Otherwise, you are technically violating the NAP.

If you believe the only function of government should be for police and the courts, then you are still violating the NAP if people are forced to pay for those things.

For this reason, I do not disqualify someone as a libertarian if he doesn’t fully hold to the NAP.  I am not going to eliminate someone like Ron Paul from being categorized as a libertarian.

Lew Rockwell recently posted a piece written by Murray Rothbard in 1977.  Rothbard was a self-described anarchist, but he did not believe you had to be an anarchist to be a libertarian.  He just believed you had to be a “radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism.”

I basically agree with Rothbard’s reasoning and his definitions.  I look for people who are principled and consistently opposed to government solutions.  If someone believes in a government court system but opposes every other piece of the state, I am certainly not going to shun this person away as a non libertarian.

Defining a libertarian is not easy.  It is highly subjective and everyone has their differing viewpoints.  I can’t say that I have my own special litmus test for what makes someone a libertarian.  I certainly have my litmus tests for someone not being a libertarian.

There are way too many people today who call themselves libertarians, but whom I would not classify as such.  You need to be a radical.  You need to want drastically reduced government.  You need to demand radical solutions that do not involve state action in any way.

I like the Libertarian Party’s pledge.  Anyone who truly believes in this pledge is probably a libertarian. Unfortunately, many people sign it who don’t really believe it.

But I have concluded that you can still violate the NAP and be a libertarian.

Border Patrol and Property Rights

There was a story recently by John Ladd, an Arizona rancher whose land happens to lie along the U.S. and Mexican border.  While he “owns” the property, apparently Border Patrol agents don’t take property rights very seriously.
Ladd says that his property rights are violated every day.  Border Patrol agents drive vehicles through his property and fly helicopters right overhead, scaring his horses and cattle.  Ladd has even had some of his animals killed when hit by vehicles.
He also has dogs that used to roam free on the large property, but he has since had to build a fence to keep the dogs in a smaller area.  Border Patrol agents were threatening to shoot the dogs for going after them.  This might be understandable except that it was all taking place on Ladd’s property.
To top this off, not only are border agents physically violating Ladd’s space, they have also set up surveillance cameras, one of which is pointed directly at Ladd’s house.  In other words, he gets to feel the wrath of the federal government from all angles.
Ladd says that things weren’t always this way, especially prior to the 1990’s.  At one time, he says that ranchers from the U.S. and Mexico would help each other out.  Now it is more like some kind of a military zone.
The Consequences of Government Power
This is another example where we see government power being used against innocent people.  It is another example of where a government program does not produce the results of the stated intentions.
Immigration is debated heavily in the U.S.  But if you are in favor of closed borders or a tight immigration policy, you have to be careful in asking the federal government to accomplish this goal.
The government can’t keep drugs off the streets and it can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons.  It can’t bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan.  It can’t even operate a website for Obamacare.  Why would we think that the government can solve an immigration problem without there being severe negative consequences?
What are we willing to sacrifice in order to keep Mexicans from crossing the border?  Are we willing to give up a great degree of our liberty?  Are we willing to allow a massive fence to be built that could also be used to keep Americans in?
There is one thing where the government has been successful in stopping immigrants from crossing the border, although it has little to do with Border Patrol agents.  The lousy economy has deterred some Mexicans from taking the risk of crossing the border due to less opportunity for work.
The subject of immigration reminds me of terrorism.  This isn’t to equate Mexican immigrants with terrorists in any way, but there is a fear amongst many Americans of both.  It is an irrational fear for different reasons.  And in order to relieve some of that fear, too many Americans are willing to grant vast amounts of power to various government agencies.
Personally, I fear too much power in the hands of government agents than I ever would with a Mexican looking for work.
It is only in a welfare state where people fear poor people coming in and rich people leaving.  In a free society, there is no such concern.  A free society will tend to attract those who want to work and be productive.

The Power of the Pardon

2 Comments

Back in December, Obama actually did something good for the cause of liberty.  Yet, unsurprisingly, it did not get a lot of attention from the so-called mainstream media.  He commuted the sentences of eight federal inmates, each of whom had been in prison for at least 15 years for drug offenses.
One of those who got a commutation was Stephanie George.  She was just recently released from prison and there are pictures of her hugging her sister, just after regaining her freedom.
When Stephanie George was convicted 17 years ago, she had three young children.  She had to depend on her sister to raise the children while she was locked up.
Stephanie George was supposed to be locked up for life because of the ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws that exist in the U.S.  She was convicted of minor drug offenses in 1993.  When police found cocaine and equipment to make crack in 1996, George denied knowing about it, as the father of one of her children confessed to owning it.
While it wasn’t a clear-cut case, this just shows the absurdity of our so-called justice system.  Even if it had been her cocaine and even if she was making crack, is this really a reason to lock somebody up for the rest of her life?  There are murderers and rapists who get less severe punishments.
Who exactly gained by having this woman in prison?  It certainly wasn’t her kids.  It wasn’t her.  And there were no actual victims.  She wasn’t physically hurting anyone else.
This is not a defense of the woman’s actions whether she knew about the drugs or not.  But a lot of people make dumb mistakes in their lives.  If she wasn’t physically harming anyone or threatening anyone or stealing from anyone, then what is the point of locking her up?  And it is an absolute travesty that someone like this would be sentenced to life-without-parole.
Presidential Pardons
Obama has enjoyed wielding his power as president.  There has been no shortage of executive orders and other presidential dictates.  He keeps changing the Obamacare law without going through Congress.  Just because the law has taken on his name in conversation, it doesn’t mean it is legally permissible to just arbitrarily change parts of the law that weren’t working.
Contrast this with the presidential pardon, which is actually a power listed in the Constitution.  This is one of the few things where the president really holds a lot of power without having to go through Congress (legally speaking).
It is possible for the pardoning power to be abused.  Many people were upset at some of the Bill Clinton pardons that happened right before he left office.  Some people were upset when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.
The good news is that most people who are pardoned are not usually violent criminals.  It is even better when the people pardoned are victims of a legal code that locks up people for committing victimless “crimes”.
If a presidential candidate were to run on a platform of repealing all federal drug laws, he could actually essentially accomplish this on his first day in office.  He would just have to pardon all non-violent drug offenders in federal prison.  He could also say that anyone convicted of a federal drug crime would be instantly pardoned, as long as he is in office.
This could also be done for other victimless crimes or cases that involve overzealous prosecutors.
It is a shame that Stephanie George lost over 17 years of her life to a prison cell.  But at least there was enough public pressure to persuade Obama to do the right thing in commuting her sentence.  At least she will have a chance for freedom and redemption.  For once, Obama used his power to advance liberty instead of taking it away.

The SEC Wants Your Information

If you thought it was just the NSA after your personal communications and information, don’t underestimate the quest for power among bureaucrats.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was originally enacted to strengthen restrictions on government access of telephone calls and transmissions of computer data.  Of course, when it first went into effect, there was no email and internet in the form as we know it today.
But under the current law, federal agencies are allowed to subpoena emails that are older than 180 days.
Most people keep old emails, at least to some degree.  If you keep an email that is over 180 days old and it is still stored on a third party’s server, then federal agencies can obtain it just by submitting a written statement saying it is necessary or relevant to an investigation.  There is no judicial review required, as with a warrant.
Privacy advocates are pushing for an update to the law, which would not allow easy access to these old emails and other information, including information on social media websites.  Many courts have ruled that private communications are protected under the Fourth Amendment, meaning that federal agencies would have to get a search warrant through a judge in order to access such information.  And even some members of Congress are pushing for an update to this law.
Meanwhile, the SEC is opposing this, claiming that it can obtain private communications through a simple subpoena.  The agency is claiming it needs this authority to do its job.
Of course, this is nothing but a power grab.  The SEC is an agency that is supposed to protect investors and ensure orderly markets.  But the reality is that the SEC doesn’t stop people like Bernie Madoff or companies like Enron.  In fact, it sometimes helps in perpetuating these scandals beyond where they could have gone in a free market without an SEC.
If the SEC is allowed easy access to private communications that are only 6 months old, then this would mean all federal and state agencies have the same access.  This could include the IRS, the DEA, and the CIA.
It is not hard to imagine health boards accessing private information.  Just think of the implications of obtaining private emails to prove that someone purposely didn’t pay for their Obamacare insurance.
And maybe the ATF can access emails to find out who owns guns and if they are properly registered in their state.
Some of this may sound far-fetched, but most people would have said that a couple of years ago about the NSA.
As long as there is power to be obtained and used against others, we should not be surprised when it happens.  As long as the federal government is spending close to $4 trillion per year and is involved in virtually every aspect of our lives, then we can expect this power to be used against us.  Unfortunately, the NSA is not the only agency spying on us.

Are Unpaid Interns Being Exploited?

Are unpaid internships going to become a thing of the past?  If the U.S. Department of Labor has its way, then that may be the case.
The Department of Labor recently filed a brief in support of a lawsuit by eight former interns who are claiming they are owed back wages, even though they signed on as unpaid interns when hired.
There are some bizarre rules when it comes to hiring unpaid interns.  While there is a six-part test available for the Labor Department to determine if a business can legally have unpaid internships, the courts more typically consider whether the company or the unpaid intern derives the greatest benefit.
In other words, it is all very subjective and a company really has no way of knowing whether they will win or lose in court if a lawsuit is filed against it.
In its brief, the Labor Department is saying that free labor is “both tempting and available” due to the weak economy.  But perhaps it is the unpaid interns seeking out such an arrangement in order to gain experience in order to later get a job.  Sometimes internships can lead to a job with the company providing the internship if management is happy with the work being done.
While the plaintiffs in the case are claiming they were made to work full-time while not being paid, we must be careful with the language being used.  Nobody was forced to do anything.  If the interns were not happy with the arrangement and did not like the working conditions, they were free to leave at any time.
When a company hires an intern to do work, with or without pay, it is an agreement being made between consenting parties.  Both parties deem themselves better off.  The company gets cheap labor, many times free, along with the potential of finding a good future employee.  The intern gets experience, along with a trial run at the type of work being done.  Some interns may decide whether or not that type of job is right for them.  In addition, the intern has the potential of being hired on for a full-time paid position by the employer.
In our world of high unemployment today (mostly caused by government), more people are likely seeking internships, even if unpaid, in order to find work, either through more experience or through the employer providing the internship.  If someone doesn’t have enough money to put food on the table, they probably aren’t going to accept an unpaid position as their primary employment.  Unpaid internships are sought by rational people who can look beyond today for a better tomorrow.
The Minimum Wage
I find it ironic that there are minimum wage laws, yet there also exists unpaid internships.  I have pointed out this inconsistency before.
You can hire an intern and pay that person nothing, yet it would be illegal for you to pay that same person doing that same job five dollars per hour.  This is our system of government.
So in the Labor Department’s attempt to crack down on unpaid internships, I suppose it is being more consistent.  We all know that the Labor Department would not start advocating a repeal of minimum wage laws, so cracking down on unpaid internships is the only way to gain some consistency.
Of course, as long as there are minimum wage laws, I would prefer the inconsistency of having unpaid internships, because at least it gives something of an opportunity for those seeking skills and experience in the workplace.
If the Department of Labor continues to pursue going after companies with unpaid internships, and if the courts start siding with the interns seeking back pay, then I fear what the consequences will be.
Just like most government laws and programs, the results will hurt the innocent who are honest and hardworking.  It will end up producing the opposite results of the stated intentions.  Just as minimum wage laws end up hurting unskilled workers the most, the disappearance of unpaid internships would hurt young people seeking experience the most.  These are the people struggling to find full-time employment because they don’t have the experience that many employers are looking for.
In addition, hiring interns is a great way for companies to test potential employees.  Many companies don’t want to hire employees without knowing their work habits because it is difficult to fire someone due to fears of a lawsuit.  Some companies will hire contractors through a temp agency to test people.  In the case of young, unskilled workers, it may not be worth it to pay someone even the minimum wage, as their initial productivity will be very low.  Being able to hire unpaid interns really is a win-win situation in most cases.
This is another case of the government getting involved where it shouldn’t.  It is interfering with voluntary agreements that will only result in more unemployment and more frustration for those seeking experience.
If someone doesn’t like the fact that an internship is unpaid, then nobody is forcing them to take it.

Do Employers Discriminate Against Women?

Obama is signing more executive orders without going through Congress.  This time it relates to ensuring equal pay between different races and different genders.
One executive order will require that federal government contractors publish wage data by gender and race to supposedly ensure that they are complying with equal-pay laws.
There is no word yet if Obama will issue a similar executive order to prevent unequal pay between various religious groups, political parties, and age groups.  And what about making sure that wages are equal between tall people and short people?  And let’s not forget about comparing wages between overweight people and skinny people.
Of course, I am being sarcastic with identifying all of these other groups.  Not only is the government involvement here morally wrong, it is ridiculous to think that the government could solve a problem of unequal pay if such a problem even existed.
It is actually the free market that brings us closer to paying people what they are worth in terms of production.  It is not to say that the free market is perfect and that everything is always in equilibrium.  It is just that the free market is the best mechanism for getting closer to equilibrium.  In this case, that equilibrium is measured in earnings for what people produce.
Most employers are not going to arbitrarily discriminate strictly based on gender or race because they would just be hurting their own bottom line.  Most employers care about their profitability more than any personal biases.  They are going to pay the most to the workers who they perceive as the most productive and for those they want to keep.
In a free market, if an employer is paying a male worker more than a female worker and they are truly equal in their production, reliability, etc., then this just presents an opportunity for other employers to pay the female worker more and hire her away from her present employer.  She may or may not make exactly the same as the male worker, but the free market will generally work towards this effect.
The problem here is that nobody is equal.  There are differences between men and women.  The obvious thing is that women have babies and are more likely to take a leave of absence from work, or even quit work.  This is a major cost to an employer and the employer may consider this when hiring and determining a wage.
But there are many other differences between men and women.  This is all generally speaking of course, as all individuals are unique.  Men are more likely to take jobs that require travel and that require longer hours.  Men are more likely to do jobs that are more dangerous.  Men are more likely to take on sales jobs.
There is also a genetic difference that determines what the genders choose.  Men are more likely to get into higher paying professions such as engineering or law.  Men are more likely to be doctors, while women are more likely to be nurses.  Again, this is very generalized, but it is just a fact of human nature.
Does anyone really think using the force of government is going to correct any unfairness?  Maybe some of it is unfair, particularly to a woman who doesn’t plan to have any kids.  But we have to acknowledge that the free market is more likely going to correct this situation over the government.
This will probably be like most other government laws and programs.  It will end up resulting in the exact opposite of the stated intentions of the law (or executive order).
Just as age discrimination laws end up making it harder for older people to find a job, this Obama dictate will end up making it harder for women to find a job, or perhaps making them truly underpaid.
I can envision employers trying to avoid being accused of gender discrimination, so they may hire a woman and classify her job differently than a man, even though they are doing similar work.  So if the woman’s salary is lower, he won’t get in trouble because her job classification is different.
We can’t be certain of all of the negative consequences, but you can be sure there will be some.
It is ironic that gay women earn more than heterosexual women.  Is Obama going to do something to “correct” this situation?  This statistic actually makes perfect sense in that many gay women are more likely to be career oriented and less likely to be tied down by children.  And the semi-free market has accounted for this difference as reflected in the statistics.
This whole topic of equal pay is just more politically correct garbage coming from Obama and other political hacks.  They are trying to stir up emotion and set up conflict between men and women, employees and employers, and left and right.
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the federal government spending almost $4 trillion per year.  If you want to talk about a wage gap, let’s look at the politicians and lobbyists in Washington DC in comparison to the average citizen whose money they suck away.

Combining Free Market Economics with Investing