What is the Paycheck Fairness Act?

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bill, first proposed in 2009, designed to help remedy inequality in pay between men and women, much of which still exists even after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The act would require employers to give valid reasons for paying workers different wages for the same work, prevent the punishment of individuals who share information about their salaries, and seek justification from employers about discrepancies between salaries, particularly those suspected of being based on gender discrimination. The House of Representatives passed the bill in January 2009, but the Senate did not by November 2010. The bill was reintroduced in April 2011 to both houses, but has again been pushed aside by Congressional Republicans.

What’s the significance?

The gender wage gap still stands at 77 cents earned by the average woman for every dollar a man earns for the same work. The Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step in further reducing the wage discrimination between men and women. Currently, workers may not disclose or discuss salary information with each other, and the result is that women are often paid less than men for equal work. The act would require employers to give valid “business” reasons for wage discrepancies among workers performing the same jobs.

Who’s talking about it?

Roosevelt Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler states that a constitutional amendment is necessary for the protection of women’s rights…Fatima Goss Graves argues that the recession makes the Paycheck Fairness Act all the more urgent...Nancy Folbre argues in the New York Times that the Paycheck Fairness Act is necessary to correct market failures in setting wages…Politico’s Seung Min Kim describes what a disappointment it is that the Senate has failed again to advance a bill that would increase gender equality in this country…Steven Benen notes on the Maddow Blog that GOP partisanship is what really killed a very reasonable act.

[Note: updated on 2.16.2011]

What is a robo-signer?

Robo-signers are mortgage lending company employees who prepared and signed off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires. Jeffrey Stephan, the GMAC employee who was the first identified as a robo-signer, has acknowledged that he prepared 400 such foreclosures a day.

What's the significance?

If it turns out that robo-signers did indeed sign off on loans without review, they committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which they had no personal knowledge. It could also mean that some people are wrongly being evicted from their houses. All 50 state attorneys general are investigating the potential fraud, and for each time a robo-signer's signature appears on a loan the banks could be made to pay big in penalties. The unveiling of robo-signing has lead to "foreclosuregate" and the halting by some banks and states of the foreclosure process altogether.

Who's talking about it?

Mike Konczal almost feels bad for the robo-signing "patsy" taking the fall for banks' mistakes...The NYTimes profiles the first case to expose robo-signing in Maine...The Washington Post profiles Jeffrey Stephan, the original robo-signer...The Huffington Post unveils that many robo-signers were hair stylists and Walmart employees who had no knowledge of the mortgage process...A guest poster at Naked Capitalism explains why banks would use robo-signers...Consumerist notes a robo-signer confession that he didn't know anything about the loans...Robo-signing practices might start popping up in the credit card industry...Ally Bank has withdrawn all Maryland foreclosures authorized by Jeffrey Stephan.

What is Rubinomics?

The term is a portmanteau of Rubin and economics, named for Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton. Rubinomics holds that economic growth can best be achieved by cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. Interest rates lower as inflation fears are quelled, which is then supposed to free up resources for private sector investment. These policies came to mark President Clinton's administration.

What's the significance?

This theory stood in opposition to Reaganomics, which holds that the way to spur economic growth is to lower taxes. However, it also goes against more progressive economic theories that advocate government spending on infrastructure, research and development, education, etc. A focus on reducing deficits often crowds out the importance of social investment.

Who's talking about it?

Marshall Auerback warns against Hillary Clinton taking failed Rubinomics policies from her husband's administration on as her own...RJ Eskow sees Rubin's policies lurking in former OMB Director Peter Orzag's op-ed on tax policy...John Heilemann at New York Magazine reported that Obamanomics were meant as an end to both Reaganomics and Rubinomics...Ezra Klein thinks Rubin's proteges don't get enough credit for their flexibility...Michael J. Mandel at Businessweek says Rubinomics and Reaganomics have come to a draw.

What does the term saltwater economics mean? How does it differ from freshwater economics?

These two prevalent theories of economics can be attributed to two different groups of universities and institutions across the US. As economic theory developed in the 1970s, a clear divide became apparent between coastal schools and those in the Great Lakes area. Coastal schools gravitated towards the idea that the government could and should help to regulate the economy by controlling interest rates and budgets to avoid inflation or recession. Because of their location on the Atlantic and Pacific, they were of the "saltwater school of thought".

Schools closer to the Great Lakes (hence the name "freshwater economics"), most famously University of Chicago, espoused laissez-faire ideals. They believed the free market could correct and guide itself more efficiently without government involvement.

What's the significance?

These competing theories have set the terms for national and international debate over economic policy for decades. Freshwater economists point to the 1970s as an example of government intervention causing high unemployment and inflation which, they claim, otherwise wouldn't have occurred. Saltwater economists view government regulation and discretionary fiscal policy as an important and necessary part of overseeing the economy. They do not view consumers in the marketplace as perfectly rational variables.

Who's talking about it?

Paul Krugman recently refuted a freshwater claim that the "stagflation in the 1970s proved Keynesian wrong" in his NYTimes blog, stating that it was 1979-1982 that made him a diehard saltwater economist... In Angry Bear blog, Robert expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of both fresh and saltwater economics, saying that economic models aren't necessarily scientific or absolute.