The horror! Paying people according to their productivity, competence, diligence and effectiveness, rather than according to what victim-mongering group they belong to! Can you imagine?
Dilbert’s Scott Adams thinks that this is an unwitting pro-Trump tweet. I disagree:It’s an unwitting anti-Hillary tweet. Perhaps this is what having to run against a Socialist who opposes basic American values of personal responsibility and merit has done to her. Now she feels she has to endorse the socialist concept of wages unrelated to economic worth. All that matters are the hours, man!
The tweet is also an insult to those of her supporters who are intelligent, and manages to blunder into one of the squishy Achilles heels (yes, it has many heels) of the equal pay for equal work scam. Hmmm, is a female fire fighter who can’t pass the strength requirements really worth the same compensation as a male firefighter who can? (Answer: Of course not.)
To add to the inethical stench, the tweet is an ad hominem attack, using angry and unattractive Trump visages to repel and frighten. Ad hominem attacks in political campaigns are low blows, making fun of appearances are lower yet, and for a women whose supporters display hair-trigger outrage against any male who denigrates Hillary’s weight, legs, clothes, maniacal laugh or matronly appearance to play the looks card is hypocrisy of hypocrisies.
In addition to being wrong, it is certifiably stupid. Hillary’s out of her league, for The Donald is a grandmaster of ad hominem, and has no restraint or shame. I would also say, as one who has perused a lot of bad photos of both, that his worst face..
..is a lot safer to gaze on before bedtime t than hers:
Worst of all, it’s just incompetent campaigning. I wish few things more fervently than to have a candidate standing between Donald Trump and the White House (a.k.a. between the United States of America and a cultural catastrophe of existential proportions) who isn’t as unqualified, incompetent and corrupt as Hillary Clinton. That is the losing hand fate and chaos have dealt us, however, and unlikely a champion as she is, she is all we have. She cannot prevail by throwing smug ideological garbage to her feminist acolytes and Sanders’ naifs.
She has an ethical obligation to do better than this.
______________________
Pointers: Ann Althouse,
Source: Scott Adams
Ethics Alarms 
Ever heard of Gary Johnson? Or Austin Petersen?
How about Roque “Rocky” De Luca?
This seems like an obtuse reading of Clinton’s tweet. She isn’t “endorsing the socialist concept of wages unrelated to economic worth.” It’s pretty clear to anyone familiar with the feminist argument that she’s highlighting Trump’s quote as one that is naive and untrue–Clinton believes that women are not paid the same as men for doing as good a job, and that Trump’s statement will resonate with her target audience as being obviously wrong.
Is it? I’ve read convincing arguments on both sides, and I’m not eager to wade into the debate over the existence gender pay gap at the moment. I think both sides are basing their opinions on the facts at their disposal, so I don’t think endorsing either view is prima facie unethical.
Of course, this begs the question of how men are able to find jobs at all.
What? No, it doesn’t. If women are discriminated against in pay because they are subconsciously viewed as less competent and deserving than their male counterparts (the thesis of the “gender pay gap is real” side, unless I’m mistaken), then it follows that women, not men, might also be discriminated in hiring for the very same reason.
Actually not. If women are paid less, regardless of the reason, they become more attractive vis a vis labor costs.
No, the reason they are paid less (if they are) absolutely matters. Bosses want to pay people the least possible amount, but they also want their employees to be competent. If they view women as less competent than men, to a degree that outweighs the value of paying a woman less, then they’ll hire the man.
(Of course, this whole side note assumes than sexism follows perfectly rational logic, when we all know it doesn’t.)
Having seen a lot of this first hand, I can say with some authority that…
1) Gender discrimination in the workplace is real
2) That includes compensation
3) But much of the pay discrepancy results from women’s choices, like taking time off, wanting flex time, working fewer hours, and trying to balance ambition with family matters.
4) Women also make different choices of fields and roles, many of which are less lucrative, and
5) Women are still not taught negotiation skills, and it hurts their salary levels.
If it’s clear that’s what she means, and clear that’s what Trump meant, why don’t I see either? I don’t give any slack to inarticulate Twitter messages, You are ignoring many current feminist attacks on pay levels that support my interpretation—like the argument that female athletes should earn as much as male athletes. Trump said this is his interpretation of pay equality, and “Hillary” attacked his “stance.” You may be right, but it isn’t clear at all, and she has a duty to be clear. You are interpreting ambiguous words the way that feels most defensible. Occam’s Razor would suggest that since Trump’s apparent meaning is completely unobjectionable, Hillary’s attack on it turns fairness on its head.