Obama Pays Women Only 78 Percent of What He Pays Men

[jundp 191]

Love my sister, Len.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

so, if I become rich, will I have to give up my beloved cold stella?

just in public bashes. you need to be prim and proper my dearest. I can be an excellent assistant for you. but i charge full price. top dollar. men's rate.

Daniel

McCain's men's rate or Obama's men's rate?

National Men's rate. Well, since I am coatal, it has to be specific to coatal men's rate. also, since we will be working in Napa, that is a premium.

Daniel

We all know California is full of those blasted liberals so you will receive the most liberal Senator ever's rate. Which is LESS.

*snif* well, if you wish to deal wit ha less compensated assistant, that is certainly your choice.

Daniel

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Love my sister, Len.

Love you too, but only 3/4 really

[jundp 191]

Love my sister, Len.

Love you too, but only 3/4 really

Is that .78 or 3/4?

I make less than $65,000 a year. Will you still be my friend?

[no name 1]

so, if I become rich, will I have to give up my beloved cold stella?

just in public bashes. you need to be prim and proper my dearest. I can be an excellent assistant for you. but i charge full price. top dollar. men's rate.

Daniel

McCain's men's rate or Obama's men's rate?

National Men's rate. Well, since I am coatal, it has to be specific to coatal men's rate. also, since we will be working in Napa, that is a premium.

Daniel

We all know California is full of those blasted liberals so you will receive the most liberal Senator ever's rate. Which is LESS.

*snif* well, if you wish to deal wit ha less compensated assistant, that is certainly your choice.

Daniel

Between you & R - I'll be OK!

[HAL 9000 96]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

blah blah blah blah your source stinks but mine are golden blah blah blah

um,

LOL...Again, you miss the point. I've posted plenty of pieces from what are traditionally right leaning think tanks. The issue is whether the source you get your info has a reputation for reporting accuracy. You can do better.

this story has actually been reporting widely in other sources - I read it somewhere (either the IBD or the New York Times) but I found it also in the National Review (right wing but not known for being hacks)

Given the Media Research Center's track record, and given that CNS's own purpose is to supposedly combat the 'liberal bias' in mainstream media, how could anyone possibly take them seriously?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[no name 1]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

If you read those articles, they state that O's claim comes off an average & these figures are also an average....

The Obama campaign ad says: “Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”

The 77-cents figure comes from Census Bureau statistics. A Census Bureau fact sheet says: “The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.”

Like the Census Bureau average referenced in the Obama ad, the CNSNews.com analysis is based on average annual earnings.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

If you read those articles, they state that O's claim comes off an average & these figures are also an average....

The Obama campaign ad says: “Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”

The 77-cents figure comes from Census Bureau statistics. A Census Bureau fact sheet says: “The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.”

Like the Census Bureau average referenced in the Obama ad, the CNSNews.com analysis is based on average annual earnings.

What did HRC pay? did she pay men top dollar?

Daniel

[jundp 191]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

I find that shocking, Mark. SHOCKING.

[HAL 9000 96]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

If you read those articles, they state that O's claim comes off an average & these figures are also an average....

The Obama campaign ad says: "Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It's just one more thing John McCain doesn't get about our economy."

The 77-cents figure comes from Census Bureau statistics. A Census Bureau fact sheet says: "The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men."

Like the Census Bureau average referenced in the Obama ad, the CNSNews.com analysis is based on average annual earnings.

Lets put it this way-

Standard deviation is something that can vary quite a lot depending where on the pecking scale you're at. I highly doubt you'd make as much as a higher paid, higher up staff member than you would if you were a lower paid, lower down staff member.

For the argument to hold statistical relevancy I'd need to see the individual stats for all 58 staffers. Then

I could make more value statements condemning Obama and not paying his female staffers if all held the same staff level.

I mean, if this was a problem, then perhaps we could condemn McCain for the opposite type of unequal treatment.

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

I find that shocking, Mark. SHOCKING.

Mark who???

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

blah blah blah blah your source stinks but mine are golden blah blah blah

um,

LOL...Again, you miss the point. I've posted plenty of pieces from what are traditionally right leaning think tanks. The issue is whether the source you get your info has a reputation for reporting accuracy. You can do better.

this story has actually been reporting widely in other sources - I read it somewhere (either the IBD or the New York Times) but I found it also in the National Review (right wing but not known for being hacks)

Given the Media Research Center's track record, and given that CNS's own purpose is to supposedly combat the 'liberal bias' in mainstream media, how could anyone possibly take them seriously?

Well I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the other sources. The National Review article appeared well researched. I'm voting for Obama, but I think he doesn't live up to the rhetoric. The unwillingness to criticize him at all by some of his supporters worries me just as much as those who think GWB is beyond reproach.

Lets put it this way-

Standard deviation is something that can vary quite a lot depending where on the pecking scale you're at. I highly doubt you'd make as much as a higher paid, higher up staff member than you would if you were a lower paid, lower down staff member.

So - it's okay if women aren't represented higher in the pecking order. Interesting.

[no name 1]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

If you read those articles, they state that O's claim comes off an average & these figures are also an average....

The Obama campaign ad says: "Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It's just one more thing John McCain doesn't get about our economy."

The 77-cents figure comes from Census Bureau statistics. A Census Bureau fact sheet says: "The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men."

Like the Census Bureau average referenced in the Obama ad, the CNSNews.com analysis is based on average annual earnings.

Lets put it this way-

Standard deviation is something that can vary quite a lot depending where on the pecking scale you're at. I highly doubt you'd make as much as a higher paid, higher up staff member than you would if you were a lower paid, lower down staff member.

For the argument to hold statistical relevancy I'd need to see the individual stats for all 58 staffers. Then

I could make more value statements condemning Obama and not paying his female staffers if all held the same staff level.

I mean, if this was a problem, then perhaps we could condemn McCain for the opposite type of unequal treatment.

So by that logic, Obama can't quote the census bureau, shoot, they may as well go belly up. Obvs their facts are all based on averages & therefore, unfair.

[HAL 9000 96]

blah blah blah blah your source stinks but mine are golden blah blah blah

um,

LOL...Again, you miss the point. I've posted plenty of pieces from what are traditionally right leaning think tanks. The issue is whether the source you get your info has a reputation for reporting accuracy. You can do better.

this story has actually been reporting widely in other sources - I read it somewhere (either the IBD or the New York Times) but I found it also in the National Review (right wing but not known for being hacks)

Given the Media Research Center's track record, and given that CNS's own purpose is to supposedly combat the 'liberal bias' in mainstream media, how could anyone possibly take them seriously?

Well I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the other sources. The National Review article appeared well researched. I'm voting for Obama, but I think he doesn't live up to the rhetoric. The unwillingness to criticize him at all by some of his supporters worries me just as much as those who think GWB is beyond reproach.

Lets put it this way-

Standard deviation is something that can vary quite a lot depending where on the pecking scale you're at. I highly doubt you'd make as much as a higher paid, higher up staff member than you would if you were a lower paid, lower down staff member.

So - it's okay if women aren't represented higher in the pecking order. Interesting.

Well, there again is an issue of specifics. Show me the staff roster. Unless you are somehow p-offed by Obama not obligating himself to pick staffers balanced by gender, I am not quite sure where you want to take your observation. I sure as heck am not stating anything there. Interesting that you are perhaps reading into something I didn't state.

Edited September 23, 2008 by maviwaro

[no name 1]

I wonder if anyone wants to actually take a moment to ponder if perhaps they are talking about averages versus specific salaries and where pecking order comes to play in terms of staff seniority, etc. :

Something smells pretty petty with that one.

If you read those articles, they state that O's claim comes off an average & these figures are also an average....

The Obama campaign ad says: “Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”

The 77-cents figure comes from Census Bureau statistics. A Census Bureau fact sheet says: “The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.”

Like the Census Bureau average referenced in the Obama ad, the CNSNews.com analysis is based on average annual earnings.

What did HRC pay? did she pay men top dollar?

Daniel

Among her employees earning more than $23,000, Clinton paid men and women virtually the same average salary. The 22 men in that category in Clinton's office earned an average annual salary of $56,731.34, while the 43 women earned an average annual salary of $56,050.20.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=31832