Obama Pays Women Only 78 Percent of What He Pays Men

[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.

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.

By what logic would that be? Averages characterize an entire group- not individuals within that group. Unless there was no standard deviation. Which would mean all would be at the same pay level. Yet that is not the case. But I do repeat my curiosity for wanting to consider what particular functions all these staffers employ and what pay grade each occupies. Then I could make a judgement without any preconceived or preconcluded bias.

For example- Census stats obviously show a national trend from historical data. Why? B/C historically women have been frequently passed over for higher level positions throughout the labor force. And for other reasons that create hierarchies among the sexes.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

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.

I think it's really interesting that there are more senior women on the McCain campaign (though I guess carly fiorina is now gone) and on previous Bush campaigns than there are on the Obama campaign. Yet I'm supposed to just buy into the idea blindly that McCain is going to take away my reproductive rights so Obama gets a pass on everything else.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

I think it's really interesting that there are more senior women on the McCain campaign (though I guess carly fiorina is now gone) and on previous Bush campaigns than there are on the Obama campaign. Yet I'm supposed to just buy into the idea blindly that McCain is going to take away my reproductive rights so Obama gets a pass on everything else.

Women are also on the anti-abortion bandwagon too.

[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?

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.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

[no name 1]

OK, here's what I've got from the report:

OBAMA

The highest paid employee was his male Chief of Staff Peter Rouse, who earned $160,658.

He was followed by Legislative Director Christopher Lu, who earned $128,230.

The highest paid woman on Obama's staff was Carolyn Mosley, his administrative manager, about $100,000.

For those who earned $23,000+

The average pay for the 33 men was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women was $48,730.

(The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.

MCCAIN

The highest paid member of McCain’s staff for the period was a man, Mark A. Buse, an administrative assistant at $168,981.

For those who earned $23,000+

After excluding interns and adjusting the pay for employees who didn't work in the office for the entire six months, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $58,971. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, were paid an averag of $56,629.

female legislative director Amy Begemen, earning $133,782

female Communications Director Eileen McMenamin, who earned $110,862

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.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

Other sources were quoted.

[jundp 191]

Women are also on the anti-abortion bandwagon too.

(i'm on that bandwagon)

[no name 1]

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

I asked for facts this morning & was told to 'look 'em up myself'. I did & they did not match your assumption.

#######?

[HAL 9000 96]

OK, here's what I've got from the report:

OBAMA

The highest paid employee was his male Chief of Staff Peter Rouse, who earned $160,658.

He was followed by Legislative Director Christopher Lu, who earned $128,230.

The highest paid woman on Obama's staff was Carolyn Mosley, his administrative manager, about $100,000.

For those who earned $23,000+

The average pay for the 33 men was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women was $48,730.

(The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.

MCCAIN

The highest paid member of McCain's staff for the period was a man, Mark A. Buse, an administrative assistant at $168,981.

For those who earned $23,000+

After excluding interns and adjusting the pay for employees who didn't work in the office for the entire six months, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $58,971. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, were paid an averag of $56,629.

female legislative director Amy Begemen, earning $133,782

female Communications Director Eileen McMenamin, who earned $110,862

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.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

Other sources were quoted.

Excellent, Dev. Thanks.

That shows that pretty much the best claim against Obama on this particular "issue" is that he has positions that have a hierarchy much like anywhere else in most organizations. As to his particular reasons for hiring certain people for certain positions who knows? I'm sure qualifications in what he was looking for to complete the job certainly had something to do with it.

So at this point all I can say is that this is apparently yet another non-issue.

[HAL 9000 96]

Women are also on the anti-abortion bandwagon too.

(i'm on that bandwagon)

But weren't you a de-facto pro-choice person? (pertaining to society as a whole... not pertaining to you b/c you view it as murder?)

[no name 1]

OK, here's what I've got from the report:

OBAMA

The highest paid employee was his male Chief of Staff Peter Rouse, who earned $160,658.

He was followed by Legislative Director Christopher Lu, who earned $128,230.

The highest paid woman on Obama's staff was Carolyn Mosley, his administrative manager, about $100,000.

For those who earned $23,000+

The average pay for the 33 men was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women was $48,730.

(The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.

MCCAIN

The highest paid member of McCain's staff for the period was a man, Mark A. Buse, an administrative assistant at $168,981.

For those who earned $23,000+

After excluding interns and adjusting the pay for employees who didn't work in the office for the entire six months, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $58,971. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, were paid an averag of $56,629.

female legislative director Amy Begemen, earning $133,782

female Communications Director Eileen McMenamin, who earned $110,862

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.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

Other sources were quoted.

Excellent, Dev. Thanks.

That shows that pretty much the best claim against Obama on this particular "issue" is that he has positions that have a hierarchy much like anywhere else in most organizations. As to his particular reasons for hiring certain people for certain positions who knows? I'm sure qualifications in what he was looking for to complete the job certainly had something to do with it.

So at this point all I can say is that this is apparently yet another non-issue.

See, to you it's a non issue,s ince you support him & wouldn't want to admit any shortcomings like that. I get it.

But obvs many people find it interesting:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=o...mp;aq=f&oq=

In an election this close, everything matters. Esp as a woman who has been told over & over that McCain (read: Reps) want to control my uterus & keep women down. It's simply not true.

Edited September 23, 2008 by illumine

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Excellent, Dev. Thanks.

That shows that pretty much the best claim against Obama on this particular "issue" is that he has positions that have a hierarchy much like anywhere else in most organizations. As to his particular reasons for hiring certain people for certain positions who knows? I'm sure qualifications in what he was looking for to complete the job certainly had something to do with it.

So at this point all I can say is that this is apparently yet another non-issue.

I think the fact that this hierarchy exists and doesn't appear to be changing any time soon is a problem for many women, especially those who do place value in their careers and who work in companies where the executive boards are all men and who find themselves unjustly passed over for promotion and compensated less than their male counterparts. Obama appears to be talking the talk but not walking the walk, a concern I have always had with him.

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

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

I asked for facts this morning & was told to 'look 'em up myself'. I did & they did not match your assumption.

#######?

Dev, I think you know the difference between an opinion and fact, and an opinion based on fact. Staying on topic here - you have posted a studay that is being presented as purely factual, from a source that is unreliable, IMO. If you feel content with believing such information from such sources, more power to you. If you want to post it here on VJ and present it as irrefutable fact, I'm going to challenge you on it. And above all, if you think that convincing enough women that Obama hates them, then you're delusional. Obama was raised by a single, very feminist mother. His whole life including his voting record on women's issues as well as the type of prejudice he's personally experienced, demonstrates his firm belief in equality for all. And you know what, I believe McCain also believes in equality for all. In the scope of all this country is facing right now, this is just petty nonsense.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

OK, here's what I've got from the report:

OBAMA

The highest paid employee was his male Chief of Staff Peter Rouse, who earned $160,658.

He was followed by Legislative Director Christopher Lu, who earned $128,230.

The highest paid woman on Obama's staff was Carolyn Mosley, his administrative manager, about $100,000.

For those who earned $23,000+

The average pay for the 33 men was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women was $48,730.

(The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.

MCCAIN

The highest paid member of McCain's staff for the period was a man, Mark A. Buse, an administrative assistant at $168,981.

For those who earned $23,000+

After excluding interns and adjusting the pay for employees who didn't work in the office for the entire six months, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $58,971. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, were paid an averag of $56,629.

female legislative director Amy Begemen, earning $133,782

female Communications Director Eileen McMenamin, who earned $110,862

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.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

Other sources were quoted.

Excellent, Dev. Thanks.

That shows that pretty much the best claim against Obama on this particular "issue" is that he has positions that have a hierarchy much like anywhere else in most organizations. As to his particular reasons for hiring certain people for certain positions who knows? I'm sure qualifications in what he was looking for to complete the job certainly had something to do with it.

So at this point all I can say is that this is apparently yet another non-issue.

See, to you it's a non issue,s ince you support him & wouldn't want to admit any shortcomings like that. I get it.

But obvs many people find it interesting. In an election this close, everything matters.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=o...mp;aq=f&oq=

Given your incorrect assumption about me and my criticism of Obama and what I deem important for leadership during a critical period in this nation's history... I'll just assume you don't understand (can't or won't- no difference) where I'm coming from with my conclusion. Which, of course, can change and may change *IF* information can come to light that shows that Obama chooses his staffers based on gender specific qualifications instead of qualifications that will get him elected. As in any other campaign for office.

As for what other people out there perceive as being important in 'such a tight race' I suggest you take a look at that Google search a bit closer. I did.

Anyway... that's cool. For the record I think its ludicrous to not get paid the same thing for having the same position and doing the same work anyone else of equal seniority and rank has in the same organization. That should settle the particulars of the discussion in general and in both Presidential campaigns.

The Republican position on imposing reproductive limitations on women is not true?? How do you figure that Dev? How is banning abortions not imposing?

[no name 1]

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

I asked for facts this morning & was told to 'look 'em up myself'. I did & they did not match your assumption.

#######?

Dev, I think you know the difference between an opinion and fact, and an opinion based on fact. Staying on topic here - you have posted what is presented a study as purely factual, from a source that is unreliable, IMO. If you feel content with believing such information from such sources, more power to you. If you want to post it here on VJ and present it as irrefutable fact, I'm going to challenge you on it. And above all, if you think that convincing enough women that Obama hates them, then you're delusional. Obama was raised by a single, very feminist mother. His whole life including his voting record on women's issues as well as the type of prejudice he's personally experienced, demonstrates his firm belief in equality for all. And you know what, I believe McCain also believes in equality for all. In the scope of all this country is facing right now, this is just petty nonsense.

Wow, I guess that's what you call jumping to conclusions!!! You debating skills need to be based in fact, not half-truths & opinions.

That's some big shoes to fill - since you think you can speak for Obama now, as well as me.

Edited September 23, 2008 by illumine

[HAL 9000 96]

Excellent, Dev. Thanks.

That shows that pretty much the best claim against Obama on this particular "issue" is that he has positions that have a hierarchy much like anywhere else in most organizations. As to his particular reasons for hiring certain people for certain positions who knows? I'm sure qualifications in what he was looking for to complete the job certainly had something to do with it.

So at this point all I can say is that this is apparently yet another non-issue.

I think the fact that this hierarchy exists and doesn't appear to be changing any time soon is a problem for many women, especially those who do place value in their careers and who work in companies where the executive boards are all men and who find themselves unjustly passed over for promotion and compensated less than their male counterparts. Obama appears to be talking the talk but not walking the walk, a concern I have always had with him.

Again, according to those positions there is an implication as to different duties involved in the job descriptions. Hence the pay differences. Look at McCain's staffers. Its the same thing. If there should be anything concerning this apparent and certainly non-existent nitpicking is that there should be some questioning of why Obama chose certain staffers they way he did. And then people could move on when they found out the reasons were doubtfully gender-based.

I can only comment on the source provided. Right now, with the election battle being as heated as it is, and given that some will post anything that will paint either candidate in a negative light, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, then I don't think you can blame either candidate's supporters for being defensive. All we can do is demand accuracy with facts.

I asked for facts this morning & was told to 'look 'em up myself'. I did & they did not match your assumption.

#######?

Dev, I think you know the difference between an opinion and fact, and an opinion based on fact. Staying on topic here - you have posted a studay that is being presented as purely factual, from a source that is unreliable, IMO. If you feel content with believing such information from such sources, more power to you. If you want to post it here on VJ and present it as irrefutable fact, I'm going to challenge you on it. And above all, if you think that convincing enough women that Obama hates them, then you're delusional. Obama was raised by a single, very feminist mother. His whole life including his voting record on women's issues as well as the type of prejudice he's personally experienced, demonstrates his firm belief in equality for all. And you know what, I believe McCain also believes in equality for all. In the scope of all this country is facing right now, this is just petty nonsense.

That must be part of his "most liberal member of Congress" thing.