• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Binder is a lie.

:DWell, but, uhm...

Of course, like many have already pointed out, these statistics do not signal discrimination because it is not comparing men and women who hold the same job and do the same work. It’s not fair to compare the salaries of a female Staff Assistant and the male Deputy Assistant to President Obama.
Click to expand...
When you compare apples to apples, the so-called wage gap disappears. Young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts.
Click to expand...
http://m.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/the-myth-of-the-gender-wage-gap
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
And yet when he has employees of his own, he underpays and marginalizes women. It sounds like he only "walks the walk" when it scores him points and doesn't affect him personally.
Click to expand...
The link you provided says nothing about marginalizing women. Nor does it say that people doing the same job are paid differently based on sex. Indeed it make some big assumptions.
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Click to expand...
So they not only don't know what jobs they do, they don't even know if they're women.
So basically, you've provided no evidence at all. Why don't you get some quotes from the women working for him, then we'll see if your claims have any basis.
 
Seems the readers of that site think Romney won last night 51%-36%. Just the kind of readers that wouldn't be concerned about an article despite not having such minor details as not knowing the jobs descriptions or genders of the workers.

Did you vote in that poll AvalonXQ?
 
The funny thing about believing everything you read at right wing sites is that eventually one cannot tell the difference between reality and the swill that most of these guys know is false, but still shovel it out.

I'm always amazed when I hear someone accuse Obama of lying or hypocrisy, because it's actually pretty hard to catch him in an outright lie or other type of inconsistency.... errors perhaps or wrong information, but not lies. The conservative base seems to take for granted that everyone lies I suppose. As for myself, I immediately assume that the claim of a lie must be mistaken, because at some level I trust Obama's integrity. Then when I check, in this case it took me less than 30 seconds, I find the truth is that he didn't lie.

I see this as a basic difference between us libs and the conservatives. I very seldom find people lie to me...except for Romney/Ryan of course.

ETA: I must admit that when first I read that Obama had not gotten his own house in order with regard to fair treatment of women, I was perplexed and outraged, concerned that if true this is a major problem for him. It doesn't fit with what I know about him. I didn't want it to be true, but if it in fact was, I needed to be aware of it.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
While I lean left, I, too have to side somewhat with Brainster. I am not convinced the numbers in the 70s are entirely accurate. It is difficult to identify all the variables that go into setting pay rates and even more difficult to back them out of the calculations to the point that the only remaining variable is the sex of the worker.

I am not saying there is pay equality, I am just saying that the 70% range is a bit off.


ETA: on the other hand, if a man and woman are hired on the same day for an entry level position, their pay rates should be identical.
Click to expand...

I think with a little research on Wikipedia we can come up with a more accurate number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Adjusted and unadjusted gender pay gap

It is important to differentiate between the unadjusted (also known as raw) wage gap and the adjusted (also known as discriminatory or unexplained) wage gap. The unadjusted or raw pay gap does not take into account differences in personal (e.g., age, education, the number of children, job tenure, occupation, and occupational crowding) and workplace characteristics (e.g., the economic sector and place of employment) between men and women. Parts of the raw pay gap can be attributed to the fact that women, for instance, tend to engage more often in part-time work and tend to work in lower paid industries. The remaining part of the raw wage gap that cannot be explained by variables that are thought to influence pay is then referred to as the adjusted gender pay gap and may be discriminatory.

A study commissioned by the United States Department of Labor, prepared by Consad Research Corp, asserts "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."[6] Using a raw pay gap figure doesn't represent an accurate view of possible discrimination, according to Consad "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap".
Click to expand...

The remaining 4.8-7.1% is either discriminatory or unexplained, or, most likely IMO, a combination of discrimination and some things that haven't been explained.

So now, compared to the figure of 72% or 77%, the adjusted figure is between 92.9% and 95.2%.

If you project out into the future, it seems likely that it will go away or even be reversed, given that there is now another gender gap emerging, this time favoring women.

Women not only represent a majority of young adults enrolled as college undergraduates, but they also are now nearly three-fifths of graduate students.
Click to expand...
 
I dunno... shouldn't the POTUS be going by a recognizable standard that's more current rather than the figures from four years ago? BLS has the ratio now at 81% as of 2010.

Again, I'm not accounting for sector or age or regional differences, as neither did the BLS. But the previous figures came from the same source, I believe. Getting stuck on 72% if the 2008 figures was 77% was bad enough, but ignoring the 2010 figure is just plain puzzling. I think it's just lazy. Someone picked up a documented buzzpoint, checked out the factoid and it was accurate in its timeframe, but they didn't look further. It took me all of 12 seconds to find the BLS figures from 2010. And why didn't the hosts/moderator do a little fact-checking on the questions asked if they're going to cite percentages?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20120110.htm

Derail: I wish ol' Andy Breitbart was still around to cook those figures. "See? Proof that black and latino males aren't smart enough to hold down good jobs. Their women have to carry the load!"[/breitbart off]
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
I dunno... shouldn't the POTUS be going by a recognizable standard that's more current rather than the figures from four years ago? BLS has the ratio now at 81% as of 2010.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But at least Obama could respond to the question and point to the Leadbetter Act as evidence of his concern for the issue. I would hope before he undertook any new policy changes, he would get current figures.

Romney ducked it entirely, and told a lie to boot (trying to take credit for something MassGAP did).
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Fair enough. But at least Obama could respond to the question and point to the Leadbetter Act as evidence of his concern for the issue. I would hope before he undertook any new policy changes, he would get current figures.

Romney ducked it entirely, and told a lie to boot (trying to take credit for something MassGAP did).
Click to expand...

Oh, I concur. I'd just like them to appear to be trying to get SOMETHING right.

My issue with this whole Binder meme is that it's a distraction and we're foisting it on ourselves (meaning liberals, progressives, Obamistas).

I think we're being suckered into throwing Br'er Mitt into the briar patch, though. How much better for him to have us arguing about what essentially was just a gaff (they probably handed him a folio or binder full of not just a list of names but with CVs) than to not be hammering on the fact that he tried to dodge the immigration question by claiming he only SAID that he thought that e-verification was the way to go, but that HE HIRED THE GUY WHO WROTE THE ENTIRE ARIZONA PROGRAM.

And how much better (for the GOP) that we all concentrate on Romney wanting to snuff Big Bird, and really let him off rather easily on his shift to the left/middle in the first debate. Obama at least tried to get the message out the first day after that debate, but it didn't catch on. I watch Fox, and not a single liberal pundit tried to interject that into the discussions for the entire week. And it's a golden opportunity. The Anyone But Obama crowd is big, but there's a hard core right winger that always thought Romney was a closet socialist (remember the debates? Coulter?) and should be reminded every day how Mitt tried to change overnight into John Lindsay.

And this week, why didn't Obama or why don't the spin doctors just challenge Mitt to deny the GOP platform - the one Ryan boldly supports except when he's on the campaign trail.

Oh, I'll play along... because it's an important talking point for the woman's vote and after the first debate there was a perceived swing towards Romney in that demographic but I think it's a distraction and that everyone's getting all wrapped up in the cleverness and ignoring much more important and verifiable problems with Romney's program and beliefs. I just hope the guys out there running the ground game are staying with the big program. It's all going to be won/lost in the trenches this time.
 
Last edited:
Okay I watched that debate twice and as far as I can figure out neither one of them answered the question. The question was about pay equality so why did both of them answer that this was a family issue ?
This is about gender equality, the issue is not whether you have a family or if you need flexible time, etc. blah blah blah....... A woman should get equal pay whether or not she ever has children. All persons regardless of family reponsibilities should be paid equally for the same job and whether that person has a penis or vagina should be completelly irrelevent, (unless of course they need to use their penis or vagina in a work related way).
I would have liked to have heard either one of them explain why, if all things being equal a company can pay a man more than a woman and get away with it. How can that be so pervasive in a country that claims to have equality ?
 
Last edited:
I like to keep my women in a bender.


Or is it.. I like to meet my women in a bender.

Hmmm.
 
Roma said:
Okay I watched that debate twice and as far as I can figure out neither one of them answered the question. The question was about pay equality so why did both of them answer that this was a family issue ?
This is about gender equality, the issue is not whether you have a family or if you need flexible time, etc. blah blah blah....... A woman should get equal pay whether or not she ever has children. All persons regardless of family reponsibilities should be paid equally for the same job and whether that person has a penis or vagina should be completelly irrelevent, (unless of course they need to use their penis or vagina in a work related way).
I would have liked to hear either one of them explain why, if all things being equal a company can pay a man more than a woman and get away with it. How can that be so pervasive in a country that claims to have equality ?
Click to expand...
Please search this thread for Lilly Ledbetter. You will find that Obama directly answered the question.

Edit - Here is a link to his answer
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Please search this thread for Lilly Ledbetter. You will find that Obama directly answered the question.
Click to expand...

And yet during the debate Obabma still called this a "family issue", I contend that this is not a "family issue".
 
Roma said:
And yet during the debate Obabma still called this a "family issue", I contend that this is not a "family issue".
Click to expand...

Transcript here
Obama's answer to the same question:
Q: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Katherine, this is a great question. And you know, I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we need. And my grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president at a local bank.

But she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career. She didn’t complain; that’s not what you did in that generation.

And this is one of the reasons why one of the first — the first bill I signed was something called the Lilly Ledbetter bill.
And it was named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found out about it earlier, when she had no way of finding out about it.

So we fixed that. And that’s an example of the kind of advocacy that we need because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women’s issue. This is a family issue. This is a middle-class issue. And that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.

It also means that we’ve got to make sure that young people like yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier Governor Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education accessible for young people. Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including millions of young women, all across the country. We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program and we said, let’s just cut out the middleman. Let’s give the money directly to students. And as a consequence, we’ve seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that’s going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace.
Click to expand...

I highlighted his answer. The rest is more or less filler to fill up the balance of his time.
I'll go back to what I said in post #7. They can't answer a question without trying to work in some personal anecdote or story.
 
Puppycow said:
Transcript here
Obama's answer to the same question:


I highlighted his answer. The rest is more or less filler to fill up the balance of his time.
I'll go back to what I said in post #7. They can't answer a question without trying to work in some personal anecdote or story.
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't highlight the pertinent part. Roma is taking exception to them both referring to this as a family issue. That's in Romney's first response and Obama's second.

But - Roma, I think you're misconstruing. It wasn't a black/white statement. He essentially said ".... AND a family issue".

These are not just women's issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues.
And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men are.
Click to expand...

He could've been stronger on it just flat out being a question of equality, but I think he covers that in the second paragraph - his closing line in his answer. And while I agree that these are first and foremost women's issues, they can only be solely women's issues for unmarried and not child rearing women. That's not a group I want to shunt aside, but I can't deny that equal pay for women impacts a family's well-being and economic health.

And this is Barack Obama. He's only a crazed radical liberal communist progressive socialist on certain blogs and on every second show on Fox News. He's a moderate. He's running for POTUS. Do you really expect him to NOT play the family, flag, apple pie cards?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I dunno... shouldn't the POTUS be going by a recognizable standard that's more current rather than the figures from four years ago? BLS has the ratio now at 81% as of 2010.

Again, I'm not accounting for sector or age or regional differences, as neither did the BLS. But the previous figures came from the same source, I believe. Getting stuck on 72% if the 2008 figures was 77% was bad enough, but ignoring the 2010 figure is just plain puzzling. I think it's just lazy. Someone picked up a documented buzzpoint, checked out the factoid and it was accurate in its timeframe, but they didn't look further. It took me all of 12 seconds to find the BLS figures from 2010. And why didn't the hosts/moderator do a little fact-checking on the questions asked if they're going to cite percentages?
Click to expand...

It is an old joke, but true; these statistics are used the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
 
Roma said:
Okay I watched that debate twice and as far as I can figure out neither one of them answered the question. The question was about pay equality so why did both of them answer that this was a family issue ?
This is about gender equality, the issue is not whether you have a family or if you need flexible time, etc. blah blah blah....... A woman should get equal pay whether or not she ever has children. All persons regardless of family reponsibilities should be paid equally for the same job and whether that person has a penis or vagina should be completelly irrelevent, (unless of course they need to use their penis or vagina in a work related way).
I would have liked to have heard either one of them explain why, if all things being equal a company can pay a man more than a woman and get away with it. How can that be so pervasive in a country that claims to have equality ?
Click to expand...

You are entirely right. Particularly the part where you say "if all things being equal". Which is the reason why I quibble with the way the question was asked. The woman who asked the question threw out the figure of 72%, which is a figure from the 1990s, and was the unadjusted gender pay gap at that time. Unadjusted means that all things are not equal, and apples are being compared to oranges. Secretaries are being compared to managers and nurses to doctors in the 72% unadjusted gender pay gap figure (which is 77% today). I'd rather have the discussion premised on the adjusted gender pay gap, which is more in the range of 92% to 95% today (see post #67).
 
Foolmewunz said:
I dunno... shouldn't the POTUS be going by a recognizable standard that's more current rather than the figures from four years ago? BLS has the ratio now at 81% as of 2010.
Click to expand...

The figure cited is on the questioner, not the person answering the question on the spot in a televised debate without an opportunity to check what the latest official figure is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom