The Binder is a lie.

Brainster said:
So ANTPogo, do you really believe that women on average, with comparable jobs and comparable skills and experience, make 72% of what their male counterparts make?

I mean, this is a skeptics' forum, right?
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
As a specific example:
"Unsurprisingly, children play an important role in men and women’s work-life decisions. Simply put, women who have children or plan to have children tend to be willing to trade higher pay for more kid-friendly positions. In contrast, men with children typically seek to earn more money in order to support children, sometimes taking on more hours and less attractive positions to do so."
Click to expand...

While the Forbes article tries to address the overall pay gap, it doesn't address what you were referring to above in bold. In fact that article specifically refers to men and women taking different jobs/positions based on familial obligations. How then does it relate to men and women "with comperable jobs" having a pay gap?

AvalonXQ said:
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/barack-obamas-white-house-pays-women-18-percent-less-men
Click to expand...

So a right wing news outlet blog entry makes a claim. Before I give it any traffic, does it address that the vast majority of government employees - including political appointees - are civil servants, and their pay is affected by the GS scale?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
So a right wing news outlet blog entry makes a claim. Before I give it any traffic, does it address that the vast majority of government employees - including political appointees - are civil servants, and their pay is affected by the GS scale?
Click to expand...

No it does not address that, but that is a pretty good point. Obama doesn't decide what his employee's salaries will be, it's defined by the GS scale.

This is all it says:
According to the 2011 report compiled by the White House, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

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...
 
Brainster said:
It is an old joke, but true; these statistics are used the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me of another old joke that could be appropriate:

A cop sees a drunk on his knees by a lamppost.
"What are you doing?" Ask's the cop
"Looking for my keys," replies the drunk.
"Did you lose them here?"
"No, I lost them back in the bar," says the drunk.
"Why are you looking here?" asks the cop.
"The light's better here".

What's the connection? Try it this way.

"I'm looking for information on Obama's hiring practices," says the pilgrim,
"I can show you sites with information and sourced links with verifiable numbers," says the samaritan
"Naw, I think I'll look on Drudge," says the pilgrim.
"Why? You know they don't do research and just say whatever sounds good to them."
"Yeah, but they're easier for me to understand."
 
Foolmewunz said:
Incorrect. They vetted the questions before hand.
Click to expand...

Which makes me think, they vetted this question and that was STILL the best Romney could do? yikes.

Interesting that Neither team bothered with challenging the premise of the argument. I wonder if they feared reprisal for suggesting that the number is off. Perhaps it would create a political poop storm as it would allow either candidate to claim that the other doesn't think income inequality is a big problem.
 
LarianLeQuella said:
I thought that the Moderator and that team vetted the questions. The candidates had no foreknowledge of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was alluding to. Obviously, they had to vet the questions. You can't just pick names out of a hat or you get the first questioner asking, "Which one of you think Howard Stern rules?"
 
I will say, though, that the girl who asked Romney the question about equality of work for women was GORGEOUS! I fell in love with her as soon as I saw her.

And that's my completely pointless, derailed comment of the day. Thank you. Carry on.
 
joobz said:
Romney's big mistake here was that he revieled simply how anachronistic his views are. His answer was as out of touch as "a series of tubes".
Click to expand...

Amen!

Again, I point to his saying, "if you're going to have women in the workforce".
 
Even if Romney's "binders" story is true, it does not put him in the clear as to why he refuses to disclose his stance on fair pay. Sure, if we are to take Romney at his word, then good on him for making it an initiative to hire more women for his cabinet. However, the job positions he's talking about would only include women who are qualified for high level positions. Lilly Ledbetter on the other hand, makes it possible for women of all income and education levels to receive equal pay. And he still can't give a clear answer on his stance on the bill.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Amen!

Again, I point to his saying, "if you're going to have women in the workforce".
Click to expand...
None of us want that but IF you are going to do it then...

Yeah, he's so concerned about getting those little women home to cook dinner. Even if a woman told him that, don't repeat it you schmuck. No wonder he's not enthusiastic to sign The Lilly Ledbetter act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom