Part 2—But what does it mean: That famous “77 cents on the dollar” statistic is a real statistic. It’s an actual measure of an actual state of affairs.
Almost always, the familiar statistic is cited by “liberals” and Democrats. Often, it’s cited in a way which misinforms or misleads.
Two examples:
In January, President Obama hit the road in the wake of his State of the Union Address. In Wisconsin, he addressed a cheering crowd at a GE plant:
OBAMA (1/30/14): Today, women make up half our workforce. They're making 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That's wrong. Who said that? That's wrong. That's wrong.Obama’s overall statement was misleading. The reaction by the audience is marked in the official transcript.
(Applause)
It's an embarrassment. So I mentioned on Tuesday, women deserve equal pay for equal work.
(Cheers, applause)
We think Obama should be more clear about that statistic, but he’s hardly alone. Two years ago, Rachel Maddow got a snootful, then did Meet the Press.
On Meet the Press, she aggressively bungled about the familiar statistic. The next night, on her eponymous show, she devoted 23 minutes to keeping her viewers confused, making such statements as this:
MADDOW (4/30/12): Overall, when you aggregate everybody working, women get paid 77 cents for every dollar that men get paid. For the same work, dudes get paid more.Each of Maddow’s statements was accurate—and her use of “dudes” showed that she was delightfully being herself.
Each of Maddow’s statements was accurate—but placed together in that way, her statements were misleading.
Maddow kept this up for 23 minutes that night, assisted by a hand-picked professor. Last week, Maddow and the same professor worked the same tired old con.
Deceptive and misleading statements aren’t just for Rush and Sean any more! As the liberal world has emerged from the woods in the wake of the war in Iraq, our overpaid pundits and floundering pols have come to see the merits of this lazy, but pleasing, approach.
Traditionally, the corporate right offered misleading cant because its plutocratic policy views couldn’t be defended in any honest way. The “liberal” world is now forced to play this game for a different reason:
Our culture gods—people like Maddow—don’t know how to communicate with the bulk of the American public, even when liberal policy views are in the public’s interest. Because they don’t know how to talk to the public, they fall back on deceptions.
That famous statistic is very real. But no, it actually isn’t a measure of how much women get paid for doing “the same work as dudes.”
It’s a measure of something different. In a recent Fact Checker piece, Glenn Kessler limned it thusly:
KESSLER (4/9/14): The president is relying on a simple calculation from the Census Bureau: a ratio of the difference between women’s median earnings and men’s median earnings. (The median is the middle value, with an equal number of full-time workers earning more and earning less.) That leaves a pay gap of 23 cents.In 2009, the median income for women was only 77 percent as large as the median income for men. That may represent a real social problem. But it isn’t a measure of median income for doing the same work as dudes.
That Census Bureau statistic was for the year 2009. But uh-oh! If you turn to the world’s leading authority, you will encounter a different statistic, with the year a bit hazy:
WORLD’S LEADING AUTHORITY: Male–female income difference, also referred to as the "gender gap in earnings" in the United States, and as the "gender wage gap", the "gender earnings gap", "gender income difference" and the "gender pay gap", refers usually to the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.Question: Does that 81 percent statistic represent relative earnings in 2009 or 2010?
The statistic is used by government agencies and economists, and is gathered by the United States Census Bureau as part of the Current Population Survey.
In 2010 the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.81 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 19% less than male FTYR workers.
Whatever! In the next paragraph of his post, Kessler referred to that 81 percent statistic, which differs from the more familiar 77 percent:
KESSLER (continuing directly from above): But the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages—it is 14 cents—but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers.By now, you have the right to be completely confused about the wage gap. Instead of trying to figure this out, why not let Obama and Maddow feed us the porridge we like?
Why does so much confusion surround this important state of affairs? In part, it’s because of the practices of our alleged “newspapers.”
Newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times are too lazy, or perhaps too politically careful, to present careful reporting about these important statistics.
Almost surely, the famous 77-cent statistic is going to play an important role in this year’s political “debate.” But the news divisions of these newspapers have made no real attempt to explain this statistic since Obama brought it forward in the State of the Union Address.
The task has been left to opinion columns, or to slippery editorials, or to the once-a-week “fact ghetto” maintained in the Sunday Post. It’s hard to find a clear and detailed, serious attempt to explain this familiar statistic.
If you want to understand that statistic, you’re pretty much on your own! And, as last week’s events made clear, barkers like Maddow will try to confuse you about this statistic right to their dying breaths. The familiar practice of conning us rubes isn’t just for Rush any more!
In what way can that familiar statistic be misleading? Most simply put, the familiar statistic isn’t meant as a measure of discrimination.
Despite Maddow’s endless gorilla dust, no one says that the famous statistic is a measure of relative pay for “the same work.” That isn’t what the statistic measures, until the dissemblers arrive.
The famous statistic isn’t adjusted for number of hours worked. It isn’t adjusted for seniority, or even for differences in occupation.
Surely, Maddow understands this. But she keeps working to prevent viewers from getting clear on such points.
How large is the gender wage gap when basic adjustments are made? After this year’s State of the Union, Christina Hoff Sommers offered this account in the Daily Beast.
We can’t say that Sommers is “right.” But she’s much more straightforward than Maddow:
SOMMERS (2/1/14): President Obama repeated the spurious gender wage gap statistic in his State of the Union address. “Today,” he said, “women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”Is Sommers’ highlighted estimate right? If you want to figure that out, don’t expect to get any help from the New York Times. The great newspaper seems too lazy, or too politically cautious, to enter such fraught terrain.
What is wrong and embarrassing is the President of the United States reciting a massively discredited factoid. The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.
Down through the years, various people and organizations have tried to clarify the meaning of the familiar statistic. Quite often, the sleight of hand is as prominent as the attempt at clarification.
In all that, though, one fact should be clear: No one claims that the 77 cent statistic is a measure of discrimination. No one claims that it represents a measure of pay “for doing the same work as dudes.”
How much of the gender wage gap is due to discrimination? Last week, many “liberals” were working hard to maintain the confusion surrounding that basic point.
Tomorrow, we’ll start reviewing their work. But remember—deliberate attempts at misleading us rubes aren’t just for Sean any more!
Our “liberal” leaders are conning us too. Can a true progressive politics really be fashioned this way?
Tomorrow: Keep confusion alive!
Somerby says we are being connect, but what is the con? Is it that there actually is no gap in wages between men and women, no difference in their employment opportunities? He implies that with the paragraph about Sommers and the mysterious 5%. But after you discount all the ways in which men's and women's jobs are different and find there is little residual difference are you still talking about discrimination? All those differences are the heart of why men and women do not have the same employment prospects, why the workplace is unfair to women.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that the 77% statistic is based on median salaries, not means. That means that the very highest salaries in both groups do not affect the middle. So, the gap between the very highest salary earned by women (say, Oprah's) and the highest earned by men (say, Bill Gates) might vary by several billion and yet the medians would be unchanged. There may be many more millionaire and billionaire salaries in the 50% of males who are above their median (the salary of the "dude" at the midpoint of the salary range) than there are in the 50% of women above their median. That does give us a way to see how the average man and woman compare, but it does not tell us anything about how very rich the men at the top of the pay scale are compared to women, or whether women at the very low end are much poorer than men at the low end of their scale. So it is misleading as any kind of estimate of gender differences.
If Somerby were talking about education statistics and racial differences he would discuss the legacy of systematic suppression of literacy. Here it is appropriate to discuss the time, within our own lifespans (unlike slavery) when women were paid half of a man's salary with no other justification than that she was female and a man no doubt had a family to support. The beliefs and attitudes supporting lower pay for women have not gone -- we heard some here yesterday from HB. It is no less appropriate to look at these bare statistics without looking beyond them to the way our job market works, than it is to treat children of the urban underclass as if they were as privileged as middle class youngsters in their early years.
Somerby objects to the phrase "So I mentioned on Tuesday, women deserve equal pay for equal work." He feels this implies that the 77% describes people in the same job descriptions and working conditions. You could look at this another way. It could refer to people working equally hard in whatever job they can find, doing their best effort. We could assume that all work has dignity and is important to our economy. We could question whether the valuation of some jobs over others is justified on the human level and wonder why all jobs are not paid the same (or at least a living wage), rather than those held by men paid more than those held by women. We could say that women's work is the same in legitimacy and deserves the same compensation as men's work. We could acknowledge that when men control the corporations and set the wages, it is no accident that they pay themselves more than they pay women, that they discourage women from participating in the good jobs, that they wish to see women at home supporting their efforts instead of competing with them in the workplace, and that it should be obvious that this has an impact on labor statistics.
When you think about this differently, this whole discussion makes very little sense and seems like a giant smokescreen to prevent serious investigation of whether women are being shortchanged for their labor.
All Bob is saying is that you cannot say "equal pay for *equal* work and then use the 77% statistic. If you do, then it is you who are creating the giant smokescreen that prevents serious discussion. Obama is creating the nit for Fox News to pick. Stop doing that.
DeleteAll I am saying is you can say that, if you broaden what you mean by the word equal to include what women do in their traditional jobs as equal to what men do in theirs.
Delete"...the word equal to include what women do in their traditional jobs as equal to what men do in theirs."
DeleteUh, right.
Meaningless happytalk, which neither Obama nor any commenter treated with any seriousness is advocating -- that "people working equally hard in whatever job they can find, doing their best effort" should be paid the same?
Good luck getting that Commie talk on the donkey's agenda, ma'am.
On the other hand (you keep switching hands -- or is it talking out of both sides of your mouth -- whichever), if all you want is broad agreement about equal dignity of all people laboring, that's easy lip service to get. Even the GOP will sometimes give it to you.
But if you want to honestly discuss "whether women are being shortchanged for their labor" then A) you shouldn't present statistics in way that seems calculated to be misleading about the degree to which that is true, and B) you have some burden to say exactly what type of specific evidence you would accept.
"All jobs paid the same" is going exactly nowhere in terms of your desired "serious investigation."
So to with "it is no accident that they pay themselves more," when you refuse to be candid about the best evidence on the extent to which that is true or not.
You may not like it (I may not like it), but we live in this world where it's quite broadly accepted that different jobs are justly paid differently.
Since we no longer broadly accept that The Same Job should be paid differently based upon a worker's gender, that is the issue Obama, Maddow and many others are addressing.
tl;dr -- 12:21 FTW
DeleteHow To Get Your husband Back & Avoid Divorce,Love Spells That Really Work Fast
My Name is Vicky Lorimer, I am From United Kingdom.i am hear to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after a week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still love me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave casted on him that make him to come back to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact bravespellcaster@gmail.com. and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.
OMB (Three or Thirty Cheers for the OTB...who's counting)
ReplyDeleteWho disappears facts? BOB
Who leaves out relevant parts of statements? BOB
Who does this to mislead? BOB
Thank heavens in harp, harp, harping on the same issue, Bob Somerby never complained anyone was repetitive. Or did he?
We present the actual text of the President's speech, with the disappeared sections highlighted.
"Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work. She deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship – and you know what, a father does, too. It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode. This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall Street to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.
Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs – but they’re not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.
In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs. Many businesses have done it on their own..."
I am sorry to say that the master hypocrite misleads his rubes and now has fallen to quoting, instead of critiquing, as he did in the case of Susan Rice, those who share his desire to mislead to serve their meme.
And, to repeat ourselves, we will note all this has been said to BOB before.
KZ
It would be nice if you were more concerned about the fair treatment of women than about attacking Somerby.
DeleteIt would be nice if Somerby were more concerned about the fair treament of women than about attacking Rachel Maddow, et al.
DeleteIt does not matter what Bob says (or does not say), as many often point out in the comments. It does matter what the President says. He should not say women deserve equal pay for equal work and then use the 77% statistic. As I pointed out earlier, this is a nit for Fox News to pick and undermines a serious discussion of the real problems for women in the workplace.
DeleteIt may be a good thing that this discussion is occurring because it lets us point out that the 5% (or 7% or 8%) statistic is not the right measure of discrimination either.
DeleteKZ, don't want you to get the big head or anything but . . .
DeleteI am really weaning myself off this blog. Just about the only thing I do now is read Bob's headline to see which MSNBC host or NY Times op-ed writer he's attacking today, then clicking on the combox to see if and what you have written about it.
I find that you are often what Somerby used to be -- providing the context that is left out in a rush to judgement, supplying the "disappeared" words and facts.
Like I said, Bob used to do exactly this kind of thing before he got blinded by the hatred of those younger and more successful than he and began to obsess about them daily. It makes no difference what the issue was. He could have been writing about the Bush's 16 words, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, or bridge access lanes in New Jersey. The bile is the same.
You on the other hand, are the only reason I click onto this site at all these days to remind myself what Bob once was and could still be if he wasn't so consumed in a deeply personal vendetta against people he knows only through his TV set.
"It does matter what the President says."
DeleteGood. Then you should be thanking KZ for reminding you what the President actually said, rather than only the part Somerby wants you to remember while ignoring the rest.
Nothing Obama said in the rest of the quote justifies the 77% factoid. The 77% factoid tells you nothing about how much of the pay gap between men and women is due to discrimination versus other factors. People who say otherwise are spinning, and, dare I say, lying.
DeleteThe "factoid" is a fact. People who say otherwise are spinning and, dare I say, lying.
DeleteI will leave it to Bob and his loyal tribe to try to explain it away, without, of course, explaining why it is such a big deal when Obama cited it, and not so much when Gore did.
hardindr, the "other factors" are discrimination too.
DeleteI agree with Anon 12:33. I mostly scan Bob's rants then go right to KZ. I know most of the rants by heart already --- eternal repetition has its uses --- and if it's fresh subject matter, I can usually guess what Bob's going to say before he says it. The dense, hectoring artless prose also gets harder and harder to read over time. KZ, on the other hand, provokes and entertains, while making informed points.
DeleteNews Flash! Perennial troll finds KZ awesome!!
DeleteAnon @ 12:24
DeleteWe have, on numerous occasions demonstrated our concern with treatment of women. We have, to be sure, been more concerned with BOB's uneven treatment of women and women's issues.
In case you missed it, we, like the OTB, will reprise one of our greatest hits from the Part 21 or 23, or perhaps 27 of this same slanderous rerun on the 77 cents on the dollar pay gap. The difference is, we are telling you upfront this is a rerun.
"Today we will tell you what BOB never tells you about why it is not a measure of either workplace discrimination or equal pay for equal work. It does not compute the unpaid hours worked by women caring for children in their own home. That is cultural discrimination with an economic consequence.
Go see the question asked by your Census Bureau. The don't ask you how many hours you work. They don't ask you how many weeks you work. They ask you how many hours and weeks you work "for pay."
You see my dear BOB and all you foolish little BOBbleheaded friends, the role of women in society as unpaid caregivers for both the littlest and the frailest among you is an enormous amount of work that is neither counted as work nor does it earn measurable compensation.
So to us, on a less than earthly plane, people who look for ways to statistically manipulate the numbers to narrow the gap are the consumate pig blind assholes of your social structure."
We included Kessler in that assessment as well as BOB.
KZ
"the role of women in society as unpaid caregivers ... is an enormous amount of work that is neither counted as work nor does it earn measurable compensation"
DeleteYup.
Of course, neither Obama nor Maddow (same as Somerby and Kessler!) is suggesting that these unpaid workers be paid.
Are you, KZ? Who should pay them, and how much?
Anon. 3:01 Well done as a BOB reader.
DeleteWe did not broach the issue of additional factors in comparative gender compensation in order to suggest a remedy. We mentioned it because a couple of, what is the phrase we used, ah yes...consummate pig blind assholes.. suggest that if you take into account some variables the gap might be less than 23%. We wished to impart the strange notion that a couple of those variables, if viewed in a different way, actually would widen the gap.
You ask if I suggest they be paid. Yes. Now let me ask if you endorse the notion that, in compiling these statistics their lack of compensation should be factored out and, worse, their existence be eliminated because your social counting system considers that what they do is not "work?"
We were particularly stuck, when we penned that comment originally, by this Kesslerian offering in his piece on the subject suggesting Obama was not being totally truthful in the pay gap issue:
"The president must begin to acknowledge that “77 cents” does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society."
Your Kenyan overlord, however, did at least acknowledge the problem related to women's role as primary uncompensated caretakers even if he offered no specific remedy. The problem is that both Kessler and BOB have disappeared that he did even that, because that is the only way these two liars can suggest the prevaricator here is not the president, but themselves.
KZ
KZ,
DeleteThe additional quotes from Obama's SOTU, in no way changes the meaning of what Obama said. He claimed that women "should get equal pay for equal work" after the 77 cents-to-the-dollar factoid obviously implying that they don't.
Women DO NOT get 77 cents to the dollar hat men get for doing equal work. That is a lie. Women get paid less because they do different, less demanding work with fewer hours in nicer environments.
There's a very fine book about it entitled "Why Men Earn More." Ask your library about it. They should be able to help you.
Or you could just look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q
BTW, we already have a law that prohibits people from being fired because they give birth, get sick or have a relative who's seriously ill. It's called the Family Medical Leave Act. I actually helped preserve it during the Bush Administration. It's not perfect but it does seem a little slippery for Obama not to mention it.
And then there's this regarding another comment:
"In the United States, men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, but the women shoulder significantly more of the household burden. American men work an average of 50.6 hours a week (33 hours at a job and 17.6 hours on household tasks). Women, who are more likely to be employed part time, worked 50.9 hours a week (23.8 hours at a job and 27.1 hours at home)."
http://www.okcfox.com/story/23882686/new-study-says-women-put-in-longer-harder-hours-than-men
The same article wrings it's hands over the fact that women are uncompensated for house work. It fails to note that women do 80% of the household spending. In my experience spending is the fun part.
If women were really getting screwed I honestly don't think that you and other people would have to play these games.
Spending is not the fun part. It is going to the same market to buy the same groceries every week. Taking the car to the gas station and the clothes to the cleaners. It is just chores.
DeleteHow about dresses? Spas? Cars? I think buying cars is fun. How about going to the movies? Going out with your friends? Vacations! Picking a house! Yay!
DeleteAnd I personally happen to like grocery shopping.
Have you ever been to a shopping mall? I don't go into most of the store because they're overwhelmingly devoted to women's products.
This is a perfect example of how feminists think. Look at how you focus only on what you consider to be the boring parts of shopping in order to play the victim card while completely and stupidly denying that there's any fun to it.
I am woman! I am strong! Whaah! I'm a victim and you have to feel sorry for me or I'm going to get angry!
Good luck maintaining a relationship with a woman, with this attitude.
Delete"BTW, we already have a law that prohibits people from being fired because they give birth, get sick or have a relative who's seriously ill. It's called the Family Medical Leave Act."
DeleteGee, Heironymous. Would that be the act that was passed by Congress then vetoed by the first Bush? Then it was passed again and was the first legislation Bill Clinton signed into law?
It should have been a no-brainer for the "family values" crowd. UNPAID leave for having a baby or caring for an ill family member without losing your job.
Anonymous at 10:42
DeleteNot having an intelligent response to my point you are forced into an ad hominem attack. This, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is an admission of defeat. I own you.
Anonymous at 9:09 AM
You seem to have failed to notice that it is, nevertheless, still illegal to fire someone for a family emergency or birth. You have not refuted my point. You are, rather, just an angry twit who has evident difficulty in handling nuance.
Yes, the leave is "UNPAID" but it's still leave.
Really, folks. If you want to hurt my feelings you're going to have to do better than that. Few things are more deliciously pathetic than someone who hurls insults to no effect.
HB,
DeleteI tried criticizing your "facts" (garbage women being paid the exact same as garbage men). All I got was you climbing up on the cross playing the victim.
"But she [Maddow] keeps working to prevent viewers from getting clear on such points."
ReplyDeleteThis, unfortunately, is a flat-out, frickin' lie. I say "lie" because The Howler sees absolutely every split second of what Maddow does, and he knows perfectly well she recently had a professor on from George Washington who explained the whole discussion in excruciating detail.
But ul, Somerby's response to that would be "who needs professors."
Deleteurbleg, you got a link for that? I'd like to have a look.
DeleteIt was Maddow's April 8 show, not that you are any more interested in learning the truth about the wage gap as David in Cal is interested in learning the truth about global warming.
DeleteTruth? Truth is a journey, not a destination. You do not (cannot) know the truth.
DeleteBottom line: nobody who actually has used the 77% figure as illustrative is conning anybody. The only con being run here is the claim by Somerby and his tiny and extraordinarily obsequious claque here that they are misleading listeners who might not get that the 77% is not the difference for equal work, but is an overall figure that in part is created by different occupations. As Somerby admits, both statements by Maddow were correct: whether aggregated, which produces the 77% figure, or disaggregated, which still produces discrepancies in almost every category of occupations when analyzed separately.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the evidence of either the effect of deception or the intent to deceive? Neither Somerby nor anyone else has any. They will claim they do, of course, or that it is self-evident, but they don't. Everyone understands that is an overall or aggregated figure with many complexities. So?
"Everyone understands that is an overall or aggregated figure with many complexities."
DeleteFrom personal experience, No, "everyone" don't understand that.
The President nowhere qualified those complexities as applicable to the "77% figure," merely appending a list of workplace issues, which he said applied to men as well.
Stating the figure as the President did is misleading. Some people are in fact misled by such presentations. I know some such people.
Why does it get your nose so out of joint to have that misapprehension corrected, to have it suggested that not pointing out the "many complexities" is problematic? So much so that you have to absurdly -- hilariously -- claim everyone understands what's really meant by the statistic?
"Stating the figure as the President did is misleading."
DeleteMisleading to you, perhaps. But not misleading to two large swaths of the population:
1. People who actually heard what the President said.
2. People who don't think everything Somerby writes is Gospel.
These two swaths overlap greatly.
Anonymous 2:56.
DeleteThe measurement is annual average income for full time working men and women. State it in a way which is not misleading.
Actually, it is annual median income for full time working men and women. "Average" is misleading because it includes a variety of kinds of measures of central tendency and generally, when unspecified, refers by default to mean not median.
DeleteUrban Legend: "Bottom line: nobody who actually has used the 77% figure as illustrative is conning anybody. The only con being run here is the claim by Somerby and his tiny and extraordinarily obsequious claque here that they are misleading listeners who might not get that the 77% IS NOT THE DIFFERENCE FOR EQUAL WORK BUT IS AN OVERALL FIGURE THAT IN PART IS CREATED BY DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS."
Delete"MADDOW (4/30/12): Overall, when you aggregate everybody working, women get paid 77 cents for every dollar that men get paid. FOR THE SAME WORK DUDES GET PAID MORE." (My emphasis)
Hey, Urban Legend. You think maybe you want to take a mulligan on that?
And, BTW, I do not believe, as you apparently do, that the word "obsequious" is defined as demonstrating adequate reading comprehension.
Liberals should be a little bit more self aware about these things. When they're among themselves no one is going to find fault with their distortions to prove a point. The problems develop when they venture out before a larger audience with their given "facts". We saw that when Maddox was taken to the proverbial woodshed by some low-level rightwing pundit regarding this very issue no less. Seeing or just hearing about what transpired on national television that day proved to be a downright humbling experience for all liberals. As always, honesty remains the best policy.
ReplyDeleteLester Maddox was taken to the woodshed? Or was it Greg Maddux the ex-pitcher?
DeleteI didn't realize either one of them were liberals!
It was embarrassing, one of our top line liberal stars, a Rhodes Scholar no less, receiving a public paddling for her dishonesty.
DeleteWell, if you really want to be embarrassed, take a look at the portion of Sommers' comments that Somerby doesn't highlight:
Delete"The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week."
As others have noted, did it occur to Sommers or Somerby that the "difference in occupations, positions, educations, job tenure and hours worked per week" might just have a bit to do with gender discrimination as well?
That's like saying that differences in "occupation" accounts for the difference in pay between plantation owners and slaves. Must account for that before can call it racial discrimination.
As for the Castellanos-Maddow debate, again denying the undeniable -- women DO make less than men, and that applies across all occupational, educational, job tenure and hours worked per week lines.
But since you cite the famous Castellanos-Maddow debate, has it struck you yet how unoriginal Somerby has become? He used to be at least a somewhat original thinker. Now he is reduced to reciting old, tired, right-wing talking points he heard somewhere else just to take the position against Maddow.
Actually, I think she cleaned his clock. You disagree. Says a lot about both of us and where we are coming from, doesn't it?
Catellanos cares about black children. There parents will take your job. You know, the job you really needed. The one you were qualified for. The one that went to one of "them" because of affirmative action.
DeleteBob's new hero. Because he interrupted Maddow repeatedly then condescendingly tried to put her down.
Bob at least didn't interrupt. He is not prominent enough to be invited to such affairs despite his knowledge of campaigns and elections. He's just spent two years writing about the show and misrepresenting what transpired instead.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS HOW MY RELATIONSHIP WAS SAVED BY DR BRAVE !
Hello to every one out here, am here to shear my unexpected miracle that has happen to me three days ago,My name is Mrs Judith Thompson am from USA,Florida. i want to use this opportunity to thank my great doctor who really made my life a pleasurable one today. This great man DR.Brave brought my husband back to me, i had three lovely kids for my husband, about four years ago i and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me for one lady. i felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, until one day i met a good friend of mine that was also in a situation like me but her problem was her ex-boyfriend who she had an unwanted pregnancy for and he refused to take responsibility and dumped her. she told me that mine was a small case and that i should not worry about it at all, so i asked her what was the solution to my problems and she gave me this great man email address. i was doubting if this man was the solution, so i contacted this great man and he told me what to do and i deed them all, he told me to wait for just two day and that my husband will come crawling on his kneels just for forgiveness so i faithfully deed what this great man asked me to do and for sure after two days i heard a knock on the door, in a great surprise i saw him on his kneels and i was speechless, when he saw me, all he did was crying and asking me for forgiveness, from that day, all the pains and sorrows in my heart flew away,since then i and my husband and our lovely kids are happy.that's why i want to say a big thank you to DR.Brave spiritual temple. This great man made me to understand that there is no problem on earth that has no solution so please if you know that you have this same problem or any problem that is similar, i will advise you to come straight to this great man. you can email him at:bravespellcaster@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteHow To Get Your husband Back & Avoid Divorce,Love Spells That Really Work Fast
My Name is Vicky Lorimer, I am From United Kingdom.i am hear to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after a week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still love me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Brave casted on him that make him to come back to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact bravespellcaster@gmail.com. and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.