Candidate Harris cons us rubes!

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019

Melber lets her do it:
Last evening, Kamala Harris appeared on The Beat with Ari Melber.

What happened was several steps beyond disappointing. As Harrison Ford is told at the end of Witness, "You be careful, John Book, out among them English."

At the start of the interview, Melber asked Harris about her plan to address the gender pay gap.

You can see Harris' initial answer below. Already, things are very shaky. To watch the full segment, click here:
MELBER (5/20/19): Let's start with this. What does your plan do to combat the gender pay gap?

HARRIS: Well, first of all, it is just a fact, right? So the reality of this is that we don't have to debate the point, which is that, on average, women make 80 cents on the dollar to men. If you're talking about African-American women, that's 61 cents. If it's Latinas, it's 53 cents.

So there is an obvious issue that we have around, not only disparities but fairness, and equal pay for equal work. So let's get beyond that because it's not a debatable point.

The question becomes, what are we going to do about it? And I think the goal, we would all agree, should be that people should be paid equally for equal work.

[...]

HARRIS: There should be a consequence, Ari. There should be a consequence to the corporation if they're not paying people equally for equal work. Women deserve to be paid as much as men, and they are not. And this has not changed over decades.
Already, we were in serious trouble. Harris seemed to be saying that, "on average," black women get paid 61 cents on the dollar "for equal work" as compared to men.

As far as we know, no one actually believes that. No conservative specialist believes such a thing. No liberal or progressive specialist does.

As a statement about what's true "on average" across the work force, this familiar old claim seems absurd on its face. But so far, it was possible to think that Harris was merely speaking carelessly, in a way which could be corrected.

Later in the interview, that was no longer possible. Melber noted the stiff financial penalties built into Harris' proposal. Did she really plan to follow through? Harris answered thusly:
MELBER: So that [financial penalty] is a lot. I mean, are you hearing about that from your donors from Wall Street? Are you—is that for real, I guess is what I'm asking?

HARRIS: It is for real because look, Ari, it's for real that that woman is getting paid 80 cents on the dollar. It's for real that that other woman is getting paid 61 cents on the dollar.

It's for real that that other woman is getting paid 53 cents on the dollar. And she's sitting at her kitchen table in the middle of the night trying to figure out how she can pay her bills.

When she wakes up at the same time the next morning as the guy who was working in the cubicle next to her, she performs the same work, but she's not getting paid the same amount. That's for real too.

MELBER: Very, very strongly put and very interesting. I want to get you on some of the other breaking news.

HARRIS: OK.
To Melber, this was very interesting. By now, we were being asked to picture a woman "in a cubicle," working right next to a man who was doing "the same work."

We were told that the woman who was doing the same work was getting paid 53 or 61 cents on the dollar, as compared to the man working right alongside her.

As far as we know, no one thinks that anything like that is actually true "on average." Surely, Senator Harris knows that. Presumably, Melber does too.

As the week proceeds, we'll discuss the way this topic is being discussed out there among them English. That said, it's easy to spot this sort of thing when it's being done Over There, by people in the other tribe, AKA The Very Bad People.

It's a whole other thing to see it done by people like Harris and Melber. In this lunatic age of Donald J. Trump and corporate looting, can this possibly be the best the liberal world can do?

74 comments:

  1. I don't know if, ad hominem hurts or helps or hurts, but it, is certainly the order of the day here, and, with more sadness than, of course, panties, it is impossible to escape, the fact, Bob Somerby's is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, honey, we're as proud of you as ever!

      Delete
    2. Son, I'm proud of you,too. No matter what people say.

      Delete






















    3. Hello viewers around the Globe, I was despondent because i had a very small penis, about 2.5 inches soft and 4 inches hard not nice enough to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors for me, but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the INTERNET about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to contact him on his email: Drolusolutinthome@gmail.com) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 3 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my sex and i have got a large penis. Am so happy, thanks to Dr OLU I also learn that Dr OLU also help with Breast Enlargement Hips and Bums Enlargement etc.. If you are in any situation with a little Penis, weak ejaculation, small breast_hips_bums do get to Dr OLU now for help on his email (Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com) or add him on whatsapp line +2348140654426






















      Delete
  2. "So there is an obvious issue that we have around, not only disparities but fairness, and equal pay for equal work."

    Aside for your zombie 'leader' spouting the usual zombie lies (as you noted), who in the world ever heard of this "fairness, and equal pay for equal work"? I mean, in a capitalist society. It's ludicrous.

    Employers pay their employees whatever the two sides negotiate, on the case-by-case basis. The person doing the same work in the next cubicle could be paid twice or a half of what you make. Which is why the payroll spreadsheet is usually the biggest secret in the company.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Employers pay their employees whatever the two sides negotiate, on the case-by-case basis.

      Isn't that an expensive and inefficient way for Walmart to deal with its 1.5 million workers in the U.S.? How long does the average negotiation take, a half hour? Would you guess an associate sits down with management at least once every two years to negotiate their compensation? That would mean to Walmart is paying management on average 375,000 hours a year to negotiate labor agreements.

      By the way, wouldn't the associate be in a stronger position to negotiate if the government established a higher minimum wage rate, lowered U-6 unemployment by employing more labor and promoting a weaker dollar through monetary policy, by protecting labor intensive industries with its trade policies, and by promoting union organizing?

      Alternatively, aren't employers in a stronger position when the minimum wage is below a living wage, U-6 unemployment is high, trade agreements wreck domestic industries, laws allow for union busting activities on the part of employers and state governments, and government tax, anti-trust, and patent policies further direct a greater income share to capital at the expense of labor in the economy? And aren't those employer friendly policies the neo-liberal policies that have taken over the American economy beginning in the late 1970s?

      Delete
    3. In the American version of a capitalist society, there is a law on the books, known as the Equal Pay Act, in effect since 1963. There is a government agency, the EEOC, charged with enforcing it.

      Delete
    4. Talking about Walmart, as far as I know, the minimum wage is gender-neutral.

      Also, the liberal zombie cult hates the labor unions. They are portrayed as (surprise!) racist and sexist quasi-criminal institutions, full of stinky Trump voters. Oh yeah, and homophobic.

      If I have to choose between the two sides both of whom are union-hates, I think I'll prefer the straight-forward union-hating side, the libertarians. Not as unpleasant.

      Delete
    5. "There is a government agency, the EEOC, charged with enforcing it."

      All right! what's the problem, then? Call now, operators are standing by to take your call.

      Delete
    6. Most libertarians think there's something wrong with labor organizing but they are all for capital organizing as corporations. Funny that.

      Mao if, according to you, "Employers pay their employees whatever the two sides negotiate, on the case-by-case basis" what does the minimum wage have to do with it? Or are you saying without a state or federal minimum wage law in place Walmart, the economy's largest employer, would be negotiating pay rates with their, er, associates that are below $7.25/hr.?

      Delete
    7. Sam Walton wouldn't negotiate with you personally, but I imagine the local hiring manager might. What of it?

      Delete
    8. Negotiate with you about your compensation? I had no idea how completely out of touch you are with the realities of working class life in this country.

      Delete
    9. Where "realities" is your hypothetical world without the minimum wage? Okay, I guess.

      It's not clear to me: are you trying to make some point about capitalist labor markets, or to share your opinion about my online persona, dembot-style?

      If you believe you do have a point to make, why don't you just spell it out.

      Delete
    10. OK, I will spell it out. You don't know what you're talking about if you think even half of American workers are either paid minimum wage or "negotiate, on the case-by-case basis" with their employer for their pay packages. What determines pay rates then? Take it or leave it:

      P-A-Y-S-C-A-L-E-S slash
      C-O-M-P-A-N-Y S-A-L-A-R-Y S-T-R-U-C-T-U-R-E-S
      F-I-X-E-D C-O-M-M-I-S-S-I-O-N R-A-T-E-S

      Delete
    11. What? Sorry, I still don't get your point.

      Here's what I wrote:
      Aside for your zombie 'leader' spouting the usual zombie lies (as you noted), who in the world ever heard of this "fairness, and equal pay for equal work"? I mean, in a capitalist society. It's ludicrous.

      Employers pay their employees whatever the two sides negotiate, on the case-by-case basis. The person doing the same work in the next cubicle could be paid twice or a half of what you make. Which is why the payroll spreadsheet is usually the biggest secret in the company.


      Do you have any substantial objections to this, or are you trying, for some reason, to act as a pedantic asshole?

      If it's the latter, then you've succeeded, brilliantly. Congratulations.

      Delete
    12. Who's the zombie bot who can't admit they were wrong now? Why it's the Howler's very own most likely to show up in comments and declare "First!," Mao Cheng Ji.

      Delete
  3. Somerby asserts without evidence that Harris's claim is false. He says specialists know it is untrue. We are supposed to take his word for that.

    Anecdotally, I have had several experiences that say this is untrue. I was classified as a supervisor while men doing the same job as me were classified as manager. How do I know it was the same work? HR came around and reclassified me as a manager too and increased my salary. I didn't know there was an inequity but they did. But according to Somerby, that kind of thing doesn't happen. Or perhaps he would argue that I wasn't doing the same work, because my title wasn't the same.

    Somerby is an ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The studies Harris referenced involve people doing different work, not the same work. There are no studies showing what Harris alleged.

      Delete
    2. https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-occupation-2018/

      The data is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      Delete
    3. As a supervisor you were making 80 percent (or 61 percent or 53 percent) what the men were making as managers? Yours is the only case nationally when a company's HR department rectified that unfairness and, therefore, such injustices are the norm in every other instance in America today where together men and women are employed?

      Somerby's point, which I would expect he would maintain even after factoring in your experience, is that the state of affairs you describe, before it was rectified, is far from the one prevailing universally in the American economy.

      Delete
    4. CMike, David, did you look at the data at the link provided by anon 5:03? It is compiled from data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It compares by occupation and shows many with gaps.

      And if Somerby (Or you) want to maintain some point, I would hope that it would be based on fact and not narrative.

      Delete
    5. @5:16 I don't trust a study done by a partisan outfit. Non-partisan academic studies show women earning around 95% of what men earn for the same work. E.g., the liberal Politifact reported
      The study by CONSAD Research Corp. took into account women being more likely to work part-time for lower pay, leave the labor force for children or elder care, and choose work that is "family friendly" with fuller benefit packages over higher pay. The study found that, when factoring in those variables, the gap narrows to between 93 cents and 95 cents on the dollar.

      https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/

      Delete
    6. 5:16 PM,

      "[D]id you look at the data at the link provided by anon 5:03?" The claim at that link is that "...there are 108 occupations in which women’s median earnings were 95 percent or less than men’s (that is, a wage gap of at least 5 cents per dollar earned by men)."

      How is it you think given that information it's going to end up that Harris is right when she says, "it's for real that that woman is getting paid 80 cents on the dollar. It's for real that that other woman is getting paid 61 cents on the dollar... as the guy who was working in the cubicle next to her, she performs the same work, but she's not getting paid the same amount?"

      Somerby is not suggesting women make as much as men, Somerby is not suggesting women make as much as men doing the same job. Somerby claims Harris is using absurd numbers (80 cents, 61 cents, 53 cents on the dollar) in illustrating the problem.

      Harris may have left you confused. Most voters will recognize she's not being honest and that will be to her detriment and to the detriment generally of both Democratic candidates and women in the work force.

      Delete
    7. Somerby is baldly stating that Harris is conning the public when she proposes that women be paid equally with men.

      You can waste a lot of time arguing about which statistics are accurate or you can move forward and pay women the same as men. I prefer the latter. My suspicion is that people who are too wrapped up in that 80% figure are motivated by stronger impulses than simply getting some numbers right. Women deserve equal pay. Just do it and if they are already being paid equally, nothing is lost. But if they are not, it will make a big difference to women.

      I not only believe she is honest but I believe she is going to do something to help women in the workplace. And you'd better believe that I vote!

      Delete
    8. Bad faith is on the side of the mostly men who want to convince women that there is no problem.

      Delete
    9. Every woman with a career has stories about atrocities they've encountered that not only break the law but were difficult for them to deal with, discouraging if not damaging. Many women fight to find recognition and a chance to learn and work at non-traditional or non-clerical jobs.

      The kinds of complaints that Somerby posts here are a slap in the face to women who have overcome major unfairness just to break into a field, just to find the chance to do a job. It is a joke to argue over whether the underpayment is 5% or 80% when it is so hard just to get taken seriously.

      When someone engages in this nonsense and seems to seriously believe that women are fairly treated in the workplace, I cannot help but believe they just don't know any women.

      I've been fired for being pregnant, offered clerical work when I've applied for a technical training job, been underpaid and lied to and propositioned and told that single moms are preferred as hirees because they are so desperate, and been consistently underestimated. I've been told I'm too assertive to work at one place and I've been told I was hired because others thought I would get along with a domineering boss because I wouldn't challenge him, both sexist assumptions. At one place, no one bothered to find a desk or provide any orientation on my first day at work.

      Men are treated differently, no matter what the pay realities might be. This needs to stop and someone like Somerby who thinks it is OK to argue about the %s of underpayment is not living in the same reality.

      Harris gets it because she has been a working woman. So does Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar. For men, it seems to be an intellectual exercise concerning studies that don't come close to capturing what it is like to try to work in a male-dominated environment.

      So, you guys can fuck off and we women will decide who to vote for. We don't need your advice about this.

      Delete
    10. Not only do proper statistics show only a small difference in average earnings, the other big problem with this issue is that discrimination based on sex is already illegal. Women cannot be paid less than men for the same work. And, of course it's illegal to discriminate against blacks in the workplace. So, Harris is campaigning on a "problem" which is both solved and now almost non-existent.

      Delete
    11. Hiring of undocumented workers is illegal too and yet it is widespread across the US. If you did a salary survey would their salaries be included? Do you imagine they are paid the same as workers with the legal right to work in America? Why then do you think that women are paid equally to men, just because there are wage surveys that say so? There is what people say they do, and what people actually do, and they are not necessarily the same.

      What happens when women are working not only part-time but off the books? How much do you suppose they are paid?

      Remember when Presidents couldn't find a cabinet nominee who didn't have a nanny problem? Were those nannies men and do you suppose the female nannies were being paid the same as the male counterparts (it is humorous to even contemplate this)?

      David in Cal thinks that blacks (who make demonstrably less than white workers) are equally paid because discrimination against them has been declared illegal. Black people and liberals know he is ridiculous to say this. It is the same with women's pay and workplace equity. It is ridiculous to say that women are paid the same as men just because Somerby says a study found that companies report substantially the same pay rates (who knows what realities lie behind the numbers). He thinks this is all a scam on women's part. Just like conservatives think black people are scamming the system to get free stuff, handouts.

      But Somerby is supposedly liberal. No liberal thinks this way. He seems to really thinks women (e.g. Harris) are scamming every time they ask for equal treatment. Stormy scammed Trump and now Harris is scamming voters. I'll bet he thinks Hillary scammed too. Female journalists are scamming too, and so are those female professors. Maybe his sainted mother scammed his father. A man who believes this kind of thing isn't going to do well on the relationship front. But I sure wouldn't take his advice about women's employment stats or who to vote for.

      Delete
    12. Undocumented workers can't sue if they're paid less than a legal amount. Women can and do. So, there's every reason to believe that the legal remedies have pushed women's pay close to men's, for the same job, same experience, etc.

      Delete
    13. In 1993 the Democratic majority controlled the U.S. Senate with 56 seats. In 2017 the Republican majority controlled the U.S. Senate with 52 seats. 9:11 PM may think the outcomes of the nomination processes discussed below were determined by the sex of the nominees.

      I think the outcomes were determined by the fact Democrats have long been cowed by the right-wing media and will not stand by their own while Republicans ignore any criticism mustered up by the corporate media and make ignoring norms and standing by their own an asset of their brand.

      [QUOTE] LINK In the Nannygate matter of 1993, Wood was Bill Clinton's second unsuccessful choice for United States Attorney General. Like Clinton's previous nominee, Zoƫ Baird, Wood had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny, but unlike Baird, she had paid the required taxes on the employee.

      Wood employed the illegal immigrant at a time when it was legal to do so, before the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made the hiring of illegal immigrants unlawful. The threat of a repetition of the same controversy nevertheless led to the hasty withdrawal of Wood from consideration. [END QUOTE]

      [QUOTE]
      LINK On December 16, 2016, [Mick} Mulvaney was announced as President-elect Donald Trump's choice to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.[56]

      Mulvaney's nomination as Director-designate was reviewed in hearings held by the members of the United States Senate Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs then presented to the full Senate for a vote.

      In his statement to the Senate Budget Committee, Mulvaney admitted that he had failed to pay $15,000 in payroll taxes from 2000–04 for a nanny he had hired to care for his triplets. Mulvaney said he did not pay the taxes because he viewed the woman as a babysitter rather than as a household employee. After filling out a questionnaire from the Trump transition team, he realized the lapse and began the process of paying back taxes and fees.

      Senate Democrats noted that Republicans had previously insisted that past Democratic nominees' failure to pay taxes for their household employees was disqualifying...

      On February 16, 2017, the Senate confirmed Mulvaney, 51–49.
      [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    14. Men built the entire world you live in. The society and culture and world that allows you to be an independent and free woman was completely and totally designed and built by men.

      Delete
    15. It's ironic that this deceitful whore complains about equal pay while she sits on her fat ass at work all day reading and posting on the Daily Howler.

      Tell your boss the truth. You fritter away and waste time all day bitch!

      Delete
    16. I've been fired … I've applied … I've been told I'm too assertiveI've been told I was hired … I would get along ,,, I wouldn't challenge … on my first day at work.

      Sorry, I dozed off there for a while. MEGO, and all that. But that’s probably just me. I’m sure most voters will be thrilled to have you turn an important issue into your autobiography.

      So, you guys can fuck off and we women will decide who to vote for.

      Wait, are you voting somewhere in which men get to decide how you vote? Because that would certainly undercut the 19th Amendment. Where I vote, they use a secret ballot.

      We don't need your advice about this.

      Go ahead and run with the 79-cents-on-the-dollar banner. ‘Cause it might not be literally true, but it’s metaphorically true, dontchaknow? And after all, we all have your fascinating first-person account to back that up.

      But don’t blame me when the other side takes that banner out of your hands and beats you with it like they’re beating a red-headed stepchild. Let’s all hope that sisterhood is powerful, sister.

      Delete
    17. Men built the entire world you live in.

      Just like the Catholic Church, eh? Makes it convenient to properly assign the blame.

      Delete
    18. Not just like, the Catholic Church also dingbat. All made by men for better or worse. That is simply the truth.

      Delete
    19. If women had been in charge we would all still be living in grass huts.

      Delete
    20. Well, not all. You for instance. And me and everyone. Unless you were cloned. Which, come to think of it, would explain all the Anonymi.

      And who do you think manned (pun intended) the industrial home front while American men fought World War II? Squirrels?

      But your argument only has force if men built the best of all possible worlds.

      Delete
    21. Sounds good. Thanks for setting me straight. Men didn't build the world we inhabit.

      Delete
    22. deadrat, pointing out the first person references in a previous comment, and his second word is “I”. Irony!

      In what sense is 79 cents only metaphorically true? It is a statistically valid number, comparing the average salary of women vs the average salary of men. It is a true measure of the earning power of women.

      Delete
    23. @CMike:
      Are you aware that Bernie said this on Twitter:

      Women on average make just 80 cents for every dollar a man is paid, and it’s even lower for women of color:

      -61 cents for Black women
      -57 cents for Native women
      -53 cents for Latina women

      Equal pay for equal work is an issue of basic justice. ‪#EqualPayDay‬
      11:32 AM · Apr 2, 2019

      Delete
    24. Ya see, when I said, “Sorry, I dozed off there for a while,” it was a rhetorical device to say that what I was reading was such boring, self-centered and irrelevant bullshit, that it lulled me to sleep. Only a moron would think that the point I was making had anything to do with my actual sleep habits.

      It’s just not as much fun if I have to explain these things.

      Delete
    25. Yes, I am aware of that. I saw it when he posted it and winced. It might work on Twitter but I think it's a bad message to take to television where at some point you'll end up running into push back that will make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

      Sanders calls himself a socialist but he's really a social democrat. It's important he makes it clear that, whereas he wants a larger share of national income going to labor and wants to use progressive taxation, a universal health care system, a $15/hr minimum wage, pro-union labor policy, employment opportunities from government infrastructure projects and highly subsidized, high quality child care to reduce standard of living inequality, he's not advocating for eliminating financial incentives within a competitive labor market.

      Delete
    26. In what sense is 79 cents only metaphorically true?

      How about as an exercise, you try to get out of your own head. I promise it won’t hurt, and if you don’t like it, you can scurry back in.

      Look up why the 79 cents argument is misleading. If it helps, consider that you’re searching for why some people (for value of some equal to those you dislike) say it’s misleading.

      This will be helpful for two reasons. First, it may give you an inkling about the futility of treating women’s economic status as a matter of pay scales. Second, you may come to understand just how effective the counter-attack will be.

      Delete
    27. Men didn't build the world we inhabit.

      They did. That's my point. It just doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

      Delete
    28. What does it mean then Einstein?

      Delete
    29. I guess that when you’re as dumb as a ball peen hammer, everyone else looks like an Einstein.

      It’s a sign of the times that it’s impossible to tell misogynists from trolls, but I’ll give it one more try:

      The world of mathematics was built by men. Almost every advance in mathematics was made by a man.

      This is a true statement. But part of the world of mathematics was the systematic exclusion of women. It’s not that women are constitutionally incapable of doing mathematics. One of the most brilliant mathematicians of all time was Emmy Noether. When David Hilbert, another mathematician of Noether’s brilliance, invited her to join the faculty of the University of Gottingen, her appointment was blocked by other members of the faculty because of her sex. Hilbert famously protested to no avail, “We’re a university, not a bath house.”

      The boast that men alone built mathematics should ring hollow.

      Let me try an analogy you might be able to understand. Suppose that short people somehow got control of the game of basketball and had changed the rules so that no one over 5’ 8” could play an officially sanctioned game. What would you think of the claim that short people built the world of basketball?

      Delete
    30. If women had not been excluded from mathematics, up to a full one percent of mathematical advancements would have been achieved by women.

      Delete
    31. So you are saying men built the world we inhabit because they systematically excluded women from helping them do so? That women are naturally driven to build and create at the same level men are? That had it not been for a systematic exclusion, women would have equally or more so helped create roads, oil tankers, light bulbs, steam engines, carburetors and the rest of the vast bulk of contemporary industrial life in which we currently luxuriate? Is that close to what you are saying?

      Further, you are saying that believing otherwise is misogynistic?

      Delete
    32. If women had not been excluded from mathematics, up to a full one percent of mathematical advancements would have been achieved by women.

      A full one percent? Seems somebody was excluded from mathematics.

      Delete
    33. So you are saying men built the world we inhabit because they systematically excluded women from helping them do so?

      No, I’m saying that it’s trivially true that men by and large “built the world” because women were systematically excluded from the builders guild.

      I’m also saying that your view relies on a narrow definition of built. For instance, it’s true that men won World War II in the sense that only men were in combat. But the industrial capacity of the US was crucial, and directing it toward the war effort required women. They also serve who only stand and rivet.

      But let’s not forget that Frances Perkins was Secretary of Labor from 1933-1945. That’s Frances with an e. So it wasn’t all Rosie.

      That women are naturally driven to build and create at the same level men are?

      I have no idea. History is not an experiment we can repeat.

      That had it not been for a systematic exclusion, women would have equally or more so helped create roads, oil tankers, light bulbs, steam engines, carburetors….

      I have no idea. And neither do you. I know that one of the brightest lights in the history of abstract algebra and mathematical physics was a woman. That seems harder than carburetion.

      Further, you are saying that believing otherwise is misogynistic?

      No, not misogynistic. What’s that other thing?

      Oh, yeah. Ignorant.

      (Didja get the basketball analogy?)

      Delete
    34. Deadrat, to be clear, are you actually going to claim that attributing women's relative lack of achievement in these fields is a consequence of misogyny or ignorance?n If so you will not and should not be taken seriously.

      The basketball analogy fails because you assume one factor accounts for the discrepancy. The proper analogy would be that all of the prospective players over 5'8 were also blind, so should the midget basketball team change the rules, short people would still dominate although the taller ones would be better at Braille and other skills.

      Delete
    35. "Didja get the basketball analogy?"

      I found it to be very, very weak and pulled from your ass.

      Delete
    36. Poor Sod Once Routinely Accused Of Being Somerby LolMay 23, 2019 at 11:06 AM

      It is amazing after literally years away, to return to these comments to find CMike and deadrat still fighting the good fight here after all this time. Bless you both. I could never keep at it. Somerby has stayed the same (hooray) and so have his detractors. I don't know how you do it.

      Delete
  4. "By now, we were being asked to picture a woman "in a cubicle," working right next to a man who was doing "the same work." "

    This is a ridiculous example. Everyone knows that the woman would be in a cubicle but the man doing the same work would have an office.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wasn't the Lily Ledbetter case about this exact thing? My understanding is that she had worked for a company for several years and found out she was getting paid substantially less than her coworkers. When she sued over that fact her case was thrown out by the Supreme Court because of the statute of limitations despite the fact she had no idea of this until she accidentally found out. The Ledbetter act changed the law so future women could sue in that circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harris’s proposal is different. You can watch the video Somerby linked to, or you can check out Harris’s website.

      Delete
    2. I realize Harris would go considerably further, but I am pushing back against Sommersby's notion that there aren't situations where a woman and man are working next to each other and making disparate amounts of money. Clearly that does sometimes happen.

      Delete
  6. It's hard for some women to get good paying jobs when many of them choose to be single mothers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there were only some other, some second person involved in the making of a baby, surely that second person wouldn’t walk off scot-free after making the baby...

      Delete
    2. Men don't like babies. Women do. Normal, mentally sound men can walk away but normal mentally sound women can't. We are a species and this is how we work. Awful thing that women love and care for babies. Maybe the feminists can shame them to deny this vile natural trait.

      Delete
    3. Let's assume that you can show that on average women are more nurturing than men. Whatever that means. What does that have to do with fathers who shirk their parental responsibilities?

      And please quote a "feminist" who shames women for their maternal instinct.

      Delete
    4. Nothing but women who choose to become single mothers are different than men who choose to become single fathers. So the comment about the lack of similar consequences for men was a non-sequitur.

      Women have it all over men in shirking their responsibility given how many choose killing as a means of dispensing of the responsibility.

      Delete
    5. "Women have it all over men in shirking their responsibility given how many choose killing as a means of dispensing of the responsibility."

      Way more police officers are killed by men than by women.

      Delete
  7. The “[...]” in Somerby’s transcript represents 5 minutes out of a 6 and a half minute interview. An interview in which Harris explicitly says “equal pay for equal work” at least 6 times. The section Somerby omitted (from at least 1:50 to 3:30) is specifically devoted to discussing a (hypothetical) corporation which pays its female employees less than her male counterparts.

    Harris’s mention of “80 cents on the dollar” is true as a general statistic about women’s earning power, and is also true for some occupations and some corporations.

    Somerby’s 5 minute gap is a way of bypassing the details of Harris’s plan, which shifts part of the burden away from employees and onto corporations for following the equal pay law and publicizing the pay gaps, and provides stiff penalties for non-compliance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A cynic might say that Somerby will not be voting for Harris in the primaries, and doesn’t want *you* to vote for her either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Time for another quiz. Guess who said this:

    “Working women in this country will never have the futures they deserve until they earn the pay they deserve. I’ll fight to strengthen equal pay rules in the country to crack down on the wage discrimination that results in far too many women getting smaller paychecks.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. In case anyone thinks the stats used by Kamala and Bernie are simply made up, here they are, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2017/home.htm

    To quote one passage:
    “In 2017, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers”

    It also looks at race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concentrate, dembot: this is exactly what the post is about. Stats across the workforce are meaningless; the qualifier "for equal work" is missing.

      Delete
    2. To quote another passage:

      "The earnings comparisons in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences, such as job skills and responsibilities, work experience, and specialization."

      "Equal pay for equal hours worked" would be a separate goal from the "equal pay for equal work" goal Democratic candidates have long called for.

      Delete
  11. The supposed media criticism hook that Somerby hangs his complaints about women's job equity statistics on is that Ari Melber didn't "correct" Kamala Harris's statements.

    If you were to read Somerby's post without close attention you might skip right over the part where this is about Ari Melber and not women or their pay at all. Because Somerby is a MEDIA critic, not a white guy complaining about women and their incessant whining over their unequal pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Somerby is a MEDIA critic, not a white guy complaining about women and their incessant whining over their unequal pay...which Somerby, of course, supports.

      Delete
  12. Deadrat, to be clear, are you actually going to claim that attributing women's relative lack of achievement in these fields is a consequence of misogyny or ignorance?

    I think what’s becoming clear is that I’m being trolled.

    I’m saying that women’s absence in these fields is the result of exclusion.

    I’m calling you ignorant, although I’m now leaning towards troll. Mostly on the basis of the incoherent (though amusing) attempt to embellish the basketball analogy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That analogy was only useful if reality-based. Which means the tall players represent males and the short players represent females. Only with the height rule would the short players ever make the team, with exceptions few and far between.

      Delete