Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   WH: Hey, our pay gap is still better then the rest of you assholes. People in glass houses sink ships, ya know   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 44
    More: Stupid, White House, merit pays, wage gap, Paycheck Fairness Act, genders  
•       •       •

964 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-08 08:11:46 AM  
Everyone in the White House is a federal employee.  Their pay and benefits are set by law and calculated based upon their job, rank and time in service.  Nowhere in those calculations does gender get considered, nor can it be considered.  This so-called 'discrepancy' is part of the statistics part of lies, damn lies, and statistics because as it turns out, if you consider two people who do different jobs, they just might not get paid the same.

Republicans who biatch about this are just trolls who want you to get upset over the fact that 80+3+5 = 88 while 80+9+11 = 100.
 
2014-04-08 08:21:19 AM  
Why are they even responding to that ridiculous Tu quoque argument?
 
2014-04-08 08:28:57 AM  

sammyk: Why are they even responding to that ridiculous Tu quoque argument?


I imagine because they have to? if they don't respond, they look like they're hiding something, if they respond they can at least control it somewhat my telling Republicans to effectively shove it
 
2014-04-08 09:32:56 AM  
How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?
 
2014-04-08 09:53:28 AM  
The thigh gap is a problem that must be solved.
 
2014-04-08 09:53:42 AM  
WH: Hey, our pay gap is still better then than the rest of you assholes

Fixed that for you subs.
 
2014-04-08 09:55:48 AM  

somedude210: if they respond they can at least control it somewhat by telling Republicans to effectively shove it


the one trick republicans don't want you hearing about
 
2014-04-08 09:58:31 AM  

James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?


The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.
 
2014-04-08 09:58:42 AM  
If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.
 
2014-04-08 10:00:26 AM  
Ok, so the Republicans try going after the WH's pay gap, as a way to say that a law that would help fix the pay gap thing is bad? That's pretty damn stupid.
 
2014-04-08 10:02:04 AM  

MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.


Thank you for looking into it.
 
2014-04-08 10:06:27 AM  

MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.


That seems like a reasonable explanation. Citation?
 
2014-04-08 10:09:52 AM  

Karac: Everyone in the White House is a federal employee.  Their pay and benefits are set by law and calculated based upon their job, rank and time in service.  Nowhere in those calculations does gender get considered, nor can it be considered.  This so-called 'discrepancy' is part of the statistics part of lies, damn lies, and statistics because as it turns out, if you consider two people who do different jobs, they just might not get paid the same.

Republicans who biatch about this are just trolls who want you to get upset over the fact that 80+3+5 = 88 while 80+9+11 = 100.


Go to bed Giuliani.
 
2014-04-08 10:11:31 AM  

MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.


I figured it was either something like that, or the President's salary (as James! suggested) that was throwing off the numbers there.  As has been pointed out, federal workers are paid on a strict scale set to strict criteria.

The same is true at the large company where I work--your pay is based on rank, seniority, and job area (i.e. IT people have a different payscale than engineers, who have a different payscale than marketing,etc.).  The only way you would find a pay gap based on gender is if your sample wasn't "even" in terms of job title/seniority/rank between the two genders.
 
2014-04-08 10:16:11 AM  
Ahh, the democrats striving to be the best of the worst, instead of being the best of the best.
 
2014-04-08 10:18:55 AM  

pmdgrwr: Ahh, the democrats striving to be the best of the worst, instead of being the best of the best.


*facepalm*
 
2014-04-08 10:27:48 AM  

Serious Black: If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.


You're missing the point pretty hard.
 
2014-04-08 10:31:38 AM  

Serious Black: MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.

That seems like a reasonable explanation. Citation?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/tools/salaries
The two women are Elyse Cohen who is on a paid Fellowship from GW university (sorry I can't find the link proving this right now, there was one months ago when I last research this, maybe someone else can find it?) to run the Lets Move campaign.
Elizabeth Kelly is from Yale Law school http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14995.htm  and getting money from the Heyman Federal Public Service Fellowships
 
2014-04-08 10:37:28 AM  

MindStalker: Serious Black: MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.

That seems like a reasonable explanation. Citation?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/tools/salaries
The two women are Elyse Cohen who is on a paid Fellowship from GW university (sorry I can't find the link proving this right now, there was one months ago when I last research this, maybe someone else can find it?) to run the Lets Move campaign.
Elizabeth Kelly is from Yale Law school http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14995.htm  and getting money from the Heyman Federal Public Service Fellowships


Close enough. I didn't know these reports existed. Thanks.
 
2014-04-08 11:00:21 AM  

Serious Black: Close enough. I didn't know these reports existed. Thanks.


Sorry, strike that, shes working for free and being locked in Mooshelles cave forced to try out the newest Lets Mooove diet and exercise routines. Or so I've been infromed!
 
2014-04-08 11:10:57 AM  

Karac: Everyone in the White House is a federal employee.  Their pay and benefits are set by law and calculated based upon their job, rank and time in service.  Nowhere in those calculations does gender get considered, nor can it be considered.  This so-called 'discrepancy' is part of the statistics part of lies, damn lies, and statistics because as it turns out, if you consider two people who do different jobs, they just might not get paid the same.

Republicans who biatch about this are just trolls who want you to get upset over the fact that 80+3+5 = 88 while 80+9+11 = 100.


As a fed employee, the exception is that overtime and details can sometimes be given out without solely going by objective criteria - and when blatant the union rears up and drops a grievance bomb which sets things back on a seniority track.
 
2014-04-08 11:12:55 AM  

Serious Black: If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.


Why not? If your opponent is going to accuse you of shortchanging women, then it's fair to see if he lives up to his own standards.

Personally, I prefer to frame the issue as White House men are overpaid 12 cents on the dollar.
 
2014-04-08 11:29:33 AM  
img.fark.net
If subby is to be believed, Jay Carney really let himself go.
 
2014-04-08 11:45:22 AM  
At least in a Romney administration the women would get free binders to live in.
 
2014-04-08 11:48:43 AM  

MindStalker: Serious Black: MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.

That seems like a reasonable explanation. Citation?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/tools/salaries
The two women are Elyse Cohen who is on a paid Fellowship from GW university (sorry I can't find the link proving this right now, there was one months ago when I last research this, maybe someone else can find it?) to run the Lets Move campaign.
Elizabeth Kelly is from Yale Law school http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14995.htm  and getting money from the Heyman Federal Public Service Fellowships


I just did some quick math with the 2013 data. Assuming roughly 50/50 male to female split, those two are not going to substantially close the gap. Even if we assumed their income was $200k. At that M:F ratio the account for 1-2% of the 12% gap.
 
2014-04-08 12:11:31 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: MindStalker: Serious Black: MindStalker: James!: How does the math work out if you take the presidents salary off the scale?

The presidents salary isn't included in the math. I looked at these numbers a few months ago and I found out the biggest issue is two women salaries are listed as 0 when their pay is actually being paid for by a scholarship through their university. They are getting paid, just not from the federal government. Take out these two individuals and the gap is mostly eliminated.

That seems like a reasonable explanation. Citation?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/tools/salaries
The two women are Elyse Cohen who is on a paid Fellowship from GW university (sorry I can't find the link proving this right now, there was one months ago when I last research this, maybe someone else can find it?) to run the Lets Move campaign.
Elizabeth Kelly is from Yale Law school http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14995.htm  and getting money from the Heyman Federal Public Service Fellowships

I just did some quick math with the 2013 data. Assuming roughly 50/50 male to female split, those two are not going to substantially close the gap. Even if we assumed their income was $200k. At that M:F ratio the account for 1-2% of the 12% gap.


I believe that's ignoring the "equal pay for equal work" idea. Pretty much every "Assistant to the President And" jobs get paid exactly 172k. The thing to look here is if women and men are being equally promoted into those roles or not. I believe in my analysis I looked at average wage gap within comparable jobs, and things like the Deputy Director of Lets Move getting paid way less (0) than most deputy directors was throwing the number off, while I found fairly average numbers with those results removed, though there still was a gap, which is kinda surprising. I probably could find my numbers if I looked around, but these numbers are from the 2012-2013 fiscal year, I think in 2014 fiscal year numbers come out, doing a comparison on now these gaps change over years would be interesting..  Can I get a grant??
 
2014-04-08 12:23:01 PM  

MindStalker: Can I get a grant??


Sure, but you'll need to run your papers through a proofreader first, my god..

//Yes, I know I'm responding to myself.
 
2014-04-08 12:32:44 PM  
According to a study that I hear on the radio this morning 60% of the wage gap can be attributed to the difference in jobs and hours between men and women.  So it works out that women actually make 90% of what men make. So not perfect but better.
 
2014-04-08 12:36:25 PM  

Serious Black: If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.


So we can't use his own methodology to criticize him?
 
2014-04-08 12:50:10 PM  

Cataholic: Serious Black: If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.

So we can't use his own methodology to criticize him?


Not if your complaint is that the methodology is flawed at the outset, no.

But that's not why the criticism is stupid, you understand.

Anyone, male or female, on the GS Schedule at the same Grade and Step will be paid exactly the same amount.

This is truly a non-story, and the the Lamestream Media is reporting it, at all, is stupid, and everyone doing is bad, and should feel bad, since they can't be bothered to grasp such a simple concept.
 
2014-04-08 01:14:41 PM  

Deucednuisance: Anyone, male or female, on the GS Schedule at the same Grade and Step will be paid exactly the same amount.


A conversation could be had (with someone other than Cataholic, of course) about gender-favoritism in promotion along Grade and Step.  I think that's where the gap really comes from, either in the public or private sector.  I don't think there are many bosses out there who say to themselves "she's a woman - I'll pay her less", I think there's a bias in advancement, promotion, and raise.
 
2014-04-08 01:26:59 PM  

Cataholic: Serious Black: If you're going to complain about the methodology used to make the 77 cents on the dollar claim, don't turn around and use it to say Obama only pays women 88 cents on the dollar.

So we can't use his own methodology to criticize him?


Sure you can, if you want to be hypocrites.

Instead, why don't you use your own, better, methodology, and give us what you think is the best estimate of the pay gap. Go ahead - show us how it should be done.

Of course, that would probably make the WH pay gap look even smaller, which is the real reason you're not doing that, right?
 
2014-04-08 01:40:58 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Deucednuisance: Anyone, male or female, on the GS Schedule at the same Grade and Step will be paid exactly the same amount.

A conversation could be had (with someone other than Cataholic, of course) about gender-favoritism in promotion along Grade and Step.  I think that's where the gap really comes from, either in the public or private sector.  I don't think there are many bosses out there who say to themselves "she's a woman - I'll pay her less", I think there's a bias in advancement, promotion, and raise.


Sure, that's probably a big source of inequality. That said, as Jay Carney noted, more than half of the people who have been a Deputy Chief of Staff under Obama were women, and more than half of the departments in the administration are led by women. That's pretty good evidence against the claim that Obama is biased against advancing and promoting women in his administration.
 
2014-04-08 02:12:39 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Of course, that would probably make the WH pay gap look even smaller, which is the real reason you're not doing that, right?


No,  actually the real reason the WH doesn't use better methodology is because they want to make the pay gap seem as large as possible for political reasons. That's the whole point. You don't get to use the largest pay gap number as evidence why we need more pay equity laws and then justify your own pay gap with reasons you don't account for in other organizations pay gaps.
 
2014-04-08 02:35:39 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: You don't get to use the largest pay gap number as evidence why we need more pay equity laws and then justify your own pay gap with reasons you don't account for in other organizations pay gaps.


And who did that now?

And why are you comparing apples and cinderblocks?

Show me another organization that uses the same system of compensation as a Federal shop.  One of the reasons the GS Schedule was implemented was to make people of the same employment class and time on the job be paid exactly the same, regardless of gender or race.

You must be a callow youth, to be limber enough for a stretch like that.  Don't hurt yourself.
 
2014-04-08 02:53:36 PM  
 
2014-04-08 02:57:10 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: You should know what you are talking about before you try to be condescending, because you look like an idiot.


OK, now, how is that metric applicable to the White House's GS Schedule pay structure?

You know, the one where people doing the same job and the same level of experience get exactly the same wage?

And you call me a Fancy Lad?
 
2014-04-08 03:14:03 PM  

Deucednuisance: And you call me a Fancy Lad?


I didn't call you a fancy anything.

 

Deucednuisance: OK, now, how is that metric applicable to the White House's GS Schedule pay structure?


Do you think this a fair way to determine salaries?
 
2014-04-08 03:26:49 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Do you think this a fair way to determine salaries?


I don't know, nor care.  Why are you changing the subject?  (It has, however, provided me with a steady income, pays my mortgage, and gives me predictable results, and isn't that what the GOP is always complaining about, "uncertainty"?)

My point is that applying the metric to two entirely different systems of compensation will yield meaningless results.

With the added side of hypocrisy that comes with the "Flawed metric shows White House *still* has better result than Private Sector.  Fire Phasers at Full!"

It's nothing but nonsense, all the way down.

DrewCurtisJr: I didn't call you a fancy anything.


Sigh, just a week ago, and it's a fading memory already.  Sigh.  One of the best filterpwns, evar.
 
2014-04-08 03:36:06 PM  
Women tend to be paid less because they tend to work less. They take more time off and prioritize flexible schedules over higher pay. That is all.
 
2014-04-08 03:37:16 PM  

Deucednuisance: I don't know, nor care. Why are you changing the subject?


Because it is the same subject. You can have system that pays people the same for the same work and still have a pay gap.

Deucednuisance: With the added side of hypocrisy that comes with the "Flawed metric shows White House *still* has better result than Private Sector. Fire Phasers at Full!"


No, this is showing the WH hypocrisy especially when they continue use the 77 cents figure to justify this type of legislation.
 
2014-04-08 03:40:45 PM  

pmdgrwr: Ahh, the democrats striving to be the best of the worst, instead of being the best of the best.


Did this sound smart in your head?
 
2014-04-09 05:18:35 AM  
It is always amazing to observe people interpreting means across a sample. Just like a bunch of 2nd semester students. It makes them think they know statistics and methodology. And then of course spew out utter bullshiat like women earn 20% less. Because anything else, like using control variables, would actually mean they care about logic and not ideology.
 
2014-04-09 11:04:39 AM  
JesusJuice: Women tend to be paid less because they tend to work less. They take more time off and prioritize flexible schedules over higher pay. That is all pulled directly out of my nether regions.

FTFY.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report