As the article states--

In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama at the expense of the women who work for him quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

Obama should drop this line of rhetoric. Or do something within his own office to correct the situation.

Hey Murphy, do you beleive that a administrative assistant should be paid the same as an office manager?

What is the comparison between men and women in the exact same job.

I can take an average of salaries at any place that has more men working in top positions than women and then say the women earn less on average then the men when in reality a woman could earn exactly the same as the man in the same position.

Obama campaign patches up goof with Naperville Girl Scouts
After some prodding, staff donates items for 2nd-graders' political lesson

Opps...just went up thread and read your link Nanc.

"I can take an average of salaries at any place that has more men working in top positions than women and then say the women earn less on average then the men when in reality a woman could earn exactly the same as the man in the same position."

Exactly.

"I can take an average of salaries at any place that has more men working in top positions than women and then say the women earn less on average then the men when in reality a woman could earn exactly the same as the man in the same position."

Exactly, who needs women in top positions...

Andrea,

You can ignore the facts with your cute one liners.

But until there are facts posted that for the exact same job Obama pays less to women then men this is just more bullshit from the right.

"do you beleive that a administrative assistant should be paid the same as an office manager?"

Well, that idiotic post assumes that women only deserve to be administrative assistants, and men deserve the management positions. Apparently Obama and his campaign agree with you.

Though expected, I'm still lovin' the spin.

Well, that idiotic post assumes that women only deserve to be administrative assistants, and men deserve the management positions. Apparently Obama and his campaign agree with you.

#9 | Posted by JOE

Joe, you are a retard.

I never said that and you know it.

But just keep deflecting away. Does Obama pay women in the same position as a man the same amount or less?

Answer that smart guy.

"I never said that and you know it."

What you said, as an excuse for Obama's women being paid less than his men, was: "do you beleive that a administrative assistant should be paid the same as an office manager?"

Again, that post assumes that the women are being paid less because they are all employed in positions of lesser difficulty and authority. If you are right, does that speak well to Obama's hiring practices?

Does Obama pay women in the same position as a man the same amount or less?

Answer that smart guy.

726: A smart person would know that the answer is in the article. Read it. If you don't want to make the great leap (clicking on the link) the answer is at the top of the thread in a quote from the article.

Hint: ceteris paribus is Latin for "all else being equal"

Hope this helps. If you still can't figure it out I'll go the brute force method: The answer to your question is 'yes'.

Murphy, when you get things worked out--like how many years each of the 114 staffers have worked in their current positions, their duties, levels of experience, y'know, the kind of stuff that would move this "story" out of the "bullshit" category--let us know. 'Kay?

OK -- before I get pinged on bad Latin, ceteris paribus literally translated means "with other things the same". (I looked it up) However, the concept is the same as what I said, "all else being equal".

IOW, equal job titles, equal geographic locations, equal job markets, etc.

So yes, assuming ceteris paribus if McCain's and Obama's offices were on the same block, the McCain staffer would make more than his counterpart a few shops down.

And I apologize for trusting my two years of HS Latin. It has been 35 years. I should have looked it up first, but as I said, the concept -- if not the literal translation -- is the same.

--let us know. 'Kay?

I just did, doc. The article said ceteris paribus. Familiarize yourself with the concept and get back with us. 'Kay?

Here is a list of links that will help:

"I just did, doc."

Are you authorized to speak for Murphy?

Anyway, you really didn't, Goatman, since neither you nor the author of the piece gets into the areas I mentioned.

Are you authorized to speak for Murphy?

Sorry. I thought this was an open forum and you wanted a question answered.

So speaking only for goatman, I will let you know that a person with the same skill set, same position, same number of years in the same position, same geographic location, same job market, etc. will make more working for McCain than Obama.

Hope this didn't offend you.

However, I get the impression you really did not want an answer unless it dovetailed into your preconceived notion anyway. Sorry to burst your bubble.

...since neither you nor the author of the piece gets into the areas I mentioned.

Here you are blatantly wrong. The author got into the areas you mentioned 100%.

In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart

He summed it up in the well known concept of ceteris paribus. You can't fault the author for your infamiliarity with this concept and his desire for brevity instead of listing every possible variable.

Sorry, doc -- you and your fellow libs have to admit that your saint is not 100% perfect, as much as you'd like him to be.

I was being sarcastic, Goatman.
On point, I realize what the author says.
He just doesn't support it with any evidence.
It may or may not be a true statement.
But he presents no evidence or any indication of how he arrived at a position to make that statement.
An absence of evidence (with no indication of where one can go to validate his conclusion) is just that: an absence of evidence.
Ergo, unproven.

In the Obama campaign, women know their place. It's those knuckle-dragging righties that pretend that there are countless women who would better serve as Vice President than a blow-dried windbag like Joe Biden.

Womenfolk should just feel proud to be allowed in the same building as The Anointed One. If asked, I'm sure they don't do it for money at all.

You ladies are a classic. You ask for the info, make bold statements, and then goatman kicks you right in your woman parts with reality and info directly from the article.

Then you post excuses and clarifications.

An absence of evidence (with no indication of where one can go to validate his conclusion) is just that: an absence of evidence.
Ergo, unproven

???

He cites his sources! Jesus, what more proof do you want? The employees to themselves to knock at are your door and give sworn testimony?

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,-- its website explains.

He cites the website, which I've visited. He doesn't explain diddly about methodology.

From Nanc link--

"She said she asked Obama's campaign worker again if she could get a few items for free. She pointed out that McCain's camp had agreed to send a box and, well, her 12-member Scout troop runs on a very small budget.

Walsh said the woman at Obama's headquarters put her on hold. After a few minutes, she returned with the same answer. The woman told her that she sympathized, but the Obama campaign needs every penny it can get, Walsh said.

"She said, 'We're up against the machine and we just can't hand anything out for free,' " Walsh said. "She was very nice . . . but I wasn't getting anything."

The woman then directed Walsh to another spot on Obama's Web site where she could print out pages for the girls to color on, she said.

-----------
Yes--with this article that Obama pays his female staff less than the male staff, coupled with the Girl Scouts--it is all certain.

Obama must hate women or thinks less of them or thinks they are pigs..

Excuse me while I check my lipstick...;o)

He cites the website, which I've visited. He doesn't explain diddly about methodology

We must be reading different articles. I understood it fully. Clearly you don't want to believe the article, so it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?

726: A smart person would know that the answer is in the article. Read it.

I read it. Nowhere does it say that a man in the same position as a woman earns more.

It says average. It also explains that the composition of the staff could explain the difference.

Unless I am missing it. Please point it out where the article says a man doing the same job is earning more than a woman doing the same job.

I read it. Nowhere does it say that a man in the same position as a woman earns more.

OOPS

In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart

The concept of ceteris paribus means all else being equal. That means same position as well as same geographic location and all other factors.

Maybe these links will help you understand the concept

"We must be reading different articles."

Boy, I'll say.

The one I get linked to doesn't say squat about how long the staffers have worked in their positions, nothing about their duties, not a peep about levels of experience, nary a word about how meaningful comparisons could be made that would allow the figures to reflect the reality of workplace and job.

Using the "logic" employed by the guy who wrote the article I've read one could say: "Tom is a systems analyst who makes $60,000 a year. Mary is a systems analyst who makes $45,000 a year. Mary makes $15,000 a year less than Tom. Mary's getting quite a hosing."

However, what if "Tom" had worked in the office for 25 years and earned an MBA, while "Mary" was hired two years ago and held a BA? Is "Mary" still getting quite a hosing?

Let me know how to find the article you've been reading, because it's unthinkable that you're letting a desire for partisan wish fulfillment to influence your understanding of the piece.

Thanks.

Here's a hint: Just because Deroy Murdock writes, "In fact, ceteris paribus" doesn't mean it's actually ceteris paribus. Not that he'd be inclined to a certain amount of partisan wish fulfillment himself.

Please point it out where the article says a man doing the same job is earning more than a woman doing the same job.
#26 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-12 03:16 PM

Can't be done, 726. But there's an explanation: Goatman just told me that he must be reading a different article than the one you and I get linked to.

Let me know how to find the article

There's a link to it in the article. The link says 'post' but it actually goes to the legistorm site. The numbers are detailed there.

It really doesn't matter, doc. I know your mind is made up already. If it wasn't you would have found this incredibly obvious link without asking. But it's nice of you to ask. It at least puts out a pretense of wanting to know the truth.

The one I get linked to doesn't say squat about how long the staffers have worked in their positions, nothing about their duties, ...

*sigh*

Last time: Ceteris paribus. That means the comparables worked the same time, had the same duties, etc.

Would you have felt better if he listed all the variables? Sometimes the less informed who don't understand certain conepts such as ceteris paribus do need this for reassurance. However, most writers in the interest of brevity assume their readers assume certain concepts. That you don't is not really his problem.

I grow weary of explaining this over and over. You are on your own now, doc.

"Would you have felt better if he listed all the variables?"

In the article?
Not practical.
In a link?
Definitely.
*sigh*

However, what if "Tom" had worked in the office for 25 years and earned an MBA, while "Mary" was hired two years ago and held a BA? Is "Mary" still getting quite a hosing?

Then ceteris paribus does not exist, does it? IOW not all else is equal.

I like you, doc, but you can be really dense. I can't believe you would be deliberately so obtuse. But maybe you are. I can't tell.

Anyway, as I said, you are on your own. I can't make it any plainer and I'll take the blame for that.

Doc--you who....

Check out the link from the article that goes to SALARIES--pick Senator--

Kay'--

If you'd read the thread, Murphy, you'd know that I've already been there.

"you can be really dense"

I'd say that ball's landed pretty hard in your court. I'm not the one who's willing to take the author's word for it that he's actually done the work that validates his statements. As old Raygun used to say, "Trust but verify."

Doc,

I agree with you. I didn't see anything in there about length of sevice, education or training. It just takes women's salaries and averages them compared to the men.

I went into a couple of the staffers and compared 2 women and 2 men, legislative assistants. One of the women in Obama's camp was paid lower that 6 mos, but had earned 2,000 more the previous period.

Until I see how they averaged it and made everything "Equal", it's just more rhetoric.

The reality is that women and men are paid the same -- once you factor in things like experience, longevity and time in the workforce.

Women take off more days, they take time off from work to have babies and rear them, etc.

Once you factor in those aspects, the 'wage myth' disappears.

The reality is that all employers are hungry for talent and experience, and so they pay according to ability and experience.

One more Liberal myth shot to hell

"I can take an average of salaries at any place that has more men working in top positions than women and then say the women earn less on average then the men when in reality a woman could earn exactly the same as the man in the same position."

Exactly.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-12 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Listen here all of you.....I wrote EXACTLY, so there would be NO DOUBT that I am simply a Dem party lockstepper (MY party first dontcha' know). I refuse to educate myself on the facts. My dear Obama doesn't need to put women in positions of authority. They shall be relegated to assistant positions. I don't really believe in equality for women cause' I'm going to lockstep with my party instead. Real change, reality and facts....THAT's NOT for me.

DANNI