PDA

View Full Version : Obama White House Pays Women Less Than Men



mikesilvia
04-11-2012, 10:31 PM
Tsk tsk ...


Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 08:58 AM
This is true with most employees both gov't and private. Nice attempt to paint the Obama administration as sexist but once again it's a failure.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 09:32 AM
Doesn't that depend on the titles of the people involved though? Not everyone in the White House has the same job.

tsjct
04-12-2012, 09:45 AM
This is true with most employees both gov't and private. Nice attempt to paint the Obama administration as sexist but once again it's a failure.

But Obama is the one talking about how UNFAIR women are being treated.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 09:48 AM
Doesn't that depend on the titles of the people involved though? Not everyone in the White House has the same job.

Of course it does. Just another feeble attempt to show the Obama administration in an unfavourable light.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 09:51 AM
But Obama is the one talking about how UNFAIR women are being treated.

But maybe he's not treating them unfairly, that's my point. If he had two people doing the exact same job, and he paid the man more than the woman, then yeah, that's a problem, and he's a hypocrite. But if there's a female sous chef in the White House, she's not going to make as much money as one of his cabinet members. It all depends on the job.

tsjct
04-12-2012, 09:52 AM
But maybe he's not treating them unfairly, that's my point. If he had two people doing the exact same job, and he paid the man more than the woman, then yeah, that's a problem, and he's a hypocrite. But if there's a female sous chef in the White House, she's not going to make as much money as one of his cabinet members. It all depends on the job.

Its still and AVERAGE. The Average is way off.

tsjct
04-12-2012, 09:54 AM
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 09:58 AM
Its still and AVERAGE. The Average is way off.

What is your point? For example, if you look at my place of work. We have 2 male employees. Myself, the accountant, and our IT manager. The other 9 are female and have clerical and administrative jobs. By your standards, my company pays its male employees (on average) twice as much as the female employees. Shame on us. Just dismiss the fact that our jobs require a lot more credentials and therefore (industry wide) pay higher salaries.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 09:58 AM
Well, at least I'm posting up topics for discussion instead of being disrespectful and calling posts feeble. If you have nothing to counter with, just say it.

Yes, not all jobs are equal. That means all the higher paying jobs are going to men in the Obama administration. Do I think Obama hirers men over women based on sex? No, but he is the one stating that the GOP are at war with women based on stuff like this. It's not that simple, but Obama wants to make it simple and that is what this story does. He's reaping what he sows.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 09:58 AM
Its still and AVERAGE. The Average is way off.

I'm saying it makes no difference. I work for a small business. The average salary for us is about $100K. I make less than half of that, as I'm the lowest person on the totem pole here. So the average means nothing to me. It's all about who is doing what job. Like I said, if you can prove that there are two people, a man and woman, doing the exact same job and getting paid differently, then yes, that's a problem. Otherwise, it's crap.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:00 AM
What I do find funny about this post is if this was a story about Romney's campaign, the people defending Obama on this would be attacking Romney based on this. I love partisan politics! :)

pghin08
04-12-2012, 10:05 AM
What I do find funny about this post is if this was a story about Romney's campaign, the people defending Obama on this would be attacking Romney based on this. I love partisan politics! :)

Lol, I probably wouldn't. I think Obama trying to paint the Republicans as being at "war with women" is stupid. Yes, most Republican males are socially conservative and don't agree with abortion, but to me that really doesn't qualify them as "waging war" on women.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 10:05 AM
So you can not find a qualified IT manager that is a woman or are you saying they are not smart enough to do your job or the IT job? Kind of elitist if you ask me.

I don't think he's saying that at all.

duane1969
04-12-2012, 10:14 AM
Just curious if everyone read the final paragraph...


As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was criticized for paying the women on his campaign staff less than the men, and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 10:18 AM
Just curious if everyone read the final paragraph...

Like I've said, if they were all doing the same job, then yeah, it's a problem and he's a hypocrite.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:25 AM
Just curious if everyone read the final paragraph...

People read it, but it didn't fall into their agenda, so it was ignored. :) Instead we are just called feeble for bringing it up.

duane1969
04-12-2012, 10:27 AM
People read it, but it didn't fall into their agenda, so it was ignored. :) Instead we are just called feeble for bringing it up.

Stick around. It won't be long until someone manages to blame it on Bush.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 10:44 AM
People read it, but it didn't fall into their agenda, so it was ignored. :) Instead we are just called feeble for bringing it up.

It's called feeble because that is what it is. Provide some FACTS, don't just spin numbers to fit YOUR AGENDA. I think myself and pghin08 have made our opinions clear on the issue. You guys just refuse to even acknowledge our argument because you know it completely deflates the whole post.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 10:49 AM
ok, then explain why men have the better jobs?

so if the problem seems to be it is only unfair if they have equal jobs and one gets paid less, why do males have the better, higher paying jobs?

and being against abortion does not make someone a sexist, the fetus could be male or female, so abortions are equal oppurtunity killers

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:51 AM
ok, then explain why men have the better jobs?

So if the problem seems to be it is only unfair if they have equal jobs and one gets paid less, why do males have the better, higher paying jobs?

And being against abortion does not make someone a sexist, the fetus could be male or female, so abortions are equal oppurtunity killers

+1

tsjct
04-12-2012, 10:51 AM
It's called feeble because that is what it is. Provide some FACTS, don't just spin numbers to fit YOUR AGENDA. I think myself and pghin08 have made our opinions clear on the issue. You guys just refuse to even acknowledge our argument because you know it completely deflates the whole post.

Not spinning at all. #'s are #'s and you cant handle that. Your Oshama wants to put the "WAR ON WOMEN" out there and then the truth comes out about his women workers and you and oshama just want it to go away. Keep trying:rolleyes:

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:53 AM
It's called feeble because that is what it is. Provide some FACTS, don't just spin numbers to fit YOUR AGENDA. I think myself and pghin08 have made our opinions clear on the issue. You guys just refuse to even acknowledge our argument because you know it completely deflates the whole post.

Because the facts that you don't agree with are not facts. McCain paid women more than Obama did. FACT. Obama pays women $11,000 LESS a year than men now. FACT. Sorry, but 1+1=2 no matter how much you disagree with it.

FACT. People call other people FEEBLE and other names when they use emotion instead of FACT.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 10:55 AM
Not spinning at all. #'s are #'s and you cant handle that. Your Oshama wants to put the "WAR ON WOMEN" out there and then the truth comes out about his women workers and you and oshama just want it to go away. Keep trying:rolleyes:

I would respond to this but DUANE will probably just delete it again. Call me Elitist, that fine: call your post stupid, it gets deleted. I will leave it at that.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 10:56 AM
Play nice guys, we can all disagree without calling each other stupid or elitists. I don't want to have to close this thread.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:56 AM
And I acknowledge your points, but you obviously skipped over them.


Yes, not all jobs are equal. That means all the higher paying jobs are going to men in the Obama administration. Do I think Obama hirers men over women based on sex? No, but he is the one stating that the GOP are at war with women based on stuff like this. It's not that simple, but Obama wants to make it simple and that is what this story does. He's reaping what he sows.

tsjct
04-12-2012, 10:57 AM
I would respond to this but DUANE will probably just delete it again. Call me Elitist, that fine: call your post stupid, it gets deleted. I will leave it at that.

Probably better if we do not respond to one another posts as we will NEVER agree on anything. I will leave your post alone and not comment on them from this point forward.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 10:58 AM
Because the facts that you don't agree with are not facts. McCain paid women more than Obama did. FACT. Obama pays women $11,000 LESS a year than men now. FACT. Sorry, but 1+1=2 no matter how much you disagree with it.

FACT. People call other people FEEBLE and other names when they use emotion instead of FACT.

So now your FACTS are about the 2008 campaign? Where are the FACTS about this thread? Where is the response to pghin08's simple objection that you need to know the positions being compared?

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 10:59 AM
No one should be calling anyone elitists or other labels. Let's also not call anyone's points feeble. I've made mistakes doing that in the past and it really adds little to the argument. I've also taken a TON of hardship for keeping this political forum open all these years. I'm proud that it's open and things really don't get out of hand.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 11:01 AM
So now your FACTS are about the 2008 campaign? Where are the FACTS about this thread? Where is the response to pghin08's simple objection that you need to know the positions being compared?

Take a deep breath and relax. I stated NOW (basis of the article) and 2008 (also in the article). Stop skimming my stuff and read my stuff carefully. I think you are forming your responses to me before you finish reading what I post.

What your responses also tell me is that you have NOT read the article in the initial thread.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 11:01 AM
Where is the response to pghin08's simple objection that you need to know the positions being compared?

hello?


ok, then explain why men have the better jobs?

so if the problem seems to be it is only unfair if they have equal jobs and one gets paid less, why do males have the better, higher paying jobs?

duane1969
04-12-2012, 11:03 AM
I would respond to this but DUANE will probably just delete it again. Call me Elitist, that fine: call your post stupid, it gets deleted. I will leave it at that.


Probably better if we do not respond to one another posts as we will NEVER agree on anything. I will leave your post alone and not comment on them from this point forward.

I sent a PM to BOTH of you and deleted post by BOTH of you about this. It stops here.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 11:05 AM
Probably better if we do not respond to one another posts as we will NEVER agree on anything. I will leave your post alone and not comment on them from this point forward.


I wouldn't go that far. If you and I can agree on some things I'm sure that you and Habs can find some type of common ground. :kiss:

tsjct
04-12-2012, 11:07 AM
I wouldn't go that far. If you and I can agree on some things I'm sure that you and Habs can find some type of common ground. :kiss:

Yes but we disagree and agree in a different manner. We never cross the line on one another as far as disrespect.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 11:08 AM
hello?

That is a different issue and it very well may have merit. These threads are hard enough to "discuss" if we are constantly changing the crux of the issue.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 11:12 AM
Take a deep breath and relax. I stated NOW (basis of the article) and 2008 (also in the article). Stop skimming my stuff and read my stuff carefully. I think you are forming your responses to me before you finish reading what I post.

What your responses also tell me is that you have NOT read the article in the initial thread.

You are correct. I did not click on the link until now. I assumed the issue was the part that you posted in the actual thread. I will re-iterate; the crux of the thread, and your post, is being supported and defended by other issues that should be addressed on their own merit.

shrewsbury
04-12-2012, 11:16 AM
These threads are hard enough to "discuss" if we are constantly changing the crux of the issue.

they are easy to discuss if we don't allow emotions to overcome us, realize others will have different opinions, and have an open mind

the relevance to being underpaid do to position is very important. what an easy way to say you are fair, i just pay them less because they have the less important job, just a coincidence most our women

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 11:23 AM
You are correct. I did not click on the link until now. I assumed the issue was the part that you posted in the actual thread. I will re-iterate; the crux of the thread, and your post, is being supported and defended by other issues that should be addressed on their own merit.

Ugghhhh!!!! How do you not read the article that this discussion is based on? The facts we've been talking about were posted in the first thread that you skipped. :)

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Ugghhhh!!!! How do you not read the article that this discussion is based on? The facts we've been talking about were posted in the first thread that you skipped. :)

I did not skip the first thread. You quoted a portion of the article. I read that and responded in a similar fashion as pghin08 did. My point is valid, despite what the rest of the article says. Am I required to read every hyperlink in the article also?

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 11:43 AM
I did not skip the first thread. You quoted a portion of the article. I read that and responded in a similar fashion as pghin08 did. My point is valid, despite what the rest of the article says. Am I required to read every hyperlink in the article also?

Wait, did you read the article or not? I'm still confused.

You are not required to do anything you don't want to.

I think you are where I was (and in many ways I still do it today) several years ago. I read only what re-enforced my point of view. I still fall into that trap and why I read Huffington Post and several other left leaning websites daily.

Please don't take it as an insult because I'm admitting I do the same thing.

Your goal should be to go into any article, point of view, etc with a WIDE open mind. Obviously, we have experiences and education that allows us to make informed decisions and we should ALWAYS take any article with a grain of salt.

The problem with a partisan is they go into article that they KNOW will not re-enforce their belief and they immediately go on the attack defending their party to the death. This is why I do NOT register for a party. I don't think any party has a monopoly on good ideas or criminals. I prefer to vote for the best candidate, not the party. I voted for a Democrat in my mayoral election just last November over a Republican.

Hopefully, you understand where I'm coming from. We could get so much more done as a country if we kept our minds open. Dismissing people because they have a D or an R near their name really hurts progress.

mrveggieman
04-12-2012, 11:53 AM
Wait, did you read the article or not? I'm still confused.

You are not required to do anything you don't want to.

I think you are where I was (and in many ways I still do it today) several years ago. I read only what re-inforced my point of view. I still fall into that trap and why I read Huffington Post and several other left leaning websites daily.

Please don't take it as an insult because I'm admitting I do the same thing.

Your goal should be to go into any article, point of view, etc with a WIDE open mind. Obviously, we have experiences and education that allows us to make informed decisions and we should ALWAYS take any article with a grain of salt.

The problem with partisans is they go into article that they KNOW will not re-enforce their belief and they immediately go on the attack defending their party to the death. This is why I do NOT register for a party. I don't think any party has a monopoly on good ideas or criminals. I prefer to vote for the best candidate, not the party. I voted for a Democrat in my mayoral election just last November over a Republican.

Hopefully, you understand where I'm coming from. We could get so much more done as a country if we kept our minds open. Dismissing people because they have a D or an R near their name really hurts progress.


I'm actually going to give you some on that one.

CHURCH!! :love0030:

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 12:00 PM
Wait, did you read the article or not? I'm still confused.

You are not required to do anything you don't want to.

I think you are where I was (and in many ways I still do it today) several years ago. I read only what re-inforced my point of view. I still fall into that trap and why I read Huffington Post and several other left leaning websites daily.

Please don't take it as an insult because I'm admitting I do the same thing.

Your goal should be to go into any article, point of view, etc with a WIDE open mind. Obviously, we have experiences and education that allows us to make informed decisions and we should ALWAYS take any article with a grain of salt.

The problem with partisans is they go into article that they KNOW will not re-enforce their belief and they immediately go on the attack defending their party to the death. This is why I do NOT register for a party. I don't think any party has a monopoly on good ideas or criminals. I prefer to vote for the best candidate, not the party. I voted for a Democrat in my mayoral election just last November over a Republican.

Hopefully, you understand where I'm coming from. We could get so much more done as a country if we kept our minds open. Dismissing people because they have a D or an R near their name really hurts progress.

Just to be clear. I read the WHOLE article. From reading the whole article I took the point to be; first, that Obama's staff has a wage disparity. Second, that Obama is hypocritical because he doesn't have enough women in his inner circle. Third, I dismissed the "golf" portion as stupid. I also think Augusta should allow women members but that doesn't mean I make it a point to include them in my 4somes. Finally, the mention of the 2008 campaign, could be an "equal pay for equal work" issue or a "not enough high placed women" issue. I did not delve into it.

Since you posted the first portion and made no comment other than "tsk, tsk". I made the assumption that this was the part you had a problem with. If you would have commented that your issue was with his lack of a female inner circle, I would have responded to it.

mikesilvia
04-12-2012, 12:18 PM
Just to be clear. I read the WHOLE article. From reading the whole article I took the point to be; first, that Obama's staff has a wage disparity. Second, that Obama is hypocritical because he doesn't have enough women in his inner circle. Third, I dismissed the "golf" portion as stupid. I also think Augusta should allow women members but that doesn't mean I make it a point to include them in my 4somes. Finally, the mention of the 2008 campaign, could be an "equal pay for equal work" issue or a "not enough high placed women" issue. I did not delve into it.

Since you posted the first portion and made no comment other than "tsk, tsk". I made the assumption that this was the part you had a problem with. If you would have commented that your issue was with his lack of a female inner circle, I would have responded to it.

What I like most about you is that you are in Canada and care so much! I'd say 99.9% of the American public could NOT even name your Prime Minister. I only remember his name because he just spoke with Obama and the Mexican President.

So, I respect that you care so much!

boba
04-12-2012, 12:36 PM
Just to be clear. I read the WHOLE article. From reading the whole article I took the point to be; first, that Obama's staff has a wage disparity. Second, that Obama is hypocritical because he doesn't have enough women in his inner circle. Third, I dismissed the "golf" portion as stupid. I also think Augusta should allow women members but that doesn't mean I make it a point to include them in my 4somes. Finally, the mention of the 2008 campaign, could be an "equal pay for equal work" issue or a "not enough high placed women" issue. I did not delve into it.

Since you posted the first portion and made no comment other than "tsk, tsk". I made the assumption that this was the part you had a problem with. If you would have commented that your issue was with his lack of a female inner circle, I would have responded to it.


I don't think you get the main point of this whole thread. No one is saying that what Obama is doing is wrong. The point of it (as made clear by the "tsk tsk") is that the same thing that Obama and a lot of other leaders of liberalism would be quick to brand as sexism to push their agenda, is happening in Obama's own administration.

habsheaven
04-12-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't think you get the main point of this whole thread. No one is saying that what Obama is doing is wrong. The point of it (as made clear by the "tsk tsk") is that the same thing that Obama and a lot of other leaders of liberalism would be quick to brand as sexism to push their agenda, is happening in Obama's own administration.

I guess "tsk, tsk" told you alot more than it did me. For me, I haven't put much weight in any of the "GOP war on women" claims. It's all political rhetoric no matter which party it comes from. I saw the article as an attempt to label Obama a hypocrite by attacking his policies towards women. Since I don't think it is a valid attack I attempt to defend him. The hypocripsy itself however does seem valid if that is the point of the article.

AUTaxMan
04-12-2012, 02:40 PM
The only reason this issue has even come up is that the Dems have been attempting to manufacture a phony Republican "war on women" to gain votes in the coming election, and this is mere Republican response of fighting fire with fire.

pghin08
04-12-2012, 04:05 PM
The only reason this issue has even come up is that the Dems have been attempting to manufacture a phony Republican "war on women" to gain votes in the coming election, and this is mere Republican response of fighting fire with fire.

+ eleventy billion.