 sj |
||
|
||
BS: White House Women workers
|
|
|
Subject: BS: WH Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:45 PM (CNSNews.com) – Seventy-percent of the White House staffers who made the top annual salary of $172,200 in 2012 were men and 30 percent were women, according to a White House report on staff compensation. In addition, men on the White House staff are paid, on average, $86,260.89 and women are paid, on average, $76,162.65. That means the average man on the White House staff is paid about $10,098--about 13 percent--more than the average woman. In Obama's White House, women on average earn only 88.3 percent of what the men earn. Those numbers conflict with the pay-equity philosophy espoused by the president and his administration. In signing legislation into law -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- in 2009, which was designed in part to help ensure pay equity between men and women, President Obama said, "So, in signing this bill, I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal--but bad for business--to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability." "And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions," said Obama, "where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined." The current gender disparity in Obama White House compensation is similar to the gender disparity in compensation that was evident in Obama's Senate staff. In 2008, CNSNews.com reported that Obama, on average, paid women on his Senate staff only 78 percent of what he paid men--with the average man on Obama's Senate staff getting an annual salary of $57,425.00 and the average woman getting an annual salary or $44,953.21. In 2012, according to a report to Congress on White House staff salaries, there were 466 total paid White House Office employees (there were also two unpaid staffers) -- 234 were women and 232 were men. The highest annual compensation for any White House staffers in 2012 was $172,200, and a total of 20 people earned that top salary. Among those 20 employees, 14 were men and 6 were women--making 70 percent of the highest-paid White House staffers men, and 30 percent women. (White House Top 20 Salaries Male and Female.pdf) Among the men making $172,200 a year at the White House, for example, were Chief of Staff Jacob Lew, Press Secretary Jay Carney, Senior Adviser David Plouffe, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Eugene Sperling; Director of Speechwriting Jonathan Favreau, and John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. The six women making $172,200 were senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Chief of Staff to the First Lady Christina Tchen; Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Nancy-Ann DeParle, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Alyssa Mastromonaco, Director of the Domestic Policy Council Cecilia Munoz, and Counsel to the President Kathryn Ruemmler. (White House Top 20 Salaries Male and Female.pdf) For the total 234 women who worked one the White House staff, salaries ranged from $172,200 to $41,000. The average for all of them was $76,162.65. (WH Office Employees, Female, 2012.xls) For the 232 men on the White House staff, salaries also ranged between $172,200 and $41,000. The average salary for them was $86,260.89. (WH Office Employees, Male, 2012.xls) On average, in the Obama White House, men make 13.26 percent more than women, and women are paid only 88.29 percent of what the men are paid. President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. (AP) The male employees make an average of $10,098 more than the female employees make. CNSNews.com sent several e-mail and telephone inquiries to the White House for comment on this story but the White House press office did not respond. The White House has been required since 1995 to submit a report to Congress detailing the title and salary of every employee at its office. As part of President Obama's "commitment to transparency," the 2012 White House Office report is available to the public on the White House's website, as are reports from the first three years of the president's first term. In November 2010, President Obama, who earns $400,000 annually, froze the salaries of every White House staffer who makes over $100,000, meaning the only way for an employee over that benchmark to receive a raise would be through increased responsibilities or a different job. The maximum salary has been $172,200 since 2008, when it was increased by 2.5% from $168,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WH Women workers From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:58 PM Meaningless data. What is the salary comparison between male and female employees, other than hose at the maximum rate, with the exact same jobs and levels of experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WH Women workers From: GUEST,JTS Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:59 PM Bruce, Please let me know if you have knowledge of simple statistics: What "mean" and "median" are that the Lilly Ledbetter Law applies to equal pay for equal value of work, moreover and more importantly, that it allows for female, and other minority, workers to know what other coworkers are paid so that they can see if they are being paid fairly. It is obvious that "CNSNews" is distorting the law and manipulating statistics to make a bogus and illogical smear. The question is are you complicit in the lie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WH Women workers From: Rapparee Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:38 PM Before I could offer a valid comment I'd like to know more about the length of service, responsibilities and job evaluations of the workers involved. Also, are they covered under Civil Service? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WH Women workers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:40 PM One thing is clear. The Ledbetter law does not apply. Clearly the salaries are a matter of public record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WH Women workers From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:52 PM The data is what it is, and one can interpret it in a number of ways. A partisan could say, "See? This this proof that the Obama Administration discriminates against women (just like we do)." Or one could contend that this reflects the lingering discrimination against women in the job and education market as a whole - that women in the past had fewer opportunities that didn't allow them the training or experience that are needed to reach the highest level. Or, one could paint any number of other scenarios. Alternatively, one could say that the White House staff is too small to present a statistically valid sample. It's interesting data and worthy of study, but best interpreted without political "spin." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Bill D Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:50 PM CNSnews: "About Us May 13, 2010 CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that's ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission. Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news." Media Research Center: "The MRC Network- The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias" hmmmmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Greg F. Date: 20 Mar 13 - 08:08 PM Yup. Classic Bearded Bruce - facts are irrelevant. However, I thought Fox "News"[sic] was The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: artbrooks Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:16 AM Nah - CNSNews is the conservative's answer to FOX. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 08:31 AM GregF and his racist lies are irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Mar 13 - 09:07 AM "Racist lies" What a very strange comment on GregF's post. Are we to take it that "Classic" is some kind of coded racist insult? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 09:14 AM GregF has stated, and it seems with approval by many here, that someone who is "Black and a Democrat" is a "Dumb Ni**er" He originally stated that I said so, then that smeone else did, but HE is the only one who has read the words "Black and a Democrat" and claimed it was the same as "Dumb Ni**er" But it must be ok, since as long as he supports the Mudcat Party line and attacks anyone who does not he is allowed to without any negative comment. Sine he chooses to follow my postings and make attacks whenever I post, without contributing facts to the thread, I feel entitled to bring up his racist scumbag lies whenever he does so. NOTE that when he actually contributes facts to a debate, and not just makes personal attacks ( a logical failing that some here will point out in other but NOT in his case) I do NOT bring up his racist posts. I stated facts, and he stated they were not factual without any support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 09:21 AM FACT: For the total 234 women who worked one the White House staff, salaries ranged from $172,200 to $41,000. The average for all of them was $76,162.65. (WH Office Employees, Female, 2012.xls) For the 232 men on the White House staff, salaries also ranged between $172,200 and $41,000. The average salary for them was $86,260.89. (WH Office Employees, Male, 2012.xls) Either women are paid less for the same work, OR IF paid the same for the same work, women are , on average, given lower level jobs. What other choices are there? What about this is non-factual? BillD, Isn't attacking the source of the information rather than the validity of that information flawed logic? The facts in this case are verifiable and published by the White House. Your entire post is based on attacking the source. What does that say about your supposed desire for logic and fairness? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:01 AM An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6] Seems like a common point with both GregF and BillD... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: jacqui.c Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:08 AM But does this take into account that it is probable that some of those women may be the main care givers for children and so only working part-time or in less demanding positions? It may be that some of those women took time off from a career to look after children and so aren't as high up the ladder as their male counterparts. How many of the positions are in housekeeping, an area more frequently taken by women? The figures I would like to see are the comparable salaries of people doing the same type of job for the same length of time. If those are skewed then I would say there is a problem.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Charmion Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:19 AM But further deponent sayeth not, which is why the original article was not worth reading. If data are to be meaningful, they must be comparable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:30 AM ""It is obvious that "CNSNews" is distorting the law and manipulating statistics to make a bogus and illogical smear. The question is are you complicit in the lie?"" Of course he is. He's a well documented Repuglican apologist, who just hates having a Democrat in the White House, especially an uppity......Democrat. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 11:55 AM As opposed to all the well documented Democraps that decide what the acceptable posts here are... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Mar 13 - 01:53 PM Bruce, In a debate between classmates in good standing your point about ad hominem is a good one. But when talking about someone whose mission it is to distort the truth. It is fair to point out that they may be distorting. All arguments do not have equal value. Sorting the good ones from tha bad is what our brains are for. With your scientific training you should have the mental tools to doe so. We would appreciate it if you please try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:01 PM "All arguments do not have equal value. " OK, so you are saying that facts one side presents are not as equal as facts the opposition presents? WHO DECIDES, if you eliminate what the verifiable facts ARE prior to allowing them? Some arguments are based on facts. When the person or source of those facts is criticized, WHEN THE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED AND FROM A VERIFIABLE SOURCE, the criticism is unjustified and is a logical fallacy. I know that many her are dedicated to distorting any facts to support their viewpoint. Thus, I will just point out that they have a viewpoint and anything they present is therefore invalid????? Is that what YOU consider a reasonable debate? It IS what you are advocating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:16 PM Apply your logic skills to facts before you Bruce. The Ledbetter law, the positions held in the White House not just the gross number of workers and the averages. Or better yet consider that there may be more than two points of view and that there may be more than one interpretation for data other than one the one hand, twisted uneducated, self serving Right Wing nonsense and other side everything else. Think. That's all you have to do, think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:24 PM I think that you are saying that the facts presented by the White House are only allowed to be used to support what you want to believe. I repeat: FROM THE WHITE HOUSE: For the total 234 women who worked one the White House staff, salaries ranged from $172,200 to $41,000. The average for all of them was $76,162.65. (WH Office Employees, Female, 2012.xls) For the 232 men on the White House staff, salaries also ranged between $172,200 and $41,000. The average salary for them was $86,260.89. (WH Office Employees, Male, 2012.xls) From the thread comments already posted: Either women are paid less for the same work, OR IF paid the same for the same work, women are , on average, given lower level jobs. What other choices are there? What about this is non-factual? I am waiting for an answer. I have been accused of being non-factual- TELL ME WHAT IS NOT A FACT. Or are we supposed to believe twisted uneducated, self serving Left Wing nonsense and declare that the White house is not supposed to be looked at, nor set an example, nor even be examined for its's practices? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: artbrooks Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:06 PM What is a fact is that you are (as did the author of the piece you are quoting) extrapolating data to try to prove a point that the data is inadequate to prove. What is not a fact is that this information says anything at all about female vs. male salary disparities, in the sense of equal pay for equal work. The data about White House salaries is probably completely factual, but it is meaningless without context. In a smaller (and entirely imaginary) example, one could say that the fact that a female secretary of European descent is paid $40,000 per year and a male senior adviser of African descent is paid $100,000 proves that the Obama administration is biased toward African-Americans. All of the above says nothing about your basic point, and it is entirely possible that the really is such a disparity - just that this data doesn't prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Greg F. Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:28 PM Bruce doesn't need no steenking PROOF! And asking him to think once he's siezed onto something is pretty much like teaching a pig to sing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:41 PM "Either women are paid less for the same work" How do you get that they are doing the same work? I am sure that there are dozens of different positions and for instance that the paid interns don't do the same work or rate the same pay as the Chief of Staff or the Press Secretary. How, If the job goes to the most qualified applicant is it unfair to pay the more qualified applicant more? The object is equal pay for equal work. "The White House has been required since 1995 to submit a report to Congress detailing the title and salary of every employee at its office. As part of President Obama's "commitment to transparency," the 2012 White House Office report is available to the public on the White House's website, as are reports from the first three years of the president's first term." This complies with "the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- in 2009" It is clear that the facts presented it the article belie the editorial comments. Use your head man!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: White House Women workers From: Greg F. Date: 21 Mar 13 - 05:35 PM Use your head man!! Forlorn hope. |
