Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
It opens the flood gate to frivolous lawsuits which are just another drag on businesses.
When did the census bureau say that women with the same occupation, experience, education and work history make less than men?
For your education:
http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf
Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.
Did you actually read the link you posted? It says very clearly that the differences in income between men and women comes primarily from working in different firms and from the differences in pay between those firms.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
It opens the flood gate to frivolous lawsuits which are just another drag on businesses.
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.
Why does our president hate women?
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).
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.
So one black Democrat proposes actually talking sensibly, rather than slinging extreme hyperbole at each other and you're ready to dismiss such silly talk because it doesn't fir your "evil Republican" mantra?
And, BTW, fuck Rick Scott.
You're not too bright, are ya bunky? You REPEAT a point, but you don't get it. Here, I'll dumb it down for you....the guy you source is not only in the minority among black Caucus in Congress, but among the Democratic Party. But hey, you neocon/teabaggers just love to exaggerate the importance of your failed mantras and ideals.
Oh, and "fuck Rick Scott"? Hmmm, then you should also have the same attitude for Walker in Wisconsin, and ALL the GOP jokers that were mentioned in the link I provided in the OP.
So essentially, you're in agreement with me....yet being insipidly stubborn as all neocon/teabaggers are, you'll eat shit and call it ice cream before conceding a point. Pathetic.
But here's a little more for you to chew on: http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf
You can minimize the CHAIRMAN of the Black Caucus and refer to him as the minority if you want.
Unless you can PROVE that he's speaking on behalf of th Black Caucus, then that's EXACTLY what he's doing....voicing a minority opinion.
It still doesn't change the logic he speaks.
Again, he says what you want to hear, so it's "logic" to you.
There is no "war" on women launched by republicans.
Funny, but all the proposed legislations by Teabagger politicos in red states and in the Congress tells a different story.
There IS, however, a war started by democrats to deflect as much as they can from Obama's record.
Sorry bunky, but that smokescreen was already blown by Romney...and the entire neocon noise machine attached to Fox News and WABC Talk Radio. Check the chronology of the posts to see why that dog ain't flying.
Obama/Pelosi/Ried had a blank-check majority and screwed the pooch.
No genius, you need a lock majority in the Senate for that.....they never had that even without turncoat Lieberman. Do your homework instead of parroting Limbaugh's BS.
Shit was sliding downhill at break-neck speed.
Yeah, it was called "reaganomics"....and that cumulated with the Shrub's 8 year's to the financial debacle we're now experiencing.
Things only started to try and turn around once the (R)s took back control of the House (remember all this bragging about Obama's turning the economy around?).
Only in your willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger brain, genius....because the Party of NO hasn't put out ONE piece of legislative proposal that wasn't a rehash of the Shrub's "trickle down" on steriods.
Wait until the Senate turns over.
Then, and only then, will we see real growth.
Dream on, bunky. The people got a good look at what the GOP wants to do with the Congress....and people would have to be REAL stupid to want reductions in social services coupled with corporations immune from dicriminatory practices, or paying taxes for outsourcing or tax breaks for the wealthy. The GOP got into power in Congress because you had a massive protest by Progressives and Independents who felt Obama was too capitulatory to the teabagger GOP....so they sat out the 2010 election in protest...and are now paying the price (i.e., Walker, Scott). They won't be fooled again!
Good news is....IF Obama manages to get re-elected, he'll get to claim all the credit for the (R)-controlled House and Senate's success.
Guess what chuckles? There is a written and video record of what the GOP did and did not do....how they fought against EVERY THING that the Obama administration and the DEM party tried to push through...EVEN when they were the originators of the legislation and found agreement among the formentioned. I don't know what you're smoking, but the Party of NO didn't get it's name by being legislative trail blazers. (i.e., the nonsense over the debt ceiling).
I couldn't give 2 shits less about Walker. I wouldn't be caught dead in Wisconsin.
Scott, is just a straight-up skeeze bucket and he won't be re-elected with my vote in his column.
So on one hand you're hawking the neocon/teabagger glory of the GOP in Congress, yet on the other hand you're condemning the poster boys who are pushing the VERY SAME POLICIES THAT ARE ENDORSED BY THE GOP HIERARCHY.
Are you schizoid or just full of shit, chuckles? :cuckoo:
He has worked (sorta) hard at getting big companies/contracts into the Cape Canaveral area.....another Republican stuck cleaning up Obama's skidmarks.
As opposed to Obama stuck cleaning up the ENTIRE FUCKING ECONOMY that the Shrub & company shitted on? Sorry bunky, but the specialized market of Cape Canaveral isn't exactly representive of the American job arena. Besides, since you dopes are always whining about getting the federal gov't out of private business, you can now live up to your rhetoric and handle something without gov't subsidies.
The.pdf was a good read.
Still doesn't point to a "War" on women waged by Republicans.
It mentions that firms that are predominately female average lower wages than a similar business that's predominately male.
Wouldn't that be the business owners' fault? Not the fault of any policy or legislated practice.
Odds are that a "predominately female business" would be run by a female. Right?
So women are at war with other women? Women are "the Man", now???
If you had bother reading carefully, chuckles, you would have noted that women with kids take a bigger hit in pay than men with kids....and that pay raises still favor men.
The "war on women" refers to the GOP trying to pass legislation that removes protections against pay discrimination. That means that the federal gov't couldn't go after the "owners" you refer to who are screwing up. Got that, chuckles?
Next time know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys, chuckles....makes you look less foolish.
Another hilarious little stat was watching them compare a mechanic shop worker's pay to that of a hair stylist.
Different skill set and different education level.
Really? Or are you taking things out of context? Proof please (YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU, chuckles.)
Then there's the bar graph that shows more experienced male business owners hire more females.
Now it's a bad thing to give women jobs!!
Nice try at sarcasm, chuckles. Pity you're too intellectually dishonest or just too damned dumb to comprehend that there was more than just one bar graph....others that show that PAY discrimination still exists!
Look, dude.
Let's be honest, here.
The census bureau set out with a set goal.
They picked out only the data they needed in order to support their claim and magically proved their point.
(Poorly, in my opinion)
Look chuckles, YOU clearly have demonstrated that you're full of it....first you talk up the neocon/teabagger agenda and then you talk against two of their poster boys for enacting that agenda. Now you've taken bits and parts out of the Census Bureau report to try and claim that I didn't read it and it's conclusions are opposite of the OP, and NOW you're asserting the exact OPPOSITE. Get your act together, chuckles.
But, hey, it got you to bite to such a degree that you've spammed this thread with the bullshit link.
(did you find it in your daily TP e-mail?)
Why does our president hate women?
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).
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.
They should to be consistant.
Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing to get women pissed at the GOP, toodles....the GOP did that all by themselves when they convened a committee to discuss women's issues AND EXCLUDED women!
Ahhhh....so only women are permitted to address or understand women's issues. Got it.
Who said otherwise, genius? Not me, and not the President or his administration...and I defy you to provide the quote from me or the present administration that supports your insinuation. If not, you're just another neocon/teabagger crank blowing smoke.A matter of fact, a matter of history. Look it up! And if that weren't bad enough, what I listed in the OP and the actions of Walker in Wisconsin and Scott in Florida are clinchers.
Scott vetoed it because they already get $35.5 million from the state. Certainly the $1.5 million boost he vetoed could be redirected from within their existing budget. You DO realize that if you don't exhaust your budget and then ask for more your budget will be reduced right? Might want to think about that one for a while.
You Do realize that your numbers leave out a few details, my little neocon/teabagger parrot? Here, for your education:But according to the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, much of the available funding that currently exists is spent on education and prevention, and not for the funding of crisis centers and the victims they serve. The group’s Executive Director Jennifer Dritt disputed Governor Scott’s claim that he was never given specific reasons why the additional funding was required:
"We gave them information about the number of new survivors we have and we showed them that these rape crisis centers have waiting lists. Survivors are having to wait weeks, sometimes six weeks, in some programs three months to be seen. We included quotes from the programs about the waiting lists and what services they weren’t able to offer because of a lack of money. There is clearly an unmet need."
Florida’s rape crisis centers are tied to a trust fund that is fed into by fines levied against perpetrators of sexual assault. But when the fund was created by the legislature in 2003, lawmakers determined that it would not generate significant revenues for several years, instead requiring offsets by state funding. Scott’s decision to veto the funding could result in cuts of as much as $100,000 at some of the crisis centers, Dritt says.
Now, if you can provide the sources for all your statistics, I can address the rest of your assertions.
Oh sure, my pleasure. It's not real hard to go to RCP, read the available crosstabs, and average them out. Thankfully I have already done that for everyone posted weekly right here. Demographic breakdowns are posted for weeks ending 4/17 and 5/1
When did the census bureau say that women with the same occupation, experience, education and work history make less than men?
For your education:
http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf
Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.
Sorry, but that document doesn't prove your claim. It says that businesses that were primarily populated with males paid higher wages. The reason for that is the fact that men gravitate towards male dominated occupations that pay higher wages. Men take construction jobs, that pay higher wages. Women take teaching jobs that pay lower wages. If teaching paid better, then there would be plenty of men entering the profession.
My brother's girlfriend owns a company that does in-home nursing for the elderly. That profession is dominated by women, so it's hardly surprising that the owner of the company is a woman. It typically doesn't pay high wages because it's a low skill occupation.
The premise of your document is totally flawed. It's the typical misleading horse manure that demagogues who wail about "the war against women" typically trot out.
Now produce some evidence that women in the exact same occupation as men and with the same education and experience get paid a lower wage. You can't do it, and we both know it.
Based on you lack of response to posts #52 and #54, are you now convinced of the fact that the Left uses
provably false victimology to persuade the weak-minded?
Or, would you rather serve as verification of my axiom:
"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."
I already put your claptrap to rest, sweetpea:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5226176-post64.html
But do keep patting yourself on the back for your insipid stubborness and willful ignorance....it's pathetic, but strangely entertaining.
What an interesting strategy!!!
Be proven wrong, yet claim success!
How very.....Liberal of you!!
Did you want another chance?
Or, merely walk away with the egg dripping off your two faces?
Sure....
...why wouldn't an employer hire the woman at 75% of the cost of hiring a man for the same job equally well done?
C'mon....another demonstration of your business acumen!
So....What size shoe does your mouth take?
Now don't be afraid to admit you were wrong....it would constitute a step away from the darkside....
I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.
There used to be, of course.
That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.
But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.
And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.
STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.
Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.
The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.
