Reply #80

In the discussion thread: Is Rachel Maddow sincere? [View all]

Sat May 5, 2012, 12:23 PM

hfojvt (31,329 posts)

80. it's not "comparable work" though. It is just an aggregate.

A comparison of medians. For example somebody who works six hour days only makes 75 cents for every dollar a person who works eight hour days makes. Wouldn't you feel like a sucker if somebody got you all exited about the injustice of people who make 75 cents for ever dollar some other people make and then you found out the one group was working six hours and the other group was working eight hours.

I sure would. Because then the problem would be "get group A more hours" instead of "get group A more money".

Being technically correct is not a defense. George W. Bush was "technically correct" when he said "the bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts". Yes, that was technically true, but it was also deliberately misleading because he was using that as a way to say "my tax cuts do not favor the rich".

It's not valid to push the 23 cent pay gap as evidence of discrimination if a majority of that gap is not due to discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

94 replies	Author	Time	Post
Is Rachel Maddow sincere? [View all]	hfojvt	May 2012	OP
she gets things wrong sometimes	Enrique	May 2012	#1
I believe she cares about relaying the unvarnished truth.	AtomicKitten	May 2012	#2
if she cared about unvarnished truth, she wouldn't have quoted the clip selectively.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#3
Her point - that a gap exists - seems to be lost on the pickers of nits	AtomicKitten	May 2012	#8
23% v. 5% = not a nit. It's a huge difference.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#11
mathematically, sure. but politically, morally, and otherwise, no.	unblock	May 2012	#44
Then why not say "Women doing the same work/hours with the same qualifications, experience, on	HiPointDem	May 2012	#49
just to be clear, then, we're no longer talking about maddow getting it wrong in any way.	unblock	May 2012	#60
There may indeed be some form of discrimination going on beneath that 18%, but it's nothing	HiPointDem	May 2012	#65
the 77% figure may still be relevant if we want to rectify past wrongs,	unblock	May 2012	#71
no, she's under no obligation to present a full picture, but in that case, how is what she does	HiPointDem	May 2012	#74
foxnews is different in at least 2 respects:	unblock	May 2012	#79
it's not "comparable work" though. It is just an aggregate.	hfojvt	May 2012	#80
i don't think we have enough information to say how much of it is due to discrimination	unblock	May 2012	#82
For the longest time I didn't know what a nit was.	LiberalLoner	May 2012	#26
It won't work. She is the Queen of the Undead.	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#35
Lesbian vampire?!	AtomicKitten	May 2012	#41
I remember when that aired.	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#45
HORROR!!!	AtomicKitten	May 2012	#63
and people who only watch her show	hfojvt	May 2012	#12
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt	Aerows	May 2012	#37
sometimes it's somerby who commits the howler	unblock	May 2012	#4
yeah that's what the first commenter thought too	hfojvt	May 2012	#15
well i think there's direct discrimination and indirect discrimination	unblock	May 2012	#46
All TV talking heads are limited in their "honesty"	just1voice	May 2012	#5
Maddow did mention these other studies	DearAbby	May 2012	#6
"discriminated against" = systematic lower pay for women v. men for doing the same work with the	HiPointDem	May 2012	#23
At a lot of companies	Aerows	May 2012	#38
"At a lot of companies" = more true for the top 20% than the bottom 80%. Yes, at the top	HiPointDem	May 2012	#52
It still is a big deal	Aerows	May 2012	#56
no, it's a big deal to some in the top 20%. like maddow. personally, i could care that she gets	HiPointDem	May 2012	#58
I'm female	Aerows	May 2012	#61
I'm also female. I'm not "miffed" that men have lost ground, I'm angry, outraged, that the entire	HiPointDem	May 2012	#62
Let me state this plainly	Aerows	May 2012	#64
And let me state this plainly. No one is disputing the principle of equal pay for equal work,	HiPointDem	May 2012	#66
Why do you talk adjustments?	DearAbby	May 2012	#69
statistical adjustments. it is partly a mathematical problem, even if you don't understand it.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#72
Just sounds like a way to justify paying women less than men.	DearAbby	May 2012	#88
sorry it's so difficult for you.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#90
because some adjustments are logical	hfojvt	May 2012	#81
Just more reasons to justify paying women less than men.	DearAbby	May 2012	#89
just to be clear then	hfojvt	May 2012	#92
You know she was being dishonest	joeglow3	May 2012	#55
Bob Somersby is a PUMA	One of the 99	May 2012	#7
interesting theory	hfojvt	May 2012	#16
It's not a theory	One of the 99	May 2012	#48
She went through charts	EC	May 2012	#9
I read your link and then watched the half hour segment of Rachel's show...	Spazito	May 2012	#10
the real issue is that once you adjust for differences in women's employment patterns, the	HiPointDem	May 2012	#17
The burden of bearing children still falls on women. Right now, only women can have babies. And	LiberalLoner	May 2012	#21
Agreed. But that's a different issue than some kind of systematic discrimination by employers	HiPointDem	May 2012	#25
It certainly happens	Aerows	May 2012	#39
"It happens" does not a pattern make. And what happens to upper-tier corporate workers	HiPointDem	May 2012	#53
Well	Aerows	May 2012	#59
and the fact that you've never held such a position speaks to a difference in our class positions.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#67
No, I disagree...	Spazito	May 2012	#28
the issue so far as the maddow report goes is that most of that difference can be explained	HiPointDem	May 2012	#47
You are dismissing the equal pay for equal work....	Spazito	May 2012	#51
The studies in question did not look at "assistant A" and "assistant B". They aggregated data	HiPointDem	May 2012	#54
In aggregate, they did....	Spazito	May 2012	#57
no, they averaged the wages of thousands of people in a broad job category. Like "manager".	HiPointDem	May 2012	#68
Having read your other posts in this thread...	Spazito	May 2012	#70
good. i didn't realize that me changing my position was the only possible reason to discuss	HiPointDem	May 2012	#73
"the gap is reduced to almost nothing."	kiva	May 2012	#76
I think 5% is very relevant	hfojvt	May 2012	#83
You should always take these cable news hosts with a grain of salt	RZM	May 2012	#13
Your concern for the left is duly noted.	Pisces	May 2012	#14
maddow = "the left"?	HiPointDem	May 2012	#19
You've been here four years	WilliamPitt	May 2012	#20
Dude doesn't understand why the supreme court forbids mandatory school prayer, for one.	Warren DeMontague	May 2012	#32
If you don't want to call him a concern troll today,	Quantess	May 2012	#50
I think he meant that I am worse	hfojvt	May 2012	#84
Wow - what a nasty attack screed.	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#18
That was nasty?	WilliamPitt	May 2012	#22
"Maddow is sold as a former Rhodes Scholar"	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#29
The Daily Howler still exists?	Larkspur	May 2012	#24
If you are concerned, bring it to her attention. When she makes a mistake, she admits it. She	mfcorey1	May 2012	#27
Apparently, Joe Screed already covered that.	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#31
Here's the thing.	hfojvt	May 2012	#86
Does this blogger you like also support mandatory christian prayer in public schools?	Warren DeMontague	May 2012	#30
Do I?	hfojvt	May 2012	#87
Yeah. That's actually a majority position.	Warren DeMontague	May 2012	#93
The gap is real	veganlush	May 2012	#33
more sincere than this Somerby that you quote.	WI_DEM	May 2012	#34
Mr. Somerby belongs on Fox "News".	Dawson Leery	May 2012	#36
My wife would not think you were sincere. I know that for a fact. See ...	JoePhilly	May 2012	#40
If You Want To Trash Rachel, Take It To The Gun Control/RKBA Group.	Paladin	May 2012	#42
Sincere is not the important question. Rachel is a paid employee of	CenaW	May 2012	#43
Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Nt.	Mc Mike	May 2012	#75
I think there is legitimate debate to be had about the numbers	Bjorn Against	May 2012	#77
Your posts makes no sense.	shcrane71	May 2012	#78
Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest and most sincere people of all the political shows.	Tennessee Gal	May 2012	#85
your blanket statement is not factual. and that's not even what maddow said.	HiPointDem	May 2012	#91
She fell into "show biz" accidently.. Take a look at the	annabanana	May 2012	#94

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.