Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
83. I think 5% is very relevant
Sat May 5, 2012, 01:48 PM
May 2012

Even if it is only 2 hours out of every forty.

When state budgets were being crunched, I suggested that the state could save by cutting state workers pay by 5% and giving them longer weekends. Let them go home an hour early on Friday and come in an hour later on Monday. It's not an awesome solution, but it's better than having the state lay of 5% of its workforce.

As far as upper class concerns. It does seem to me that it is the higher paying jobs where discrimination is more likely to take place. At the entry level, a person is hired for the same low pay, regardless of gender. One quote from the sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-mart struck me as funny that way. "Women store managers, he found, made an average of
$89,280 a year, $16,400 less than men."

Well, puh-leaze. That was from 2001. $89,280 a year is a sh*tload of money as far as I am concerned. I'd love to have a job making $45,000 a year even today 11 years later. $89,280 puts her in the 85th percentile even if she is single. If she has a spouse making 70% of her pay, she's in the TOP 5%. Well, down here in the bottom 20% we really do not care to fight very hard to make sure that people in the top 5% get more money. If I am fighting for anything, it is to reduce the salaries of the men by $16,400.

Even Lilly Ledbetter was making decent money. Not spectactular, but decent. Probably lots of men in 1998 would LOVE to have a job that paid $44,724. That's over 138% of what I make today 14 years later. By the inflation calculator $44,724 in 1998 is the same as 62,940 today! That puts her in the top 50% even if she doesn't have a well-paid spouse (and it always seems to me that people with good paying jobs marry other people with good paying jobs.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lilly-ledbetter/equal-pay-women_b_1434626.html

Yet she writes "how much my family had done without" when it seems likely that her family made more than 80% of the rest of American households. In 1998, only 18.2% of households made over $100,000 and she's almost halfway there with her salary alone. In 1998, 34.8% of households made less than $35,000. Should one of their top concerns be "making sure Lilly Ledbetter gets more money"?

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
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2012 #30
Do I? hfojvt May 2012 #87
This message was self-deleted by its author 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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Rachel Maddow sincere?»Reply #83