published Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

Pay Equity

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

104
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Jt6gR3hM said...

"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).

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters golf tournament.

But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated environments.

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."

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

June 11, 2013 at 12:29 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

3 comments already? I only see one.

Susan B. Anthony was a Republican. Susan B. Anthony Patriot Foundation tax exemption, 77% chance of being stonewalled?

She wanted to vote. Ya gotta say this for women voters, their first President was Warren G. Harding, who inherited a bum economy from Woodrow Wilson and quickly turned it into the roaring '20s. Too bad Hoover, FDR, LBJ, and Obama--and several others--didn't channel Harding for their economic policies. (When I ranked Presidents--http://voices.yahoo.com/ranking-presidents-usa-7505256.html--Harding topped those four, judging by results.)

God created Adam, said Not good, and created Eve. Eve's no clone of Adam; division of labor is a creation ordinance. Obviously it's been overdone and abused, as the division between bureaucrats and their fellow humans is abused, but it's real, and it can be underdone, which also abuses people. I hope Clay likes buying pregnancy insurance for himself.

June 11, 2013 at 1:21 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES

Mitt Romney claimed during his campaign that the Obama White House pays women less than men. So you know that's a lie. Not sure Mittens said one true thing during his entire run, especially during the primaries when he carpet bombed his opponents with negative TV ads. He even claimed his first name is 'Mitt' when we all know it's Willard.

Anyone trying to recycle Romney talking points is either an idiot or a lazy fool.

Anyway, last October Politifact looked into his silly claim and acknowledged that there is an overall pay gap between men and women. But a look inside the numbers reveal a different picture.

"When women do the same job as men (in Obama's White House), the pay gap narrows quite a bit. And in fact, this is exactly what happens when you look deeper into the White House data. Even when you just control for one factor -- people who have the same job title -- the gap narrows significantly.

We found 36 titles for full employees held by more than one person, including at least one man and woman. Of these 36 job categories, there was no difference in pay between men and women in 22 job categories, affecting 121 employees. In another six categories affecting 29 employees, the highest earner in the category was a woman who out-earned at least one man."

Tea baggers are still making up crap to attack the President. What's the matter? Americans don't wants to hear about how lowering taxes on rich people and increasing the defense budget will balance the federal budget?

June 11, 2013 at 2:23 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

blackwater48 said...

COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES


Are you saying that the people that claim women earn only $.77 for every dollar that men earn are employing the same scam that I used?

You hit it out of the park.

June 11, 2013 at 2:33 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

touch'em all, blackwater.

June 11, 2013 at 2:37 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by Kay S. Hymowitz

Early this past spring, the White House Council on Women and Girls released a much-anticipated report called Women in America. One of its conclusions struck a familiar note: today, as President Obama said in describing the document, “women still earn on average only about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. That’s a huge discrepancy.”

It is a huge discrepancy. It’s also an exquisite example of what journalist Charles Seife has dubbed “proofiness.” Proofiness is the use of misleading statistics to confirm what you already believe.

Indeed, the 75-cent meme depends on a panoply of apple-to-orange comparisons that support a variety of feminist policy initiatives, from the Paycheck Fairness Act to universal child care, while telling us next to nothing about the well-being of women.

Let’s begin by unpacking that 75-cent statistic, which actually varies from 75 to about 81, depending on the year and the study. The figure is based on the average earnings of full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers, usually defined as those who work 35 hours a week OR MORE.

But consider the mischief contained in that “or more.” It makes the full-time category embrace everyone from a clerk who arrives at her desk at 9 am and leaves promptly at 4 pm to a trial lawyer who eats dinner four nights a week—and lunch on weekends—at his desk. I assume, in this case, that the clerk is a woman and the lawyer a man for the simple reason that—and here is an average that proofers rarely mention—full-time men work more hours than full-time women do.

In 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 27 percent of male full-time workers had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 15 percent of female full-time workers; meanwhile, just 4 percent of full-time men worked 35 to 39 hours a week, while 12 percent of women did.

Since FTYR men work more than FTYR women do, it shouldn’t be surprising that the men, on average, earn more.

The way proofers finesse “full-time” can be a wonder to behold. Take a recent article in the Washington Post by Mariko Chang, author of a forthcoming book on the wealth gap between women and men. Chang cites a wage difference between “full-time” male and female pharmacists to show how “even when they work in the same occupation, men earn more.”

A moment’s Googling led me to a 2001 study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association concluding that male pharmacists worked 44.1 hours a week, on average, while females worked 37.2 hours. That study is a bit dated, but it’s a good guess that things haven’t changed much in the last decade.

According to a 2009 article in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, female pharmacists’ preference for reduced work hours is enough to lead to an industry labor shortage.

June 11, 2013 at 2:50 a.m.
EaTn said...

Inflation has eroded the value of all money, to the point that a penny is just a nuisance to most folks. The dollar coin is again being discussed as a economic replacement to the paper dollar bill, which is becoming more expensive to print.

June 11, 2013 at 6:29 a.m.
conservative said...

Some Liberals know that other Liberals are dumber than a box of rocks!

June 11, 2013 at 6:33 a.m.
fairmon said...

Those paid by the hour by an employer are paid the same for like work. The 77% factor is not valid when examined thoroughly.

June 11, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.
conservative said...

If a secretary's pay were increased to that of a construction worker there would be a lot of construction workers seeking to be a secretary.

June 11, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
conservative said...

Sorry, but the Liberal blame game will not work on God. Atheism is a choice that you made. God will not except your lame excuse.

June 11, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
hambone said...

Is there a Rosetta Stone for Andrews posts?

June 11, 2013 at 8:52 a.m.
Leaf said...

It's a fallacy that people who work with their hands aren't smart. There are many intelligent blue collar workers, and there have been studies that show that working in the physical world is often more intellectually stimulating than working in the office world.

June 11, 2013 at 8:53 a.m.
Leaf said...

Plus, it's harder for the NSA to spy on constuction workers because they leave less of a data trail.

June 11, 2013 at 8:54 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Perhaps this cartoon reflects the value of a dollar after the fed stops buying 85 billion worth of bonds each month(QE3) and the market is allowed to auto correct. Ever wonder why the DOW is at 15000 while 1 in 5 are on some sort of assistence?

June 11, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

$0.0631535 is the melt value for the 1979-1981, 1999 Susan B. Anthony dollar on June 11, 2013.

The coin is also worth from $1.00 to $25.00, to collectors, according to its condition.

I guess it is really worth what someone is willing to pay for it and what someone is willing to part with it. You know, like everything else on the open market.

June 11, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
Maximus said...

This is an easy one. In corporate America and even the military women are less flexible regarding relocation. Again, in most industries, banking, manufacturing, sales, whatever, you have to move out to move up. A woman that is a successful territory sales representative in Chattanooga may have to move to Little Rock to take that plum District Manager job. If she turns it down for personal reasons there may not be another opportunity. The reason pay is lower in some cases for females is due to their personal decisions. I know, grow up, reality can suck! Somehow someone will find a way to blame this on Bush! Fuuuunny! Be sure to call Lamar Alexander and Corker today regarding the impeachment of Obama. Git Er Dun! Gotta go make the money. Seeeee ya!

June 11, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
conservative said...

This pay equity scam was invented by Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats who hate traditional capitalism.

If women were truly paid less than men for the same job then these capitalist would surely hire only women and increase their profits.

June 11, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by Kay S. Hymowitz:

Proofers often make the claim that women earn less than men doing the exact same job. They can’t possibly know that. The Labor Department’s occupational categories can be so large that a woman could drive a truck through them.

Among “physicians and surgeons,” for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right? Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded.

Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

A good example of how proofers get away with using the rogue term “occupation” is Behind the Pay Gap, a widely quoted 2007 study from the American Association of University Women whose executive summary informs us in its second paragraph that “one year out of college, women working full time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn.”

The report divides the labor force into 11 extremely broad occupations determined by the Department of Education. So ten years after graduation, we learn, women who go into “business” earn considerably less than their male counterparts do.

You don’t read until the end of the summary that when you control for such factors as education and hours worked, there’s actually just a 5 percent pay gap. But the AAUW isn’t going to begin a report with the statement that women earn 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, is it?

June 11, 2013 at 10:26 a.m.
dude_abides said...

So Russia would consider an asylum request for Snowden! At least this hero will have an option if Fox News doesn't offer him a job. I'm sure the Russians would help us in our desire for transparency at all levels of our government. I wonder if Putin has signed that petition?

June 11, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Nooga says (while sitting on a washing machine on his front porch) "The problem with your chavanistic (sic) statement is most construction workers aren't smart enough to be a secretary. FAIL

June 11, 2013 at 11 a.m.
patriot1 said...

This pay equity thing is an attempt to distract from all the other issues. An American in hiding from his government for disclosing the erosion of our freedoms.....that's a story.

June 11, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Atheism is a choice that you made. God will not except your lame excuse." - con-man

Bible thumping, narrow-minded, hellfire-and-brimstone, irrational, Neanderthal-ish Christianity is a choice that you made. Atheists know better. We do not except (sic) your lame excuse for a God.

June 11, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Good one, Ricky. That should settle it.

June 11, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

It's time for churches to reject tax exempt status completely; freedom is more important than government financial favors. -Mike Huckabee

June 11, 2013 at 11:58 a.m.
librul said...

HA! Churchy politicians will NEVER abandon hypocrisy while the government makes it easy for them to curry "government financial favors."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/06/farm-subsidies-loving-congressman-wants-to-cut-food-stamps/

June 11, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by Kay S. Hymowitz:

So why do women work fewer hours, choose less demanding jobs, and then earn less than men do? The answer is obvious: kids. A number of researchers have found that if you consider only childless women, the wage gap disappears.

Using Census Bureau data of pay levels in 147 of the nation’s 150 largest cities, the research firm Reach Advisors recently showed that single, childless working women under 30 earned 8 percent more than their male counterparts did.

That’s likely to change as soon as the children arrive. Mothers, particularly those with young children, take more time off from work; even when they are working, they’re on the job less.

"Behind the Pay Gap" found that “among women who graduated from college in 1992–93, more than one-fifth (23 percent) of mothers were out of the work force in 2003, and another 17 percent were working part time,” compared with under 2 percent of fathers in each case.

The most compelling research into the impact of children on women’s careers and earnings comes from a 2010 article in the American Economic Journal. The authors selected nearly 2,500 MBAs who graduated between 1990 and 2006 from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

Here’s what the authors found: right after graduation, men and women had nearly identical earnings and working hours. Over the next ten years, however, women fell way behind. Survey questions revealed three reasons for this.

First and least important, men had taken more finance courses and received better grades in those courses, while women had taken more marketing classes.

Second, women had more career interruptions.

Third and most important, mothers worked fewer hours. Though 90 percent of women were employed full-time and year-round immediately following graduation, that was the case with only 80 percent five years out, 70 percent nine years out, and 62 percent ten or more years out—and only about half of women with children were working full-time ten years after graduation.

By contrast, almost all the male grads were working full-time and year-round. Furthermore, MBA mothers, especially those with higher-earning spouses, “actively chose” family-friendly workplaces that would allow them to avoid long hours, even if it meant lowering their chances to climb the greasy pole.

When working mothers can, they tend to spend less time at work. That explains all those female pharmacists looking for reduced hours. It explains why female lawyers are twice as likely as men to go into public-interest law, in which hours are less brutal than in the partner track at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Female medical students tell researchers that they’re choosing not to become surgeons because of “lifestyle issues,” which seems to be a euphemism for wanting more time with the kids. Thirty-three percent of female pediatricians are part-timers.

June 11, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Boehner thinks the NSA leaker is the traitor, but an agency trampling the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans isn't. Noted

June 11, 2013 at 12:59 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

So many topics to cover and Clay decides to sketch something around unwed lesbian Indians against nuclear energy? So Oprah Clay,,, oh so Oprah,,

Perhaps this explains why it's so difficult to get tickets for girls softball games? Who knew???

June 11, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
dude_abides said...

plaintruth feels himself more informed than the Speaker of the House, who belongs to the opposition party which could benefit politically by making a hero of this guy. Hmmm... noted.

June 11, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
conservative said...

Notice the "In God We Trust" inscription. Maybe that is what has made the atheists more angry and foolish than usual?

June 11, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dude! No nazi references? You and your ilk giving intellectual wannabes a bad name, Dude. You're a far ways from a real Liberal. But you are oh so cool. That's sumpthin.

June 11, 2013 at 1:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The males posting smug, smarta$$ remarks here are obviously not smart enough to realize they are trashing the value of their wives, sisters, daughters, etc. Equal pay for women would just move more money into the pockets of families. More elitist divide and conquer tactics, pitting working class husbands against their own pocketbooks.

June 11, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Reardon said...

You get paid what you negotiate, and what you are worth.

I work 2 sales jobs and know my worth is directly proportional to what I produce.

The same goes for anyone in any profession, male or female.

Employers will always want to pay you lower than what you want to be paid. That's the whole point of negotiation. And more importantly, proving you are worth more pay.

If they don't pay you enough? Take your talent elsewhere.

And stop whining.

June 11, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
jesse said...

Smug,smartass remarks? You know anybody on here that would do such a thang? DUDE!!

June 11, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
dude_abides said...

plaintruth... once again you project your Nazi proclivities on others! LOL Would a "real" liberal be more conveniently aligned with your present witch hunt? Petition this, you vituperative vagabond.

June 11, 2013 at 2:18 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by Kay S. Hymowitz:

The presumption is that women pursue reduced or flexible hours because men refuse to take equal responsibility for the children and because the United States does not have “family-friendly policies.”

Child care is frequently described as a burden to women, a patriarchal imposition on their ambitions, and a source of profound inequity. But is this attitude accurate? Do women want to be working more, if only the kids—and their useless husbands—would let them? And do we know that more government support would enable them to do so and close the wage gap?

About two-thirds of the part-time workforce in the United States is female.

According to a 2007 Pew Research survey, only 21 percent of working mothers with minor children want to be in the office full-time. 60 percent say that they would prefer to work part-time, and 19 percent would like to give up their jobs altogether.

For working fathers, the numbers are reversed: 72 percent want to work full-time and 12 percent part-time.

In fact, women choose fewer hours—despite the resulting gap in earnings—all over the world. That includes countries with generous family leave and child-care policies.

Look at Iceland, recently crowned the world’s most egalitarian nation by the World Economic Forum. The country boasts a female prime minister, a law requiring that the boards of midsize and larger businesses be at least 40 percent female, excellent public child care, and a family leave policy that would make NOW members swoon.

Yet despite successful efforts to get men to take paternity leave, Icelandic women still take considerably more time off than men do. They also are far more likely to work part-time. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this queen of women-friendly countries has a bigger wage gap—women make 62 percent of what men do—than the United States does.

Sweden, in many people’s minds the world’s gender utopia, also has a de facto mommy track. Sweden has one of the highest proportions of working women in the world and a commitment to gender parity that’s close to a national religion.

In addition to child care, the country offers paid parental leave that includes two months specifically reserved for fathers. Yet moms still take four times as much leave as dads do. (Women are also more likely to be in lower-paid public-sector jobs; according to sociologist Linda Haas, Sweden has “one of the most sex-segregated labor markets in the world.”)

Far more women than men work part-time; almost half of all mothers are on the job 30 hours a week or less. The gender wage gap among full-time workers in Sweden is 15 percent. That’s lower than in the United States, at least according to the flawed data we have, but it’s hardly the feminist Promised Land.

(cont)

June 11, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(cont)

The list goes on. In the Netherlands, over 70 percent of women work part-time and say that they want it that way. According to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, surveys found that only 4 percent of female part-timers wish that they had full-time jobs.

In the United Kingdom, half of female GPs work part-time, and the National Health Service is scrambling to cope with a dearth of doctor hours. Interestingly enough, countries with higher GDPs tend to have the highest percentage of women in part-time work.

In fact, the OECD reports that in many of its richest countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S., the percentage of the female workforce in part-time positions has gone up over the last decade.

Less time at work, whether in the form of part-time jobs or fewer full-time hours, is what many women want and what those who can afford it tend to choose. Feminists can object till the Singularity arrives that women are “socialized” to think that they have to be the primary parent.

But after decades of feminism and Nordic engineering, the continuing female tropism toward shorter work hours suggests that that view is either false or irrelevant. Even the determined Swedes haven’t been able to get women to stick around the office.

June 11, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
dude_abides said...

look, jesse said "thang." I see what you did there. You're so country clever! Hey, have you spent the morning maintaining your ball washers?

June 11, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dude is just frustrated that he has no vagina.

June 11, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jt6... please continue to scour the net for opinions that none of us, obviously, could possibly find, and post them here. Your well pasted and punctiliously highlighted posts have changed my mind exactly zero times, but that may be because I have read them a similar amount of times.

June 11, 2013 at 2:51 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Dude is just frustrated that he has no vagina."

plaintruth... you lucky bastard! You have one? I'm jealous, now. LMAO

June 11, 2013 at 2:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

They can work wonders on you in Bangkok, Dudely. You can be at peace.

June 11, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Putin lecturing Obama on privacy. Goodgawdamighty.

June 11, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
dude_abides said...

You know your stuff plaintruth! Did you get hormone therapy there, as well? What does something like that cost? If memory serves, you probably didn't need breast implants. So there's that discount...

June 11, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Might work wonders on your sarcastic, arrogant demeanor. Probably a gubmint program available for assistance. Worth a look-see.

June 11, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Thank you Doctor Plain Ruth! Glad everything is going well with yours. Please let me know if there are any recalls, okay?

June 11, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

dude_abides said...

Jt6... please continue to scour the net for opinions that none of us, obviously, could possibly find, and post them here. Your well pasted and punctiliously highlighted posts have changed my mind exactly zero times, but that may be because I have read them a similar amount of times.


I guess I could best use my time like some of the posters here do all day long. I could issue a steady stream of smart-a$$ commentary about the personal characteristics of others.

June 11, 2013 at 3:25 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

The Wage Gap Myth

by Anthony Kang:

After nearly fifteen years of research, Dr. Warren Farrell uncovered numerous reasons for the pay gap. As he explains in his book, “Why Men Earn More,” nearly all of it boils down to differences in occupation, and men overwhelmingly dominate jobs that:

(Note: Farrell was a three-time board member of NOW.)

are in an unpleasant environment (sanitation vs. child care)

require harder-to-attain skills (physics vs. philosophy)

require longer work hours

demand financial risk (entrepreneur vs. teaching)

are inconvenient (i.e., relocation)

are hazardous (construction vs. librarian)

Due to the simple laws of supply and demand, these occupations pay more and contribute immensely to the pay gap.

Wage gap statistics also do not account for time commitment. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime Television found that nearly 85 percent of women took advantage of flexible work arrangements offered by their employers.

And a decade after graduating college, 39 percent of women leave the work force or work part-time, versus 3 percent of men. Aside from the obvious benefits of working longer, workers who average 44 or more hours per week earn approximately 100 percent more than workers who average 40 hours.

To further illustrate the lunacy surrounding the purported wage gap, let's flip the situation on its head.

women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn

there are some 80 fields where women earn more than men

about 80 percent of the jobs lost in the recession were lost by men

males are exponentially more likely to become incarcerated or homeless

males disproportionately sacrifice much of their prime years in service of the military

the male-to-female ratio on college campuses is now about 40/60

approximately 93 percent of workplace fatalities are men

among unmarried college-educated men and women between 40 and 64, men earn nearly 15 percent less

Given these facts, it wouldn't be very hard to convince a young, apolitical, and impressionable college student, like I was, that all males are helpless victims, would it?

Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle, "strong" and "independent" feminists like to say. How any group so helplessly dependent on the patriarchal teat of Uncle Sam can claim to be "strong" and "independent" is laughable at best. As the wage gap myth clearly demonstrates, the biggest irony of it all is the fact that modern-day feminists are the very antithesis.

June 11, 2013 at 3:36 p.m.

blackwater said: Tea baggers are still making up crap to attack the President.

Good to see that Clayduh! has some company down on the looney farm. Keep it up blackie.

June 11, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
conservative said...

If one is honest it can be observed and I know this from personal experience as well, that women who hold traditional male jobs requiring physical labor are not as productive as their male counterpart, yet they receive the same pay.

June 11, 2013 at 3:53 p.m.
joneses said...

Hussein obama said that insurance rates would go down under obamacare. Well this has turned out to be another obama lie. and what will the liberal lemmings do? They will blame the large rate increases on the insurance companies as their god, hussein obama can do no wrong.

"The so-called rate shock from Obamacare has hit Ohio. The state’s Department of Insurance announced last Thursday that, based on rates submitted by insurers to date, it estimates the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will cost approximately $420, “representing an increase of 88 percent” compared to 2013.“We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in the accompanying press release. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”

I hope all you liberals get everything you deserve in the form of health care.

June 11, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

It's dishonest of you to take the upper estimate of premium increase in one state (Ohio) that hasn't even been reviewed or approved and act as if that is universal or common for all premiums nationwide.


There are many factors that will impact premiums due to health care reform. This report identifies key factors and provides estimates based on a variety of sources. We have made distinct estimates of potential changes in premium for different parts of the population.

We categorize the expected changes in average premiums into four components. The first three affect the premiums charged by the carrier, and the fourth affect the member’s contribution to these premiums.

Trend from 2013 to 2014: 9.0% average increase to premium

Premiums would have changed from 2013 to 2014 even in the absence of the Affordable Care Act. The primary source of this change is increases in provider reimbursement due to annual contract negotiations, increases in utilization due to new procedures and technology, and increases in prescription utilization and costs. Premium trends in the individual market are higher than the underlying trends in medical costs due to the leveraging effect of the relatively high cost sharing typical in individual policies. We assumed the average increase in premiums from 2013 to 2014, in the absence of the Affordable Care Act changes, to be 9.0%. In recent years, rates filed with the CDI and DHMC have increased by approximately 7-11% for individual insurance products. Absent the 2014 Affordable Care Act changes, we believe the market and regulatory forces that led to these trends would continue at similar levels in 2014.

Affordable Care Act Market Changes: 14.0% average increase to premiums

The influx of newly insured and the related Affordable Care Act provisions affect the overall premium requirements of the carriers and are spread out over all of the current and newly insured members. We estimate this amount to be 14.0%.

Buying More Coverage: 16.9% average increase to premium, offset by reductions to consumer out-of- pocket

Some of the expected increase in average premiums is due to an increase in the amount of insurance coverage purchased by the average insured person. This is a combination of buying coverage for newly covered services due to the Essential Health Benefits requirement, estimated as 4.8%, and a higher average Actuarial Value for existing covered services, estimated as 11.5%. In both cases, the increase in premium is due to post-Affordable Care Act insurance covering costs that would have previously paid out of pocket by the insured.

http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/Factors%20Affecting%20Individual%20Premiums%20FINAL%203-28-2013.pdf

June 11, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jt6... But seriously, do you feel like you share in the authorship by highlighting portions of your 'pastings?' I mean, are you afraid that you're the only one that can digest the pertinent passages? Couldn't you just post links? Just asking...

June 11, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
fairmon said...

Insurers, providers, patients and governments and some here are speculating about the percent increase attributable to the AHCA. That is nearly impossible since the legislation was crafted by a collection of insurance companies and lawyers resulting in a very complex and convoluted document that is nearly impossible to read. The embedded cost such as a tax on manufacturers of artificial limbs and implants, a tax on insurance companies, a tax on so called "Cadillac" plans plus the shifting of cost for subsidizing those that appear to be unable to afford it to those that are able to pay a higher premium. A capital gains tax on those over certain income levels. It would have been much simpler and transparent to have collected a consumption tax on every retail purchase made and use that to pay for a standard health care policy for every U.S. citizen. The wealthy and politicians couldn't handle that since they couldn't manipulate or beat it. Those with high incomes that spent would pay much more than those with low to no income to spend. The ultimate in redistribution of wealth.

The real answer regarding the real cost with screaming and kicking from some currently avid supporters will happen in late 2014 and 2015. Raise all the hell you want to, you can't stop it. It is like a fish swallowing a treble hook, you are hooked and being reeled in.

June 11, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Wow. We now know more about Snowden's background than we know about the Teflon president's.

June 11, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Wow. We now know more about Snowden's background than we know about the Teflon president's."

Spoken like a true shapeshifter, man of a thousand incarnations.

June 11, 2013 at 4:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

3

June 11, 2013 at 5:04 p.m.
miraweb said...

Turns out the ACLU is a Verizon business customer. Guess who has standing to sue . . .

As an organization that advocates for and litigates to defend the civil liberties of society's most vulnerable, the staff at the ACLU naturally use the phone—a lot—to talk about sensitive and confidential topics with clients, legislators, whistleblowers, and ACLU members. And since the ACLU is a VBNS customer, we were immediately confronted with the harmful impact that such broad surveillance would have on our legal and advocacy work. So we're acting quickly to get into court to challenge the government's abuse of Section 215.

The ACLU's complaint filed today explains that the dragnet surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215 infringes upon the ACLU's First Amendment rights, including the twin liberties of free expression and free association.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

June 11, 2013 at 5:16 p.m.
conservative said...

I once talked to a PFC at an Army kiosk set up at a shopping mall. We started off discussing the lower standards for women on the PT test. Later he told me of an incident where himself and a female soldier were ordered to load artillery shells on the back of deuce and a half. He said they weighed 72 pounds a piece. She could not lift them but could only roll them on the ground with her foot. He did nearly all the work loading that truck and of course she got the same monthly pay.

Did you ever notice that there is no call by Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats for equal performance/productivity for the same pay?

June 11, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
conservative said...

Speaking of performance it is a fact that women in basic training in our military have to meet a lower standard than their male counterparts to pass yet they receive the same pay as men. A female Private E1 is paid the same as a male Private E1

June 11, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jesus Christ, conservative, you really hate women don't you? Have you been rejected by every woman you ever met? I've never seen such misogyny. Did mean women laugh at you (speaking of performance)?

June 11, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Did you ever notice that there is no call by Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats for equal performance/productivity for the same pay?"

Actually, that's exactly what folks are calling for. Same job, same education, same experience should yield equal pay. That's how salaried jobs work.

"Speaking of performance it is a fact that women in basic training in our military have to meet a lower standard than their male counterparts to pass yet they receive the same pay as men."

Why don't you use that same logic when men and women have the same job/experience/education level/standard, yet women are still paid significantly less than men in most fields.

"A female Private E1 is paid the same as a male Private E1"

Yet, a female Private has very little room for promotion or advancement compared to her male counterparts considering females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military.

As an aside, I find it laughable that you believe individual stories serve to aid your point. But, by all means, proceed with the misogyny.

June 11, 2013 at 5:49 p.m.
conservative said...

The major phone companies as well as police, fire, electric etc have spent at least tens of millions to get women into previously male dominated roles.

I have seen in the phone companies where women left their inside jobs for the higher paying outside jobs. This was mostly forced on the phone companies by the quotas set by government. However, the vast majority of them could not pass the physical requirements and went back to their old jobs. Money wasted or more accurately the cost was passed onto the customer in higher phone rates.

Those few who did pass soon went back to their old jobs. Women are just not cut out to work in the heat and cold and climbing poles and climbing under houses and into hot attics.

I personally know a woman installer/repairman who stuck it out (the only one) but she was given the easier jobs and pretty much did as she pleased. Her productivity was always low but the phone company would pad her evaluation so they could please the government. She of course received the same pay as her more productive male counterparts.

Look around, is it males or females who are driving those vans that come to your house to do service and installation work of any type?

June 11, 2013 at 5:55 p.m.
conservative said...

Did you ever notice that there is no call by Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats for equal performance/productivity for the same pay?"

Actually, that's exactly what folks are calling for. Same job, same education, same experience should yield equal pay. That's how salaried jobs work.

No, what you say is actually the case is not what I said is actually the case. Read. read, read.

===============

"Speaking of performance it is a fact that women in basic training in our military have to meet a lower standard than their male counterparts to pass yet they receive the same pay as men."

Why don't you use that same logic when men and women have the same job/experience/education level/standard, yet women are still paid significantly less than men in most fields

Wrong again. Why don't they sue and win the discrimination lotto? The answer is obvious.

==========================

"A female Private E1 is paid the same as a male Private E1"

Yet, a female Private has very little room for promotion or advancement compared to her male counterparts considering females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military

You either didn't read or you are trying to fool someone because I wrote:

"Speaking of performance it is a fact that women in basic training in our military have to meet a lower standard than their male counterparts to pass yet they receive the same pay as men."

You also are badly wrong when you state " females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military."

==================

As an aside, I find it laughable that you believe individual stories serve to aid your point. But, by all means, proceed with the misogyny.

Well, they like all real life experience make any point well. Perhaps you have been sheltered and have no real life experience. Furthermore, wishing and hoping is not realty, it is only wishing and hoping and wasted emotion in comparison.

You Liberals nearly always resort to personal attacks when you can't defend your position.

June 11, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

It's always the religious that are the most misogynistic.

I guess reading that that menstrual blood is unholy along with the vagina itself (virgin birth), women should not speak in or hold high positions in Church, Eve was tempted first and made Adam fall, absence of virginity = death, and verses that say: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) really rubbed off on people like conservative.

In Leviticus, mothers that birthed male babies were unclean for 1 week and had to wait 33 days to be "purified". If the woman gave birth to a female baby, the uncleanliness lasted for 2 weeks and the wait for purification was 66 days.

Every morning, Jewish men read this allowed from their Siddur:

"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman."

Women are considered property in Islam and they are treated as such. Extreme dress codes with punishments for breaking it, education and employment is all but forbidden for women, and the overall lack of power for women are commonplace in Islam.


It's easy to see where people like conservative get their opinions of women.

June 11, 2013 at 6:46 p.m.
conservative said...

This is why I seldom bother with you.

You are an atheist, a heathen, an antichrist and God says you are a fool.

You can't wait to display all of the above.

June 11, 2013 at 6:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"No, what you say is actually the case is not what I said is actually the case. Read. read, read."

Yes, it is. Read, read, read.

"Wrong again. Why don't they sue and win the discrimination lotto? The answer is obvious."

How was asking a question "wrong again"? There is no disputing the fact that women get paid less than men working the same job, with the same education and experience.

Also, women have sued. Lily Ledbetter is a good example. However, most women probably don't have the funds or the time to file a discrimination suit against anyone. You lack of reasoning is obvious.

"You either didn't read or you are trying to fool someone because I wrote:"

You must not understand that I don't care what you wrote. I was making a statement.

"You also are badly wrong when you state " females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military.""

Considering that ban was just lifted, I think not. Before the ban was lifted, women had access to 14,500 combat positions. Lifting the ban opened 230,000 combat positions to women.

"Well, they like all real life experience make any point well."

Actually, they don't considering there are billions of women on earth and you believe your stories about 2 of them is, somehow, representative of all women.

"Perhaps you have been sheltered and have no real life experience."

Ironic coming from you.

"Furthermore, wishing and hoping is not realty, it is only wishing and hoping and wasted emotion in comparison."

Literally, the most ironic sentence you could have ever typed.

"You Liberals nearly always resort to personal attacks when you can't defend your position."

I defended my position and refuted yours. Also, I didn't attack you personally. Thus, you are a liar and a poor debater.

Would you like to try again.

June 11, 2013 at 6:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

Yet, a female Private has very little room for promotion or advancement compared to her male counterparts considering females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military.


http://www.todaysmilitary.com/military-myth-versus-reality

On average, across the Services, more than 79% of all jobs in the Military are open to women.

Women account for close to 18 percent of the U.S. Military.

June 11, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"This is why I seldom bother with you. You are an atheist, a heathen, an antichrist and God says you are a fool. You can't wait to display all of the above."

You misogynistic, Christian WingNuts nearly always resort to personal attacks when you can't defend your position.

You have been proven to be a fool an excessive amount of times, by multiple posters here. I have only done what many before me, including myself, have done in the past.

You have also proven to be a liar. While most of your lies are simply derived from your vast ignorance, some are just plain, old deceit.

June 11, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
miraweb said...

Glad to know the self-named "Party of Stupid" remains true to its core values.

Do you really enjoy losing those elections, boys?

(Talking to you strong, silent types sitting on the sidelines. You know who you are.)

June 11, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.
miraweb said...

One small correction Easy - you have not proved our friend "conservative" a fool.

Some folks just don't need all that much assistance, really.

Let the boy blather. Makes him feel all tough and manly while he peruses the job ads.

June 11, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6_quoque,

"On average, across the Services, more than 79% of all jobs in the Military are open to women."

That may very will be the case in the post-ban of woman in combat positions era in the U.S. military, but that ban was only lifted earlier this year.

June 11, 2013 at 7:16 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

conservative said ... "Did you ever notice that there is no call by Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats for equal performance/productivity for the same pay?"

Actually, that's exactly what folks are calling for. Same job, same education, same experience should yield equal pay. That's how salaried jobs work.


Odd that you agreed with him but then didn’t include “equal performance/productivity” in your list of qualifications that should yield equal pay.

You seem to feel that different people no matter their sex should not be paid at different levels if they are equal in all of the characteristic covered here. If so should it be wrong or even illegal for anyone in the general market to offer or accept any amount of compensation that varies from a set standard; i.e. offering a woman a lower or higher amount than a man for her services (bookkeeping) or material (cars) items offered in the market?

You say that equal pay for equal qualifications and productivity(?) are what everyone is after. But the left continues to use the $.77 statistic in this debate even though they know that it is a lie based on the very lack equality in both of those characteristics.

June 11, 2013 at 7:50 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

Jt6_quoque said ... "On average, across the Services, more than 79% of all jobs in the Military are open to women."

That may very will be the case in the post-ban of woman in combat positions era in the U.S. military, but that ban was only lifted earlier this year.


“At this point, what difference does it make?”

The military opened up about 6,200 new slots to women out of about 2.2 million total slots in both active and reserve service. There are about 350k women in the military with about 200K on active duty.

Yeah you were very close.

June 11, 2013 at 8:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"Odd that you agreed with him but then didn’t include “equal performance/productivity” in your list of qualifications that should yield equal pay."

How does one judge the performance/productivity of someone that you haven't hired yet.

"You seem to feel that different people no matter their sex should not be paid at different levels if they are equal in all of the characteristic covered here."

If all things are equal, a man and a woman should be paid the same when hired.

"If so should it be wrong or even illegal for anyone in the general market to offer or accept any amount of compensation that varies from a set standard; i.e. offering a woman a lower or higher amount than a man for her services (bookkeeping) or material (cars) items offered in the market?"

You can offer or accept whatever wage you want.

"You say that equal pay for equal qualifications and productivity(?) are what everyone is after. But the left continues to use the $.77 statistic in this debate even though they know that it is a lie based on the very lack equality in both of those characteristics."

The number is basically irrelevant. There is no denying that women make significantly less money than men when working the same job. Let me be concise: you're wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/women-earn-less-than-men_n_3046461.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/graduate-pay-gap-same-degrees-same-jobs-but-for-women-still-not-the-same-pay-8523471.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/05/171196714/the-jobs-with-the-biggest-and-smallest-pay-gaps-between-men-and-women

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010/03/tktktk_1.html

June 11, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"The military opened up about 6,200 new slots to women out of about 2.2 million total slots in both active and reserve service."

There are still over 230,000 positions in the military closed to women.

"Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January eliminated the Pentagon rule that prevented women from participating in certain combat units. He also ordered the services to fully integrate women by 2016."

"Service leaders are still working on developing plans on how the military could integrate women into positions that typically see the most fighting. These plans will likely include gender-neutral physical standards."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/18/us-military-to-open-6200-new-jobs-to-women.html

June 11, 2013 at 8:41 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Noogs: You on the porch?

June 11, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque said ..."The military opened up about 6,200 new slots to women out of about 2.2 million total slots in both active and reserve service."

There are still over 230,000 positions in the military closed to women.

"Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January eliminated the Pentagon rule that prevented women from participating in certain combat units. He also ordered the services to fully integrate women by 2016."

"Service leaders are still working on developing plans on how the military could integrate women into positions that typically see the most fighting. These plans will likely include gender-neutral physical standards.


How exactly does any of that change the fact you were completely wrong when you posted:

“Yet, a female Private has very little room for promotion or advancement compared to her male counterparts considering females are barred from the overwhelming majority of the positions in the United States military.”

And you were wrong no matter if the numbers were taken from this year or last year before they opened up some new slots for women.

June 11, 2013 at 10:36 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

The number is basically irrelevant. There is no denying that women make significantly less money than men when working the same job. Let me be concise: you're wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/women-earn-less-than-men_n_3046461.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/graduate-pay-gap-same-degrees-same-jobs-but-for-women-still-not-the-same-pay-8523471.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/05/171196714/the-jobs-with-the-biggest-and-smallest-pay-gaps-between-men-and-women

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010/03/tktktk_1.html


So now that you can’t defend the “number” it is suddenly irrelevant?

Your statement that women make significantly less for the same job can shown to be true if it is left unqualified as you did. When you compare men and women, taking all the relevant details into account, the difference in pay disappears. I have recently been to these websites, you posted, and the articles I posted today completely destroys their conclusions. Pick out any point that you want from them and we’ll see how long it stands.

June 11, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"How exactly does any of that change the fact you were completely wrong when you posted:"

How is anything in that quote wrong? Women made up 2.7% of front-line units. Women were previously barred from the infantry/combat. There is no disputing this.

"And you were wrong no matter if the numbers were taken from this year or last year before they opened up some new slots for women."

Nothing I said was wrong. Would you like to try again?

June 11, 2013 at 11:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"So now that you can’t defend the “number” it is suddenly irrelevant?"

I never attempted to defend that number. I never even brought it up.

"Your statement that women make significantly less for the same job can shown to be true if it is left unqualified as you did."

I didn't leave anything unqualified. I supported it with several articles that included study after study.

"When you compare men and women, taking all the relevant details into account, the difference in pay disappears."

No, it does not. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you are simply wrong.

"I have recently been to these websites, you posted, and the articles I posted today completely destroys their conclusions."

I have recently read your copy and pasting, and the links I posted today completely destroy their conclusions. See how this works?

"Pick out any point that you want from them and we’ll see how long it stands."

Pick out any point that you want from them and we'll see how long it stands.

June 11, 2013 at 11:19 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Noogs, how many tats? You in a 3x wife beater? Knockin back a tall Natty Light? Fess up, Rube.

June 11, 2013 at 11:24 p.m.
fairmon said...

Snowdon..A high school drop out making over $200,000 a year as a contract employee for the government..........where else would this happen? Is the government so large and so tuned in to being involved and in control of every aspect of peoples lives it is out of control? There is essentially zero disparity in pay for contribution when there is a fair comparison.

June 11, 2013 at 11:42 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque said ... "Odd that you agreed with him but then didn’t include “equal performance/productivity” in your list of qualifications that should yield equal pay."

How does one judge the performance/productivity of someone that you haven't hired yet.


Well ... I’ll have to say that it never occurred to me that we were limiting this to new hires and I bet you didn’t either until you needed a defection.

However let’s address this.

If the new hire has previous experience you can make some relative evaluation of their effectiveness during the interviews. You hire them under a provisional salary for a probationary period unless they have superior references and make a first class presentation that attests to their abilities.

If they are inexperienced most companies have an entry level salary for different positions and they are hired provisional as above until they can be evaluated in action.

The interview process is where many people and especially women leave money on the table due to their innate nature that avoids challenge and conflict. When people learn to negotiate they usually fare better in position and income.

June 11, 2013 at 11:42 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

hahaha, noogs. You've got no talent for this. Stick to Sudoku.

June 11, 2013 at 11:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"Well ... I’ll have to say that it never occurred to me that we were limiting this to new hires and I bet you didn’t either until you needed a defection."

I'm not "limiting" anything to new hires. That's simply what I was referring to at the time. However, women have been shown to receive more pay raises than men, yet men still get higher raises despite getting fewer raises overall.

http://tribehr.com/company/news-media/press-releases/women-receive-more-pay-raises-but-men-get-more-money-finds-tribehr-study

Also, it is no problem of mine if you cannot keep up. Stop sandbagging or being ignorant and focus. You always resort to strawman arguments when you make mistakes, then accuse the other person of being at fault. Try to keep up.

"However let’s address this."

I'm convinced that you just like seeing words typed under your screen name. You're the gold medal champion of blowhards.

June 12, 2013 at 12:04 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.