The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

77 Cents on the Dollar?

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 43 Comments

President Obama’s repetition of feminist “pay gap” lies — the false claim that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn in the same jobs — has come back to haunt him, Jennifer Rubin says:

I’m betting the White House staffer who thought up the equal pay initiative is getting some fairly icy looks and snippy calls from Democrats.

Rubin cites a series of consequences, including this:

The White House discovered this week that calculations using average wages can yield unsatisfactory results. McClatchy newspapers did the math and reported that when the same standards that generated the 77-cent figure were applied to White House salaries, women overall at the White House make 91 cents for every dollar men make. White House spokesman Jay Carney protested that the review “looked at the aggregate of everyone on staff, and that includes from the most junior levels to the most senior.” But that’s exactly what the Census Department does.

The magic feminist “77 cents” number is derived from a crude comparison that, in essence, aggregates millions of apples-to-oranges comparisons. To compare the average income of all women to the average income of all men necessarily yields these false comparisons, because such crude averages do not take into consideration a host of factors that account for differences in income. Once you control for such factors — occupational specialty, years of education, etc. — the mythical “wage gap” evaporates. Caroline May at the Daily Caller reports:

The pay gap among women in the White House is more than twice as large as the average in the nation’s capital.
While female White House staffers earn about 88 cents for every dollar men in the White House make, women in the District earn about 95 cents for every dollar a men make, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That’s a 12-cent pay gap at the White House compared to a five-cent pay gap in the District of Columbia.

It’s always fun to play “gotcha” with liberals, using their own professed criteria to indict them for hypocrisy, but it’s important to remember that this is not ultimately the point of the exercise. When we call attention to the falseness of Democrat rhetoric by citing their inability to live up to the standards they would impose on others, our larger purpose should be to expose the erroneous beliefs that are embedded in liberal “standards.”

The radical  egalitarian worldview, which sees “discrimination” and “social injustice” wherever inequality exists, and which proposes government regulation as the solution to such alleged problems, invariably produces “solutions” that make life worse for everyone — except, perhaps, for the bureaucrats who get paid to enforce the regulations. A free economy may not result in what everyone would call fairness, but it does reliably produce prosperity. The radical egalitarian goal of “social justice” is a mirage, as Friedrich Hayek explained, and the pursuit of mirages is a waste of human resources.

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    The appropriate word for this is Democrisy.

  • Mm

    The Daily Beast, a liberal publication, blew this myth out of the water. It’s more like 5 cents:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

  • Anamika

    “The radical egalitarian goal of “social justice” is a mirage, as Friedrich Hayek explained, and the pursuit of mirages is a waste of human resources.”

    For second I misread “mirage” as “marriage” and thought you must be on to something! LOL!

  • Rubix’s Cube

    Yeah, conscious beings know the “pay gap” mythology gets many chronic masturbators, i.e. feminists, but once again, I am not so easily drawn in to masturbating. But irrespective, there are bullshit dispensers, like Barack Obama, willing to dispense said bullshit, always and everywhere.

  • RS

    Of course, that statistic is crap. What’s interesting though, is how Feminists have begun of late to criticize those women of the “Elite” with meaningful college degrees who elect to leave the workforce to rear children and be stay-at-home Moms. Quislings to the cause, as it were. Yet, such women contribute, not insignificantly, to any disparity which may exist, given that seniority/longevity play a large role in salary/wage levels.

    My suggestion is the Feminists focus on those institutions, i.e. Academe, which are stuffed to the gills with Feminists and which actively work to punish their colleagues who chose to have a family by refusing to provide them opportunities upon their return. Of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for such an investigation to occur.

  • Bob Smetters

    The Bible is very clear on woman’s role on earth, and it is not breadwinner.

  • Julie Pascal

    Er…. exactly which verses are those? Because I really can’t think of any verses at all that say that a man is supposed to be a breadwinner, either. The issue of breadwinning just really doesn’t come up.

    Understandably, too, because in a pre-industrial economy the question is a pretty stupid one.

    The girl in Song of Solomon is working watching animals, that’s why she’s so dark. The woman in Proverbs is actually, specifically, described as taking care of the economic questions (buying and selling land, running all the household’s economic activities) and thus she allows her husband to spend his time sitting on his arse with the other men deciding important issues.

    That we leave the household to go someplace else to “work” is an Historical aberration. When industry was all home-based, it was generally woman-based… if it was textiles or pottery or making tools or producing food… women were directly involved with bringing wealth into the family. And as anyone who’s grown up on a farm can tell you, that’s still true, women and children all work to bring wealth into the family. Men do the heavier lifting, and they tend to be the ones who have to go off to war. What do you suppose happens when he’s gone? She sits around sweeping and starving to death?

  • jdp

    Why wouldn’t a business only hire women if this “pay gap” was even partly true? Our side should just smack the crap out of this factoid every time it comes up. But we’ll probably slink around and make promises to improve this “disparity”.

  • jdp

    The closest I can come up with is “keeper at home”. But like you pointed out, that doesn’t need to mean dusting and sandwich-making — that’s what the handmaids are for.

  • RS

    Clearly, you haven’t read the Bible recently, if at all. As the comment above points out, the stories and verses in the Bible about women’s industriousness are legion.

  • Finrod Felagund

    In the book of Judges, when God couldn’t find a worthy man to be a judge, he chose a woman.

  • Anamika

    The bible as we know it today, regardless of the translation, is a MISMASH of a WIDE variety of pious Jewish texts, combined with Greek philosopy (New Testament), covering a VAST spectrum of God concepts, all the way from the ridiculous (the Vengeful and Really Pissed Off Yahweh) to the sublime (God as a living and loving father).

    Both ends of that spectrum are essentially false, but I agree that the latter is more appealing.

  • Anamika

    Bible is a compilation of ancient texts written over the course of hundreds of years. Some good, some bad. When reading the Bible, you must keep your zen eye open to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.

    There’s definitely some wheat, but there’s also a whole shitload of chaff.

  • Anamika

    Strong Women in the Bible FAQs
    Biblical Women Who Stood Up and Stood Out

    The Holy Bible, in both Jewish and Christian versions, makes it clear that men were the bosses in most biblical settings. However, the answers
    to some frequently asked questions show that there were strong women in the Bible who stood out all the more because they surmounted or circumvented the patriarchy in which they lived.

  • RS

    Both ends of that spectrum are essentially false . . .

    You base this on your personal sit-downs with The Almighty or is this just another of your peyote induced ramblings?

  • Quartermaster

    More ignorant insanity from a liar and a troll.

  • Quartermaster

    More insane ignorance from a troll.

  • Quartermaster

    It wasn’t quite that clean.

  • Rubix’s Cube

    “The Bible as we know it today, regardless of the translation, is a MISMASH of a WIDE variety of pious Jewish texts, combined with Greek philosophy (New Testament), covering a VAST spectrum of God concepts, all the way from the ridiculous (the Vengeful and Really Pissed Off Yahweh) to the sublime (God as a living and loving father).”

    Anamika, as we know her today, regardless of pseudonyms, is a MISHMASH of a WIDE variety of nonsense, combined with third-rate political theory (i.e. all of your posting),
    covering a vast spectrum of bullshit, all the way from the realistic (pseudo-intellectual) to the sublime(sociologist).

    Both ends describe you perfectly, but the realistic I prefer. Don’t you?

  • Anamika

    You don’t have to chat with fairies, superman or batman to know that they aren’t really real.

  • CrustyB

    You never hear about “work inequality” or “contribution to society inequality,” as if we all do an equal amount of work but get paid differently. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, asking a Democrat about where labor and money comes from is like asking a 6 year old where Santa Claus comes from.

  • Anamika

    Although the five books of Moses can lay claim to the description “original,” there’s more to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament — e.g. Kings, Psalms, Samuel, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Isaiah, on up to relatively recent stuff like Job.

    The Hebrew canon adopted by the early Christian bishops comprises much the same scripture accepted by Jews, albeit in a different sequence designed to emphasize prophecies that (rather dubiously imo, ymmv) reinforce the notion of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Most of what the early bishops excluded were alternate Gospels and other tomes that the saw as undermining the emerging church hierarchy — e.g. the beautifully nondual Gospel of Thomas.

    And speaking of GREEK, the earliest versions of the bible that we have are ancient Greek translations of earlier Hebraic texts, which were themselves translations of earlier texts, none of which have survived. Since the Gospels were penned at a time when master marketer “Saint” Paul was the dominant influence, I wonder if they were ever even distributed in Hebrew outside of Palestine, since Koine Greek was pretty much the lingua franca in the eastern provinces of the Roman world and therefore more likely to be read by the gentiles Paul considered his main target audience.

  • jdp

    My zen eye distinguished what you just wrote as chaff. What now?

  • Anamika

    Repent before it is too late, sinner!

  • jdp

    WHAT???!!! There’s more to the Bible than the books of Moses???!!! Tell me more!! Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to — ’cause I’ve never heard any of this stuff that just plopped out of your zen eye!

    Oh, wait, I have. It’s the same old criticism of the Bible/Christianity that was lame when it first came out and it’s still lame.

    Ever study the qualifications of the dingbats that write the “books your church doesn’t want you to read”? Go ahead, take a look.

  • jdp

    But….. but…. my zen eye……it distinguished!!!!

  • RS

    Actually, I was responding to your rather juvenile, mundane assertions which theologians have dealt with many, many times over the centuries. We really don’t need a recitation of basic doggerel culled from the syllabus of a freshman Intro To Comparative Religions course. You remind me of those very earnest 18 year olds, who’ve read a few stanzas of The Wasteland in high school who act as though they are now experts in T.S. Eliot.

  • Julie Pascal

    That’s silly. Really and truly.

    You know that old chestnut? “Well behaved women seldom make History.” That one?

    Well, behaved men don’t make history either. And the “patriarchy” that compelled women to (relatively) good behavior was something called “her womb” and the fact that bad behavior and rabble-rousing isn’t possible when you’ve got a toddler or a baby on your breast.

  • Julie Pascal

    No, but women were leaders and this is presented quite matter-of-factly.

  • ZZZZZZZZ

    Unlike the Marxist “bible”, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, which is a mismash of assertions, false assumptions, and wishful thinking, combined with a political ideology THAT has been repeatedly disproven, and brought such notable people as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to power, which, in turn, resulted in the death of tens of million people … … all in the last 140 years.

    None of which is appealing. Yet, here you are, Anamika.

  • Mm

    Yeah, that Saint Paul, the ultimate “con man,” all the way to his decapitation, praising Christ with his dying breath.

  • Mm

    Anamika’s “original” heresies are literally 2000 years old.

  • jdp

    Every skeptic acts like they’re the first.

  • jdp

    I think you’re the only one around here who didn’t realize the Bible was composed of many different books, by many different writers, over many hundreds of years.

  • jdp

    One of my favorites (2 sam 20) is the woman whose city was besieged because it was harboring some would-be king or something. She asks why they’re there and says, “Be right back.” She convinces the town to chunk the guy’s head over the wall. Siege lifted.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    The closest thing you’d find in the Bible concerning this would be mentions of men in specific jobs, but most of the Bible was written at a time in which everybody worked, men, women and children, just to survive.

  • Cube

    I think you just explained Amanda Marcotte.

  • Quartermaster

    Deborah was a judge, but she did not lead, or “judge” directly. She worked through a man.

  • Bob Smetters

    Titus 2:3-5 —The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [See further: women teaching “home-related” activities to younger women, not Biblical doctrine.] That they may teach [“encourage” NASB] the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [agape love, since a person can not be “taught” to have “feelings”], To be discreet, chaste, keepers [“workers” NASB] at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, [this alone would preclude a married woman from working outside the home, because outside work necessitates her to be under someone else’s authority, man or woman, other than her own husband] that the word of God be not blasphemed.

  • Bob Smetters

    1 Corinthians 11:3 – But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

  • Bob Smetters

    Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

    1 Peter 3:5 ESV /
    For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

  • Pingback: Katherine Sebelius sacrificed for the greater good: The Wheels of Obama’s Bus go “thump, thump, thump!” | Batshit Crazy News

  • Pingback: Notes on the Psychotic Sisterhood: Feminism’s War Against Nature : The Other McCain