Barack Obama, Male Chauvinist Pig.

Do as he says, not as he does.

By Moe Lane Posted in | | | | | Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hey, Senator: if the oink fits, squeal it.

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

Read on.

(Via Hot Air) And we're not even bringing up why Obama has such a large staff to begin with (Ed Morrissey covered that just fine, in my opinion). Anyway, speaking as someone who is actually impacted by disparate wages for women - my wife is sole wage-earner; I'm raising the kid - I have to say: while it's nice that the Senator is up in arms about how women make 77 cents to the male dollar, his stance would be a whole heck of a lot more impressive if his own wage disparity was better than 82 cents. Pushing legislation is no substitute for proper behavior, Senator Obama: if you consider a woman's labor to be equal to that of a man's, then you should be paying them what they're worth.

Or... are you of the opinion that you are?

Moe Lane

PS: McCain?

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

96 cents to the dollar the other way. Something to aim for, Barry. Something to aim for.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Politician Wes Clark attacks John McCain's serviceComments (33) »
Barack Obama, Male Chauvinist Pig. 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I'm certainly far from an Obama supporter but one point -- I think that Senators representing states with larger populations get an increased staff allowance to cover it.

WAY out of line. It is entirely off-limits to bringing in stereotyping!

The Minority Report

Didn't ALGORE teach us to do as he says not as he does.
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

my reaction would be who gives a crap? We don't know about their qualifications.

But... given the situation will a certain former candidate and her supporters, lets play this up as much as possible.

*That's* going to leave a mark.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.

Barak O'bama's Plan
Combat Employment Discrimination
Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.


You'd think that a guy so determined to fix pay inequity would be more careful about not contributing to it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... and telling me that ... [/barry white]

In the words of the late great Barry White - Barack should "Practice What [He] Preac[hes]"

"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.

Sure, but just think of how that opportunity allowed you to perfect chicken parmesan. Imagine what that is worth on the open market (see Emeril, Rachel Ray, et al)? Plus the disparate wage made you "hunger" for revenge (it was a motivator).

No doubt, Obama will say he had no idea this was happening and once again start the verbal armillary. But really, he is ready for executive responsibility.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

I love ya! He is a hypocrite in so many ways - he'll probably say he never knew because he was too busy partying with Tony Rezko and Pastor Wright.

But if Michelle finds out, he will probably get beaten within an inch of his life. We'll start seeing some pay raises in a hurry.

Reporter: Senator Obama, how do you respond to the rumors that your female staffers made less money than male staffers while doing the same job?

Obama: Doing the same job as the men? Why the [censored] is she out of the kitchen? Wait... is this live? Uh.... umm..... those were not the women I thought I knew.

Dependence is Slavery.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Matt Johnston

Let's make sure before we damn Obama (and I am all for it when it is appropriate) that we have our facts in order. First, did anyone compare job responsibilities or are we simply aggregating salaries (and from what I can tell, the top salaried staffers are men, which skews the comparison) and dividing by the number of staffers. If this is what we are doing, we are wrong and someone should apologize. If, however, we are comparing job descriptions and relative levels of experience and then comparing salaries, we have a whole other ball of wax. Since, the Senate salary data does not include anything but the most rudimentary job description and no information related to experience, this is hard to do.

As for why Obama's staff is bigger than McCain's, it has to do with the rules for Senate legislative allowances. Senators from bigger states (population wise) get more money since they have more constituents. Illinois' population is more than double Arizona's so that explains the larger staff size.

Whenever some leftist or feminists complains about pay disparities, the first response of conservatives is to ask whether the comparison is fair, i.e. are is the feminist looking at an apples to apples comparison or just aggregating. We cannot be doing the same or we are justifiably going to be called hypocritical.

Just a thought.

...who underhires women, then underpays them, then goes on the stump to attack his opponent as being the one who's anti-female.

But by all means: track all of that down, if you care to. Maybe you could write a blog about it, once you're done.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

white males are worth more than non-white, non-males.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Since you are excluding interns, why not exclude top managers too? what are the averages when you exclude the highest paid 5 employees? i bet they're close to even.

Why do you think that the top positions are all men?

And they probably are. That's part of what makes Moe's point.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Did you ever consider that, just possibly, the male applicants were more qualified for the top paying jobs? I don't mean men in general, but the men who applied . . .

...include the criterion "has male genitalia?"

Hey, let's find out! I understand that Obama wants to make the process of litigating this sort of thing easier, so he shouldn't have a problem with a formal investigation into his hiring practices.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... discounts experience, qualifications, hours worked, seniority, etc. as factors for disparities in pay and employment. Differences in pay and position between men and women are ipso facto proof of discrimination according to Obama.

Why shouldn't that apply to his own employees?

"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.

By my calculations, if you assume the top 5 employees (4 men, 1 woman) make only $100k, the difference in average wages for the remaining employees drops by almost half. Raise the top wages to $150k, and the difference in averages drops down to about $1k.

Since the authors in the linked article had access to the raw data, it is difficult to understand why they did not publish the raw data instead of statistics from which essentially no meaningful inferences can be made. The average, in particular, is very difficult to interpret without other statistics to give a sense of how the values are actually distributed (median, variance, skew, etc.). Sub-population breakdowns, controlling by job, controlling by experience, etc. would also have been very nice. Hmm, maybe I should head over the George Mason to make a few photocopies...

That way, you can get all the actual data during the discovery process. Much simpler all around, and there's no logical reason for the Senator to object.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

That might be very destructive to Obama's case.

That'd be the logical reason.

Of course, Is it Obama... can he do wrong?

Clearly those female employees were not the employees he knew.

Dependence is Slavery.

The actual data is already in the public record, which is why it is hard for me to understand why the authors of the linked article didn't simply publish it in full if it is so damning. Unfortunately the particular document is not available online. It is, however, at Fenwick Library on the George Mason campus (among other places). If I cared, which I don't really, I might actually go see what it says.

Excellent. - but I'm sure that you'll have fun using that data to write that killer refutation you obviously expect it to support.

Seriously. Providing one will be a prerequisite for your further participation in this thread.

:shaking finger:

Give me an argument, and it'll be your prerequisite for keeping posting privileges. You were just a shade too snide to a site moderator, silly.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...since you obviously have no idea why I made my original post. I had no idea what, if anything, the linked data might show. I only linked it to provide a resource to someone who might want to do some real analysis, rather than the raw nonsense in the linked article. That sort of poor statistical argument is irritating in and of itself, regardless of what is being purported to be shown, particularly when it is as laughably inept as that in the linked article. The point of my original post was that no meaningful conclusion, in the statistical sense, could be drawn from looking at average salaries. This should be self-evidently true, but apparently not.

Example 1: The average salary for females in my household is about half of that of the males. Are the females being discriminated against? Possibly, but you certainly can't tell from the data I just presented.

Example 2: The average number of points scored by Michael Jordan and I in all games he played in is higher than the number of points scored by many other NBA athletes who played in those games. What can you reasonably infer about my B-ball skills?

Argument 1: From my original post. Using only the data presented in the linked article, at least half of the salary "gap" can be accounted for by only the top 5 earners, which is about 8% of those employed. This doesn't mean much with respect to whether there is discrimination, but it suggests that, in the absence of additional data, if discrimination is occuring, it is probably concentrated in just top earners.

Point 1.1: Of people in the general population who are qualified for the top five spots, what is the gender distribution? It is entirely possible that 80% of qualified people are male. Is there gender discrimination among firemen, since so many firemen are male? Maybe, but I doubt it, and the truth of it certainly cannot be derived from just looking at the percent of men.

Argument 2: The same data that "shows" Obama discriminates against women also "shows" that McCain dicriminates against men. Sound the alarm! John McCain is a man-hater! Since I doubt anyone would accept such a ridiculous argument, perhaps one might also expect people to reject the same argument made about Obama (without additional evidence, that is)

Argument 3: The "analysis" in the linked article has numerous methodological problems. First, why only consider the half of the fiscal year when data for the whole fiscal year is available? Doubling the half-year salaries is particularly nonsensical when the linked data clearly shows that most employees were not employed for the entire fiscal year. Second, why include only people who made more than $11.5k in the six month period? Someone who was not employed for the whole period might make less than this in spite of the fact that their annualized salary is quite high. Third, controlling for any factor other than gender was not even attempted. Without controlling for relevant characteristics, any inferences using the statistic are necessarily suspect.

Analysis 1: I examined the linked data in order to evaluate its suitability for use in analysis. Unfortunately, it has a number of deficiencies. First, I looked at dollars earned in FY07. This is useful, but without knowing how much someone worked to earn this money you can't really draw any salary comparisons. The data does show how many days in the FY the person was employed, but this doesn't really tell you if they are full- or part-time employees. Furthermore, some people with the same job title (particularly vague ones) make more/less than others, so this doesn't give an indication.

Analysis 2: I assume if someone was employed for the entire FY, they are probably a full-time employee. Presumably, this also means their full salary is represented. This more than halved the number of employees to consider for both Senators. Next I assigned a gender to each person based on their names, some of which were sufficiently "ethnic" or ambiguous to introduce potential error. I also kicked anyone who had different job titles in the two half-year periods, since this would make it hard to judge their "proper" salary with respect to other employees

Result 2.1: Gender breakdown
M 16 11
F 13 18

Oddly enough, both Senators have the same number of employees who worked all of FY07 in the same job.

Result 2.2: Averge Salary by Gender
M 86k 58k
F 56k 60k

Heh, maybe the author of the linked article should have used my methodology. The result looks even worse, though, of course, no actual conclusion can be drawn. However, a salary histogram might give a little more detail.

Result 2.3: Salary Histograms

250k 1 5 2 2
200k 2 4 3 1
150k 2 2 3 3
100k 6 3 9 3
50k 2 3 1 2

Obama's male employee's salaries are top-heavy compared to the females. However, salaries for female employees of both senators have about the same distribution. Thus, it looks like even if Obama's female employees are being discriminated against, they are still making as much money as McCain's female employees. In any case, this still does not provide any evidence of discrimination.

Analysis 3: Next I tried a comparison by job title. There are only 4 jobs for which at least one of the Senators has 3 or more people employed in that position. For Obama, each woman makes at least the median salary in 2 (of 3) of these jobs and half the women make above the median salary in 1. For McCain, each woman makes at the least the median in 1 job (of 2) and half of the women make above the median in 1 job. For both Senators, it looks like female employees are doing pretty well in these positions. This further suggests that, if Obama is discriminating against women, it is by hiring more men in top positions rather than underpaying women for the same work.

Analysis 4: Somewhat strangely, job titles between the two staffs do not have much overlap. For women, this overlap is in one job only (Leg. Asst.) and Obama's employee makes more than McCain's. For men, the overlap is two jobs (Leg. Asst. and Staff Asst.). In both cases, the average and median salaries are higher for Obama's employees. No real conclusion can be drawn, however, since the number of observations is so small.

Analysis 5: Having the same job title does not necessarily mean that someone actually has the same job. Without being able to control for actual responsibilities, any result is necessarily limited by this fact.

Analysis 6: The linked data provides no way to control for relevant experience. This is particularly important since it is reasonable to assume, even in the absence of discrimination, that someone with more experience should make more money. Any analysis using the linked data is necessarily limited by this fact.

Conclusion: Per my original comment, the linked analysis flat-out stinks, using a very deficient methodology to draw specious conclusions. The data that I linked lacks sufficient detail to conclude whether or not either Senator discriminates against female employees. However, it provides some evidence (under certain assumptions) that both Senators provide equal pay for equal work. Senator Obama defintely has more men in top positions than women, but, without knowing the gender distribution of all qualified people, no reasonable conclusion in this regard can be drawn. Finally, I conclude that Senate staffers make a metric crap-ton in wages.

Now all we have to do is figure out why Obama refuses to hire women to positions of authority. But since you clearly don't want to defend Obama, don't worry about it. It's enough that you demonstrated that, yes, he underhires women, then underpays them. Particularly in comparison to McCain.

Good job, zerodivisor.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Someone finally actually did one of your assignments.

And Rightly So!

But at least we wouldn't have to worry about the election anymore.

And Rightly So!

And... by bs

That sucker was over 1200 words - far longer than Moe's usual assignment. Impressive.

The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

In my defense, only the write-up was done subsequent to Moe's post. All analysis was done pre.

It wasn't hard at all, which is why I struggle to understand why the author of the linked article bothered to write such garbage.

In any case, I demonstrated none of the three things you cite, particularly the last point, for which I provided evidence of the exact opposite. "Underhiring" presupposes that 13/29 (~45%) is substantially lower than the proportion of qualified women in the general population, evidence for which is not apparent in data provided in the OP, the article, or any post in this thread. Furthermore, the same logic could be used to say that McCain "underhires" men, surely an equally bad result if true, which is laughably ridiculous on its face.

...women for the top slots; that he underhires women in general; that there's a significant income disparity between them and his male staffers.

Just because you don't want to draw conclusions from that doesn't mean that the rest of have to follow suit.

Moe Lane

PS: You may have whatever last word you desire, but fair warning: we come down hard on misogyny here. I normally wouldn't mention that, but you seem to keep appearing to defend Barack Obama in this, so better safe than sorry.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You are welcome to make whatever conclusions you wish to make, but I respectfully request that you don't imply that my arguments support your conclusions, particularly when I specifically state that I do not beleive that the particular conclusion can be inferred from the data.

As to the suggestion that misogyny might have anything to do with my posts regarding the use of good statistics when making arguments, I emphatically reject such an insulting characterization. Nothing I have said on this thread, in any other post on RedState, or indeed any other post I have ever made on the intertubes, could reasonably be construed in such a fashion. Given any other argument that used such poor statistical methodology, I would make pretty much the same criticisms, and indeed have in other threads on this site.

...and retract it as being uncalled for.

As for your request... well, it ain't going to happen. This isn't actually a statistical problem, despite your attempts to couch it in terms of one. It's a question of psychology. You see, we - and that includes you; you saw the data yourself - already know that Barack Obama hires more men than women, particularly at the highest income levels. We merely have to figure out why he does that. I'm going with "male chauvinist pig" as an answer: if you want to contest that, then I suggest that you put down the calculator and start doing interviews with Obama's friends, family members, and loved ones. Because this ain't psychohistory.

And now I really am done. Again, my apologies for the misogyny sneer: rude of me, and uncalled for.

Moe Lane

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your apology.

You made a good-faith effort to examine the data, identify limitations, and at least come up with some tentative conclusions.

In contrast, most accusations of disparate pay just look at the employee numbers and pay numbers and start hyperventilating if they aren't equal. Plus they then put the burden of proof on the accused to explain all deviations from "equal". (Welcome to the world of the EEOC.)

Personally I believe that most "comparable pay" disputes are closer to witch hunts. Thus I personally wouldn't want to be too aggressive about Obama's hiring practices, except...

Unfortunately, the reality is that the predominant agent behind these comparable pay disputes looking just a numbers and average pay comes from the political left (just as in accusations of racial bias), with explanations and subtlety and benefit of the doubt - such as you have exhibited here - generally cast aside in favor of "guilty until proven innocent".

In that reality, I then find it sort of fair political turn-about to turn these same flawed methodologies against the practitioners and watch them suddenly ask for the mercy and understanding that they deny to their partisan opponents.

In the end, it's the need to expose hypocrisy that makes Obama's office hiring practices a suitable target for examination. Let Obama's cohorts see how the shoe fits, let them explain the deviations.

My experience is that the partisans and the left-wing ideologues can never take off their blinders - but the goal is not to change their minds, but to expose the behavior to the independent-minded so that they can judge actions rather than just rhetoric.

And Rightly So!

I'm not sure if the conclusions, or really the demonstration of the inability to draw strong conclusions from this data alone, is what some may have hoped for but this type of contribution should be valued.

Does anyone check facts, figures and stats? Has anyone determined how long people were in their jobs? There is such a thing as seniority --- if women were hired by the gov't after their male counterparts then GUESS WHAT, they probably make less.

That's one explanation.

Really, before you smear someone let me see the real facts and figures.

Otherwise it's a total waste of time.

Which means that you're apparently arguing that Obama has a problem with hiring women and promoting them to positions of authority.

I must admit, you do have some evidence to back up your low opinion of the man.

Moe Lane

PS: This was frankly a rookie-type, didn't-read-the-article mistake: we expect better, even from our trolls. Shape up, Sparky.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Let's say you're right.

Obama hired all men first then, more recently (like, say, when he was announcing he was running for president), he hired some women.

Yeah... THAT'S definately not a problem there.....

Kind of like how he isn't racist because he 'didn't hear' Wright for 20 years.

It ALMOST has credibility, except for how insane you'd have to be to believe it.

Dependence is Slavery.

So, let's see ... Obama goes out on the stump and rubbishes the fact that the disparity in men and women's averaged income is well explained by years out of the workplace with children (affecting seniority), the inclination towards less extensive and more flexible working hours (affecting take home pay), men taking on more dangerous (and thus higher paying) blue-collar jobs, etc.

Heck, even the choice of courses to study in college - humanities and arts vs the sciences and engineering - does a lot of damage to women's earning numbers.

By and large, IIRC, when everything is taken into account, women earn 96 cents (at least) to a man's dollar. Obama decided to pander to his audience by dismissing all the factors that contribute to this and railing against the final figures as if they stood in a vacuum.

At an event [last] week in New Mexico, Obama repeated the misleading claim that "women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men," and dismissed the notion that factors other than discrimination explain the wage gap as "just totally wrong."

Now that it comes to light that his female staffers are being paid less than his male staffers, his defenders in this thread are leaping in demanding that we include qualifications, hours worked, seniority, etc. - the very factors Obama himself explicitly rejected in his self-righteous posturing.

Sorry folks, if its a good enough methodology for Obama to use to judge America, then its a good enough methodology for us to use to judge Barack Obama.

Hoist on his petard, indeed.

"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.

Your link cites an AAUW report. Unfortunately, the reports on the AAUW site seem to suggest that even after controlling for relevant charactersitics, women still make less than men. Do you have some other cite for your 96 cents figure?

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service