Does Hillary Clinton Care About the Gender Pay Gap? Not When She Was Senator

[marmar]

via truthdig:



Turns out despite all this talk about Hillary Clinton being a feminist candidate, she doesn’t always practice what she preaches. It’s a pretty a widespread statistic that women tend to make 77 cents for each dollar that men make in the same positions. The presidential candidate has even tweeted about these figures:

Hillary Clinton
✔
@HillaryClinton

20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it's still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay #NoCeilings
8:20 PM - 8 Apr 2014

13,766 13,766 Retweets
9,605

Yet, as a New York senator, Clinton took the disparity a few cents further (as well as several years back) and paid her female staff about 72 cents per dollar she paid her male staff, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce, but women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of her Senate years’ salary data.

During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.

The analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.

Despite the numbers, Clinton and her allies have long-touted her as “a fighter for equal pay.”

Read more.

— Posted by Natasha Hakimi Zapata


http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/does_hillary_clinton_care_about_the_gender_pay_gap_not_when_20160216

[PatrickforO]

1. Interesting.

[boston bean]

2. Just cause someone at truthdig wrote an article, doesn't make the sleazy

Washington Free Beacon and Reince Priebus right.

This was already debunked this morning, with the same exact article posted.

Certainly makes one wonder what circles truthdig is playing in to use that sleazy analysis to attack Hillary.

[bigtree]

3. +100

[NurseJackie]

4. "makes one wonder"? ... Well, not really. It's pretty clear to me.

[kristopher]

6. Like many articles on both sides, yes it has been previously posted.

But the debunking you speak of isn't particularly effective. What it said was that there are (at least) two legitimate ways to look at the available collection of statistics. IIRC the differences involved things like fiscal year vs calendar year, people who worked exclusively for the Senate vs those who also worked on campaigns, and a number of other variables that allowed for honest disagreement.

FWIW, I don't believe that Hillary is AWOL on the topic of equal pay and I'm certain she is dedicated to the goal. However - I do have doubts about the range of possible policies that can achieve the objective. I see Bernie's broadside on the economy as likely to go further towards an enforceable solution than anything that might be crafted to laser-target this particular problem.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. How many times a day does this RW bullshit have to be debunked?

This all came from Reince Preibus and the Washington Free Beacon, and it is NOT based in fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/hillary-clinton-gender-pay-gap_n_7117620.html

[kristopher]

7. Just be sure to read through the ENTIRE piece.

The end of the analysis brings some very pertinent and valuable information out.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. I've read the piece. A year ago when it came out.

I've also read the debunking of said piece. A year ago, when it came out.

I don't need to continually read absolute bullshit written by the GOP, once is enough.

But who're you gonna believe? Rinse Penis and the Washington Free Beacon or FactCheck.org?

[kristopher]

11. WTH are you talking about?

The "debunking" does no such thing - it concedes that both analysis are valid but based on contradictory (and ultimately incomplete) assumptions. If it "debunks" anything it is the accepted wisdom that the pay disparity is the problem that it is being portrayed to be by the 70something percent claims.

My suggestion that people read the entire piece applied to the Annenberg Foundation analysis so that the readers could walk away with a better factual understanding of the issue - something that won't occur if they fulfill partisan instincts and read only the first few paragraphs that seem to support the Clinton campaign.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. You suggest that we should read the Washington Free Beacon because they posted a discredited piece?

Are you that much anti-Clinton that you fully embrace the GOP's lies?

[kristopher]

13. Read the entirety of the two posts and my replies and then use your common sense.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. I read the fucking thing!

It's 100% bullshit.
From the article doing the debunking:

Those data show the median salary for men and women to be the same at $40,000. The data also show Clinton hired roughly twice as many women as men.

Thanks for carrying water for Reince Preibus and the GOP on a Democratic site, though!

[kristopher]

15. The you lack the common sense I presumed. My bad.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. Common sense would seem to indicate that debunked lies are indeed

debunked lies.

Some, however, seem to like the taste of Reince Priebus in their mouth.

[kristopher]

18. That is not what the Annenberg analysis reports.

But, as I've already written, you'd have to read the entire piece to know that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. Then cite it. Quit beating around the bush.

You're full of shit, and you're supporting the GOP on this one. Admit it.

There is NOTHING in the fact check article that agrees with Rinse Penis.

[kristopher]

21. At this point I can only conclude you are unable to read for comprehension.

You say you read the entire Annenberg analysis, and if that is true you CLEARLY did not understand what you read.

The report is long, and it is linked above. I'm not going to try and cherry pick pieces to post, if I thought that would get the point across, I'd have done it earlier instead of admonishing people to READ THE ENTIRE PIECE. It's linked above (where it is reposted with a new and partisan headline) at HuffPo. The original is here http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/gender-pay-gap-in-clintons-senate-office/ with the nonpartisan title "Gender Pay Gap in Clinton’s Senate Office?".

Finally if I'm so dedicated to pushing the GOP line, why did I write this above in post 6?

FWIW, I don't believe that Hillary is AWOL on the topic of equal pay and I'm certain she is dedicated to the goal. However - I do have doubts about the range of possible policies that can achieve the objective. I see Bernie's broadside on the economy as likely to go further towards an enforceable solution than anything that might be crafted to laser-target this particular problem.

[Depaysement]

10. . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511246464

[MrMickeysMom]

17. Do as I say... not as I DO!

Do as I say... not as I DO! Do as I say... not as I DO! Do as I say... not as I DO!

[oasis]

20. Women are going to sweep Hillary into the White House.

Regardless of any right wing bs promoted by so-called Democrats.