obama flunks econ 101 -- disgusting hit piece

[unblock]

this is a disgustingly dismissive and insulting hit piece on obama and harkin's fair pay act. while eventually acknowledging that women are discriminated against in terms of pay, and conceding that government intervention is appropriate, it pretends that the basic principals of "econ 101" would prefer discrimination laws over harkin's proposed job classification proposal.

moreover, it's fundamentally an attack on harkin's bill, but headlines obama because he's a presidential candidate. the only tie-in is that obama signed on as a co-sponsor, which doesn't necessarily mean much.

it certainly doesn't mean that obama doesn't understand basic economic principles.



http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007060507

Obama flunks Econ 101
As co-sponsor of a bill that would bureaucratize most of the labor market, the presidential hopeful is flirting with a very bad idea. Fortune's Cait Murphy investigates.

By Cait Murphy, Fortune assistant managing editor
June 5 2007: 7:26 AM EDT


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It's baaaack!! Yes, "comparable worth," which faded out around the same time the Bay City Rollers were disbanding, is making a comeback, under the euphemism "pay equity". To wit: the Fair Pay Act of 2007. Introduced by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in April (Illionois Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is one of 15 co-sponsors) the Act notes the existence of wage differentials between men and women.

This is true; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 female full-time wage and salary workers made 81% of what men did; (click here on "women's earnings" in PDF). What is more dubious, though, is the assumption that is the heart of the Fair Pay Act: that discrimination is the reason for all or most of the difference. And the act's remedies are absurdly misguided, injecting the federal government into the most routine pay decisions.

Granted, Obama did not write the bill, but he did sign on to it - the only presidential wannabe of either party to do so. Obama is a serious man and a serious candidate who presumably did not go out of his way to associate himself with this legislation in a burst of whimsy. But the Fair Pay Act, despite its anodyne title (who's against fair pay?) is the result of profoundly unserious economic thinking. That Obama put his name to it has to give pause.

Let's start with the dubious. To the Fair Pay Act's backers, the simple fact that women make 81% of men's full-time earnings is in and of itself proof of discrimination, past and present. Only a pig-headed sexist would argue otherwise.

Or maybe not. June O'Neill, a certifiably female economist....

[Union Thug]

1. If it's printed in Fortune, it must be credible.

If you are a smug, overpaid, executive class pig.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Not even. Fortune is for wannabes who wish they were rich

Forbes is for people who actually are.

And they both pretty much suck for any kind of macroeconomic reporting, although at least Forbes can be entertaining.

[sandnsea]

2. a certifiable female

(Yes I know it says certifiably, but my description is the accurate one)

"The college majors with the top starting salaries, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, are: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000. Putting it all together, O¹Neill figures that these differences - in choice of work, years in the workforce, and hours of work - could account for as much as 97.5%"

Gosh June, the reason the work women choose doesn't pay well is because WOMEN choose it and WOMEN'S WORK isn't valued. Duh.

Certifiable idiot. See. My description was the accurate one.

[Berry Cool]

3. And what about Cait Murphy herself?

She's not exactly a shrinking flower. She has a book out now on the 1908 baseball season--very highly detailed, obviously the work of a diehard fan and historian--and you don't find many female baseball historians. I'm sure she makes more than the average journalist at her job, but what did she make starting out? Does she believe people in occupations like journalism deserve to make less than engineers?

What kills me when I think about it is just because I chose to write for a living (although not in journalism), I still earn less after 21 years out of school than an engineer fresh out of college. Of course, the engineer will claim he can't find a job at all anymore because his potential employers are all paying someone in India $10,000 a year to do the job he'd want $60K for. But now I hear even journalism is being outsourced, with newspapers hiring people in India to cover local goverment in California "at a distance." What do they pay for THAT--$3,000 a year?

[durrrty libby]

4. I think it is absurd and foolish to compare engineering to liberal arts.

Engineering students take statistics, calculus, physics, advanced chem etc.

One of my sons' is an engineering student and most of his classes have
2 or less women

It seems that there are very few women interested in math and science



"Certifiable idiot. See. My description was the accurate one."

I think not.

[sandnsea]

7. Of course you do

Because you don't value what women have to know to do their work either. If diplomacy was valued the way math is valued, women's work would be paid more and we wouldn't have to spend trillions of dollars on war, or much of the engineering and chemistry.

[durrrty libby]

8. I don't value what women have to know?

I am a woman, a mother and earned a masters


Is this is a demonstration of your diplomatic skills? Impressive indeed



Edited to add: What the fuck is women's work? What century are you from?

[sandnsea]

10. June O'Neill is a woman too

She doesn't get it either. Lots of women don't. If ALL women did, things would change.

Society does not value the qualities or work that are deemed female. If you want to pretend society doesn't do that, then that would explain the difficulty you're having in grasping the concept of discrimination as a basis for income disparity.

I'm not a diplomat, don't profess to be one, don't play one on tv or the internets. Those who can effect real change diplomatically are few and far between, and worth every penny society would pay them, if society did.

[durrrty libby]

11. June O’Neill gave a perfectly valid explanation to why

many women don’t earn as much as men. I understood it perfectly because I lived it.

Nowhere did June say that diplomatic skills were not valuable, nor did she say that diplomatic skills were possessed by only one gender, or "deemed female" She did not talk about diplomatic skills at all. She may very well believe women are the greatest diplomats in the world or she may not believe that.We have no idea, because the article was not about that.

You have gone off on a crazy tangent that has nothing to do with the article.

You called her a “Certifiable idiot” That is not only wrong but it makes you look foolish

You owe her an apology. People with your attitude are bad for the advancement of women

Just say no to drinking and driving on the internets.

[sandnsea]

12. Women are too stupid to be valued

They don't choose the economically valued fields because they're just not suited to them, oh poor little susie. Just like construction is paid more because it's so dangerous, never mind that nursing has always produced just as many injuries as construction.

Women are not paid because the work they do is not valued. Period.

Your attitude is bad for the advancement of women and you owe an apology to women everywhere who are living in poverty because you perpetuated the ignorance June O'Neill does.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[On the Road]

5. This Article is Indeed a Hit Piece

but comparable worth is a horrible idea and it disappoints me that Obama has the poor judgment to support it.

[unblock]

15. let's be realistic about obama's "poor judgment"

he's a presidential candidate who needs support from others in the party, who might have asked for something in return.

harkin's legislation is a non-starter politically, so obama's support is nominal even if and when he becomes president.

you can call it pandering to women, and that it might be, but it's hardly poor judgment.

[durrrty libby]

6. I have no doubt that there is still pay discrimination due to gender,

but I don’t think it is as large as some may think

I am sure that over my lifespan. I will make less than many men, but that is due to my

circumstances and choices, not because I am a woman

I have taken chunks of time off over the years for various family reasons.

(Kids, sick parent etc)

As I’ve preached to my sons, one of the keys is to pick a profession that constantly needs workers

I’m in the medical field and always pretty confident that I can get $30-$40.00 an hour, no matter how much time I take off.


Another key, is to live way below your means. This philosophy has afforded me amazing flexibility.

But most Americans would never even try it.