On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:29:14 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"Nope. You've misread even that elementary page.
> >The table shows 43.5 hours vs. 40.8 for men & women over 20. "
>
> Sickening ultraliberals read how they want to read.
Even the most sickening ultra-liberal can get things wrong by accident, rather than design.
It didn't make much difference to my argument - the difference in hours worked fell well short of the difference in take-home pay, and the fact that women get less over-time probably isn't something they choose - as James Arthur wants to argue - but is more likely one more of the ways that employers short-change them.
> I ran out of troll food, how's your supply ?
James Arthur never stops inviting comment. Unlike you, he knows lots of stuff, but is an expert in seeing what he wants to see. His capacity to misinterpret what a detail means has been honed by years of practice.
--
Biull Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 5, 20162016-10-05
>"Nope. You've misread even that elementary page.
>The table shows 43.5 hours vs. 40.8 for men & women over 20. "
Sickening ultraliberals read how they want to read.
I ran out of troll food, how's your supply ?
Reply by ●October 5, 20162016-10-05
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 3:31:36 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:12:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:58:56 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > > > > > > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > > > > > > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > > > > > > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > > > > > > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > > > > > > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > > > > > > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > > > > > > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
> > > > >
> > > > > No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
> > > > > ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
> > > > > nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
> > > > > workers.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
> > >
> > > Why not look things up first? Women with full-time jobs work fewer hours
> > > than men, obviously.
> >
> > Why is it obvious? Granting that women typically get stuck with more of the house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work might - on the average - make different arrangements.
> >
> > Moreover, working extra hours at over-time rates was a perk doled out to the favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to hear about it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - doing the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the family dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
> >
> > > Read the BLS stats.
> > > http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm
> >
> > According to that, men over 20 in full-time work work 43.5 hours per week, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
>
> Nope. You've misread even that elementary page.
> The table shows 43.5 hours vs. 40.8 for men & women over 20.
Oops. But 40.8/43.5 is still $0.94 for women versus $1.00 for men, which is still a lot less than the actual difference of $0.79 for women versus %1.00 for men, and - as I explained - the difference in hours worked is not necessarily a matter of female preference, but more likely one more aspect of the unequal treatment of women in the work force.
> (That's not the whole difference, but it's enough to prove the point
> that your bogus wage figures are comparing unequal situations.)
And the whole problem is that women get treated badly and paid less. Their situation shouldn't be unequal.
Your reactionary take on this is that it's "natural" while ignoring the fact that it is unfair, and is almost certainly making the economy as a whole less productive than it might be.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 5, 20162016-10-05
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:12:54 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:58:56 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > > > > > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > > > > > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > > > > > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > > > > > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > > > > > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > > > > > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > > > > > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
> > > >
> > > > No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
> > > > ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
> > > > nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
> > > > workers.
> > >
> > > Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
> >
> > Why not look things up first? Women with full-time jobs work fewer hours
> > than men, obviously.
>
> Why is it obvious? Granting that women typically get stuck with more of the house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work might - on the average - make different arrangements.
>
> Moreover, working extra hours at over-time rates was a perk doled out to the favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to hear about it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - doing the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the family dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
>
> > Read the BLS stats.
> > http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm
>
> According to that, men over 20 in full-time work work 43.5 hours per week, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
Nope. You've misread even that elementary page.
The table shows 43.5 hours vs. 40.8 for men & women over 20.
(That's not the whole difference, but it's enough to prove the point
that your bogus wage figures are comparing unequal situations.)
Cheers,
James Arthur
Reply by ●October 3, 20162016-10-03
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 8:25:50 AM UTC+10, Julian Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:17:31 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > Of course I know more. You really are deplorably ignorant. That doesn't
> > mean that I know all that much - just more than you do.
>
> Your just spinning a line, Sloman. You just talk total shit in every post
> you make.
You like Donald Trump.
The New York Times doesn't, and they've got a coherent set of arguments to justify that attititude
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/opinion/the-trump-possibility.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTrump%2C%20Donald%20J.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
I'm afraid the it's Trump supporters who are posting total rubbish, not to mention the nonsense being spouted by Trump himself, and a the main stream media has got to the point where they regard the appearance impartiality as an abnegation of responsibility.
I was innocently watching Australian TV this evening and the regular Australian Media Watch program produced an unexpected report on the American media and the way that they'd recently decided that being polite about Trump wasn't consistent with journalistic ethics.
The Arizona Republic newspaper, got mentioned as did the Dallas News, but it's the New York Times which was singled out for having been particularly explicit in their condemnation.
Trump's a disaster, and if he got elected it would be a total disaster.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 3, 20162016-10-03
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:58:56 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > > > > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > > > > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > > > > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > > > > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > > > > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > > > > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > > > > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
> > >
> > > No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
> > > ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
> > > nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
> > > workers.
> >
> > Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
>
> Why not look things up first? Women with full-time jobs work fewer hours
> than men, obviously.
Why is it obvious? Granting that women typically get stuck with more of the house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work might - on the average - make different arrangements.
Moreover, working extra hours at over-time rates was a perk doled out to the favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to hear about it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - doing the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the family dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
According to that, men over 20 in full-time work work 43.5 hours per week, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
If hours worked were the crucial difference, women would be getting $0.97 for every $1.00 their male counter-parts earned. This is a bit more than the $0.79 they are now getting, up from the $0.59 they were getting in 1963 when the Equal Pay Act was passed.
> You've also ignored that you're quoting comparisons of workers who prefer
> different occupations. As I already explained (and cited two other
> explanations), that's a big part the deception.
The deception is more that the jobs women mostly do are paid less well than the jobs which are mainly done by men. Choice of work is more determined by social expectation than personal preference.
When the UK got into job evaluation, I was around when the committee at Kent Instruments evaluated the work the secretaries did, then had to re-evaluate it because the original evaluation would have raised their pay quite a bit vis-a-vis men doing roughly the same kind of work
> Yet you persist.
I do because you are - as usual - rolling out unthinking prejudice as if it is based on sound statistical observation, and cherry-picking the statistics you quote to support the result you want.
> I simply have to assume you're trolling. It's the most charitable
> assumption.
Charitable to your own self-esteem.
> Back under the bridge with you, troll!
Nice try. Pity about the evidence you thought that you could get away with relying on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 3, 20162016-10-03
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:58:56 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > > > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > > > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > > > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > > > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> > > >
> > > > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > > > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > > > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > > > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
> > >
> > >
> > > The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
> >
> > No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
> > ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
> > nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
> > workers.
>
> Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
Why not look things up first? Women with full-time jobs work fewer hours
than men, obviously. Read the BLS stats.
http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm
You've also ignored that you're quoting comparisons of workers who prefer
different occupations. As I already explained (and cited two other
explanations), that's a big part the deception.
Yet you persist.
I simply have to assume you're trolling. It's the most charitable
assumption.
Back under the bridge with you, troll!
Cheers,
James Arthur
Reply by ●October 2, 20162016-10-02
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:58:56 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 12:23:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Bowden wrote:
>
> > > > Well, I still can't figure out the balance sheet but it looks like several
> > > > people are making a bundle. Bruce Lindsey 360K, Eric Braverman 261K,
> > > > Andrew Kellel 175K, Stephanie Strreett 139K, Robert S. Harrison 208K. From
> > > > form IRS form 990. That's a about a million for 5 people. I can't
> > > > imagine working for a charity and asking for 200K in salary while
> > > > starving people in Haiti are hoping to get a couple dollars a day.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf
> > >
> > > That's not unusual. You missed that Braverman and Lindsey's figures were
> > > six month's pay each, not a full year.
> > >
> > > You won't find their dirty laundry advertised as reportable personal
> > > income in public filings--that's a fool's errand.
> > >
> > > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> > >
> > > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
> >
> >
> > The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
>
> No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
> ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
> nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
> workers.
Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
I'm afraid your dishonest habits have caught up with you - it's a flagrant lie, probably driven by your passionate commitment to ignoring inconvenient facts.
<snipped the rest - James Arthur's nasty habits don't need further exposure>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 2, 20162016-10-02
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-4, Bill Bowden wrote:
> <dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:85dcf226-aadf-4cdf-b744-933a9078ddea@googlegroups.com...
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:52:49 PM UTC-4, Bill Bowden wrote:
> >> <dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> They don't need money in their pockets if the Foundation pays for all
> >>> their
> >> > parties, friends, and expenses.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But don't the parties, and expenses have to be related to official
> >> foundation business? How do they disguise it? You would think IRS would
> >> uncover the scam.
> >
> > You're pretty naive Bill.
> >
> > Haven't you noticed that whenever Obama flies to a partisan fundraiser
> > he goes to some made-up 2-minute dedication / other event first, so the
> > expenses can be charged to the taxpayer rather than honestly, to the
> > Democrat Nat'l Committee? Isn't it funny how those dedications always
> > happen to be next to an event the president doesn't want to pay
> > expenses for?
> >
> > And the IRS going after an ally of this administration? Not on your life.
> > They're above the law.
> >
>
> Please don't call me naive James. Didn't I suggest you buy a bear market
> fund in 08 when the market was about to collapse 50%?
I didn't mean it as an insult. I just thought it unrealistic to expect
the mob to post their innermost dealings in public filings. Or to take
their payoffs in the form of huge salaries--that's not how it's done.
(For one thing, that would be taxable income...)
Cheers,
James Arthur
Reply by ●October 2, 20162016-10-02
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:38:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:20:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 12:23:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Bowden wrote:
> > > Well, I still can't figure out the balance sheet but it looks like several
> > > people are making a bundle. Bruce Lindsey 360K, Eric Braverman 261K,
> > > Andrew Kellel 175K, Stephanie Strreett 139K, Robert S. Harrison 208K. From
> > > form IRS form 990. That's a about a million for 5 people. I can't imagine
> > > working for a charity and asking for 200K in salary while starving people in
> > > Haiti are hoping to get a couple dollars a day.
> > > .
> > >
> > > http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf
> >
> > That's not unusual. You missed that Braverman and Lindsey's figures were
> > six month's pay each, not a full year.
> >
> > You won't find their dirty laundry advertised as reportable personal
> > income in public filings--that's a fool's errand.
> >
> > I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who
> > made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women
> > earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to
> > their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just
> > on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
> >
> > Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the
> > same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose
> > lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination
> > against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
>
>
> The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs,
No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group,
ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means
nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction
workers.
Exactly wrong--those are not examples of women with the same education,
seniority, experience, etc., doing the same job as a man.
When those factors are considered, the gap disappears.
"Many studies have been done over many years -- and they repeatedly
show that women and men who work the very same hours in the very
same jobs at the very same levels of skill and experience do not
have the pay gaps that people like Hillary Clinton loudly denounce.
As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked
continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the
same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never
married earned more than academic men who had never married."
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/08/09/old-lies-n2203022
College-educated childless career-women earn more than their male
counterparts.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048
This gap nonsense is an idiot's theory. If women were as effective and
that much cheaper to hire, no one would hire men.
But if you use Hillary's method for computing wage-fairness, she's one of
the most egregious offenders--the Clinton Foundation pays ladies 49 cents
on the dollar, and 3/4 of her Foundation's top positions are filled by men.
Cheers,
James Arthur