DrewStevens 5,249 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 But this doesn't actually prove that there's a pay gap based on gender. None of these people were hired to do the same job so they all have different salaries and compensations. Pay gap based on gender is when women or men are payed less than their opposite gender coworkers who do the same job or have the same position. Gender may be a reason why these three women are payed less but this is not "news" or "facts". It's a biased analysis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katharine Hepburn 4,607 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Can y'all go stay in one mega thread because I'm sick of seeing sensationalist topics about another country's politics. Or set up Politics Daily Don't quote me because I won't read it. xoxo Joanne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mich 397 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, DrewStevens said: But this doesn't actually prove that there's a pay gap based on gender. None of these people were hired to do the same job so they all have different salaries and compensations. "On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite." - Source And if you'd like to still make the argument that they have different jobs as executives...why are women not being allowed to hold higher positions in the Clinton Foundation with equivalent salaries to those of their male colleagues? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,886 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I don't know how I feel about the articles authors, but I wouldn't be surprised. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Mich said: "On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite." - Source And if you'd like to still make the argument that they have different jobs as executives...why are women not being allowed to hold higher positions in the Clinton Foundation with equivalent salaries to those of their male colleagues? Your source is the article itself? You're quoting averages as opposed to individual amounts? -------------------- Why do you guys always make me look like Hillary's lawyer? Can't you do ANY research and analytical thinking on your own before making posts like these? CEO = Chief Executive Officer CFO = Chief Financial Officer COO = Chief Operating Officer CG = Clinton Global Initiative CGEP = Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership CHMI = Clinton Health Matters Initiative Men: BRUCE R LINDSEY - CEO til sometime in 2013 - 360 000 ERIC BRAVERMAN - CEO 2013 - 261 000 ANDREW KESSEL - CFO - 174 000 ROBERT S HARRISON - CEO CGI - 208 000 DENNIS CHENG - CDO - 215 000 MARK GUNTON - CEO CGEP - 256 000 SCOTT TAITEL - COO CGEP 186 000 FREDERIC POUST - DIRECTOR OF SPONSORS AND MARKETING - 484 000 Women: STEPHANIE S STREETT - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - 138 000 VIRGINIA EHRLICH - CEO CHMI - 183 000 LAURA GRAHAM - SENIOR ADVISER - 182 000 ----- Notice how inconsistent the pay is. There is no consistent pay difference between men and women. Two women earn as much (or more) as two other men. . The lowest paid is Stephanie S. Streett who was/is essentially the secretary/manager of the organization, explaining the lower pay. NONE of the women are individual trustees. This may account for the slight pay variation where it counts because they hold less responsibility. The only outlier as a highest paid employee is Frederic, but he earns WAY more than the CEOs so that discrepancy is clearly an exception. So these variations don't mean anything. The positions the men occupy either have more responsibilities or are paid more than others for reasons that are not immediately apparent. Then there's the fact that, at the time of that IRS form filing, there were 8 men to 3 women as "top executives" (some aren't even executives). This makes the use of averaging all the more inane. Furthermore, nowhere does it mention when and from where these people were hired, or how many weeks they worked. So these numbers essentially cannot hold in any real comparison without context. Now you want to bring up the fact why most of the officers are men. Well why can't it be anything other than circumstance at the time? Well look at the CURRENT board of directors, many of which were all hired AFTER 2013 when this irs form had been issued. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors BRUCE LINDSEY CHELSEA CLINTON PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON FRANK GIUSTRA ROLANDO GONZALEZ-BUNSTER AMBASSADOR ERIC GOOSBY, MD LISA JACKSON CHERYL MILLS HADEEL IBRAHIM CHERYL SABAN, PH.D There are 5 men to 5 women. Yay equality! ------ So you are: 1) Using averages to obfuscate the discrepency between the number of women and men that are hired in a very small sample group. 2) Clumping up their into "top executives of C-suite", ignoring trustee status and pay differences as well as individual responsibilities in the hierarchy. 3) Using an IRS form from three years ago to discuss a situation that is inconsistent with today. 4) Making broad generalizations with little context, a lot of assumptions, and a whole lot circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof. As many in GGD say, this has been a mess. A kii. A cackle. ------ Here's another source! 1) Although Bernie Sanders’ campaign pays women on average a little under $1,000 more than men, the top ten highest-paid employees are all male. 2) Hillary Clinton’s campaign is also fairly equitable, with male and female staffers making essentially the same amount of money. 3) Every campaign (excluding Clinton’s, which employs 324 women and 202 men) employs significantly more men than women. ----- Try again sometime when I'm not around. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: Your source is the article itself? You're quoting averages as opposed to individual amounts? Why do you guys always make me look like Hillary's lawyer? Can't you do ANY research and analytical thinking on your own before making posts like these? I summed the total amount gained and rounded to nearest 000 CEO = Chief Executive Officer CFO = Chief Financial Officer CG = Clinton Global Initiative CGEP = Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership COO = Chief Operating Officer Men: BRUCE R LINDSEY - CEO til 2013 - 360 000 ERIC BRAVERMAN - CEO present - 261 000 ANDREW KESSEL - CFO - 174 000 ROBERT S HARRISON - CEO CGI - 208 000 DENNIS CHENG - CDO - 215 000 MARK GUNTON - CEO CGEP - 256 000 SCOTT TAITEL - COO CGEP 186 000 FREDERIC POUST - DIRECTOR OF SPONSORS AND MARKETING - 484 000 Women: STEPHANIE S STREETT - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - 138 000 VIRGINIA EHRLICH - CEO CHMI - 183 000 LAURA GRAHAM - SENIOR ADVISER - 182 000 ----- Notice how inconsistent the pay is. There is no consistent pay difference between men and women. Two women earn as much (or more) as two other men. . The lowest paid is Stephanie S. Streett who is essentially the manager of the organization, not a director, explaining the lower pay. NONE of the women are individual trustees. This may account for the slight pay variation where it counts because they hold less responsibility. So these variations don't mean anything. The positions the men occupy either have more responsibilities or are paid more than others for reasons that are not explained. Then there's the fact that, at the time of that IRS form filing, there were 8 men to 3 women as "top executives". This makes the use of averaging all the more inane. Furthermore, nowhere does it mention when and where these people were hired, or how many weeks they worked. So these numbers essentially cannot hold in any real comparison without context. Now you want to bring up the fact why most of the officers are men. Well why can't it be anything other than circumstance at the time? Well look at the CURRENT board of directors that were all hired AFTER 2013 BEFORE this irs form was issued. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors BRUCE LINDSEY CHELSEA CLINTON PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON FRANK GIUSTRA ROLANDO GONZALEZ-BUNSTER AMBASSADOR ERIC GOOSBY, MD LISA JACKSON CHERYL MILLS HADEEL IBRAHIM CHERYL SABAN, PH.D There are 5 men to 5 women. Yay equality! ------ So you are: 1) Using averages to obfuscate the discrepency between the number of women and men that are hired in a very small sample group. 2) Clumping up their into "top executives of C-suite", ignoring trustee status and pay differences as well as individual responsibilities in the hierarchy. 3) Using an IRS form from three years ago to discuss a situation today 4) Making broad generalizations with little context and a lot of assumptions. As many in GGD say, this has been a mess. A kii. A cackle. ------ Here's another source! 1) Although Bernie Sanders’ campaign pays women on average a little under $1,000 more than men, the top ten highest-paid employees are all male. 2) Hillary Clinton’s campaign is also fairly equitable, with male and female staffers making essentially the same amount of money. 3) Every campaign (excluding Clinton’s, which employs 324 women and 202 men) employs significantly more men than women. ----- Try again sometime when I'm not around. OWNED! Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: OWNED! Not you quoting the entire post Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: Not you quoting the entire post Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 1 hour ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewStevens 5,249 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 4 hours ago, Mich said: "On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite." - Source And if you'd like to still make the argument that they have different jobs as executives...why are women not being allowed to hold higher positions in the Clinton Foundation with equivalent salaries to those of their male colleagues? Did you only read the article or did you actually looked at the IRS? There are only 11 employees in the IRS. 8 men and 3 women and only two of them share the same position so you can't compare their salaries considering they all have different jobs. Just because women don't have higher positions it doesn't mean they are not allowed too. Again, I'm not saying it's not true but this doesn't prove anything. If you want to believe it then do it but you can't act like this is an irrefutable proof because it's not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.