The "wage gap calculator" on Hillary's website

Just for laugh I thought I'd try it out using Hillary's information...

60 year old white, with a doctorate...

I used $100,000 salary since it's a nice round number. I have no idea what she actually makes.

Here's what it gave me back...

Women in your age group and education level earn approximately $93,349 less than their male counterparts per year.

Yeah... right...

You can click on Methodology to find out how they calculated it, they include a quote based on the 80% number I posted about a few days ago, where they also say only 25% of it is due to gender. No mention of that on her site, odd.

If Hilary wants to help people financially maybe she should hold seminars on how to make money trading cattle futures.

At this rate, the only votes she'll get are from crazy feminists like herself and their honorary women pets. If she wins the nomination then democrats can kiss their moderate vote goodbye.

She, in fact has a JD not a PhD. Despite the hi-faluting sound a JD, is, in fact, a master's degree. Furthermore, a senator's salary is closer to $150K. I won't hazard to guess what their real compensation is when you add all the perks and graft.

Thanks klp. You're right.

More fun with numbers on this FU'd "calculator"....

60y/o white in NY, salary of $150K with a BACHELORs degree:

This year a woman at this salary level earns on average $41,326 less than a man in your state.

Women in your age group and education level earn approximately $32,359 less than their male counterparts per year.

ROFL.

Gee, the Hildabeast has yet to come up with any idea that would make me want to vote for her.

And this latest wallow in misandry isn't one either.

Keep trying there Hilzilla!

If nothing else she is entertaining in a goofy sort of way.

I seriously doubt that we will be able to stop feminists from succeeding in whatever malicious plan they're conjuring to seal this ficticious "wage gap" because we've waited too long.

This whole issue reminds me of what happened in the educational system. When the girls were lagging behind the boys, feminists ranted and raved and finally paved the educational system to suit girls and now the boys are far behind. Now that boys are behind and the girls are ahead, they consider it a "good thing." They even had the audacity to say that "women's gains should not be seen as men's losses," yet they didn't apply this dim-witted logic when the situation was in reverse. Absolutely disgusting!

What we need to do is plan a strike against whatever these feminists do to "even" this so-called "wage gap" if it results in unfairness to men. I have a few ideas, but I'm not going to state them just yet until I see how feminists plan to resolve this issue.

Trolls on this board earn $13,874 per year less than the regular posters. Reason: the trolls are too busy navel-gazing and spreading false information, to actually do real work. In addition, they are too stupid to hold down a job other than janitor, so it's no wonder their income is low ;-)

-ax

The best answer to is is to put up some calculators that, for example, tell you how much shorter you live as a man, what the likelyhood is to get slammed with a DV restraint order, and so on.

I surely hope she does get some flak for that nonsense over there? You Americans really need to do something about what kind of people become president in your country.. then again, it's like that anywhere. Top politicians are habitual liars.

Maybe a calculator showing how many more hours men work than women would be good. I really hope that either Obama or Edwards get the nomination, though neither of them is perfect nor even a decent candidate and probably not friends of men's issues, but at least they aren't Hillary.

i "tested" the calculator by using a low-end job that pays minimum wage in Quebec.

apparently women don't even earn minimum wage...with a difference of 3 dollars.

which is BS, since some of them (where i work no less) are in college because their job pays so well.

This is a great idea!

I tried my own information -- white male, Washington state, currently unemployed college student. I put in an income of $1 a year.

Amazingly, those poor suffering women earn $0 less than I do, averaging five grand a year less than their male counterparts. So unemployed female college students actually pay the United States Government five grand a year? Doesn't it go the other way around? Is this thing actually doing "calculation" or just yanking some random skewed numbers out of its ass?

Is this thing actually doing "calculation" or just yanking some random skewed numbers out of its ass?

It's just applying it's (wrong) assumptions about "x cents for every dollar" and applying it without thought to whatever number is entered.

For instance, an early 40s anglo woman in Texas it presumes to make 76.something cents for every dollar an early 30s anglo man in Texas makes, so put in $100,000 and it spits out 24,000 and change ((100-76)% of $100,000. Put in $200,000 and it's 48,000 and change. Put in $100 and it says $24.

[sarcasm]Yeah, really great, accurate, fact filled research in that thing![/sarcasm]

I was watching a Fox News program today around 1:30pm (CT). The segment was one in which the woman broadcaster was interviewing some woman with Ms Foundation about "Take our kids to work day." (Ms Fdn started "Take our daughters to work day" more than 10 yrs ago, a girl-only annual event, and only grudgingly over time yielded to public pressure to include boys.)

Anyway, the Fox broadcaster winds up the interview with the Ms Fdn lady by saying something like "there are so many problems left to deal with, like women being paid less than men.." and so on. The Ms Fdn woman nodded and agreed that there are many problems that women have to confront, etc etc. I looked at both these people -- two of the most privileged individuals on the planet, living in a prosperous country that has created all kinds of special rights and protections for women only. These two idiots sitting there like a couple of rich girls at a slumber party yapping like spoiled children...I thought to myself, shut up you two twirps. Go to hell. It really drove home the realization that women are absolutely addicted to feeling victimized and entitled. They take so much for granted and they are as ignorant as the day is long. How disgusting!

Wow. This gives a whole new meaning to the term "unsubstantiated blanket claim" which the wage gap has been since Day 1, and certainly, since some time in the 1980s.

This just heightens the female entitlement complex and meanwhile heightens the male guilt complex. Which plays in perfectly with the feminist agenda. Will it result in a drop-off in male votes? With the correct amount of media indoctrination, which is perfectly possible in the US election system, I don't think it will.

This stunt by Clinton just demonstrates not only that she wants to play the gender card (note - not feminist card; ordinary women don't differentiate between "feminist" and "gender" if they feel they can gain), it demonstrates that she actually has contempt for the male electorate. If this is how she feels before she gets into office, imagine how that contempt will take on a new dimension when she has the most powerful job in the world?

Perhaps she should put a Net Wealth Transfer liklihood and amount calculator on her site. "In the event of a divorce, you will, as a white female aged 30, are likely to have a net wealth transfer of +$200,000 given your circumstances regarding partners incoming, sole custody and number of children"

"In the event of a divorce, you will, as a white male aged 32, be likely to have a net transfer of -$300,000, notwithstanding annual payments in subsequent years.. Given legal fees, your divorcees circumstances and your income. And your gender."

"Likelihood of a Systematic Wealth Transfer windfall in your lifetime (male).... Zero...

(female)... 1.2 rising to 3.2"

Have a nice day in the Matriarchy.. From Hillary R. Clinton...

Seriously Americans, your President is going to have more effect on my life as an Irish man than my own country's Taoiseach (PM).. Her Mangina husband Bill Clinton did enough damage to men's rights worldwide in his reign.. If Hitlery attacks men's rights even equally as much as Bill, we're in for a rough ride..,.

Interesting..I just happened to be looking over part of "Legalizing Misandry" a couple hours ago. It says the Ms. Foundation started as an outgrowth of the sexist publication "Ms. Magazine". These people are everywhere, aren't they?
-ax

I have a fantasy that millions of male independent voters, like myself, will vote for the Republican if H. wins the Democratic nomination. Fat chance..too many guys don't know what's going on. So the only real hope is that she will not be nominated. Maybe Edwards will get stronger, he seemed somewhat weak during the first debate. No doubt he is being distracted by his wife's condition.
I don't expect O'Bama to win it, he's too much of a newbie.

-ax