Working for The Man
September 25th, 2012 - 4:04 pm
Want a living wage? Work for the capitalist, not the collectivist:
In 2010 the national average wage was roughly $42,000 a year. Yet Obama is only paying his campaign workers $36,886 a year.
The greedy, evil Romney however is paying his campaign workers $51,500 a year.
The exact salaries of the Romney workers cannot be determined because Romney is counting on the RNC and the state parties to provide get out the vote workers while the Obama Campaign is apparently paying people at the local level directly. But the numbers above apply to the workers who work directly for the two campaigns.
I know, I know — but he cares.
Stuff caring. Demand a raise.
Steve:
The sincerest form of flattery is cash!!
This is interesting for sure. The observed difference in salaries might be explained in several ways. Romney has raised more money so he pays more. It would be interesting to know what the average salary difference was between Obama and McCain in 08. Another explanation, Romney uses a higher mix of higher salary workers than Obama. There also may be a much larger supply of workers than want to work Obama’s campaign than ROmney’s, so Obama can pay less.
Or, Bambi just might be a cheap b*stard who figures people will work for him for less because of his awesomeness.
Don’t forget he pays his female White House staffers less than the males, too.
Or, if you pay high, your workers are less likely to unionize.
it could just be that obama uses more women, it is well known that obama pays women less than men, therefore explaining the lower wage….
Given the relative quality of campaign workers who’ve called this month, I would say that Obama is very generous. $36,886 is pretty good for someone who has difficulty reading a script and absolutely cannot handle anything off script, which describes the Obama calls.
“Living wage” is an insidious, trojan-horse term that no conservative or Small-L libertarian should EVER use. There is no dollar amount attached to the floating concept of the “living wage”, so it is widely used as a blanket demand for unearned wealth, the underlying idea being that an employer is obligated to fill the role of his employees’ parents, only with less dignity. The employer must provide a living for his employees which *they* will decide is adequate or not, and adjust their demands accordingly. Taking seriously the idea of a “living wage” requires the destruction of the principle of voluntary trade to mutual benefit.
Lighten up, Francis.
“Fixed income” is the same kind of BS retired people use. I can’t remember who, but some conservative pointed out, most people live on a “fixed income”.
why are you legitimizing and perpetuating Democrats’ outrageous “equal pay for equal work” meme, the claim that one can take two groups, calculate their average salaries and than derive some meaningful concussions from the comparison. This is ridiculous and you are as bad as they.
I’m sorry to hear that the doctors were forced to surgically remove your irony. Is there any kind of supplement you can take to replace it?
Obama already plans to raise the wages of his campaign workers by lowering the wages of everybody else.
I was always told housewives work for free. So I think both parties are missing out.
the lede is buried on this story…. snarky comments about paying more aside, my eyes were drawn to this part:
“Romney is counting on the RNC and the state parties to provide get out the vote workers while the Obama Campaign is apparently paying people at the local level directly”
Obama pays people less so he hires more, resulting in more people on the ground for a get out the vote project.
Romney depending on other groups for his GOTV is a HUGE tactical error as it cedes an edge to Obama that might completely nullify any edge in advertising (which still seems to me is largely nullified by declining viewership of network TV and increasing use of DVRs)
This is a bigger source of worry than the polls to me, as a good ground game means the difference in a close race, and Romney looks to be blowing it bigtime here.
Key takeaway:
Romney plans to pay key people good wages while counting on enthusiastic volunteers for the leg work. Obama has to pay cash money for the low-skill shoe leather.
Re #6: Isaac is correct and must be louder rather than lightening up. “Minimum wage” laws are pernicious at best; “living wage” laws are far worse. And if the government can set a minimum wage, it can set a maximum wage.
Oh for crissakes, the only thing nearly as tedious as a vile prog is a doctrinaire Libertarian.
Oh, and unreconstructed Objectivists.
Campaigning for Obama is a labor of love. It is its own reward.