Irony Squared: The Recent New York Times Editorial on the Pay Gap
Now that former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson is Googling “tattoo removal,” I think it’s time to examine a recent editorial the paper did in favor of equal pay for women. For the irony.
Let’s just strike out “President Obama” where his name appears in the editorial, and substitute “The New York Times” — just for grins, huh?
Women are the primary or co-breadwinner in 6 out of 10 American families. That makes the economic imperative of addressing the wage gap between women and men important, as is every step
President Obamathe New York Times can take in that direction.. . . .
In fact, it [the alleged pay gap] is a rough, but important, measure of overall workplace inequality. It is not a comparison of what men and women are paid for performing the same or comparable jobs. But, in representing the full-time wages of a working woman against that of a full-time working man, it reflects overt discrimination as well as more nuanced gender-based factors, like the fact that women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest-paying fields and not well-represented in higher-paying fields. Of course, 77 cents is not the only measure. But there is no doubt that the pay gap is real.
. . . .
Some Republicans have chided
Mr. Obamathe New York Times for pointing out the wage gap whenthe White Housethe New York Times has one of its own. . . .Jay CarneyArthur Sulzberger, theWhite House spokesmanNYT publisher, has awkwardly noted that that is better than the national average and that men and women in the same positions earn the same salary. [D’oh! I guess that one doesn’t work! — Ed.]But instead of becoming defensive and trying to explain away the discrepancy,
Mr. Obamathe New York Times should simply saythe White Housethe newspaper has to do better and present the lag for what it is: more evidence that the problem persists even in workplaces committed to equal treatment.
It’s the scandal that keeps on giving.
I love this.
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/15/2014 @ 7:38 amWas it Al Sharpton who once commented:
“Race-baiting in the defense social justice is no vice;
Moral absolutism in the pursuit of racial entitlement is no virtue.”
I suppose it could have been just about anyone one the left.
Wonderful trifecta of posts this morning.
Thanks
ThOR (130453) — 5/15/2014 @ 8:26 amBinders of Wimyns!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 8:34 amNo explanation given on how past and current public leaders have managed to be successful.
They didn’t take s*** from broads, queers, and losers.
nk (dbc370) — 5/15/2014 @ 8:39 amDon’t look now but the bottom just fell out all over.
Pinch is just cutting costs as part of the bloodbath.
What’s an Executive Editor do, anyway?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/15/2014 @ 9:18 am“What’s an Executive Editor do, anyway?”
Long lunches.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 9:30 amAlternative headline: Jill Abramson poor negotiator.
Loren (1e34f2) — 5/15/2014 @ 9:38 amNahhh … it’s just Democrat generosity in action …
“What we see is that people are leaving their jobs because they are no longer job-locked,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Alastor (2d2903) — 5/15/2014 @ 9:46 amwomen are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest-paying fields and not well-represented in higher-paying fields.
It’s the other way around.
Women are more willing to take jobs in the lowest paying fields. Men, more often, can’t afford to.
The reason they have a disproportinate percentage of women is because they pay less. It is not that they pay less because mostly women take these jobs, even if that is true for some of them, because this pattern wouldn’t repeat itself so much if only the second factr was true.
After a while, resumes reflect that and hiring requirements tend to reflect a spotty employment record more typical of females.
Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/15/2014 @ 10:38 am“It’s the other way around.
Women are more willing to take jobs in the lowest paying fields. Men, more often, can’t afford to.”
Sammy – How does what you say reverse what was said rather than just restate the same thing? Please explain.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 10:57 am10.“It’s the other way around.
Women are more willing to take jobs in the lowest paying fields. Men, more often, can’t afford to.”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 10:57 am
Sammy – How does what you say reverse what was said rather than just restate the same thing? Please explain.
There’s no discrimination, intentional or unintentional, (for the most part)
Whatever jobs paid less, would be filled by women.
Not that people see women take these jobs and therefore pay less.
Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:14 amGiven the intense amount fo heat the NYT has taken over this decision – Abramson must really be a piece of work, eh? I mean, the NYT is not stupid. They must have known how bad this would make them look. But they did it anyway because whatever heat they got – it would be worth it to get rid of the vile Abramson. That says a lot.
Laborite (6f017a) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:19 amLess pay = Less Stress and more flexibility.
Something that women value more than men.
I also like the NYT statistic: “Women are the primary or co-breadwinner in 6 out of 10 American families.”
Would that be written for men like this?
“Men are the primary or co-breadwinner in 9 out of 10 American families.”
Good mixing of co-breadwinning with primary breadwinning to make the stat nearly useless.
DejectedHead (a094a6) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:20 am“There’s no discrimination, intentional or unintentional, (for the most part)”
Sammy – So the statements say the same thing. No meaning is changed.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:24 amThe statement:
People pay less because women take those jobs.
…..is consistent with discrimination.
The statement, which reverses cause and effect:
Women take those jobs because they pay less.
involves no pay discrimination by sex by anyone.
Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:34 amOr maybe make that:
Fewer men take those jobs because they pay less.
Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:37 amRecall that she was also aced out of giving a commencement speech, a year or two ago, by Obama, the editor of Le Monde got similar treatment, being dismissed, that is,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:40 am“The statement:
People pay less because women take those jobs.
…..is consistent with discrimination.”
Sammy – The problem is, nobody made the statement you claim is consistent with discrimination. You just decided to mess around with something that was not wrong for the sake of messing around with it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 11:51 amIt’s not that x is more than y. It’s that y is less than x.
Take a logic course, Sammy.
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/15/2014 @ 5:18 pmNothing of any consequence happened today,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/crazy-obama-does-not-mention-islam-muslim-al-qaeda-islamists-not-once-in-todays-9-11-memorial-speech/
tragic considering the stakes,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/15/2014 @ 5:27 pmI understood what Sammy said. Chuck Norris does pushups; he does not push the Earth away from him. Although, the effect on the distance between his chest and the floor is the same, the cause is not. If women choose lower paying jobs, instead of competing with men for higher paying jobs, then the disparity in earnings between men and women is not due to employer discrimination. The discrimination starts early, at home, where girls are guided by their parents to be Social Studies teachers and boys are guided to be astronauts.
nk (dbc370) — 5/15/2014 @ 6:04 pmThe discrimination starts early, at home, where girls are guided by their parents to be Social Studies teachers and boys are guided to be astronauts.
Still? This must be corrected. Boys must be taught to lower their expectations and become interior decorators or hair stylists.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/15/2014 @ 6:20 pmBoys must be taught to lower their expectations and become interior decorators or hair stylists.
Some are. But by and large they’re taught to be independent and breadwinners, to a much lesser degree than girls. Sammy said that too.
nk (dbc370) — 5/15/2014 @ 6:35 pmBut by and large they’re taught to be independent and breadwinners, to a much *greater* degree than girls. Yikes. There’s less pressure on girls. But that’s changing with the breakdown of the monogamous man-woman-child family unit.
nk (dbc370) — 5/15/2014 @ 6:38 pm“I understood what Sammy said.”
nk – After Sammy explained it, Sammy meant the same thing the post said. There was no reason for Sammy’s pretzel logic.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/15/2014 @ 7:35 pmSammy can be a noodge. Sorry, Sammy, but it’s true.
nk (dbc370) — 5/15/2014 @ 7:37 pmJust catching up. Sammy’s comments and observations on this post are suggestive that he does not understand women. Or at least he doesn’t understand or recognize how well women have been doing in many fields and professions in recent years. In this recession many women are doing much better than men employment wise and it’s not because they’re willing to be paid less than men. Sammy’s kind of behind the times on this whole issue, I think.
elissa (b0eb09) — 5/15/2014 @ 8:45 pm