When did I say that labor market outcomes are "necessarily just"? That's absurd.
I earlier summed up your position as "whatever she or anyone else gets paid is right by the nature of employment contracts" and you agreed with that (Post 63). You also said this, "She deserves to get paid what she accepted in her contract. Not one penny more," which seems to indicate that it isn't possible for someone to deserve more pay than they receive.
I've argued that it is just to honor one's contract.
That's completely unrelated to the issue of whether someone deserves more pay than they get.
I've said that I believe salary should reflect market performance, but I've pointed out that in 2011 she hadn't yet performed.
But by 2014, she had. The discussion was about her pay in 2014. The other guy said that of course she wouldn't be paid as well as her predecessor because the industry took a downturn. I responded by saying that isn't obvious at all, and you have been going on and on as if I'm defending her non-existent allegations of discrimination.
I've explained this now five times, and you continue to ignore that she signed a contract before demonstrating this market value, and the contract takes precedence. I already mentioned that she could have signed an original contract where she inherited the same risk as the company that would scale her pay on a rolling basis according to her performance, so no, my ideas aren't irreconcilable or mutually exclusive. My position is simply more sophisticated than yours: balancing complex ideas of justice simultaneously.
Logical inconsistency isn't the same as sophistication. And, no, she's not a football player. She's perfectly within her rights to ask for a raise if one is warranted.
On what grounds was that original contract she signed unfair, Jack?
I have no idea if the original contract she signed was fair or not, and neither do you. I haven't been discussing that issue. I simply said that it was not obvious that she should be paid less than Keller because of the direction the company was headed before she was hired.
Ultimately, though, your economic politics are also irrelevant.
And so are yours. That's exactly my point. You're rushing to a firm, passionate judgment without any evidence simply because of your ideology. I'm calling for caution, and pointing out that the arguments being made don't hold up.
It isn't incumbent upon the NYT to pay her (or any executive) proportionally to her value, legally, nor does the decision to not pay that indicate gender discrimination simply because they overpaid the previous executive who happened to be a man. Again, you're waging class warfare on the wrong battlefield.
You're the one waging class warfare and going on about irrelevant gender issues. I get that you feel that employers and men get a raw deal, but that has nothing at all to do with Abramson.
She's alleging discrimination. The burden of proof is on her. She's provided absolutely nothing indicating discrimination. Not a thing.
She's not alleging anything. We're seeing hearsay indicating that she was unhappy about her compensation and that gender might have been a reason. If she were to actually make an allegation like that, she would have the burden of proof, which she would at least attempt to meet. But since it's just a rumor and she's not talking at all, she has no burden of anything.
BTW, best piece yet on the issue:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/18/572743...tion-for-abramsons-ouster-that-the-times-cant
Why aren't you answering the question I asked?
