... whom Abramson wrote a book about and whom Loury was friends with back in the Reagan Era. Loury responds, based on his personal eyewitness, to the contention that Clarence Thomas had pictures of naked women on his apartment wall (and I'm in the so-what-if-he-did? mode). Loury suggests that it's "crazy" to read between the lines of what other people say and write, and I say it's naive and boring not to. There's some comparison of unspoken race and sex discrimination that leads to a discussion of whether we're any better off having had the experience of a First Black President and what this might mean about the projected benefits of a First Female President, especially if that First Female President is Hillary.
Here's my blog post from 3 days ago on "How the NYT called Jill Abramson... a bitch" — which is what I'm talking about in the beginning of the diavlog.
Here's my blog post about Abramson's book about Clarence Thomas (including the quote about Thomas's approach to interior decoration).
And let me break out this specific clip about pay equity, in which I talk about the hypocrisy of the NYT and Glenn (the economist) says "the 77¢-on-the -dollar talk is infantile... absurd... demagoguery."
१८ मे, २०१४
I talk to Glenn Loury about how the NYT called Jill Abramson a "bitch," which leads to a discussion of Clarence Thomas...
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Does what I describe to you in words change how you feel?
Judging solely from the tags list, you two covered a lot of ground outside the specifics of the Abramson case, but...
I'm getting this weird Andrew Sullivan vs. Sarah Palin vibe from the flow of posts around the topic, and I'm starting to worry.
Kindly do not go 'round the bend. I like my free ice cream in the historically available flavors just fine, and I do not want to find "Kale 'n Kippers" in my dish one fine PM.
Yr. obt. svt., FD
The Times's own topic page for Dean Baquet explains the pronunciation as BACK-eh, which is even worse!
You mean Clarence Thomas had something like this:
http://svlstg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Manet-Olympia-1863.jpg on his walls?
For *shame*.
He's nuts about disentangling race from policy.
Most who disagree with Obama like for example Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell not to mention Justice Thomas.
Is that clear enough?
What if Sulzberger isn't lying about the pay equality?
What then, feminists? This seems like an easily verifiable fact. I'm surprised that the furies of females at the NYT have remained so silent with their comparative narratives.
And if Abramson's pay was in fact the same or more, was she doing the same thing as blaming a videographer, i.e., "broadcasting" an alternative narrative?
Do people still watch blogging heads? When I want to read I read. When I want to watch tv I watch tv.
"This seems like an easily verifiable fact."
It took Abramson a long time to figure out the discrepancies in her case. You have to match up your salary (or whole pay package) with the right comparables. A study of the whole workplace would be hard to do, especially with management deeply invested in proving that there was no discrimination.
I really wonder why you think it's easy!
Sulzberger's statement goes on and on about how each individual is a particularized case involving many factors. That makes it hard to do a comparison. If there is discrimination, it will be probably be hidden and deniable.
I really wonder why you think it's easy!
Are you saying, that Abramson gave up her compensation records to her attorney and said, "here's my records" see if you can figure out what Bill Keller made." Then she goes to the NYT owners and says "my attorney found a discrepancy! Fix it!"
You state that the management was "deeply invested in proving that there was no discrimination." By the same token, and given what was at stake, she (and her attorney) were deeply invested in proving that there was discrimination.
I said it's easy because the actual numbers are accounting facts. It's the disclosure part which is fraught with difficulty.
If Abramson is lying (or innocently incorrect) about the salary discrepancy, it would behoove the NYT to allay the fears of every other doubting female employee to "check their comps" -- else why put up with it?
If the Times is lying, Abramson could presumably sue and win, doing herself and other women an enormous favor.
The other option is a settlement out of court. What great situation for NYC lawyers!
The numbers are already there, waiting to be "discovered." Another reason I said that was "easy" is that that this is so unlike science in which the truth seeker interrogates nature which either yields or remains silent. In these legal cases, the "truth" is deliberately obfuscated by human beings (assuming that there is a wrong).
Did you see that little smile from Althouse after Loury asks about schadenfreude? Just for a moment, the mask of cruel neutrality slips a bit! :-)
77 cents on the dollar is infantile, absurd demagoguery that the President of the United States and many others repeat and a large percentage of people believe.
It's easy to figure out salary comparability. But add in bonuses, deferred bonuses, stock options, phantom stock, other deferred compensation, fancy fringe benefits and the like and it becomes an entirely different matter.
For example, what is the present value of deferred compensation, especially if the amount of the deferred compensation is tied to future events?
Loury and I agree:
Speculation, of the apocalyptic nature practiced here, is nuts and dangerous.
And, I'll add, there's nothing "boring" about not gossiping if YOU are interesting.
Actually, that insistence that reading between the lines is necessary because people have to be evil or something - which is much like the we-have-to-be-racist argument privacy advocates keep making - is weird and troubling. Has no one any higher aspirations, as individuals or a society?
It's the same "thinking" that results in all the Sci-Fi movies showing us a dystopian future:
That's all they can imagine,...
Loury is a good talker with an analytical mind. And he loyally supported his friend Clarence Thomas. That was worth all 40 minutes. The blonde was good too.
You have to match up your salary (or whole pay package) with the right comparables.
You're assuming she's fair! Maybe she just found out what her predecessor was paid, and her salary was less, so she had a hissy fit.
A study of the whole workplace would be hard to do
Maybe she doesn't give a shit about the whole workplace, she's just bitching about her own salary. That's the vibe I got. She's not an academic feminist. She's using gender politics to try to get more money. Money, money, money, money!
What would be funny is if Pinch came out and told the world how much she was paid. That would shut her up quick.
Whiny millionnaires are annoying. "HIs million is bigger than my million!"
As an institution of the Federal government, the NYT's salaries should all be public anyway (tongue firmly in cheek).
Spectacular diavlog by the way ... my favorite thus far. Pure dialog fluidity of each party. A natural and comfortable professional chemistry.
Obama was an affirmative action hire, elevated far above his Peter Principle level of incompetence by the voters, who proceeded to double down on stupidity by blindly re-electing him (with the knowing collusion of the mainstream media, who covered up for him). Hillary would also be an affirmative action hire, and would likely show the same level of competence as Obama. May this cup pass from us.
"You're assuming she's fair! Maybe she just found out what her predecessor was paid, and her salary was less, so she had a hissy fit."
"Hissy fit" = obvious sexist tone.
Plus we already know that Abramson presented Sulzberger with more cases than one. There was also a man in a lower position than hers who was paid $100,000 more than her (we're told).
And I'm not assuming she's fair and accurate. I'm assuming she had some evidence -- which she may have collected because she saw that she was going to be fired for bad management style (or because Baquet wanted her out) — and she confronted Sulzberger in some kind of power move.
Read some of my other posts on the topic and reframe what you want to say. Telling me what I'm "assuming" here is just plain wrong. Try again.
"Do people still watch blogging heads? When I want to read I read. When I want to watch tv I watch tv."
So by "when I want to read," you mean: read on your computer screen. And when you see embedded video, you're like: How did this TV-like stuff get on my reading material?
Noted.
Is the word "hissy" ever used except in combination with "fit"?
Nice to know the even the BlogAdmin can suffer a double post. Vindication!
The 77cents on the dollar is absurd demaoguery. Demagoguery which Obama uses all the time. You'd think that Glenn would tire of the guy he voted for resorting to such cheap rhetoric, but it seems like he doesn't really hold him accountable.
"Nice to know the even the BlogAdmin can suffer a double post. Vindication!"
Fixed. Thanks.
That happens sometimes, I think from accidentally or impatiently double clicking "publish."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा