Posted on 05/16/2014 6:25:46 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
According to this New Yorker ARTICLE Jill Abramson's salary was $525,000 per year vs. $559,000 for previous Executive Editor, Bill Keller. However two BIG factors to keep in mind.
First of all Keller had been there longer than Abramson as executive editor. And second, the taxes in New York State and City are so high that the $34,000 differential would be much lower. Perhaps someone out there can figure out what the AFTER TAX differential was.
If Abramson wanted a higher TAKE HOME salary, perhaps she should have addressed the State and City governments of New York. So what would her total TAKE HOME salary have been after taxes?
Sounds like the disparity was insignificant and perhaps she was paid more. o, is she just using the gender card?
Did she have an expense account? Just dining out on the Times dime could have made up that difference.
I also note that Keller had worked for the NYT a lot longer than Abramson when he got the positon and experience usually counts for extra pay.
Yes, except that the whole “equal pay for equal work” industry relies on ignoring that key variable.
Correct and yet she still got almost the same starting salary as he did when finished. Knock out the taxes from the $34,000 differential and the result is relative chump change. Maybe she worked herself into a completely unnecessary feminist fury strictly for the sake of appearances. DUmb move!
Set aside the premise that they worked hard to get there and earned their take, but I am getting kind of worn slick with people who make 5-20 times the income of most of our professional workforce whining about a few measly thousand dollars when Uncle Sam is raping the middle and upper-middle classes.
I just read somewhere ( I’ll try and find the link) that the difference was more like $120,000 per year, and had been going on for a long time...when she was first hired as as executive editor, her second in command was making MORE than her at the time..
Conservative Tree House reports Abramson was ousted “...because she has done the most sacrilegious offense to the towers of progdom, she exposed the falsehood behind the White House claims of transparency”.
I haven't seen anybody mention this yet, but just last week Jill Abramson was mentioned as #5 on this list of 5 Non-Fox News Journalists Who Won't Give Obama a Break.Within a week, she's been fired.
Coincidence?
-PJ
Maybe her work product sucked and she was goint to get fired, so she pre-empted by playing the gender card.
I haven't seen anybody mention this yet, but just last week Jill Abramson was mentioned as #5 on this list of 5 Non-Fox News Journalists Who Won't Give Obama a Break.Within a week, she's been fired.
Coincidence?
Now we know.
From the article:
His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.”[snip]
he ultimately concluded that “she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.” The decision to replace her, he said, was “for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender.”
I guess we now know why she "lost support" of her "colleagues." If she had "consulted" and "bring colleagues with her," she would not have been a "journalist who won't give Obama a break." Her colleagues wouldn't have let her.
It's all so very clear now.
-PJ
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.