Gender inequality in pay.

The firing of new York Times Editor Jill Abramson somehow set off a new round of debate over gender inequality in pay.

It is said that Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor, or less than her male replacement. I forget which.

The whole idea of gender inequality in Abramson's pay is most puzzling because it is being offered by some otherwise smart people. Do these pundits truly go wacko when they discuss wages, or are they simply trying to sell a wacko idea?

There are some lines of employment where gender inequality in pay would be truly wrong. "Piecework" immediately comes to mind. You cannot pay one gender more per widget made. But there are many more examples where unequal pay for equal work is likewise wrong.. Being Editor of a major newspaper is not one of them.

You may remember "The Peter Principle", formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969. The Peter Principle held that everyone who is promoted up through the ranks, will eventually reach their "level of Incompetence". That is, they will eventually reach a job level in which they cannot perform.

We are told that Abramson was, indeed, promoted up through the ranks. Perhaps she did reach a job description for which she was not competent. Maybe she reached that level sooner than her predecessor. Hence, she never reached his pay level.

As to her replacement, equal pay does not apply here, either. You have to find someone you believe is qualified for the job, and, is willing to take the job! Not an easy trick. If you find someone with successful experience at an equal newspaper, she or he is probably happy in that job and is well paid. It may take a significant increase in pay to lure them away. Gender is not a factor.

Also, wages are a cost of doing business... and must be treated as such. Compassion and sentimentality don't count! That's the hard part for most folks to swallow.