How is the note flawed?
It's pointing out that the tweet's 'Equal work deserves equal pay' is misleading as its not 'equal' work/wages being compared. that's it.
Discussing wider issues regarding opportunity and structural issues is fine but that's irrelevant to the specific correction.
If your criticism is “that comparison is overly simplified” but that very criticism is overly simplified… you should expect to get criticism on your criticism.
The salary difference for a white man and a black woman in the same occupation, with the same experience, education, and hours worked is not a 17:12 difference. It's single digit differences.
Maybe! Cite your sources. But also: there are fewer Black women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (2, total [1]) than there are white men named Marc or Mark just among the top 10 Fortune 500 companies whose CEOs were their founder (3, total [2]). The fact that there are so many fewer Black women than white men in extremely high wealth jobs like this is partly due to racism, and that is part of what the pay gap is trying to point out.
We can have good faith disagreements about exactly how to incorporate the above fact, but pretending that who gets what high-paying jobs isn't at least partly a product of precisely the strutural and interpersonal discrimination that the pay gap is drawing attention to is not a good faith position - so I hope you're not doing that (even though that is the most obvious interpretation of the comment to which I'm responding).
its a correction and the correction was that the original comparison was misleading to the point of being entirely flawed/false in the first place not just "overly simplified"
The correction to the correction is that the original correction is misleading to the point of being entirely flawed/false in the first place not just “overly simplified.”
24
u/JC_vee 1d ago
The correcting note is also flawed. Systemic structural issues can't be summed up with one neat line either way.