I'm pretty sure that's the point the parent was trying to illustrate.
"Equitable pay" is a merely a political narrative for left leaning audiences - postmodernist talking points always require victims, after all.
"Equitable pay" is a merely a political narrative for left leaning audiences - postmodernist talking points always require victims, after all.
You can spend this afternoon whittling two by fours down into toothpicks as a real world demonstration of this.
Further, economists, political scientists, and philosophers alike have written on the topic of what is equitable in a capitalist economy, and in terms of distributive justice; there are very few people who would define equitability as the mere existence of an agreement between parties, including the legal system (for example, some contracts can and are deemed unconscionable, and selling organs or oneself into slavery are illegal).
The idea of equitable outcomes is a common law concept used for things like contract breach remedies, which is again something that the great-grand-parent touched up on.
That is, it's an idea used for compensation when one party walks away from a mutual agreement - the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable, which is why compensation is needed to re-establish that state upon a breach.
But nobody uses 'equitable' in this sense, as people have a variety of reasons to engage in a mutual agreement, where upon asked one or even both parties would agree that the agreement isn't 'equitable' or fair. To say that mutual agreements are equitable is only because of the assumption that the agreement wouldn't have occured or been accepted if the agreement isn't equitable - which is obviously false, given that people agree to heavily unfair (though not unconscionable) contracts all the time.
Who is the “we” deeming those characteristics as relevant? This entails legislators creating a central list of job characteristics, doesn’t it?