I can't read the whole article, but does it (or DOL documents) include details like amount of experience and job function? I've heard that much (not all) of the aggregate gap (i.e., on the national level) goes away after controlling for those variables. Curious if that applies here, and if so, to what degree. Edit: consider recent headlines promoting outrage at Marissa Mayer's successor earning double her salary beca…
I can't find the source but I read something recently that said that after controlling for position and experience the pay gap is around 7%. Off the cuff, I find that to match my intuition. If you could hire women engineers for 80% of the equivalent man, then all companies would wan't to hire every other companies women at 90% of equivalent because they would still be getting a deal and the women would get a big pay…
Most people are unaware of their own implicit bias. Others who share the same implicit bias will also see no problem whatsoever. It is the people who get stepped on by it that notice it.
I think this is a big part of why discussions about things like sexism typically are shit shows. The people doing stupid stuff honestly do not see it and feel wrongfully accused. The people getting crapped on by it tend to feel "Are you fucking kidding me???!!!! This is painfully obvious!!!!"
Sabbaticals also hurt careers. You don't get a raise and a bonus for being away 1 year when you are 25-30. This affects negatively many future years of income, because your future prospects are affected by your current job.
This is a strange position. On average every person should raise a family for the continuation of the humankind. Therefore this should affect everyone equally.
On average it affects all women equally because women are physically affected by the specifics of having babies. However, some men just choose to sacrifice their family life instead of lowering their pay rate one iota.
So you should see an effect on family income but divergences in gendered income.
What they're counting matters. It seems if Google has the goal of hiring more females than industry average, then the stats are stacked against them when you look at their worker pay distribution, even if Google isn't doing anything wrong. Suppose the population is distributed in their experience and productivity, and that you can measure these to some extent. Suppose your field has way more males than females. This…
Considering that there are probably hundreds of companies listed as Federal Contractors, and among them, the major Defense Contractors with thousands of employees. I would find it difficult to believe that Google has any grounds that would make them an exception to complying with the Federal requirement of submitting Compensation Data. From experience I can assure that Defense Contractors would have exploited any loo…
I recommend reading some of the news that started this 3 months ago[0]. Quote from Google's response:
"However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously."
Assuming labor markets are liquid, if the pay gap is true it means either: 1. Women really want to work for Google and take less pay than working at other employers or 2. Women at almost all employers are receiving less money. There were times not too long ago when there were Jewish quotas. Nobelist Physicist Richard Feynman was denied entry into Columbia and he went to MIT instead. Nobelist Medicine & Physiology Aut…
>Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination.
I'm sympathetic to this point, but this particular example assumes that the discriminating entity is focusing solely on performance. Harvard and Yale maintained and increased their social cachet over non-discriminating entities like MIT and Cornell by instituting Jewish quotas. Future donors from the majority demographic were willing to pay for "culture fit". This supposedly irrational strategy worked so well that it has been reprised and copied by other institutions against other demos. Inefficiency can be remarkably persistent if it enjoys the status of a social norm and satisfies other values.
There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work. Two people within the same gender aren't paid equal in the Tech or any Professional services Industry forget across genders. More importantly, can someone define what equal work is? Same role/title doesn't translate to equal work. Every person has different capabilities even within in the same role and if it happens to be that a Woman outperforms than her peers then she should be paid equal or more and I wholeheartedly support that but the sad part with Women is that they never talk about such cases but instead Just hangs on to the phrase "Equal pay for Equal work" so they know if they make enough noise they can get equal pay but they never mention a word about equal work. And after working for 10 years in the Industry (which means I am young so don't think I am talking about some B.C era) and statistically speaking most of the time it had always been men who did tasks that are above and beyond from their regular duties.
Sheryl Sandberg Just spits out some none sense. She just got so Lucky to be the COO at FB in the first place. she thinks that if a company can control # years of experience, education level, and blah blah then that will be the deciding factor for Equal pay. I am like really? So two people with same amount of years of experience can perform the same way? Two people with the same education level are equally bright? What if one person went to college Doofus and another went to Stanford? I am sure going to better college doesn't automatically translate into a bright and efficient person for the company but it is an accomplishment one should acknowledge for their hard work. so in short, none of these factors can be controlled and the way most companies Judge pay depends on how well one performs in the Interview which is very much reasonable. If we do the Sheryl Sandberg way we actually don't need an HR department (which Btw, is lot of Women) we can just write a program to accept or reject applicants if is really that straight forward to control the factors she is talking about. I think it would be great if someone can actually make Sheryl Sandberg to code on a daily basis and deal with all the production issues.
I went to an Ivy League school and I worked as a TA for many Computer Science courses. I had worked with many students (both Men and Women) I had seen them getting Jobs at Google and FB and whenever they told me they got into Google or FB I used to ask my students so What questions did they ask you? Typically it is Algorithms most of the time as we all know and I can for sure say that the Algorithms questions asked to Men are way Significantly harder than Women. Now why is this not highlighted? Because companies like Google, FB wants to highlight that they hired Women. I bet my entire savings (I truly mean it) that if I go Google even today and pick random sample of 50 (25 Men Vs 25 Women) and randomly ask the Algorithm questions Men will significantly outperform Women because I know the level of difficulty questions asked for a Women and Men to get into Google. This is totally unfair. And I hate Men for giving up on these issues.
I am sure most companies know all of this. They want to pay equal because they don't want to deal with one more hassle. If I am a CEO of a large organization I will be all over the media asking Women define what Equal work is before they start talking about Equal Pay. And I would look at it case by case If a woman outperforms her peers then As a CEO I would actually pay more period.
It is exactly what I'm discussing. Most gaps on a CV are due to someone going off to do something else interesting, like study, or see the world and meet new types of people, or to deal with some major life challenge or event, all of which I correlate to increased professional utility. If someone can't see or use that, they're a poor manager.
Studying? Major life challenges? Those are not the kinds of gaps that are applicable to this discussion. The gaps the parents alludes to are taking time off working to be with the kids and such. And those are not especially correlated to any "increased professional utility". And even the ones you mention, with the exception of studing, most of what you described would still be either irrelevant or detrimental to "pro…
You clearly have some entrenched (and false) opinions about how talent and capability develops, some huge blind spots about the reasons for women's moves in and out of the workforce, and deep preconceptions about what people should and shouldn't be doing.
Since that reveals a rigid thinker, I will not bother to debate.
Nope. The pay differences are often themselves used as a reinforcement of sexism, rather than as a recognition of net contribution. It's one of the mechanisms of systematic discrimination. NB: not commenting on whether this an issue at Google specifically.
How can you show that it's specifically discrimination on gender rather than ability or a function of both?
By having managers as colleagues in any large business, and paying attention to what they do.
In an era of slavery, many would not. In an era of Jim Crow and segregation, many would not. In the era of the 60s civil rights movement, many would not. In fact during those times a minority would hire for competence regardless of race. Simply telling the discriminated to "go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, and is a lazy solution to a complex problem.
> '"go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, ...' I once heard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who at age 28 was the youngest full professor in Harvard law history, say that he didn't get one job offer from 40 different white shoe law firms. His lawyer son when interviewing did far better. Today's marketplace is way too competitive to discriminate. Those who discriminate simply allow the competitio…
Discriminators might get punished by the market, but that's no reason that they shouldn't also get punished by the law too.
They shouldn't get away with illegally discriminating just because they are also making themselves less competitive.
> If you are fairly paying both genders, wouldn't you necessarily have to take more unproductive and inexperienced female engineers to reach your goal? And if you're fairly paying based on those criteria, won't the female population be paid less as you try to take on a more-than-average number of them? If you are fairly paying both genders, it's fair to assume that women would be paid less statistically. They usually…
> They usually retire from work mid-career for pregnancy and possibly for a much longer time to raise the child… No. Here's how it actually works in a modern family unit in a high-earning, dual-income Silicon Valley household: Mommy takes time off when babby is born, as does daddy because it's not 1960. At some point during this sabbatical help is hired, and then mommy and daddy go back to work and establish their ne…
Funny, I have a buddy there with two kids and a stay st home wife.
Considering that there are probably hundreds of companies listed as Federal Contractors, and among them, the major Defense Contractors with thousands of employees. I would find it difficult to believe that Google has any grounds that would make them an exception to complying with the Federal requirement of submitting Compensation Data. From experience I can assure that Defense Contractors would have exploited any loo…
I recommend reading some of the news that started this 3 months ago[0]. Quote from Google's response: "However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously." [0] https://www.law360.com/…
Again, Google entered into a contractual agreement to be compensated as a Federal Contractor. DoL's request is part of that contract. Google's stand for protecting private contact information is basically mute. The IRS also contains much of that information. I recommend reading the official complaint. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104