Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 362 posts

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#301

Post by abritinthebay »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #168
abritinthebay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I said basically that? The culture problem in tech is not the cause, it’s just the end symptom of many things - including what you’re taking about.

You said that: > The level of drop outs of women in tech due to this is very high. But if that were true I'd expect women would be underrepresented in tech compared to AP Comp Sci. As it is they are slightly over-represented. If you have clearer evidence on that point I'd like to see it. I've heard convincing anecdotes of women dropping out because of sexism but I find it hard to reconcile with the data.

You're comparing different things - one is current levels of CompSci (small, limited, sample size - hell I wouldn't show up in CompSci numbers) which is also basically at an all time high. The other is a total size metric that won't show churn.

I get what you're trying to show but the comparison doesn't follow.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#302

Post by abritinthebay »

KhanMahGretsch wrote: post #188
abritinthebay wrote: post #9

Generally speaking the problem isn't that individuals get paid less. It's systemic issues - which are harder to fix. For example: women as a whole are less likely to be in higher paying jobs in STEM roles. Or CEOs. Or high level Politicians. Why? Multiple reasons but the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. So the average gets low…

the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. Is it wise to assign a heavy weighting to an unmeasurable, unverifiable, ethereal sense of discouragement? What is measurable are character traits that tend to exhibit themselves more strongly in one sex over the other (of course, this varies from individual to individual), and this could h…

> unmeasurable, unverifiable

It would be if it was either of those things. It's really not. The accuracy of the measurements you can debate but it's certainly verifiable.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#303

Post by abritinthebay »

arkh wrote: post #289
abritinthebay wrote: post #9

Generally speaking the problem isn't that individuals get paid less. It's systemic issues - which are harder to fix. For example: women as a whole are less likely to be in higher paying jobs in STEM roles. Or CEOs. Or high level Politicians. Why? Multiple reasons but the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. So the average gets low…

There are even less women in construction or waste management. But we don't hear as many complains there. My guess? Those jobs are known to be hard. STEM seem like a breeze from outside (that's just office work) but when you work there you realize it may not be physicaly hard but the stress is there. So people who value a better work-life balance decide to get out. People who have the option to decide to not work wil…

Yes, the gender roles discussion is important - feminist literature for 30 years has been talking about how patriarchal social roles affect women and men.

This isn't news to me - or anyone with any interest in this area.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#304

Post by abritinthebay »

rch wrote: post #169
abritinthebay wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did consider that. It’s directly addressed in my comment.

I read your comment as supporting the idea that women forgo STEM roles due to gender-specific negative pressure (certainly true in some cases), while I'm suggesting (also) that some may be choosing different career paths to achieve more fulfilling lifestyles than STEM offers at its best. Apologies if I'm interpreting you incorrectly.

I think you're sort of agreeing with me.

I'm saying that if women are doing that and not men then the gender-specific pressure (on both genders) is a part of that.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#305

Post by randyrand »

s73ver wrote: post #269
randyrand wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists" It's called a meritocracy. And its what most people want. People will always want to play the victim card regardless.

Except the "merits" are essentially "be a white man". Even in an actual meritocracy (which we most definitely are not in), there are still human people who are the ones picking the criteria, and human people who are the ones evaluating others on those criteria. Human people, with all of their explicit and unconscious biases. And, to make it harder, there are many of those criteria that do not have objective measureme…

Then why don't you go start a company and employ minority women for half the price of the competition and leave them in the dust?

In a competitive free market, people are paid according to their worth. And their worth is what they are paid. Arbitrages are naturally found and eliminated.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#306

Post by micahbright »

johnfn wrote: post #31
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

> As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. That's not true. Very easy counterexample: negotiation. Women are generally less inclined to negotiate then men, causing them to earn lower salaries. Does that mean that people value jobs performed by men who negotiate more than jobs performed by women who don't? Of course not - it has nothing to do with the value-add at all.

Whoa, people value things higher than or equal to what they pay for them(unless there is coercion as in the case of paying health insurance premiums in the US). In other words, price must be lower than or equal to value.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#307

Post by micahbright »

rexpop wrote: post #7
onewhonknocks wrote: post #3

When adjusted for factors such as hiatuses for raising kids, the answer is 'no.'

Why don't men take these hiatuses?

Because paternity leave is far less common than maternity leave. Because women expect to be supported during and after pregnancy.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#308

Post by ebola1717 »

monochromatic wrote: post #255
ebola1717 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even google it http://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html http://www.nber.org/papers/w20761 http://www.wsj.com/specialcoverage/women-in-the-workplace

>equivalent skill At a quick glance, your links don't speak to that aspect at all. And that's sort of the most important thing.

> controlling for all variables, including worker performance ratings, men's promotion rates were still 2.2 percentage points higher than women's.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#309

Post by RodericDay »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #184
oldboyFX wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that Swedish kindergartens and schools make sure not to force gender roles on children. Isn't that a big thing in Sweden? Perhaps money is still a better motivator than gender equal society.

> I thought that Swedish kindergartens and schools make sure not to force gender roles on children The problem is, even if they didn't do that what about parents who grew up thinking that and then project it on their kids? What about TV and other media consumption that shows stereotypical roles? It's hard to account for and eliminate all types of gender roles because many are more subtle and / or "normal" to most peo…

"Delusions of Gender" has a cool anecdote along these lines.

Parents claim they've learned nature trumps nurture. They gave girl firetrucks, found her tucking the firetruck to bed. Parents conclude it's the nurturing feminity.

Psych asks "who tucks her to bed every night?". Oops.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#310

Post by eloary »

mpweiher wrote: post #209
rayiner wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs, such as teacher, caregiver etc. In general women tend to care about people while men care about things (STEM). Again: biology or social construct Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. The fact that Sweden has skewed representation…

>Social construct. Look at Asian countries > that by all accounts have less gender quality > than the west but have more women science > graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. How do you conclude "social construct" from that data? When external pressures are greater, gender differences equalize. When external constraints fall away, gender differences are allowed to express themselves. So it is no surpris…

No such correlation exists.
Post reply on HN