111–120 of 136 posts
I can't wait to see Googles response. I have no idea why they would even open themselves up to this criticism when they could easily align the salaries.
They responded and denied it; frankly it's plausible that they're correct (but also that they're not). It's not yet fair to assume one party is correct over the other while both try to drive the media presentation. Let it play out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. Counterpoint: a recent study suggested that corporate boards with gender quotas worked better, because it meant they didn't overlook competent female executives in favour of mediocre male ones.
Doesn't that counterpoint still fall prey to the same problem of isolating only a correlated variable? I.e., having qualified female board members could confer a competitive gender advantage, but putting women on the board regardless of their hiring prowess doesn't guarantee similar results.
Sometimes that will mean a less qualified person will be put there who otherwise wouldn't, but that's by no means a guarantee. And it cuts both ways: if sexism meant that previously, better candidates who happened to be women were not getting hired, now they will be; on the other hand, the quota may mean that better candidates who happen to be men won't be hired.
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…
In tech though, I end up making more money than my male co-workers because engineers in general are such terrible negotiators.
It's very hard to find female engineers at all, but many years ago (before Glassdoor) I did manage to interview at one company (~200 employees) with 25% female engineers. Their offer was 40-60% of market value and their benefits were awful. My guess is that the men at that company were making 60%, and women 50%.
I interviewed at another company where there were 100 women employees. The only men were the 3 founders, all 10 warehouse workers, and all 4 on the tech team. Interviewed with the founder and I got an offer. It was low but I could not get him to budge a dime so I turned him down. He called over 6 times after that trying to get me to take the job. He seemed genuinely confused about why I wouldn't take it. I'm pretty sure he was a very nice and reasonable boss with the one exception of pay. He was just delusional in that department.
I interviewed at a ton of these companies almost none of them are thinking "Haha! We can get away with paying our workers 70% of market value," instead they are truly deluded. I think women are more likely to just accept the low pay and not negotiate at all.
When interviewing, I used to just get this intuitive feeling like "I don't think this place pays well," and it took me many years to realize what I was just seeing was too many female employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I make about 10% less than my co-worker. We were hired for the exact same position with the same amount of experience (hired out of school). I just did not negotiate as well as he did. I think trying to fully equalize pay (outside any obvious pay gap like women making 80% compared to men) across the board will remove the ability to negotiate.
Yup. I suspect if we remove the ability to negotiate such that everyone with the same title or at the same level gets paid equally that there will be an increase in the number of titles and levels to compensate. If that doesn't happen at the very least those candidates who believe they are worth more will not negotiate the salary but negotiate the title instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, many would hire programmers /engineers/ lawyers/ doctors/ professors for competence regardless of race.
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.
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 competition to get better talent. Nobody should work in a workplace where they are not wanted when there are workplaces that would want them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the pay gap is due to less experience, less education etc., then you're seeing effects of earlier discrimination in society. No, it can also be due to interests/innate biological differences. Women firefighters/professional athletes would be paid less than males, all other things considered, because women generally have less strength and athletic ability than men do.
By that logic women teachers and nurses should be paid more than men, because they're better with kids and with being caring. Perhaps there's a problem with this kind of generalisation. Can you see what it is?
Last I checked, there's no peer reviewed studies about effectiveness/ability in nebulous characteristics such as "better with kids" and "caring". However, there are tests that measure your physical aptitude/upper body strength.
Considering that physical standards are different between genders[0] why would they expect the same pay?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That 7% isn't uniform through all age groups. At below age 25 women at the some education and position earn more than men. from age 25-35 the wage gap reverts, and from age 35 and up men earn more than women. With a work force that generally starts at age 20 and stop work at around age 60 the total result gives you that 7%. So what would a rational fix be to that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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.