More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap • Hacker News Board

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#111

Post by patrickaljord » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:30 PM UTC

nowo wrote: post #108

patrickaljord wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think no-poaching agreements infringe anyone's liberty and it that sense I don't see how it goes against free market principles. If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. I totally agree that it breaks the laws though as it is illegal in the US. I was talking about free-market principle…

> If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. You contract is "employment law" + "your contract". I they don't agree with employment law they have to override it in your contract, in this case with a non-compete clause. If they don't, you have both agreed to the terms in "employment law" + "your…

> You contract is "employment law" + "your contract"

I don't live in the US so these laws do not apply to me, I was talking about free market principles in general.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#112

Post by rplst8 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:34 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #51

ebola1717 wrote: post #32

Every time an article like this pops up, I see the same sort of response. It's always - Women don't negotiate - Women get pregnant - Women work in lower pay professions And 90% of the time, the article already accounts for the nuances of those topics. Not to mention these arguments have been answered thoroughly many times over, and a cursory google would reveal that. I just wish people would do some basic research be…

Even if those facts are true, Google must have programs to make things fair. For same responsibilities same salary. You can say women are different than men or say they are exactly equals. Whatever is your position for the same job you must have the same salary. There shouldn't be any discussion here.

Why should same responsibilities = same salary?

What if Joe and I and have the same responsibilities. Just to build working code. However, I can produce 100 working/tested lines of code a day and Joe can produce 150 lines of the same.

Joe isn't entitled to a higher salary because he's more talented?

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#113

Post by arien » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #60

arien wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ranges are wide to give room for salary negotiations at the beginning of employment, but also to allow for salary raises for people who are not yet considered to be at a higher level. E.g. you could be a junior developer, but a very good junior, who deserves a pay rise because of performance, engagement or whatever, but still a junior technically. If you get quite far into your own salary range but never get prom…

How do you move someone from junior to the next level? For me if someone has a better performance he/she should move to the next level regardless of the time he/she has been a junior. Are seniors consider that because of their performance?

Each company has its own guidelines. A junior could be for example someone who focuses too much in the particular case of a problem rather than looking at the big picture. In interviews, for example, if they present you with a problem to solve and you don't have any follow up questions, you appear as less senior in the eyes of the interviewer.

This is just one of the criteria used, there are more.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#114

Post by rplst8 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #93

jorgemf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway account created one hour ago? So you say that some who is starving if Africa we shouldn't care because he wasn't at the right place at the right moment? If you answer is that it is not the same case where do you put the line? Because your argument for getting things is basically luck.

"Because your argument for getting things is basically luck." Luck is really what drives a successful career and life: - Lucky to have been born in the right place - Lucky to have the right skin color - Lucky to have the right sex/gender/orientation (and for those to match up in the "right" way) - Lucky to have the right family - Lucky to have an outgoing and/or extroverted personality - Lucky to have an interest in…

I'm not sure what you are arguing in favor of exactly.

Say we do make actual individual merit the only factor in hiring and pay. Would those "unlucky" enough to have been born a starving child in Africa ever have a chance at getting a high paying IT job? Likely not, as they won't have the education or skills needed to do the work.

I'd argue your use of "luck" in all these cases is wrong. It's more like fortune, and that hiring and pay is tied to both individual merit, and the merit of your ancestors. And when I say ancestors, this is usually as little as 2 or 3 generations. A vast majority of those in the US are descendants of a wave of poor immigrants in the mid and late 19th century. Going back 4 or 5 generations on all sides of my family tree, no wealth of any significance was transferred down, other than work ethic and usually trying to give offspring the best chance they can. It was not by any means perfect, but I was the first in my family to go to college, earn a degree, and be "successful". Note: I'm defining successful as "more assets than debt". I'm not wealthy by any sense of the word but I have a stable income and I'm able to save for retirement and own a home (via mortgage).

If we take that merit out of the equation - what societal pressure or incentive is there to improve upon oneself, and make a better life for one's children?

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#115

Post by jorgemf » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:52 PM UTC

rplst8 wrote: post #112

jorgemf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if those facts are true, Google must have programs to make things fair. For same responsibilities same salary. You can say women are different than men or say they are exactly equals. Whatever is your position for the same job you must have the same salary. There shouldn't be any discussion here.

Why should same responsibilities = same salary? What if Joe and I and have the same responsibilities. Just to build working code. However, I can produce 100 working/tested lines of code a day and Joe can produce 150 lines of the same. Joe isn't entitled to a higher salary because he's more talented?

lines of code as productivity measure is not the best example. Can you provide a better example?

I can drop your example just with this: maybe your 100 working/tested lines produce more money for the company that the ones Joe wrote. Or the company needs the 250 lines of code to produce any money, without all of them your value for the company is 0.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#116

Post by likpok » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #105

rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. Whether the view is widely held has nothing to do with whether its supported by evidence. You can't claim to be making a scientific argument, when a major link in your chain of reasoning is nothing more than an appeal to preconception. > Actually, most of the st…

> You can't claim to be making a scientific argument, > when a major link in your chain of reasoning is > nothing more than an appeal to preconception. "Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices ha…

Stipulate that men and women like things and people respectively, and this is a fundamental biological truth.

With this, tech is more biased than it should be. Engineering as a whole is pretty people-oriented: projects are team efforts and require a lot of collaboration, requirements gathering and user research. Math, as a counterpoint, requires much less of this but is less biased. That suggests that the Thing/People dichotomy doesn't fully explain the gender distribution of high tech.

As a side note, it is suspicious that science is exactly matching up with how the West has structured it's society. Other societies have different distributions despite having the same biological impulses.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#117

Post by nowo » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:36 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #111

nowo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. You contract is "employment law" + "your contract". I they don't agree with employment law they have to override it in your contract, in this case with a non-compete clause. If they don't, you have both agreed to the terms in "employment law" + "your…

> You contract is "employment law" + "your contract" I don't live in the US so these laws do not apply to me, I was talking about free market principles in general.

As far as I know the concept is the same in every country. I really don't understand what you are talking about. When you sign a contract you agree to become an employee under the terms of the contract and employment law. When they agree to make you an employee they agree to follow employment law. So if they don't they are effectively breaking the contract. If the don't want that they have to not sign such an agreement. Which would sometimes be breaking the law but that is another issue.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#118

Post by boona » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:37 PM UTC

It seems that HN is flagging all articles that mention the Google Memo. Which speaks to the need to have this conversation even more.

For those who are interested, James has a new interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#119

Post by forthefuture » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #115

rplst8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should same responsibilities = same salary? What if Joe and I and have the same responsibilities. Just to build working code. However, I can produce 100 working/tested lines of code a day and Joe can produce 150 lines of the same. Joe isn't entitled to a higher salary because he's more talented?

lines of code as productivity measure is not the best example. Can you provide a better example? I can drop your example just with this: maybe your 100 working/tested lines produce more money for the company that the ones Joe wrote. Or the company needs the 250 lines of code to produce any money, without all of them your value for the company is 0.

The point is not that 150 lines is better than 100, it's that two people with the same job do not have the same productivity.

Measure productivity by whatever metric you want, it's impossible for two people to do the exact same (amount / value) work.

The only way to prove salaries are just is for every single person to have a different salary.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#120

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

rplst8 wrote: post #114

yellowapple wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because your argument for getting things is basically luck." Luck is really what drives a successful career and life: - Lucky to have been born in the right place - Lucky to have the right skin color - Lucky to have the right sex/gender/orientation (and for those to match up in the "right" way) - Lucky to have the right family - Lucky to have an outgoing and/or extroverted personality - Lucky to have an interest in…

I'm not sure what you are arguing in favor of exactly. Say we do make actual individual merit the only factor in hiring and pay. Would those "unlucky" enough to have been born a starving child in Africa ever have a chance at getting a high paying IT job? Likely not, as they won't have the education or skills needed to do the work. I'd argue your use of "luck" in all these cases is wrong. It's more like fortune, and t…

"I'm not sure what you are arguing in favor of exactly."

I'm not really arguing in favor of anything. Just pointing out that personal success and well-being is indeed currently driven by luck, regardless of whether we like it or even realize it. Pretending that the only variable involved is merit or "hard work" is ignorant of the existence of billions of perfectly capable and "hard working" people currently unable to achieve such personal success due to circumstances entirely out of their control.

That problem is currently unsolvable (or at least very difficult to solve, and with no clear solution). I'm certainly not going to assume that I - of all people - have some kind of magical answer there.

It is, however, possible to at least gradually address the problem through whatever hard work it takes to make the next generation a little luckier: folks lending their shoulders for their children to stand on, and their children in turn lending their shoulders to their children, and so on. It sounds like your own ancestors did precisely that, as did mine. Whether we call it "luck" or "fortune" is a terminology issue that is irrelevant to the main point: the playing field is by no means level, and neither of us chose to be born into our respective families.