341–350 of 398 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they make less than men, why don't companies hire women alone? Don't they want to save money on salaries?
Precisely the question. Why indeed? Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? Take the harvard implicit gender bias test for one answer: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an argument that I have yet to see being addressed to my satisfaction. If recent raises / salaries in the tech industry outside of Silicon Valley are any guide, companies love to save money on salaries. So I honestly have no idea why all the men I work with haven't been replaced by women being paid 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is. And remember, this is in the US, where you can legally be let go because…
Because there aren't enough women applying. At my previous job, I interviewed 50+ people, and fewer than 10% were women. For the record, I advocated strongly for most of them, and contributed to several being hired, including one of the best engineers I've met. Companies have a hard time hiring enough software people in general, and there are many more men applying for software jobs than women. If there were some unt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If men become doctors and women become nurses, or if men become Software Engineers and women become Test Engineers, then there's still something wrong with the world. "Adjusting for profession" ignores the cultural context of terms like "pay gap" -- we come from a world where women couldn't work certain jobs at all.
Since we're talking about various X-ism's today, your prejudice against nurses and test engineers is showing. (Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if I should give up the QA profession for good, even though I prefer it to being a developer.)
I'm all for having more male nurses and more female doctors and SWEs. I think this is a necessary step to solving the pay inequity gap.
It's not obvious to me that nurses should be paid the same hourly rate as doctors and software engineers. My understanding is that it's cheaper to get the education to become a nurse versus being a doctor. But I'm not an expert in this field.
The grandstanding is corny at best. Take the first example: > Despite continued assaults on the credibility of her contributions to modern computer science as the world’s first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace coded. Yet in reality she was very much respected in her day, and despite her challenges received widespread support. The first "assaults" on her scope of her contributions came over 100 after her death, and n…
She never attended University. Do you think she just wasn't interested in attending?
Also because the issue essentially doesnt exist. A victim complex is a real thing and there are real victims. You must acknowledge both, not just the latter (or just the former for that matter.) Sexism is real but severely overblown in my experience.
Inflammatory generic statement about divisive topics are what we don't want on HN. Please abide by the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13825039 and marked it off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13831252
Heres an example of a thread where (in the second reply) I thought mikash was being inflammatory, but my expectation is that you wouldn't care! This I think highlights the "one direction" I'm trying to point out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite a study that controls for time off, degree type, experience that still shows a large disparity in pay? It's your belief that someone who works a reasonable sum of hours but then goes to have a child should be paid less. The question isn't whether someone who takes time off to raise a child should be paid less, it is whether someone with more overall work experience should be paid more. My wife took 10 ye…
I think the question is, "Can the person do the work and contribute to the environment they're being paid to be a part of." It is not some sort of game where dollars = experience. From that perspective, the answer should be, "Yes they do deserve equal pay for equal work, why is that so challenging?"
So yes, if someone takes 10 years off to raise children or to go yachting around the world or to help sick children, they will probably not command the same salary that their (otherwise identical) co-worker who stayed in the field for those 10 years would command, because they likely won't be capable of "equal work". Anyone doing anything else would be systematically overpaying their workers, and are likely to be out-competed by companies paying market wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite a study that controls for time off, degree type, experience that still shows a large disparity in pay? It's your belief that someone who works a reasonable sum of hours but then goes to have a child should be paid less. The question isn't whether someone who takes time off to raise a child should be paid less, it is whether someone with more overall work experience should be paid more. My wife took 10 ye…
I think the question is, "Can the person do the work and contribute to the environment they're being paid to be a part of." It is not some sort of game where dollars = experience. From that perspective, the answer should be, "Yes they do deserve equal pay for equal work, why is that so challenging?"
So yes, if someone takes 10 years off to raise children or to go yachting around the world or to help sick children, they will probably not command the same salary that their (otherwise identical) co-worker who stayed in the field for those 10 years would command, because they likely won't be capable of "equal work". Anyone doing anything else would be systematically overpaying their workers, and are likely to be out-competed by companies paying market wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... your response to finding an uncorrected variable in the study (which I don't see the value of, honestly, given that tech workers are near-uniformly salaried in this country) is to go out and cherry pick a "correction" from an entirely unrelated study that confirms your worldview? Who's quoting misleading statistics now? Yeah, I've gone through and scanned that BLS report you linked to (actually you didn't, you…
> which I don't see the value of, honestly, given that tech workers are near-uniformly salaried in this country You can't see how working extra hours can increase productivity enough to warrant a small increase in pay?
What you did is go out through the whole world of statistics to find one value that kinda/sorta "fixes" this inconvenient finding in the direction you want. That's just baldly ridiculous cherry picking, and you should be ashamed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question is, "Can the person do the work and contribute to the environment they're being paid to be a part of." It is not some sort of game where dollars = experience. From that perspective, the answer should be, "Yes they do deserve equal pay for equal work, why is that so challenging?"
Paying people more for having more experience isn't some weird fetish that companies engage in. It's done that way because people with more relevant experience generally get better at the thing they're experienced in (or have more breadth of knowledge, etc). If you try to pay someone with 10 years experience the salary of someone with 1 years' experience, you will either have a very hard time finding people to hire o…
I'm confused by your patronizing tone. You seem to think I don't know that this is common practice.
See, the point of the prior post was: I disagree with this premise. The question should be, "How well does this person do the job" not "how well does this person match my preconceptions about how an expert in this job should look." This is especially the case in the world of software and software products, where we're notoriously bad at identifying talent and educating people.
Anyone who's designed tech interviews with a high technical standard can tell you that years worked is at best a weak signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps there are disparaging comments because people love to quote misleading statistics... kind of just like you did. From the glassdoor wage gap study you mentioned in [2]: > After taking into account differences in education and experience, men working at tech companies overall make 5.9 percent more than women do From a brief scan of the study they didn't control for hours worked and they are already down to 5.9%…
> they didn't control for hours worked Are the programmers in question being paid by the hour? Does programmer pay within each gender correlate closely to hours worked?