Live data from Hacker News

Nevertheless, She Coded

dev.to

371–380 of 398 posts

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#371
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying the difference is explained by difference in hours worked. I'm saying it's a possible explanation. You on the other hand are trying to draw conclusions that aren't backed by the data.

What? That's 100% up-is-downism. What you say is simply incorrect. The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! What you are doing is saying "No, I don't think the conclusion should be what the data says", and then you're going out and finding ("cherry picking") different data about related but not identical subjects that appears to…

> The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data!

The data shows there is a difference in pay.

Underpaid means less pay for the same work.

That's not the same thing. Not even close.

In fact it is intentionally misleading.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but uh... The vast majority of positions Glassdoor cares about are salaried positions which don't track hours. They're exempt from overtime, as well. It also seems to me that that signal would show up weakly in the data because it wouldn't vary the immediate effect on apples-to-apples salary, only on promotions and possibly referrals. So I think your complaint is specious and the inclusion of a totally unrelat…

> The vast majority of positions Glassdoor cares about are salaried positions which don't track hours Yes. And this makes any kind of data analysis a lot harder. On paper I work the same number of hours as my Japanese coworkers. In reality they work more than double. It's the same way on-call for many companies is just rolled into salary. I've managed projects as a senior dev while the senior dev sitting next to me w…

> Why wouldn't it?

Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. What's more, you keep assuming that there aren't counter-examples in this dataset at all. It's just a given to you: "I read on Forbes that across all Americans women work slightly less per week" and brought that to this conversation.

But in this industry long hours are the norm, single people without family duties are the majority, and many compensation models very much incentivize long hours.

> You can't just ignore hours worked because "salary".

Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do.

> Much smaller than average for the tech industry.

The average pay bracket difference is indeed smaller. However, it's still large enough for concern, and the other issues I listed around work culture are problems that disadvantage women more than men in modern society.

> Perhaps it's in our interest to make these factors explicit rather than implicit?

I am always in favor of transparency and more analysis but I will not let ANY interpretation of the specific data we have on hand be constantly forced off on the grounds that we could collect better data.

Saying, "Women get paid less, let's make sure that's not happening" is a call to action, not an accusation leveled at anyone specifically. If women in your organization aren't being paid less, congrats. Job done.

Let's be clear: You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation on the grounds that it might not be happening everywhere, or that statistics might not be what popular media claims they are. That's counterproductive and frankly unwelcome. If that's your take, your take stifles the discussion here.

We can simultaneous recognize that tech is a more complicated compensation environment and also that women are reporting under-compensation. We're all adults capable of multi-tasking.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#373
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, there are less African-American and non-white hispanic men in tech than there are white and Asian women, yet I never see this discussed. Is this not an important issue as well? Will skewed racial ratios only be handled after gender parity has been achieved? Or do they not matter at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[deleted]

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#374
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying the difference is explained by difference in hours worked. I'm saying it's a possible explanation. You on the other hand are trying to draw conclusions that aren't backed by the data.

What? That's 100% up-is-downism. What you say is simply incorrect. The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! What you are doing is saying "No, I don't think the conclusion should be what the data says", and then you're going out and finding ("cherry picking") different data about related but not identical subjects that appears to…

Even if the data says women are paid less, it doesn't say why. Correlation does not show causation. The implication is that there is gender discrimination. Research by women into the gender wage gap has explored a large number (but not all) reasons for this and shown the actual gender wage gap when taking into account actual reasons is only as high as 8%, with more research and experimentation underway to account for additional reasons. This is the most current objective research on the subject I am aware of.

Summary with a link to the research paper, which is really good science as demonstrated with experimentation and doesn't try to sell a narrative, BTW. Worth the read. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-resea...

"New research by ILR School professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn finds an eight percent gender wage gap that cannot be accounted for, even after controlling for observable variables that influence workers’ pay.

Gender discrimination in the workplace COULD be a cause, they suggest."

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The vast majority of positions Glassdoor cares about are salaried positions which don't track hours Yes. And this makes any kind of data analysis a lot harder. On paper I work the same number of hours as my Japanese coworkers. In reality they work more than double. It's the same way on-call for many companies is just rolled into salary. I've managed projects as a senior dev while the senior dev sitting next to me w…

> Why wouldn't it? Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. What's more, you keep assuming that there aren't counter-examples in this dataset at all. It's just a given to you: "I read on Forbes that across all Americans women work slightly less per week" and brought that to this conversation. But in this industry long hours are the norm, single people without family duties are the majority, and many compensation m…

> Because hours worked doesn't affect salary.

> Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do.

We are clearly having communication issues and I'm not sure how you are addressing what I'm talking about.

My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay.

> You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation

If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.

It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.

> and also that women are reporting under-compensation.

The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.

It could be a problem worth addressing if the gap was driven by sexism.

It could be a problem worth addressing if the small pay gap was a major contributor to women leaving the industry.

It could be a problem if the small pay gap was a strong contributor to women not entering the field.

It could be a problem if we we were seeing a rapidly widening gap.

Etc etc.

But you have to actually make a case.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't it? Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. What's more, you keep assuming that there aren't counter-examples in this dataset at all. It's just a given to you: "I read on Forbes that across all Americans women work slightly less per week" and brought that to this conversation. But in this industry long hours are the norm, single people without family duties are the majority, and many compensation m…

> Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. > Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do. We are clearly having communication issues and I'm not sure how you are addressing what I'm talking about. My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay. > You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation If the conversation starts from an inconcl…

> My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay.

And I'm telling you this is not a foregone conclusion.

> If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.

No. It should include both the initial position and the specific cases that inspired it and then move to a broader case. This is not customer service, these are people's lives.

> It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.

Are you suggesting that the decision to pay women equally, carefully audit corporate promotions, and firmly and directly punish racist and sexist harassment are actually open for debate? Is there an outcome where we might say, "Oh no, actually it's correct to pay women less for equal work?"

> The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.

How many individual women need to risk their careers explaining unconscionable behavior by their managers and employers HR departments before you're satisfied anyone anywhere is allowed to have this conversation? You should put that number out there.

> But you have to actually make a case.

You may not realize you're doing this, but you're actually interfering with everyone's ability to make a case by derailing every conversation and making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.

Look at you. You're here because marketing copy for an event triggered you. You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#378
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what used to be considered a "hard science" that is now no longer considered so due to (or corralated with) the influx of women into that field?

There might be confusion about causality here. Generally women find more success in a field that's not jammed full of highly competitive men who push anyone weaker out of the way. Where they move on to some other target, the playing field becomes more fair.

In the short term that may be true, but over a timespan of decades or generations, social attitudes about the roles of women more generally are more important. It is only very recently that the kind of constraints you mention are influential—previous generations would simply see women (or men) excluded from various domains.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#380
post #200
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same people who call attention to gender diversity also speak out for racial diversity. This particular piece focuses on gender because of today's being International Women's Day. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-cant-silicon-... http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity-sco... https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/thought-on-diversity...

>The same people who call attention to gender diversity also speak out for racial diversity Why don't I ever see it being discussed on HN?

As others have said here: if you don't see it, that should tell you something. The lesson isn't that minorities don't talk about their own issues.
Post reply on HN