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

Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 626 posts

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#391

Post by rhcom2 »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #251
LiquidSky wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The countries with the highest wage gaps are the countries with the most equality in the workplace. Women in Korea are not treated poorly. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Korea most assuredly is not a country with "the most equality in the workplace". It routinely ranks as having the worst gender inequality of any developed nation, and one of the worst in the world generally. It came in 115th out of 149…

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Me…

You just ignored the study's definitions for all the terms and then claimed them false by supplying your own which is pretty classic confirmation bias. Just for "political empowerment" for example, the study did not define political empowerment as "can run for politics."

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#392

Post by leereeves »

chc wrote: post #389
leereeves wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capable isn't the same thing as interested. I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it). As The Atlantic said: > Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science [or technolog…

It is when we're talking about outcomes within a field. Either you think women deserve to be paid less or not — there isn't really a third possibility there. If they do deserve worse outcomes, then either they suck innately or they suck because they're not interested, but either way you're saying they suck.

Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy.

If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#393

Post by MRD85 »

slg wrote: post #264
MRD85 wrote: post #178

Talking about the additional compensation - "Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money." Doesn't this imply that men, per capita, were being underpaid more than women?

Yes, which is why the per capita number is not the proper way to measure this. For example, imagine a company with 7 male employees and 3 female employees. That company has 9 engineers and one administrative assistant. All the engineers are underpaid. The male engineers are underpaid by $1000 and the female engineers are underpaid by $1200. The administrative assistant is a woman who is fairly compensated. That means…

I understand how that works but we're going to need to draw a line somewhere. Going by job, rank, and salary alone could ignore hours worked per week (statistically men tend to do more in the same role), bonuses for high quality work (who knows how this plays out?), etc. I could choose whatever filters I want to frame the data how I want it to, it's one of the biggest tricks of the "women are paid X less than men" camp.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#394

Post by radicalbyte »

nwienert wrote: post #343
lgleason wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[edited for typos and grammer] Anecdotally, I've run a couple of tech conferences and know others who have as well fairly recently. We've made a point to hold workshops for under represented groups, had the Codes of Conduct, make a lot of extra effort to reach out to women as speakers etc.. In the end, we would get 5 to 10 times as many talk submissions from men, accept nearly all of the talks by women (often turning…

I’ll repeat points that aren’t my original ideas, but are painfully obvious here. It’s very simple what it’s become: sexist against men. This is what happens when you aim for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I believe we’re in a Kantian second stage. We were sexist against women. Now, we’re sexist against men. The hopeful third step

It's this kind of thing which gets abused in politics. You see the same thing with a certain countries in the Middle East.

So, you're a boring white male who works in one of these industries. You're told constantly that you benefit from "white male privilege". Your experience, the statistics, clearly show this to be bullst.

What do you do? Do you trust anything that other authority figures tell you? Of course not. So you stop your kids getting vaccinated and vote for your country to leave the EU because it means 350 million a week more for your National Health Service..

This is the trap progressives - whose number I count myself in - must do better to avoid if they want to progress towards a fairer and better world.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#395

Post by chc »

leereeves wrote: post #392
chc wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is when we're talking about outcomes within a field. Either you think women deserve to be paid less or not — there isn't really a third possibility there. If they do deserve worse outcomes, then either they suck innately or they suck because they're not interested, but either way you're saying they suck.

Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy. If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.

I'm talking about outcomes for female programmers here. You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less than male programmers, who presumably do program? Or what? Who are these female programmers who don't program that you're apparently so interested in talking about?

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#396

Post by klipt »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #331
klipt wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ngcproject.org/statistics > Women earned 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees in all fields in 2013 and 50.3% of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees.

Your truncated quote is woefully incomplete at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. The full passage reads as follows, emphasis mine: Women earned 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees in all fields in 2013 and 50.3% of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees. However, women’s participation in science and engineering at the undergraduate level significantly differs by specific field of study. While women receive ove…

Yes, the point is that women are already the majority of STEM graduates, they're just graduating in the wrong kinds of STEM.

For example, women are over-represented among social science and biology graduates. Perhaps we should add a quota to make social science and biology graduates 50% men, then women blocked from social science and biology degrees would go into computer science instead and balance things out.

There is also a leaky pipeline where women e.g. study math but then go into teaching, which doesn't count as working in STEM. If we had a quota of 50% men in teaching, this would help make the pipeline leak less gender-biased.

Of course some women end up becoming stay at home moms, so we also need a quota where 50% of stay at home parents must be dads. You probably need the government to enforce that.

But if we have enough quotas to ensure 50% men in female dominated fields, then by elimination, those men have to come from currently male dominated fields, and the women pushed out by quotas have to go into male dominated fields, so things should even out.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#397

Post by dahart »

rhegart wrote: post #154

High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick but are being told by every voice that they are privileged, it’s their fault, they are bad whereas women have sooooo many extra programs and positive reinforcement to succeed. No one with a straight face can tell me women in entry level…

> High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick...

What is the graduation rate of women in STEM fields? 57% is not the graduation rate in STEM fields, which makes it sound like you are cherry picking statistics. What fields are all the women graduating in?

Aside from Google, the pay gap still exists and women earn less than men. The WP article estimates 94 cents on the dollar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...

You're right that women are getting positive reinforcements, it's because (whether you agree with them or not) we have affirmative action programs for women. Affirmative actions always have and always will be debated to death, but the question you should be asking and answering before dismissing this issue is, if there's no affirmative action, how do you equalize opportunities for groups known to have been discriminated against? We already tried not having extra programs and not having extra awareness, and the result was lower pay. How would you correct this?

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#398

Post by joshuamorton »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #251
LiquidSky wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The countries with the highest wage gaps are the countries with the most equality in the workplace. Women in Korea are not treated poorly. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Korea most assuredly is not a country with "the most equality in the workplace". It routinely ranks as having the worst gender inequality of any developed nation, and one of the worst in the world generally. It came in 115th out of 149…

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Me…

De jure and de facto equality are different things. Do you honestly believe that African Americans faced no discrimination after July, 3 1964? Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0.

I guess you could say they just didn't choose to run for office. Or to get educated. The cross burning was coincidental.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#399

Post by ZeroFries »

chc wrote: post #379
leereeves wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a third possibility: men and women really do have different interests. Further evidence for this comes from the observation that: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

That doesn't seem like a third possibility — it sounds like the same thing as "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because they are innately less capable." It's theoretically possible that women just generally suck at computers, but if that's someone's argument, I'd prefer they come out and actually make the argument instead of throwing around smokescreens about "equality of outcom…

It's interesting that you still don't understand the third possibility. I wonder if it has something to do with why many hard-leaning leftists also only consider the first two as possibilities.
Post reply on HN