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

481–490 of 626 posts

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

#481

Post by eecks »

magneticnorth wrote: post #48

I've talked to one expert about a similar result in a company where I worked, and the flip side to results like this is sometimes promotion velocity - women looked "overpaid" for their level relative to the men, and that was often because they had been at that level much longer than most men at the same level. If you set initial salaries fairly with respect to gender but promote men more quickly, then you end up with…

You've just made an assumption and you're running with it like it's a fact - just because you don't want to believe what's being reported

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

#482

Post by smileysteve »

bargl wrote: post #468
smileysteve wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're listening to the above poster very well; or giving them the benefit of the doubt. Boys are statistically over prescribed ADD medication in schools because, studies show, teachers are more likely to write them up for being a distraction to class. So, this thread says the daughter is being pushed to like math over animals, yet, you doubt that a son (there is no gender gap pre-high school in math, i…

You are correct, my comment assumes more of a gender bias discussion from the OP then their words deserve. You are wrong in that my assertion about parenting and that the parent is the best fit to make that call. Their claim of "If I was a parent of this child..." Is exactly the kind of stuff I'd spout before I had children. And in your comment you completely disregard this point I'm making. So in a way, you aren't l…

Thanks for the great reply. Funnily enough, I was originally was going to say that females are better at math in grade school, but the source I chose didn't dig into that claim.

I think we're on the fluctuation - and the ways that we're taught in school. Anecdotally, I'm under the impression (based mostly on conversations with other now adults - and teachers) that "regular ed" likely wouldn't have unlocked the same passions that "gifted"/advanced classes opened in me.

To emphasize your note about failure, my education was so changed because I was allowed to fail (38% on a test in 3rd grade advanced math is a memory). Whether it's Mike Tyson, Wayne Gretzky, Lombari, Bruce Wayne, or parenting advice - if we take shots, we're going to fail, we're going to get punched in the face, but will we get back up, and most importantly, will our children, students do it again until they succeed their way.

[Though, after I type that, I remember the point of the OP, you don't have to like math, you often times don't even have to do it the prescribed way - but it's important to learn it, you'll one day apply the concepts -- even when dealing with babies or animals.]

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

#483

Post by eecks »

ptd wrote: post #119
syndacks wrote: post #20

Can't wait to see how Jordan Peterson uses this one... [edit: minor wording change; why am I being downvoted? I'm seriously asking]

If I had to guess, a)Not adding anything to the discussion, b)the implication that Jordan Peterson has anything of value to add to the conversation, and c)the tone of the message.

Jordan Peterson has been controversial in this topic in the past. I'm not really read up on the specifics though and I guess OP could have added more opinions to his post

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

#484

Post by mikeash »

ZeroFries wrote: post #415
mikeash wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s perfectly reasonable to consider that maybe women are inherently drawn away from the field for whatever reason. There are biological differences between men and women and it’s possible that this is one. What I don’t understand is why so many people insist that this must be the explanation, as if the current state of things is definitely a level playing field (or biased toward women) and the fact that there are s…

Why do you think your last paragraph hasn't prevented women from becoming numerous and successful in many other fields, such as becoming doctors? Could it be because of one of the most reproducable and statistically significant findings in social psychology, that women are generally more interested in people and men more interested in things?

A quick search shows that male doctors outnumber female doctors in the US by about a 2:1 ratio, so I don’t think that’s the best example. Your point remains, since there are fields where women are at parity or beyond.

I think that because it seems unlikely that we’ve managed to completely eliminate thousands of years’ worth of systemic sexism in such a short time. It’s highly improbable that, with so many things changing all the time, this just happens to be the moment when we’ve achieved a level playing field.

And to address the specific claim, why would being interested in people keep women away from computer jobs? It’s an intensely collaborative field. And why didn’t this keep women out of the field a few decades ago when women programmers were much more (relatively) numerous? If women are generally more interested in people and this drives sex disparities in different professions, why are there so few women in politics, the most people-heavy profession imaginable?

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

#486

Post by [deleted] »

frogpelt wrote: post #414
haberman wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article said disproportionately more underpayment was to men. Therefore your hypothetical scenario (which posits that the difference was measured in absolute terms) is not what Google found.

And it can easily be justified by two assumptions: 1. The average under-compensated man had worked there longer or had been under-compensated longer AND/OR 2. The average under-compensated man was in a higher paid role.

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by dcl »

stcredzero wrote: post #425
chc wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what happens when you aim for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. People throw this accusation around all the time, but it doesn't make much sense. Outcomes are the only holistic way to measure opportunity. If you're seeing one group getting lesser outcomes, there are only two possibilities: Their opportunities are being artificially limited somewhere , or one of the groups is simply bet…

Outcomes are the only holistic way to measure opportunity. I'm sorry, but that's "not even wrong" as Pauli would say. what you're really saying is, "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because they are innately less capable." Group cultures/subcultures can pass on knowledge, which can then provide advantages and then be transmitted to different groups. No racial or innate superiori…

> Outcomes are the only holistic way to measure opportunity.

Additionally, this is also affected by Simpson's paradox. Without conditioning on the correct causal effects, you may end up at exactly the opposite conclusion to the truth.

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

#488

Post by tomp »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #233
screye wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not act as though those are in any ways similar. Elementary school teaching does require less academic rigor than a university professor. Same applies to RNs vs an anesthesiologist. I do not mean to belittle those career choices (if anything, I myself want to become a k12 school teacher at some point in life). But, there are a certain set of traits that are needed to excel at the 'prestigious' careers. Disposit…

> Elementary school teaching does require less academic rigor than a university professor. But you replace that with a need for a lot more knowledge of teaching and child psychology, so I'd say doing a good job is significantly harder even in the sense of requiring a lot of education.

> so I'd say doing a good job is significantly harder

Maybe, but this highlights another problem in "soft" careers (social, marketing, teaching etc). It's very hard to objectively qualify candidates. In programming, it's easy: you can program, or not. If you can, the question is likely how fast can you learn new things, and how complex programs you can design & write. Good lawyers win cases. Good traders make money. And so on... How do you compare teachers, marketers (except bullshit "increased engagement by 1600%" claims on their CVs), etc?

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

#489

Post by throwaway2y4973 »

mikeash wrote: post #330
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... may I dare to suggest they simply don't like it? I used to work at school. Not for a long time, but enough to make some observations. One of them: school kids are passionate. If they're interested in something, no amount of persuasion, toxicity or whatever else will distract them.

It’s perfectly reasonable to consider that maybe women are inherently drawn away from the field for whatever reason. There are biological differences between men and women and it’s possible that this is one. What I don’t understand is why so many people insist that this must be the explanation, as if the current state of things is definitely a level playing field (or biased toward women) and the fact that there are s…

> why so many people insist that this must be the explanation

These people who insist the explanation comes down to preference are basing this on their own lived experience, on the women they've met and what their interests are. 18% just doesn't strike them as being out-of-the-ordinary.

The percentage of women who own a set of wrenches is even smaller. Should we assume that is also due to unjust influence?

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

#490

Post by mikeash »

throwaway2y4973 wrote: post #489
mikeash wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s perfectly reasonable to consider that maybe women are inherently drawn away from the field for whatever reason. There are biological differences between men and women and it’s possible that this is one. What I don’t understand is why so many people insist that this must be the explanation, as if the current state of things is definitely a level playing field (or biased toward women) and the fact that there are s…

> why so many people insist that this must be the explanation These people who insist the explanation comes down to preference are basing this on their own lived experience, on the women they've met and what their interests are. 18% just doesn't strike them as being out-of-the-ordinary. The percentage of women who own a set of wrenches is even smaller. Should we assume that is also due to unjust influence?

Funny how that personal experience angle is so commonly used to justify conservative viewpoints. The lived experience of some random person is completely worthless in answering this question.

Even if it were worth something, am I to believe that those people have never observed sexism? Regarding your bit about wrenches, have you never wandered into a toy store and seen the toy wrenches filed under “boys”?

Post reply on HN