Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right. E.g.: Google is 70% men. At 100,000 employees: 70,000 Male 30,000 Female If 5% of men are underpaid that's 3,500 men. If 10% of women are underpaid that's 3,000 women. More men are underpaid (3,500 > 3,000). But women are twice as likely to be underpaid (10% > 5%).
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.
Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
571–580 of 626 posts
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#572It's interesting how this sort of discussion is actually leading HN to be more of an echo chamber. Most of my female friends in tech completely avoid it now because it seems that discussions that get voted up tend to ignore or belittle their experiences—even if there may be lots of great points and perspectives mixed in. In fact, the only response I noticed explicitly from someone who identified as female was being d…
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be the first time a news article had a poor understanding of statistics. But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries.
> But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries. The article says the opposite with regard to where the salary adjustments went: > One effect of the adjustments was to create a pronounced imbalance in compensatio…
Btw, note that this passage (that I also quoted yesterday for a comment of my own) is now nowhere to be found in the article, that has been heaviy edited since it was posted on HN.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#574Reminiscent of Simpson's Paradox, the most famous example being a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging UC Berkeley discriminated against women in admissions (57% men vs. 43% women). It turned out there WAS bias - in favor of the women! "The lawsuit triggered a study. The study results showed that not only were women not discriminated against, but that women had a statistically significant advantage! Here’s what hap…
To support this claim the study pointed out that the percentage of male applicants _out of all male_ applicants that were granted admission was lower than the percentage for female applicants, for all (examined) departments.
However, according to the study, there were 8442 male applicants and 4321 female applicants. So while a larger proportion of female applicants were granted admission, it still meant that many fewer women were addmitted.
To clarify, a higher proportion of a smaller number can still be a smaller number. 5% of 1000 is 50, 10% of 100 is 10.
Imagine we split a pie in 10 pieces, you keep 8 and I keep 2. I eat my 2, you eat 4 of your 8 and then you accuse me of hogging the pie because I ate 100% of my share while you ate only half of yours.
That is what the study actually showed happenned with admissions in Berkeley.
_________________________
[1] Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley
https://homepage.stat.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/1030/Bickel-Berkele...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that developers are within a factor of 33% of productivity (defined notionally as “value created per week”), then there is excessive skew in the numbers you propose. I believe the productivity figures are at least a factor of 2, and probably a tail out to a factor of 10 or more versus the median developer (and then a left-going distribution under the median where a substaintial number of developers do…
I wrote this in the context of the article, where a Google developer with 33% more productivity would already have progressed to the next role level. At least, that is what I would assume for large companies.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#576Reminiscent of Simpson's Paradox, the most famous example being a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging UC Berkeley discriminated against women in admissions (57% men vs. 43% women). It turned out there WAS bias - in favor of the women! "The lawsuit triggered a study. The study results showed that not only were women not discriminated against, but that women had a statistically significant advantage! Here’s what hap…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be that it has changed very recently, but a few years ago there were quite a few studies that showed an anti-women bias in evaluating employees. For example, here's a quickly Googled cite that talks about a preference for resumes with male names over female: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/ This could even still be true at Google, though I don't have insight into whether or not it is. It seems…
When orchestras started using blinds for auditions, the population of women hired shot up. Have there been attempts to do blind hiring? If so, what were the results?
"Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability). If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women. Though these trends weren’t statistically significant, I am mentioning them because they were unexpected and definitely something to watch for as we collect more data." http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be that it has changed very recently, but a few years ago there were quite a few studies that showed an anti-women bias in evaluating employees. For example, here's a quickly Googled cite that talks about a preference for resumes with male names over female: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/ This could even still be true at Google, though I don't have insight into whether or not it is. It seems…
When orchestras started using blinds for auditions, the population of women hired shot up. Have there been attempts to do blind hiring? If so, what were the results?
[1] https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sure suggest that something is wrong with computer science departments. Why? Why do men and women have to have the same preferences in what to study, in your opinion? Does the fact that 78% of students in veterinary science are female "sure suggest" that something is wrong with veterinary science? Since there are so many fields where women vastly outnumber men (and women significantly outnumber men overall in colle…
Which specific biological mechanism are you hypothesizing is responsible? In combination with which specific cultural construction of computer science that is somehow inalterable? Whereas we have pretty good evidence that by improving the signaling of ambient belonging for women we can significantly increase their interest in computer science: http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/Cheryan_Meltzoff_Kim... Few things…
Testosterone, causing male-female behavioral divergence in general. Excerpting from an email...
"The amount of eye-contact shown by infants at 12 months of age is inversely correlated with prenatal testosterone (Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen & Raggett, submitted), and prenatal testosterone is higher in males than females." That study seems to be here: [1]. "The amount of eye contact varied quadratically with foetal testosterone level when data from both sexes was examined together, and when the data for the boys was examined alone."
(Why not for when the girls were examined alone? "This may be because there were only 30 girls in the sample, making the resulting model under-powered. A sample size of approximately 60 would be required to give the model a power of 0.8, assuming a similar effect size...")
There's another one about testosterone in girls [2]: "Here, we report that fetal testosterone measured from amniotic fluid relates positively to male-typical scores on a standardized questionnaire measure of sex-typical play in both boys and girls."
That study also references others that directly show cause-and-effect on other mammals: "For instance, in rodents and nonhuman primates, treating developing females with testosterone or other androgens increases male-typical play, whereas reducing androgens in developing males reduces it."
To me, the question isn't whether testosterone affects behavior, it's how much.
[1] http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2002_Lutch_eyeco...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#580Reminiscent of Simpson's Paradox, the most famous example being a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging UC Berkeley discriminated against women in admissions (57% men vs. 43% women). It turned out there WAS bias - in favor of the women! "The lawsuit triggered a study. The study results showed that not only were women not discriminated against, but that women had a statistically significant advantage! Here’s what hap…
The study [1] didn't "show" what you say. It claimed there was a bias towards female applicants. To support this claim the study pointed out that the percentage of male applicants _out of all male_ applicants that were granted admission was lower than the percentage for female applicants, for all (examined) departments. However, according to the study, there were 8442 male applicants and 4321 female applicants. So wh…