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

591–600 of 626 posts

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

#591

Post by nathan_long »

kbutler wrote: post #157
bandrami wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only "apples to oranges" if you're willing to beg the entire question. Why is elementary teaching less highly paid than university teaching? Why is nurse practitioning less highly paid than anaesthesiologizing?

Amount of training required. I'd be fine with a random anesthesiologist teaching my grade schooler, but I'd hesitate to have a random elementary school teacher giving him anesthesia. Elementary school teaching: a teaching certificate. University professor: PhD, pre-tenure work & published research (Note that there are less-qualified people teaching in universities that are compensated much less.) Nurse practitioner:…

Amount of training is not the reason. It's supply and demand. Training requirements reduce supply, but that's only part of it.

Not many people can play bagpipes, so supply is low. But not many people will pay to hear bagpipes, so demand is low, too. Bagpiping doesn't pay well.

Nearly everyone needs food cooked, so demand is high. But nearly everyone can cook, so supply is high, too. Cooking doesn't pay well.

Not many people can do surgery, so supply is low. Many people need surgery, so demand is high. Surgery pays well.

Supply and demand explains why surgeons make more than teachers, why basketball stars make more than nurses, and why programmers make more than janitors. It isn't about how hard something is or how noble it is. It's just supply and demand.

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

#592

Post by sethammons »

jurassic wrote: post #471
HeroOfAges wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men, especially clients, often forgot my name. E.g. Janice vs Janet vs Jan (none of these my real name, but you get the idea. The point is that I wasn't important enough to these men to remember.) Are you aware this kind of thing happens to everyone? Do you expect people to remember your name just because you're a woman? Or would you rather they remembered your name because you've accomplished something beyond the…

I’m not talking about one-off meetings where the name doesn’t stick. That happens to everyone, of course. I’m talking about working on projects with the same group of people over a period of months. I have not seen the Matts and Ryans of the world have this problem.

I've been called Sean more times than I can count and by people I've been acquainted with for a long time, including higher ups. I can't imagine "Seth" is _that_ rare.

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

#593

Post by magneticnorth »

eecks wrote: post #481
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

A little late on this thread, but did want to add - I'm not assuming that's what's happening here, but I know this has been overlooked in similar analyses. I think Google's hr team is probably smart enough to account for things like this, but I would really like for the report to say what other variables they controlled for in order to conclude that women are overpaid.

And I think someplace like Hacker news is exactly the right place for the community to discuss the many ways a company can get to a result like this - via Simpson's paradox, via differences in promotion velocity, or via simple economics, based on the fact diverse teams are desirable and women are more scarce.

Attacking someone for suggesting one not-yet-discussed possibility is not helpful to the discussion, imo.

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

#594

Post by vonmoltke »

bandrami wrote: post #465
insickness wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really a question? It takes more dedicated study to become an anesthesiologist than an elementary school teacher.

Does it? Both require professional degrees and a practical internship.

I know of no jurisdiction where becoming an elementary school teacher requires a professional degree or practical internship.

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

#595

Post by solidsnack9000 »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #431
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…

It's one thing to fight against blatant sexism which I'm for, but this is turning into something else. Maybe it's the result of individuals asynchronously but collaboratively acting to get the most for their class of people. Since there isn't a "council of women in technology" that meets bi-weekly to decide what each speaker should do for each conference, the women speakers act independently much of the time. To get…

What are the downvotes about?

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

#596

Post by [deleted] »

stcredzero wrote: post #548
chc wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though — I certainly wasn't. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable. If you wouldn't feel confident saying that explicitly, then comments about "outcomes v…

I don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though An old schoolmate of mine who was at Google before the James Damore thing happened, was saying stuff just afterwards like, maybe it's time that males got stuff taken away from them. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, i…

[deleted]

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

#597

Post by malvosenior »

habosa wrote: post #519

HN is a very civilized place, and this thread is the closest I have ever seen to a toxic environment. A lot of people (men) here complaining about women getting things too easy in tech. Talk to a woman in tech. Look around you and see how many women there are. Men are still running the show.

Why can't we talk to men in tech? Are they not allowed to voice their concerns? If men are running the show, why were they being systematically underpaid at Google? Why are there so many anecdotes from men in this thread about watching less qualified women move ahead of them? Do you not believe the data? Men being upset by this isn't "toxic", it's a natural, healthy and correct reaction to the data they were presented with.

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

#598

Post by malvosenior »

roguecoder wrote: post #503

Systems that can serve the least-privileged fairly are more fair for everyone. The people who are resistant to making things more fair are usually the people afraid they are getting away with something.

The only "fair" wait to do things is to reward people based on merit. Artificially propping up someone because they're less "privileged" (as determined by ?) is the epitome of unfair.

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

#599

Post by CydeWeys »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #372
CydeWeys wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you confusing me with someone else?

I'm not sure, but you seem to be asking many questions in a pointed manner on this topic, while offering no answers or even interpretations of your own.

I don't claim to have any of the answers, and it is a really hard problem. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't mathematically make sense to claim that everyone can be underpaid relative to each other^, and that the claim that software engineers are underpaid in general relative to the value they create is a separate issue.

^ That's like saying that two people can each be shorter than each other. It's not possible according to the way the "less than" function is defined.

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

#600

Post by vonmoltke »

dahart wrote: post #434
avip wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is it's all open. Women-only positions in unis and so. My wife was even invited to a women-only conference! I asked her if she would go to a "white only" or "Christian only" event.

What large scale white & Christian discrimination has existed historically, in the US? When were white Christians not allowed to vote or paid less? What's wrong with a conference for women, how exactly is that different than a conference for engineers, or a store for pet owners?

> What large scale white & Christian discrimination has existed historically, in the US? When were white Christians not allowed to vote or paid less?

The Irish[1] and Italians[2] have something to say about this. In the past, the US has not been all that kind to non-Protestants in general. In particular, there used to be a strong anti-Catholic sentiment, so much so that it was one of the original "cornerstones" of the KKK.

> What's wrong with a conference for women, how exactly is that different than a conference for engineers, or a store for pet owners?

I can choose whether or not to be an engineer or a pet owner. I can't choose whether or not to be a man or a woman (gender reassignment surgery notwithstanding).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism

Post reply on HN