601–610 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow I always get downvoted for saying that, but I worked at a place where all developers (well, everybody) were unionized. Magic did not happen. Bullshit did.
And right now we live in bliss?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Right, those minority groups have been discriminated against. I think I screwed up my point; I was trying to point out that women have also been discriminated against, and that a conference for women doesn't equate to reverse discrimination nor is it remotely equal in magnitude to what women have gone through. The same does go for other historically discriminated groups.
> 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
That is true, but you can also choose whether to attend a conference without affecting your life, unlike having a job. Being born a male doesn't mean a product designed for women is some kind of discrimination against men, right? Not having a choice still doesn't explain what is wrong with a conference for women. Jobs and conferences aren't the same things; conferences are not paying people and do not directly represent social mobility or opportunity. What specifically is wrong with an event designed for females, and how is it different from a product specifically designed for women (or men, or children, or Irish people...)?
There are conferences for men too, notably not being complained about here: http://elitemanconference.com/ https://bettermanconference.com/ http://www.menstuff.org/
Reminiscent 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…
Where does the study say that? I find it saying that 44 percent of male applicants and 35 percent of female applicants were admitted, when totaled over all 101 departments.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. Where does the study say that? I find it saying that 44 percent of male applicants and 35 percent of female applicants were admitted, when totaled over all 101 departments.
In that paragraph, the authors state that they estimate the probability of admission of a female applicant "by multiplying the estimated probability of admission of any applicant (regardless of sex) to that department by the number of women applying to it", which I find reasonable.
However, immediately afterwards they compare that probability with the probability of an applicant being admitted given that the applicant is female. I quote from the end of the second column and the start of the third one:
"Thus, if the chances of getting into a department were one-half for all applicants to it, and 100 women applied, we would expect 50 women to be admitted if they were being treated just like the men".
In other words, bias depends on whether the proportion of applicants of one sex, out of all applicants of _that_ sex, was higher than the expectation formed for applicants of any sex. It's a little confusing and the language in the article is not very precise. But that's what's up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Lets say Canada passes legislation saying >50% of MPs must be women. That would be an extreme abuse of democracy. If only 50% of ridings have a woman running. It would mean those riding automatically go to those women. Those ridings don't get to vote. So yes, political empowerment only goes so in far as women having the right to run. Not confirmation bias; I simply believe in democracy. I also note you never commente…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, number of years worked does not dictate how good of an engineer you are.
No, its mostly because turning down a offer(no matter what that is) from Google screams privilege. There are a lot of things related to prestige, and other hiring marketing related things that have built up this enormous clout of you having arrived at a big place in life if you land a job at FAANG companies. So people just take whatever is offered. Because, there are tens of thousands of people applying for these job…
I don't speak for everyone obviously but the reason I took the offer is that it will still >50% what I was making previously. I didn't bother looking into how much other people make.
> It's only later do they realized they are not building the next search engine. Nor building the next gen e-commerce platform, but building Jsons and posting to dataservices. By then you are conditioned to free food and you are not comparing your salary with people outside but inside.
Somehow I feel you have a bone to pick? I've been on 3 different teams and this has not been my experience at all.
People at Google seem to be just like people at other companies. They're happy they have a good job but look forward to retirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Where does the study say that? I find it saying that 44 percent of male applicants and 35 percent of female applicants were admitted, when totaled over all 101 departments.
It's on section "Pooling", on page 7 of the pdf (400 in the original), second column, last parargraph starting with "We reanalyze Table 1, ...". In that paragraph, the authors state that they estimate the probability of admission of a female applicant " by multiplying the estimated probability of admission of any applicant (regardless of sex) to that department by the number of women applying to it ", which I find re…
Ah, I see; I was misunderstanding which part of the study you were referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. 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.
It says no such thing. The "large number" of underpaid men is not being compared against the number of underpaid women.
The article still contains these quotes, which clearly establish that the equity pay raises went disproportionately to men:
> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men [...]
> In response to the study, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a higher percentage of the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exactl…
My observation is that news about men being disadvantaged comes out and people don't want to believe it.
I've seen people insinuate that the study was done by men and therefore the outcome would naturally happen. Another mocking that is was "scientific" and "numbers-based" Another claiming the women deserve more money. I bet if I challenged any of them they would claim to be attacked too.