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

621–626 of 626 posts

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

#621

Post by repolfx »

joshuamorton wrote: post #469
repolfx wrote: post #120

> Google, Ms. Emerson said, seemed to be advancing a “flawed and incomplete sense of equality” by making sure men and women receive the same salary This quote would appear to sum up the entire debate, using the term generously. There is a large and vocal minority in society who abuse the word "equality" to mean "more money and power for women". They don't care about equality. They want inequality, but they know they…

The next line is very important: >That is not the same as addressing “equity,” she said, which would involve examining the structural hurdles that women face as engineers. Consider the following situation: Men get promoted faster than women for similar work. They're seen as more assertive or something. Managers, noting the systemic inequality, take individual action to compensate women fairly for their contributions,…

But that's not what the word "equity" means either.

Regardless, if she wants to define a word to mean "the structural hurdles that women face as engineers" specifically she should not criticise other people for using the word equality to mean equal treatment. She definitely has no right to claim those who disagree with her have a "flawed and incomplete" understanding of anything - she simply has no intellectual leg to stand on. Put differently, there is simply no plausible interpretation of what she's saying here that isn't a nasty attempt to manipulate the language.

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

#622

Post by joshuamorton »

repolfx wrote: post #621
joshuamorton wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next line is very important: >That is not the same as addressing “equity,” she said, which would involve examining the structural hurdles that women face as engineers. Consider the following situation: Men get promoted faster than women for similar work. They're seen as more assertive or something. Managers, noting the systemic inequality, take individual action to compensate women fairly for their contributions,…

But that's not what the word "equity" means either. Regardless, if she wants to define a word to mean "the structural hurdles that women face as engineers" specifically she should not criticise other people for using the word equality to mean equal treatment. She definitely has no right to claim those who disagree with her have a "flawed and incomplete" understanding of anything - she simply has no intellectual leg t…

So you're saying that my clearly plausible interpretation of her words is a nasty attempt to manipulate language?

What about "remember that there are structural issues that affect women" isn't fighting for equal treatment? I'd think that an argument to reduce the structural issues that unfairly impact women would be seen as a move towards equality, but apparently you disagree? And further think it's nasty?

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

#623

Post by haberman »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #618
haberman wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. 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…

>> a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. >> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men "Disproportionate" is used to signify something that is "out of proportion", in a lay sense, not in the mathematical sense of the ratio betwe…

> This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid.

No, it is saying that the definition of "underpaid" is "making less money than women at the same level."

> This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more men in the company.

It says that men accounted for 69% of the work force, but received more than 69% of the money that went to equity raises.

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

#624

Post by camelNotation »

rtkwe wrote: post #303
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is simple. When you provide women the opportunity to become anything they want. They choose the careers that they choose. Which tend to me more social related careers. Teaching or nursing for example does not scale well; therefore salaries are limited. Whereas men pick more "stuff" categories. It's men who work in STEM creating things. A car or an iphone is going to be generally speaking men who desig…

The 'people just choosing different careers' throws a lot of inequality under a rug and calls the problem solved. 1) If we tell women their whole childhood that some jobs are for men and some are for women and vice versa for men then ask them when they turn 18 what job they want we'll get horrendously unequal outcomes even though people are completely free to choose. 2) Valuation of jobs is based partially on the vie…

> If we tell women their whole childhood that some jobs are for men and some are for women and vice versa for men then ask them when they turn 18 what job they want we'll get horrendously unequal outcomes even though people are completely free to choose.

This would make some sense if women had been in the workforce for centuries and were well-established in particular fields, but women have only been in the workforce for a relatively short period of time and the cultural influences that might direct them into one job over another are not even remotely strong enough to play the role you think they do. There is almost nothing except the non-stop message of "you can do anything you want to do" given to little girls today and they are electing to do what they want to do. To assume they are trapped by some sort of cultural force that prefers them to do medicine instead of engineering (neither of which existed as a female field prior to the 20th century) is nonsense. Today, most medical school and law school graduates are women. Most engineering graduates are men. Unless men are fiercely protecting engineering for some weird, inexplicable reason, it would seem like women have had their say and chosen what they want to do.

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

#625

Post by akvadrako »

notadoc wrote: post #475
haihaibye wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same experiment, same result in Australia: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-... In a bid to eliminate sexism, thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic background stripped from their CVs The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name t…

Fascinating. I wonder why we these studies and their findings never gain much attention?

For one, it's not surprising; generally people prefer to help underdogs, not take advantage of them.

For two, it doesn't make people angry, it just confuses the issue.

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

#626

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

haberman wrote: post #623
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. >> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men "Disproportionate" is used to signify something that is "out of proportion", in a lay sense, not in the mathematical sense of the ratio betwe…

> This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. No, it is saying that the definition of "underpaid" is "making less money than women at the same level." > This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more m…

Unrelated- is your handle inspired by Scanners Live in Vain?
Post reply on HN