651–660 of 680 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about that. It helps anyone who has been systematically discriminated in hiring against over time. When you start a new job, it's not uncommon for your new employer to offer you a salary that's X% higher than your old one, using that as a base. If your old salary was lower due to discrimination, you'd start with a lower base, and would get less in the new job than someone who was not previously discriminated…
It helps anybody who's underpaid. One being underpaid doesn't imply or even suggest that one was discriminated against. I was underpaid my first job, and it wasn't due to discrimination. I would imagine that the majority of people who are underpaid are underpaid not due to discrimination, but due to poor negotiating ability, lack of awareness of the market rate, etc. My analogy of "we're raising the minimum wage to h…
That is due to discrimination. Discriminating against someone who is socially awkward and can't negotiate isn't any different than discriminating against someone for their gender. Both factors are things people can't generally control. One might even go so far as saying it is worse than discriminating based on religion, given the general view of religion being a choice one can actively change.
Historically we have been fine with such discrimination, but it wasn't too long ago the true was based on all the forms of discrimination we now view as wrong.
This is a ban on employers -- afaik, recruiters can still ask (and many probably will ask). But, IANAL. (Correction: It looks like recruiters fall under this prohibition too, if they are acting as agents of the employer.) I personally never answer questions about my previous salary or my expected salary. When HR has given me forms to fill out that have questions about either I just leave them blank, and they've never…
The simplest solution for recruiters is to lie. Best case scenario you get a much higher offer. Worse case scenario you have to explain to someone at the job that there must have been a misunderstanding between you and the recruiter (which isn't a lie, as their was a misunderstanding since the recruiter thought you were telling the truth). You never have to lie to the employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I understand, I would hate to be proven wrong as much as you have been in this exchange. What a revealing sentiment. It speaks to your desire not to engage people here, or share insight or build consensus, but rather a desire to score debate points. What's more, your entire argument is about addressing tangential (and debatable) inconsistencies and not actually addressing the larger point. If you think observers ar…
I am not arguing there is no wage gap, I am stating a proven fact there is no wage gap. Outside extreme left authoritarian circles, which this site seems to be extremely slanted towards, that is an accepted fact, so I do not buy the overton window has shifted at all. You likely believe that because you live in a echo chamber probably on either the East or West coast. As to providing an "alternate hypothesis", to what…
Oh, you have a proof? Can I see the analysis and its methodology that prove this? What techniques were used? What data sets we're incorporated. How did this model interpret attrition?
> Outside extreme left authoritarian circles,
Sorry, but this doesn't work for leftists or arch conservatives on Hacker News. You make an assertion, you gotta back it up. No appealing to "these bad people" politics here. It's quite off-topic, and speaks the aforementioned lack of sincerity in your engagement with people here.
> To narrow the focus more to what we seem to normally come to "Why are there not very many female programmers", that is not a symptom of employment sexism, that demographic is not going after those jobs. Now we can debate the reason for this, often tracing it to High School or other teenage development factors, not to employment sexism.
So, this really isn't the wage gap your aiming talking to. This is that silly, unsourced, appeal-to-fringe-evolutionary-biology argument Damore posited.
But as I've pointed out in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15509045), your appeal to a home&hearth bias sabotaging pipines is not really supported in the data. NSF's data shows better enrollment in CS but more attrition, a phenomenon that is striking considering we don't see it in equally difficult and computer-engaged fields.
Ultimately this is a common argument that says, "Women just prefer less valuable work. They love being cheap or unpaid labor." It's a very just-so argument that let's anyone paint a bullseye around any wage gap and say, "Women just prefer it this way who knows why but it sure is lucky for us!" It's striking in the CS world given the staccatto series of sexual harassment and discrimination claims and suits that 2016 and 2017 bring us. Women are saying, in public and in court, that it's not so. But curiously, listening to them brands you "authoritarian left" and "anti-male."
You claim to be a Libertarian in your writing here. Are you sure though? Unfair systemic bias goes against the heart of the libertarian ideals. If you don't have a commitment to meritocracy, what do you stand for?
It seems to me like you're deliberately avoiding the wealth of data showing a 3-7% in-band pay gap between women and men in our industry. Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for the fact that male and female pay for the same job, and experience level are statistically the same and there is no actual pay gap. The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason. The last good study I read showed a gap of something like 5% which was in the statistical margin and was largely accounted for by negotiation tactics. For an anecdote I (a male) e…
> Except for the fact that male and female pay for the same job, and experience level are statistically the same and there is no actual pay gap. Sure, but if women have a harder time getting promoted then they also have a harder time getting the same job and experience. Thus, even if women are being paid the same when they have the same job and experience, the discrimination still exists and they are still as a group…
Most research I've seen show that it's the women who are failing to take initiative in asking for raises, rather than the employer purposefully holding them back.
Yet the pretext of these laws is always under the assumption it's the employer actively doing something to block it instead of passively not offering it to people who don't ask (for whatever cultural or biological reason), likewise the women are not active but also passive in this situation.
Additionally you made the same jump in logic to assume women aren't getting the same jobs, the study was limited to promotions and this can't be easily assumed either.
This isn't about blaming the victim either but if you're going to micromanage it at least have to clear motivations and end goals that are being controlled for...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of off topic but should one always hide their current salary, even if it's above market rate (given their experience on paper)? It seems as though if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's time? I can see the obvious downside of sharing a relatively low salary, but it seems like there could be benefit…
No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself. If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-and-beyond to…
If I don't share and my amount is > than the employer's, I still have no job. The sharing just saves time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you pay in taxes is public (anyone can look it up), and it's normally easy to calculate taxable income from that. (Not always, there could be various events that throws the calculation off). Although in recent years, all lookups are logged and displayed to the other party, which has a chilling effect. I would like the old system back.
So you want the data to be public, but you don't want the data about who accesses the data to be public?
Tax records are records owned and controlled by the government. It's information that has already been collected, and is accessible by some institutions, but not others, creating an imbalance in information.
I want government to be transparent, and I generally support initiatives to make information public. But I'm not sure I like the idea of the government or some other big brother type knowing who is accessing what information. I say that as a general principle, with notable exceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. It is not a myth. If the company pays out then you make more money. It isn't GUARANTEED salary but neither is stock. Sure it's not worth every dollar they say you might get but it does have a value based on the history of the Company. I've done very well for myself going with a slightly lower salary and accepting a 2x1 ratio on the bonus. I.E. If they offer 100K. I'll…
It is a myth and this is the same shaky reasoning I always hear from people who have been on the "other side" (hiring). I don't blame you for it, it is your job to compensate people as little as possible while extracting the most wealth from them. That said, there are a lot of people who fall for this "if you have a family (of 20 dependents) you totally make up what you lose in salary!" fable and that puts downward p…
You missed a major point in what I do when I'm being hired. I use benefits like a bludgeon. I get MORE money because of the variety of benefits I've seen over the course of my career. While looking ONLY at salary is simpler to compute and categorize people, that simplistic look at things will reduce your ability to negotiate and get the most out of future opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual contributor, Software Engineer. At Google the recruiter put me in the SRE/SWE track which I was skeptical of and communicated to them. I also communicated about the compensation issues in advance saying if I got a bad offer it wasn't going to happen. Still wasted my time. It's high for the industry if you consider the entire US or the world. The solution there is pick the right employer. The right ones are…
So I read your comment history and it looks like you changed jobs quite a bit to get to the higher salary. Do you also focus on a particular niche or are you just a general senior engineer?
Once I had that I could pick from anyone who is invested in the ecosystem.
I don't believe that has actually heavily impacted what I am paid in the sense of the credentialing being worth more to individual companies it has just made it easier to get through hiring filters and interview loops. That has made it possible to focus on companies that pay well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not arguing there is no wage gap, I am stating a proven fact there is no wage gap. Outside extreme left authoritarian circles, which this site seems to be extremely slanted towards, that is an accepted fact, so I do not buy the overton window has shifted at all. You likely believe that because you live in a echo chamber probably on either the East or West coast. As to providing an "alternate hypothesis", to what…
> I am not arguing there is no wage gap, I am stating a proven fact there is no wage gap. Oh, you have a proof? Can I see the analysis and its methodology that prove this? What techniques were used? What data sets we're incorporated. How did this model interpret attrition? > Outside extreme left authoritarian circles, Sorry, but this doesn't work for leftists or arch conservatives on Hacker News. You make an assertio…
You claim there is a wage gap, and have no "backed it up" so show me your research because I guarantee any study you post I can show you how your are misinterpreting the data. Every study shows an earning gap due to different job, not a pay gap for the same work
The reason for women are on lower paying job roles can be debated but it is outside the topic of a pay gap.
What this conversation is about is an employer paying a female lower wages for the exact same job simply because she is female.
>So, this really isn't the wage gap your aiming talking to. This is that silly, unsourced, appeal-to-fringe-evolutionary-biology argument Damore posited.
I don't believe that I what I said at all, My info comes from the national organization of women, and Girls who Code both of which have studies/data that shows in junior high there is a High interest in Computer Science from girls, then in high School that Interest Craters, Why... They cite a few reason but again that is outside the topic of conversation which is different pay for the same work
You seem to making a lot of assumptions about my position. I wonder if that character flaw is why you have such a strong position here, you have seen some data then made the assumption is ti because of sexism, and once you have made that assumption nothing will change your mind. You know deep in your bones that sexism is the one and only reason, no amount of data will change your mind on that.
> It's striking in the CS world given the staccatto series of sexual harassment and discrimination claims and suits that 2016 and 2017 bring us. Women are saying, in public and in court, that it's not so. But curiously, listening to them brands you "authoritarian left" and "anti-male."
Again you have conflated 2 things. I clearly stated that I was not denying sexism, and supervisors or others that use their power to abuse others (male or female) should be fired, and possibly criminal charged. However that again is outside the topic of if a company is paying a female worker less money for equal labor than a male worker in the exact same job who has the exact same experience. This is the discussion we are having.
You seem to want to expand this discussion to more than just a gender pay gap