Hi. Doubt anybody else will see this, but I did have a comment.
No hate against Jennifer Lawrence for saying self-beneficial nonsense, because she's just publicly advocating for her next paycheck. It's a great strategic negotiating move on her part (which actually is an example against the idea that women can't negotiate as well as men because this is an amazingly shrewd move on her part). But how can anybody take that seriously when it's not gender disparity that sets paychecks, but the marketplace? There's a reason that somebody like (for instance) Tom Cruise or Will Smith generally makes more than somebody like JL - they make movies more money.
Then your article devolves into a bunch of quasi-Tumblr-fan-girl-politically-correct-nonsense about the nonexistent wage gap that disappears when you compare men and women in equal roles with equal levels of experience. If there was a wage gap between men and women of equal experience, why isn't there one company out there that's hiring mostly women to reap major savings on payroll? There's a perception that capitalists are so greedy that they're willing to pollute the environment, sell out their children's financial futures, and kick out entire families onto the curb to make a few bucks, yet somehow they can't see that they can hire mostly women to save a bundle on this wage gap and beat all of their competitors out there? Please.
"Once again, I would urge my fellow startup CEOs to set a single compensation scheme per role or department rather than allowing each individual employee to have a say in how they’re paid."
This is a recipe for attracting the worst possible employees (because everybody makes the same) and making sure that the most qualified people bounce as soon as possible or simply don't put any real effort into their work. I commend you if you stick by your beliefs and actually run a company this way, but I guarantee that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage this way.
No hate against Jennifer Lawrence for saying self-beneficial nonsense, because she's just publicly advocating for her next paycheck. It's a great strategic negotiating move on her part (which actually is an example against the idea that women can't negotiate as well as men because this is an amazingly shrewd move on her part). But how can anybody take that seriously when it's not gender disparity that sets paychecks, but the marketplace? There's a reason that somebody like (for instance) Tom Cruise or Will Smith generally makes more than somebody like JL - they make movies more money.
Then your article devolves into a bunch of quasi-Tumblr-fan-girl-politically-correct-nonsense about the nonexistent wage gap that disappears when you compare men and women in equal roles with equal levels of experience. If there was a wage gap between men and women of equal experience, why isn't there one company out there that's hiring mostly women to reap major savings on payroll? There's a perception that capitalists are so greedy that they're willing to pollute the environment, sell out their children's financial futures, and kick out entire families onto the curb to make a few bucks, yet somehow they can't see that they can hire mostly women to save a bundle on this wage gap and beat all of their competitors out there? Please.
"Once again, I would urge my fellow startup CEOs to set a single compensation scheme per role or department rather than allowing each individual employee to have a say in how they’re paid."
This is a recipe for attracting the worst possible employees (because everybody makes the same) and making sure that the most qualified people bounce as soon as possible or simply don't put any real effort into their work. I commend you if you stick by your beliefs and actually run a company this way, but I guarantee that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage this way.