[stretchwithme]

Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons. I don't think they're thinking "Jim's a dude so we should pay him $50K more than Sally."

No, they're paying somebody more because they don't want them to leave.

And if they are paying you less than somebody else, it's probably partially because they don't think you are as much of a flight risk.

And if Google is wrong about these decisions, I'd guess we'd see a lot more female engineers leaving Google to start their own companies. But is that what we see?

[feminist17]

> Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons.

I think you give companies too much credit. Those pretty good reasons are typically that that's how much they asked, it wasn't unreasonable, and they passed the interviews.

People's salaries are all over the map for the same sorts of positions, and it's not just IT and development.

But, even though it might not be a clearcut answer to whether there is discrimination or bias in salaries, it should be explored. Even data with a wide, overlapping range doesn't mean that the mean and median can't be compared and valid conclusions drawn about probable bias.

Google seems to take bias seriously, and I think if it could be proven with adequate certainty that salaries were affected by the sex of the employee alone, they'd do something about it.

[stretchwithme]

I tend to think that successful companies tend to know what they are doing better than observers.

[ajross]

But the problem is "know what they are doing" can still be unfair. Consider: you're staffing up a company and need folks now. You've found two candidates who seem equally qualified and want to hire them. Both are asking for only a modest raise over their current salaries, but one happens to make 50% more than the other due to arbitrary reasons[1] having nothing to do with qualifications.

What do you do? Realistically you give them both what they ask and pay them unfairly. Congratulations, you're now part of the problem.

[1] Yeah, one is a dude.

[TeMPOraL]

And if we change [1] to "Yeah, one is a gal", then I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem.

Ultimately, the only alternative is to pay people equally. Which won't fly generally, as companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving.

[spaceseaman]

> I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem.

The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism. I can't attack this point without having to completely define someone who is "pro-diversity" (what's that even mean?), and give evidence that no one in that group has the traits you claim of ("look at this feminist, see I was right!").

More importantly, what's even your point if this straw-man were true? I could just as easily say this about anything.

"Oh your life is shitty? Well I bet you wouldn't complain if things were working out well." It's an interesting case of vacuous truth!

The argument is to make things better for the people who have it worse at the moment, correcting for previous inertia. In this case, the inertia is that men were previously paid more or gained an initial advantage that allowed them to be paid more, and then that advantage has percolated across their various positions until the difference becomes more stark all because as you say "companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving". If that's the case, then if companies could pay women less for the same work, why wouldn't they? Similar arguments apply to affirmative action and similar programs. That's the argument at least, whether I agree with it is an entirely different question.

What irks me is you dismissing the argument with your little straw-man and moving on to "the only alternative". You completely disregarded the points of everyone opposite the aisle of you in the most condescending way.

[TeMPOraL]

> The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism.

I don't. You just criticized me at length :). Some of it I could even agree with :).

My point is, the current narration coming from "opposite the aisle of me" is, on the one hand, "gender discrimination is bad", and on the other hand, "we need more discrimination to correct for existing one". Even if we leave out that I don't think there's that much discrimination happening as feminists would want you to believe (in fact, I think they're just reinterpreting everything in terms of gender, whether it is actually related or not) - still, you can't have it both ways.

I'm just against hypocrisy, especially this extreme. When someone admits that they are advocating literal sexism as a corrective action (hopefully temporary), I'll accept that (even though I don't agree it's needed). What irks me is condemning sexism when it goes in one direction, while at the same time advocating sexism in the other direction.

[Chris2048]

> What irks me is you dismissing the argument with your little straw-man and moving on to "the only alternative". You completely disregarded the points of everyone opposite the aisle of you in the most condescending way.

"little" straw man is also condescending.

Plus, a straw man is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" - not only can we not conclude what OPs intention was, but also it's not clear to me that it is a misrepresentation of the original comment.

[ajross]

> And if we change [1] to "Yeah, one is a gal", then I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem.

Find me someone (anyone, anywhere) who defends (even in the abstract!) a situation where women are paid more than men for the same work. That's a horrific strawman, and it tells me that you're looking at this as a war (with feminists as your "enemies" I guess) instead of a problem.

And no, you don't have to pay people equally. You have to pay them fairly. If there differences between individuals, that's fine. If there are systemic differences between easily classified groups of individuals, that's discrimination.

[kamaal]

>>I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem.

Isn't that their very argument?

Their point is a few need to be paid more even if they don't work for it, to make up for what is lost.

They are asking for inequality by very argument. Equality by their definition would be injustice to them.

[slyfocks]

This assumes venture capitalists don’t exhibit a bias towards male founders. Depending on the extent of bias (if any), female engineers would lose a bit of bargaining power with Google.

Also, empirically, women tend to be more risk-averse than men on average, so Google (and other companies) could be paying less knowing the chance they’d leave is lower than a man of similar skill.

[runevault]

It doesn't even have to be for the startup life. They could just leave to work at another established company. Though the rest of your point about being risk averse and so sticking with a job (and therefore being less of a flight risk) is more interesting and would be worth exploring.

[slavak]

This is an interesting thought!

If an employer pays people who are a flight-risk more (a-la "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"), and women are on average a lower flight risk because they are more risk-averse - is the resulting pay disparity a case of illegal discrimination?

My intuition says no, but I'm not sure everyone (including the legal system) necessarily agrees.

[intoverflow2]

Is venture capital a requirement to start a company?

[majormajor]

The biggest one I've seen is "we pay them Y because they already made X."

So if it's biased externally it's gonna look that way internally if you're not proactive.

[linkregister]

I feel you missed something important in the article. The plaintiffs are asserting that there is a pervasive irrational cultural bias by managers that assumes people like them are superior engineers.

The entire premise of the lawsuit is that the managers are working contrary to the best interest of Google. Companies are made of people, and no matter how much CEOs might want employees to behave a certain way, employees are still beholden to their cognitive biases.

The optimum situation for Google would be to pay all employees the market rate for the level of quality they desire. This would basically yield a meritocratic pay structure. But this is not what happened. The plaintiffs were awarded different pay grades for measurably comparable ability. This is suboptimal for Google and for society; that is why Google is being sued.

[lloyd-christmas]

> But this is not what happened. The plaintiffs were awarded different pay grades for measurably comparable ability.

The article doesn't say that. It says they were awarded different pay grades given an equal time spent in the worforce, not that their abilities were comparable.

[Romanulus]

What you're talking about is referred to as a 'market opportunity', which in this case doesn't hold water since I don't know of any successful all-female (or majority-female) tech companies.

[Consultant32452]

In order to believe that you have to believe that literally 100% of tech hiring companies/managers are sexist. If even ONE was not, they'd wind up with all the women because they'd be willing to pay those women more money than every other company. I'm very open to the idea that there's sexism in tech, but the idea that literally 100% of everyone is sexist doesn't seem plausible.

[spaceseaman]

Huh?

It's not that the companies are sexist

Or the managers are sexist

Or the engineers are exist

Or you're sexist.

That's not what anyone has been saying this whole time - ever. You have completely misunderstood the point.

The system is sexist. Not the people in the system, but the system itself (similar arguments exist for police departments being racist - it's not the cops that are, but the system). In this case, the general consensus is that women are paid less than men in tech due to a variety of reasons.

A culture can also be sexist. While the people within it can harbor no ill will whatsoever, their behaviors and group dynamics can actively prevent a woman from being welcome. In this case, people are calling the tech "culture" sexist.

Here's a couple examples of a sexist culture I've seen in my own workplace. Note that none of the people here meant any harm, nor were there actions actively "sexist" in the common parlance, but they still did things that made people want to GTFO if they're a chick:

* I had a coworker who used to grill the woman on the team much more fiercely than the men. I never asked why this was - didn't have a great way to broach the topic. But it was always extremely obvious, and I have noticed it on HackerNews, Reddit, and pretty much every video game I've ever played. Men are very critical of women in jobs that men are already the predominant workers in. Female doctors and lawyers have had this issue for decades as well. It's not a sexist action. In my eyes it happens totally accidentally (My pet theory is that because we aren't used to seeing women in the field, we tend to be more involved when giving them criticism)

* My coworker had this anime poster in his cube with some half-naked bikini clad girl. Do I even have to mention why a girl might feel a little awkward here?

See how these things aren't actually bad in isolation? But over time, and in great numbers, they add up and make women feel like shit working at your company because they can never truly "fit in" with the guys. That's sexism in work culture and whether it's ever truly fixable is a great question.

I highly recommend you read some literature from across the aisle to become more familiar with the arguments you're facing, rather than the arguments you think you're facing. I highly recommend bell hooks' books on the subject. She's extremely clear and lucid and helped me grok a lot of the logic my first time around.

[Consultant32452]

First of all, the two things you listed are clearly sexist behaviors, even in isolation. Treating women differently than men, whether it's more harshly or with "kid gloves" is sexist behavior. Putting a pinup on the wall of your office is pretty inappropriate for a professional work environment and the reason it was allowed to stand is most likely sexism.

But again, it only takes one workplace, one manager that doesn't treat women more harshly and doesn't allow pinups or have these other sexist behaviors to foil the entire sexist system, because that one employer would get all of these great women who are just as productive for a lower price and would take over their market. It only takes two such employers in a market who are competing for those women to get women up to income parity with men.

I'm not making any arguments whatsoever about sexism in the workplace. I'm only talking about the wage gap. "The system" having these latent sexist rules and behaviors in place almost certainly drives women away. But that's a different problem than whether women engineers make the same amount of money as men for the same work.

[spaceseaman]

You seem to have missed my argument so I'll try and rephrase it.

> that one employer would get all of these great women who are just as productive for a lower price and would take over their market. It only takes two such employers in a market who are competing for those women to get women up to income parity with men.

Yet companies will always want to hire someone for the least possible amount they can - regardless of the manager's personal views.

Two potential employees walk in the door at your hypothetical perfect company. They are perfectly equivalent. One was originally paid $40,000 while the other was paid $55,000 at their previous position. They each want a 10% raise to come to your company. One is a woman, the other is male.

Now you end up paying the woman less than the male, purely because her previous position paid her less. And the cycle continues until eventually you get to some sexist manager back at her first company that thought she wasn't as skilled for some reason or another (apparently).

That's the point I'm trying to make. Your hypothetical situation would not be the panacea to these problems because companies don't offer salaries like that. You're also making the astronomically huge assumption that every person wants to change positions in the first place. Some people like the job they have and stay there for much longer than would be competitively optimal for them.

Systemic sexism is the sexism that manifests in these cycles.

[Consultant32452]

I get your argument entirely. Your argument doesn't hold water at all. Because it demands that every woman be more willing to work in a toxic, sexist work environment for lower money than a non-sexist work environment for more money. What are the odds of that exactly? If even a small percentage of women engineers are willing to move, then the one exception company will be loaded up with massively disproportionate amounts of women.

[Chris2048]

> and I have noticed it on HackerNews, Reddit, and pretty much every video game I've ever played

what do you mean?

> My coworker had this anime poster

And that's "culture"?

> because they can never truly "fit in" with the guys.

Your examples don't really back up this point.

[spaceseaman]

A) Women are overly criticized when they're doing anything that's a male-dominant activity. Videogames, Reddit, and HackerNews all have examples of this. Announce you're a woman, and you'll suddenly face more scrutiny for unknown reasons.

B) Yes. As it turns out, the behaviors we normalize in the workplace (like putting up scantily clad women) are part of a workplace culture.

They feel unwelcome, different, and unfairly questioned on the basis of being a woman and a woman alone. How do my examples not back up this point?

[Chris2048]

> How do my examples not back up this point?

You give an example of one guy with a posted, and one manager, and then conclude "culture" in general, and that they can "never truly fit in with the guys"; But why is this the case with the anime poster guy? How does the managers treatment of the employee relate to their relationship with the other guys on the team?

> the behaviors we normalize

This is along the lines of the "role model" argument; all must conform to prescribed behavior lest a slippery-slope epidemic of deviance should arise. Do all the cubicles have scantily clad women?

> Videogames, Reddit, and HackerNews all have examples of this

The first two are verymuchnot the workplace. Reddit has many different cultures, depending on which subreddit you are in.

You list HN too (which is maybe a little closer to the workplace), as in "Women are overly criticized on HN when they're doing anything that's a male-dominant activity" - I'm not sure I agree, can you give an example?

[krastanov]

It is definitely not that straightforward. You are probably right when referring to the top talent, but for the majority of the workforce it comes down to negotiations and raises. There is plenty of guilt to be spread around for everybody involved (like, "why don't women negotiate more"), but there are also known well-measured biases against female engineers (SWE has a neat "research" page listing reproduced studies on the topic, same with Project Implicit).

[Chris2048]

I think to complete the picture, we need to consider "what percentage of ex-google engineers leave.. and fail". The difference might make up the pay gap.

[stale2002]

Unfortunately for Google, paying women less because "They can get away with it" (ie, women are less of a flight risk), is still illegal.

[stretchwithme]

I don't think that's the situation I'm describing. If a company could replace an engineer that is more likely to leave with an equally productive one who is likely to stay, they wouldn't hesitate to wave good bye.

What amazes me is the confidence with which people equate the work of engineers when they actually have no stake in making that judgement correctly.

You see, if you are paying the money and living with the results, you have a much greater incentive to make this call correctly.

And those who are unhappy with these judgements have a much greater incentive to equate engineers who aren't actually comparable. It's called politics.

[stale2002]

The business reason as to why a company would discriminate against certain groups is perfectly rational.

I mean, if a company can get away with paying women 70 cents on the dollar, because women are worse at negotiating or have less negotiation power (ie everyone ELSE is also discriminating against them, therefore they have less counter offers), then of course they would do it.

It has nothing at all to do with "making the correct call". It has to do with making the profit maximizing decision to pay a group of people less because you can get away with it.

That doesn't change the fact that this is still illegal.

[aceon48]

Your argument is irrational. If a company could get away with paying someone 70%, they would only hire the 70 percenters, or at least disproportionality. Google has roughly 20% female engineers, in line with the 20% female CS grad population.

Seriously... if there's some nefarious bias, it would mean a company hiring more women than expected, bc they can "under" pay them. Silly irrational people.

[dasil003]

Well no, Google wants to hire all the best engineers they can find, even if they have to pay more. Obviously they don't want to pay more than they have to, but their primary concern is capturing as much of the top talent as they can.

[TeMPOraL]

Which is how you end up with worker demographics reflecting the grad demographics, as it is expected when there's no bias involved...

[Spivak]

Bit in the same breath if you can get away with getting an equally talented employee for 70¢ on the dollar then why would you ever hire a man?

[stale2002]

The way that it works is that you hire anyone at all who can pass the hiring bar, and then negotiate salary afterwords.

The problem is quantity. At the end of the day, if only X people that you interview pass your hiring bar, it is impossible to hire more than X. You can't just say "Lets double X!".

Now, would companies do things like try to reach out to women groups, so as to increase the amount that interview with them, and therefore increase the proportion that are hired?

Yes, absolutely they would do that. As has been demonstrated by all the diversity reachout efforts that companies are doing to women and minority groups. Diversity efforts are PROFITABLE.

[mutatedspleen]

Wait, what? How in the world does anything you mentioned relate to that ending protestation written in capital letters?

All diversity efforts that I've ever seen are the exactly opposite of profitable and result in sexist/racist/otherist selection of candidates. The unfortunate end result of worse selection is that worse candidates were hired.. every. time.

[belorn]

I knew a person who when looking for work they wanted, also sent out application to other places that they was less interested in but then demanding close to unreasonable pay (around what someone who had worked 10 years would get).

And they did land one of those less interesting jobs, earning similar to those coworkers who had been there for 10 years, and there were nothing illegal in this. Have a bunch of employable credentials, send out enough applications demanding above average pay, and you are going to likely end up with above average pay.