[qubax]

> I would be genuinely interested to see what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs.

There really aren't any differences. Just do a simple mental exercise.

Imagine if the gender gap is real. Male programmers demand $100K while female programmers demand $77K for the same exact quality of work. What would this mean? It would mean all tech companies would only hire females.

For comparison look at seasonal farm work. Imagine if migrant workers deman $7.70 per hour while citizens demand $10 per hour for the same quality of work. What do you think the composition of the labor foce on farms would be? I'd imagine it would be mostly migrants. Right?

If the wage gap truly existed, clever feminists would start companies exclusively composed of women and would be putting everyone out of business because they have a 23% profit margin built in.

[victoriasun]

Sigh.. I've seen this argument so many times I have to wonder if the people peddling it has ever sat on a hiring panel.

The decision to hire someone in a high-skilled job has extraordinarily little to do with their compensation and much more to do with their perceived value. Society has conditioned us to view a certain kind of masculinity as inherent value. Men are rewarded for their aggression and confidence, whereas women are criticized for ego and emotionality.

Perhaps this argument has credence in the low-skilled labor market, but it is not applicable to tech, where compensation packages are routinely so large and supported by large VC funds that those of us who do hire can see those salary differences as negligible. And, even if I were sensitive to those differences, I would not hesitate to pay 30-50k in order to get the right person for the role.

The question here is: are we doing a good job of finding the right person for the role? That is why the Google women are demanding "opportunity equity." Because the system I just described above is prone to failure thanks to unconscious bias.

[qubax]

> Sigh.. I've seen this argument so many times I have to wonder if the people peddling it has ever sat on a hiring panel.

I have interviewed for jobs and have interviewed others for positions on my team. Both startup and traditional 9-5 tech jobs.

> The decision to hire someone in a high-skilled job has extraordinarily little to do with their compensation and much more to do with their perceived value.

It's a bit of both.

> Society has conditioned us to view a certain kind of masculinity as inherent value. Men are rewarded for their aggression and confidence, whereas women are criticized for ego and emotionality.

Is it society or nature? Also, society socializes males to be less aggressive. So I don't agree with your claim.

> Perhaps this argument has credence in the low-skilled labor market, but it is not applicable to tech,

Because in the tech world, aggression is what is sought?

> Because the system I just described above is prone to failure thanks to unconscious bias.

If that is the case, why don't these women create companies and hire only women ( who are supposedly doing the same job for 77% pay of their male counterpart )?

Maybe in construction work or farm work, male traits are highly preferred. But in programming and tech world, it's pretty much what you can do.

You really didn't address my point. If what you are claiming is true, why don't you start a search engine company and hire only women? You would put google out of business in a few short years given your built in 23% profit margin.

Do you realize how significant a naturally embedded profit margin of 23% is?

So I'll ask again. What is preventing you or any other person from starting companies and hiring women if women truly make 77% of a man's wage for the same exact work?

[ummonk]

People keep saying this, but it assumes that companies are completely rational actors in hiring, unaffected by human bias. Which is clearly bullshit. For one thing, you can simply prove this by considering the existence of discrimination in the other direction - surely, if companies were hell bent on optimizing their hiring for optimal return on investment, we wouldn't have some of the most profitable companies in the world engaging in the kinds of hiring practices that, e.g., Arne Wilberg is suing about?

See also Dan Luu's discussion of this argument: https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/

[ChrisRR]

Why make assumptions? I'm an engineer and I make decisions based on data and information presented to me, and try to avoid guess work and assumptions as much as possible.

[zepto]

What about the assumptions you haven’t identified?