[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> Legislation to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act have stalled in Congress for years, and today women still only make about 80 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by men. But congressional inaction does not absolve companies from their responsibility. Since learning that we were paying women less than men for equal work at Salesforce, we have spent $10.3 million to ensure equal pay; today we conduct annual audits to ensure that pay remains equal.

If Benioff is going to quote the .80/$1 statistic, then the equal pay audits of SalesForce need to use the same comparison which is to take the average pay of all women in the company regardless of position or job and compare it to the average of all the men in the company regardless of position or job.

If you actually do the comparison taking into account job and position, you get something like .93/$1

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr...

[dev_dull]

This whole discussion is so tired to me. I’d like to see organizations who genuinely want to end inequality to start compensation transparency practices. Let’s see the numbers and we’ll decide for ourselves. After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.

[geebee]

It does (or at least should) put Benioff in a difficult position, in terms of argument, if he cites his own company's pay gap as evidence of why we need broad societal change, but then refuses to provide the transparency and data that would enable society to evaluate his claim.

If Benioff says "our company did an internal audit, discovered an internal pay gap, and took internal measures to correct it", ok then. But if he says they did an internal audit and on the basis of these results, the rest of us need to change, then he needs to allow us to verify his claim, the way we'd do with any policy argument based on data.

[Consultant32452]

>After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.

I think it's in my interest that salaries are closely guarded. Virtually every time in my private life someone has found out how much I make it's been a problem for me.

[kolbe]

I don't think it's too unfair to read deeper into Marc's motives. Salesforce has never been interested in noble pursuits like making high quality products. They've been interested in creating moats to rent seek off of. They've been interested in promising functionality, then making it too hard for clients to leave once they find out its deficiencies.

To that end, I'm sure Marc wants regulation because he knows that paying lawyers $5m a year to adhere to them is no big problem for Saleforce to pay, but it will sure as hell prevent Paul Graham from being able to seed a new company to disrupt Marc's fortune. And he will quote whatever statistic is necessary to accomplish that goal.

[chrshawkes]

Marc is a grade A showboat asshole. Your comment hits the nail on the head.

[mindfulplay]

I think given the amount of effort Benioff had put in, I do think he comes from the right place. But just don't have the same level of rigor and mental investment as say Gates.

[jimbokun]

Regarding the Politifact article, full credit to Senator Tina Smith for immediately correcting her tweet after being informed it was incorrect.

Too many politicians double down when they get something wrong and try to defend it, instead of admitting they made an error.

[jadell]

So why is average pay for women across all positions less than men? It's not like Salesforce employees are doing heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men. Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men (at which point we can then address the issue of pay inequality for the same position?) If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."

[jimbokun]

> If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."

Which is exactly the point. The solution may be much farther back in the pipeline, when young people are making educational choices, and can't be solved at the point companies are looking to hire someone.

[jadell]

But it can be driven by those companies. Companies in the US have a huge influence on the educational pipeline, and in turn, who gets encouraged in that pipeline.

[nradov]

I live in Silicon Valley, and I've yet to see any major tech company representatives show up at our local school board meetings. Occasionally they kick in a small grant for a specific program. But their influence on the really important stuff like budgets, curriculum, and hiring is nearly zero.

[jadell]

Their influence is more at the level of university and higher-education. My personal opinion is that they should be doing more for K-12, but I hesitate to let large corporations be involved in deciding what gets taught and who gets hired in public schools. I'm not sure what their role is at that level.

[remarkEon]

You're supposing that women all want or aspire to the same types of positions that men do, which isn't true.

[bschne]

If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for.

Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.

[remarkEon]

Ehh I'm not exactly convinced of this. There's a lot more factors to consider than raw earning potential, and I'm a little more inclined to be suspicious of trying to redirect people away from what they actually like to do.

[repolfx]

How could it be otherwise?

I naturally strive to stay in bed in the morning and do a lot of hobby projects. That's what I'd like to do, but I'd never argue that other people should be forced to pay me some sort of "bed bonus" to ensure that my natural strivings don't disadvantage me.

At a company like SalesForce, most of the most skilled employees will be developers and most of them will be men, because women, by and large, do not find computers interesting. Anyone who's ever tried to engage women in an enthusiastic conversation about programming languages knows this is true. The resulting "pay gap" isn't a pay gap at all but an earnings gap: it's correct and as it should be.

[oarabbus_]

Higher-paying executive and engineering positions tend to skew more male, and lower-paying executive assistant/secretarial/administrative positions tend to skew more female.

There is plenty of overlap but the distribution skew results in men, on the aggregate, being paid slightly more than women.

[jadell]

Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?

[weberc2]

It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.

[jadell]

> It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be.

I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share?

Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?

[weberc2]

Another poster linked to this, which is the clearest explanation I've seen to date: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

The most likely explanation is not that society values male work more than female work, but rather that men prioritize work that is socially valuable (i.e., prefer salary compensation) while women prefer to do work that affords them more flexibility. No one is punishing anyone or being punished by anyone; just different kinds of compensation.

[oarabbus_]

> Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?

I think you are 100% mixing up correlation and causation. "We" don't value anything. The market places a value on things based on what individuals are willing to pay, and has no knowledge or care about the gender of the person performing the task.

[repolfx]

Have you ever looked? There's lots of research out there and the scientific consensus is that biological differences drive different selection of jobs.

If you think skewed gender ratios are a computing-specific phenomenon, look here:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

Almost every profession has a skew one way or another. The professions with the most women are at the top. Look at them and ask yourself if they're high earning: preschool and kindergarten teachers at 97.5% female is first, with, oddly, speech language pathologists being the second most female-dominated job. Then there's dental hygienists, secretaries, more childcare workers, nurses, more dental related positions, medical assistant, hairdresser, etc.

At the bottom you have the usual suspects with brickerlayers, electrical line workers, etc, anything heavy and dangerous being dominated by men.

Is it really a total mystery why childcare jobs are >90% female and crane/tower operators are >99% men?

[belorn]

As a side answer, why do we as a society punish men who take low paying jobs but not women? Why is high income only correlated for men with reproductive success, health and social support, but not for women?

When given a choice between safer work, more meaningful work and higher income, why does more men pick higher income? Why do more men prioritize getting an income above studying in their early 20s compared to women?

Lets conduct an experiment with two groups where we punish members of Group A if they don't choose a high income job and keep Group B as control. What should we expect about the relative income between the two from a initial round of just choosing a profession? Next, lets introduce negotiation where the employee balance job security, job satisfaction and wages, and the employer balance the cost of supplying those needs with their own need to retain the employee. Should we expect a different outcome between Group A and Group B? In the last step of the experiment, what would we need to change in order to get equal outcome for Group A and Group B?

[daseiner1]

why is that their responsibility at all? Women are electing not to enter that “track;” it’s companies’ jobs to convince them to?

[jadell]

Are they not electing to because it doesn't interest them, or are they opting out/washing out due to other factors? Have links to any studies that show one way or the other?

[oarabbus_]

I think there are a significant number of initiatives, groups, scholarships, etc which provide girls and women beginning at a young age the resources and tools and encouragement into the engineering track.

[linuxftw]

> heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men

That's perpetuating a gender stereo type.

> "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."

The former is a way to cover the latter. A woman might be employed in a role similar to a man, but the actual title of the position might be different, and thus different pay, even though their job function might be completely identical.

> Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men

Women face exclusion early in their careers (according to many women), so it's hard for them to have any level of experience. Most good paying jobs are mid to senior level, and those jobs are being filled by the endless supply of people that hold "Masters Degrees" from overseas.

[weberc2]

And if you account for other factors, like flexibility and other benefits, you get within the margin of error--women may even out-earn men.

[grenoire]

As a rule of thumb, if you would like to not get downvoted for controversial statements, please source your assumptions.

[jimbokun]

Transcript of a Freakonomics podcast discussing this issue:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

[SamReidHughes]

This isn't controversial (among people who look at reality), it's well known and sources are easily found.

[weberc2]

Downvotes are fine with me; I don't put much stock in Internet points. I'm not trying to be persuasive in my single-sentence internet quip; if people care to learn more, they can do their own research.

[52-6F-62]

You’re engaging in discussion and the downvotes aren’t disagreement here. They’re a sign your comment wasn’t contributing much of value.

[jonahx]

> downvotes aren’t disagreement here

While this may be the official intention, in practice it is not the case. Afaict, disagreement elicits downvotes the majority of the time.

[weberc2]

What then do the upvotes signify?

[peterwwillis]

I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not?

Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to make less. In the past, philosophers have justified slavery because it seemed to make sense, but now we realize it's immoral. Couldn't the same be true of all kinds of equity gaps in our society?

To reframe it a bit, men are the minority population, yet this pay gap still exists in their favor. If men were the ones making 8% less, I bet there'd be a lot more work to reach pay parity.

[Digory]

You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings.

Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.

[peterwwillis]

Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice.

Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy.

Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?

[sushid]

Really? Your response to we have a distribution of people with different levels of intelligence, attractiveness, etc. is we got rid of slavery?

[peterwwillis]

Are you just now learning how to read and want me to confirm your eyeballs work? Or are you capable of more complex thought, and are intentionally ignoring the point I was making?

Like, I'm honestly curious, in what way did you expect me to respond to this question? You literally just asked me if I said what I said.

[daseiner1]

Wow. This impulse to compare any and every sort of economic inequality to slavery is pitiful and disgusting.

[peterwwillis]

Thanks!

[weberc2]

If the inequity is due to free people freely making different choices, then it is strictly better than coercing people to make the choices <some group> wants them to make. It is eminently desirable that _all_ people are free, even if that freedom doesn't yield some neat behavioral parity. Pressuring women to behave in a certain way is creepy.