|
|
|
|
|
|
by sajacy
1852 days ago
|
|
|
The source [Google post](https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/...) says “ men were flagged for adjustments because they received less discretionary funds than women” so your 50/50 split of n is the most aggressive way to interpret that information. More likely, we should interpret that to mean that men were found to be more likely to be underpaid (n_men > N_men), and that the appropriate comparison of variance (finding outliers) among men versus women was performed. |
|
|
I'm satisfied with that choice.
Given that Google are here quoting this stat in the press (with the 50/50 implication) to defend themselves against an inequality suit, without actually giving us the figures, I assume that this is the best spin that Google can put on it.