[steven2012]

This article is largely garbage. Sure, Silicon Valley isn't a "perfect" meritocracy, but it is the most meritocratic of any other place in the world, at least that I've been in.

In Japan, and presumably other places in Asia, women are still supposed to include a photograph with their resume, and employers are reluctant to hire married women past a certain age because they feel they will get pregnant and stop working as hard. I had a friend who moved to Japan, and despite the fact that his wife was native Japanese, because she was 31 and married, she was practically unemployable. And the best he could do was get a job at coffee shop speaking English to customers. After 10 months, they moved back to the US. He hates Japan because there is no meritocracy whatsoever. Everything is based on age.

There may not be a lot of women who are CEOs of startups, but it's getting better every day, and the corporate ladder is very rewarding to smart women and minorities, at least in Silicon Valley and probably other places like NYC, LA, etc. My wife, who is in finance, went from Senior Manager to Senior Director is 3 years because she's very, very smart and the CFO recognized this and rewarded her aptly. Her bonus was >$100,000 for the 3rd year in a row, and I'm willing to bet she's made more money from her bonuses than 90% of the aspirational startup founders on HN. Her peers in finance are >60% women, and they are all extremely smart and well compensated as well. If she were living in any other country in the world, who knows if she would have been given as lucrative of an opportunity.

So sure, it's not perfect, but it's a pretty good meritocracy here, and as I said, getting better every year.

[peter_l_downs]

Congratulations on your wife's success, but how does that paragraph serve your point?

    I'm willing to bet she's made more money from her bonuses than 90% of the
    aspirational startup founders on HN. Her peers in finance are >60% women,
    and they are all extremely smart and well compensated as well.

That's finance, not the startup world, and you even make the comparison yourself! Sounds like finance companies are a much more meritocratic based on your anecdote.

[steven2012]

My point is that just because there aren't a bunch of startup founders who are women, doesn't mean that women aren't benefiting from the halo effect of meritocracy in SV. And you don't have to be a startup founder to be extremely well compensated.

Looking at Snapchat and complaining that there aren't enough women CEOs owning $4B valuation companies is not the point. It's almost ludicrous to use what is basically a black-swan, lottery ticket winner as some sort of point of comparison for progress. The real story isn't that there aren't enough of these female lottery ticket winners in SV, it's that if you are a smart and hardworking woman, you can make a lot more money than most startup founders ever will.

[7Figures2Commas]

> ...doesn't mean that women aren't benefiting from the halo effect of meritocracy in SV.

You haven't provided any real evidence of the existence of a "halo effect of meritocracy" that is benefiting women in Silicon Valley.

There are lots of women who are well-compensated outside of Silicon Valley. Have you never met a female lawyer, doctor, investment banker, accountant, dentist, real estate agent or small business owner who lives and works outside of this area?

> It's almost ludicrous to use what is basically a black-swan, lottery ticket winner as some sort of point of comparison for progress.

That is a reasonable argument, but just because you can show that this is a less-than-convincing way of debunking the notion that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy doesn't mean that you have proven Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.

> The real story isn't that there aren't enough of these female lottery ticket winners in SV, it's that if you are a smart and hardworking woman, you can make a lot more money than most startup founders ever will.

You keep pot-shotting "startup founders" but it's not clear what point you're trying to make.

Given the high failure rate of new businesses generally, you're not saying much by pointing out that it's easier to "make a lot more money" through gainful employment than entrepreneurship. Heck, a person making minimum wage is earning "a lot more" than the broke, couchsurfing founders you will inevitably meet from time to time in Silicon Valley.

[kamaal]

>>It's almost ludicrous to use what is basically a black-swan, lottery ticket winner as some sort of point of comparison for progress.

Entrepreneurship itself is a massive black swan event. With failure being most common outcome, and success a rarity.

The whole idea of a start up revolves around the concept of persistence. Its a long drawn battle, which demands a arduous march towards a point where some thing magical is supposed to happen. If you are not ready to put in efforts which can kill you, only face crippling failure on routine basis, don't start a company.

There is nothing fair/unfair merit or otherwise about it. This is how the game is.

Don't expect to walk into a boxing game and expect to be hit by cotton buds.

[mtrimpe]

The point of the article was that we're pretending it's an almost pure meritocracy though; which itself is hampering efforts to improve on the current situation.

More than anything else it's about the tech industry being in denial about this.

[Anechoic]

but it is the most meritocratic of any other place in the world

Really? I think most pro sports leagues would give SV a run for it's money in terms of meritocracy.

[newnewnew]

Look at how hard Jeremy Lin had to fight for a spot on a team. Still lots of bias in pro sports.

[JonFish85]

I can't tell if you're serious, but Jeremy Lin isn't that good of a player.... He had an amazing run, but over time fell back to earth.

[walshemj]

You mean those with rich sugar daddy's funding them as a vanity project as most top tier football (soccer) clubs are or do you mean the socialist closed shop NFL where they only penalty for failure is the pick of next years best players.

[lmkg]

He means the players, not the teams. Player compensation is tied more closely to performance than most other sectors, although not perfectly.

[walshemj]

err so do the losing nfl and afl teams cut their players salarys?

[parsnips]

To be fair, that's just beginning to change because of analytics.

[wonderzombie]

This is anecdata. And if we're being as rigorous about evidence against the claim that it's meritocratic, we need to be as rigorous as evidence affirming that it's meritocratic. This does not meet that standard.

[rfnslyr]

>$100,000 bonus - Haha what? What department/branch of the bank? No way is it IT. Investment? I work at a bank and the most I've gotten was $10k and that's extremely rare for anyone. Hell, making $100k salaries you need to be here for like 15 years.

I'm in the wrong fucking field.

[JonFish85]

I imagine she's not your average finance person. His whole point was that she worked hard, excelled and was recognized for that. It's probably a fairly rare occurrence. Like anything else, bonuses are top-loaded, so if she's near the top of the pile, she'll do very well.

Look around the country and I'm sure you'll find $100k bonuses in a lot of fields. It's not commonplace though.

[steven2012]

Me too. I've done pretty well for myself in tech, but if I knew how much people in finance made back when I was in college, I would have made the switch in a heartbeat.

[ars_technician]

Not IT if the CFO promoted her.