Slashdot Mirror

of you think the trades are a way to be living on food stamps call a plumber next time your Toilet is backed up. or you could look at https://www.payscale.com/resea... and that is for a Plumber who is not self employed, my father made six figures as a pipe fitter

Before anything, I found this:
https://www.payscale.com/caree...

Computer Science degrees
85% male

That alone would justify an 85% bias to male hires in IT.

You can't blame the company for that. I wrote what follows before I found that... it remains valid... read it if you want. But I thought it reasonable to open with the death blow to your argument.

Simple explanations is not proof of anything.

Again, the burden of proof remains on you. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is not viable.

IF you find someone with a blood stained knife in their hand and a dead body under them... they have the presumption of innocence. That is how the legal system works. I know that barbarians just tie rocks to the person with knife, don't have a trial, don't do lawyers, don't look into what might have otherwise happened... and just go right to execution. I mean, that's just typical barbarian behavior.

Look, if you want to be a barbarian, that's cool. A lot of people are... it is a trending world view.

But your belief system doesn't build or sustain highly organized societies. When you embrace that stuff you limit the scale and complexity of the sorts of social organizations you can sustain. That has implications for the largest size of your political, economic, and social units. Basically, barbarians rarely can sustain populations over a couple million. And that's why you tend to see large social and political systems break into smaller units as barbarism rises. They are embracing a system that cannot substantially organize large numbers of people.

Barbarians ultimately lose out in competition because they have a hard time competing with large highly organized civilized population groups.

It is a recipe to be dominated. If you want to do that... do it.

As to me viewing sexism as a feature, negative. I favor being blind to sex in the hiring process. If a hiring imbalance occurs when the sex of the applicants is not considered in the hiring process... then the sex imbalance is due to something which may correlate with sex but which is not sex itself.

For example, if I had a minimum height requirement, that would correlate with sex as women are generally shorter than men. But that is not a sexual discrimination. It is a height discrimination.

If I can justify that height discrimination then I'm solid... maybe I've got high shelves that have to be reached by employees and ladders aren't very practical. Whatever.

As to women in tech... not as many women have the skills in tech as men.

That right there lowers the number of women that will be able to apply for the job. Here is where I spent 1 minute finding the evidence... which is more time than you spent before you formed your strongly held but very poorly informed opinions.

Seriously... don't accuse people of being sexist or racist without evidence. You have none. How dare you.

They're only looking at the CEOs of the largest companies. Actual Average CEO salary is $162K, not $18.9M, and that doesn't count failed CEOs.

Their comparison is like saying "Average basketball player salaries are $10M/year" by just looking at the salaries of the top players in the NBA. Like sports stars, Hollywood celebrities, famous artists, etc.... there are some occupations which are lottery-like in structure, where only a few of the people who attempt them get paid the big bucks at the top of the professions. If you average in the risks of ending up being just a guy who ran a bankrupt company, or a basketball player who plays for free in the local league, or a "waiter" instead of actor, the occupations don't seem nearly as lucrative.

The jobs at the HQ2 will not be warehouse jobs. According to https://www.payscale.com/resea... the average job at Amazon pays $100k/year (the median is far lower - $28,446/year according to https://www.inc.com/scott-maut... ).

I cited the World Trade Organization, China Daily, and Forbes. Do you have some reason to think they are all wrong, or did we both learn something about Shanghai today?

Yes I do. I know Shanghai is expensive, so I know you need a good income to live there. And I know a lot of young professionals live there. So if somebody is telling me their living expense is the same as their income, it's immediately obvious that it's wrong.

So how to get some real numbers? That's a bit tricky. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on Forbes, and even WTO is doubtful for a number of reasons, including the difficulty of getting good numbers out of the Chinese government, who collects them, and the likelihood of those numbers being way out of date anyway. So I had an idea, what does a software engineer make? That's likely to be pretty reliable number. If it wasn't then there would be a bunch of software engineers taking shots at it. So: CNY 171,220. That's about USD $25K, that has the ring of truth. It's a range of course, from about half that to about twice that. Next question: how much does it cost to live in Shanghai? Here we go: ¥4,327.53 That's about USD $633.

Now we're getting some believable data. As a software engineer your salary will be about half of USA, but your living expense will be less than 1/5th. That's a great deal. Any trouble with my numbers? One takeaway: Shanghai isn't as expensive as I thought. Maybe if you want a water view, but not if you live near your employer, most probably an industrial park that looks a whole lot like they do in USA.

The way I see it, those kids are going to need a lot of game machines and they can easily afford them, even more so if made in China.

How about those white and asian males bugger off and find (or found) other companies to do the same thing without the whiners?

Many of us do (I used to work at Google). That's probably why Google has some of the worst turnover rates in the industry.

However, it's a tradeoff: Google is good to have on your resume, so you hold your nose, suffer through it for a few years, and then go on to greener pastures. But I'm breathing a sigh of relief that I'm out of that madhouse called "Google".

Here's some median salary data for United Airlines. Can't say how accurate it may be, but indicates that for the pilot/co-pilot/flight engineer category, the median pay is $118,390. [Do they still have flight engineers at United? Mostly, a phased-out job.] Median means 50% of employees in that category get paid less than that, and 50% get paid more than that. https://www.payscale.com/resea...

After you account for everything there is still a gap. It's smaller than the uncontrolled gap of course, but it's still a significant gap. Headline figure is 2.4%, which is equivalent to working nearly 9 days a year for free, and it's worse in some industries.

Detailed analysis: https://www.payscale.com/data-...

Q/A session that probably anticipates most of your rebuttals: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...

Note however that the controlled gap, comparing like-for-like in terms of experience, time worked, age, education, children etc. doesn't tell the whole story. For women there is less opportunity to reach that same level and then get paid 2.4% less. Not just women either, it can affect men who are in some groups such as those with disabilities or who are widowed.

And yet you still fail to account for how individuals negotiate their priorities, etc. Some take lower pay on purpose in trade-off for other benefits - this is extremely true of many women, especially those that have children, and the others in the group you mentioned (those with disabilities or caring for someone elderly or with disabilities). As I said - once you take *all* the factors into play, there is *no* pay gap, or at least not one that is statistically significant.

Also, a 2.4% difference would fall within normative ranges deltas, and can be accounted for numerous things - from work-life balance to performance, etc.

As to opportunities - it's a matter of what you make of it. I've transitioned from being "at the office" to WFH. The opportunities for advancement have significantly changed as a result; yet it's a matter of what I do - how I engage, etc - both within my team, and within the company as a whole that makes the difference in advancement opportunities.

After you account for everything there is still a gap. It's smaller than the uncontrolled gap of course, but it's still a significant gap. Headline figure is 2.4%, which is equivalent to working nearly 9 days a year for free, and it's worse in some industries.

Detailed analysis: https://www.payscale.com/data-...

Q/A session that probably anticipates most of your rebuttals: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...

Note however that the controlled gap, comparing like-for-like in terms of experience, time worked, age, education, children etc. doesn't tell the whole story. For women there is less opportunity to reach that same level and then get paid 2.4% less. Not just women either, it can affect men who are in some groups such as those with disabilities or who are widowed.

The audacity of Apple giving some minimum-wage tech schlub the title of "Genius" says *everything* about Apple, its branding, and the customers it serves.

They might be annoying, but Apple's "genius" employees do make more than minimum wage: https://www.payscale.com/resea...

Trying to boil it down to just one number is way too simplistic, and the number you give doesn't seem to be supported by other studies.

Have a look at this study: http://www.payscale.com/data-p...

TL;DR the gap varies by industry, and as well as simply being paid less there is also less opportunity. The figure taking into account all factors is typically 1-5% depending on industry. 2% is the equivalent of working for free for one week a year.

$250k will buy you two mid-level security engineers for a year. (source) That doesn't seem like that would cut it for an organization as large as HBO.

Now deduct the cost of his office staff, the far more expensive rent in a medical building, and, most important of all, the cost of his malpractice insurance.

That salary is if he works for a hospital, so all of those would be paid already. Even if he had to pay that, it's only $20-30k a year.

And you have no idea how much plumbers make.

And you do? The guy I called to fix my sewer got $100 for 30 minutes of work and he spent 15 minutes driving to and from my house. Even if he's has work lined up perfectly, which he doesn't, he's still making only half as much as doctors.

Also, this site and several others say plumbers maxes out at $80k.

This is not true in the least.

What I said is entirely true — although few people (TFA cites 3%) would stop working completely — the strawman you put up initially — many will work less. TFA says so:

Trials during the 1970s in Canada and the US found people worked slightly less

and

The Dalia survey, similarly, found most people said they would spend more time with family, volunteering, or training.

So, 3% would stop working completely, and "most people" would work less. Just as I said.

how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for

I did not claim, it will "pay". I said, "help pay". It certainly would — in a country, where average pay of a Software Engineer is €41,227, the €11,520 you are citing is nothing to sneeze at.

" the actual cash compensation for most executives amounts to pennies per hour."

Impossible.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_%28CEO%29/Salary

Average CEO salary is $166k.

Even if they work 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, their pay per hour is still $20.

Hmm, let's see. Looking at Intel engineer salaries, $100k seems like a reasonable average for a quick sanity check. So $300m invested, let's say that due to their diversity programme they can hire engineers who are just as productive but only cost $60k/year. $40k/year saved, $300m invested = 7,500 engineer-years to recover their costs.

(source: http://www.payscale.com/resear...)

How many $100k engineers does Intel employ? What are the overheads of firing thousands of them and replacing them with brand new diversity hires? Seems like kind of a crap money-making scheme if you ask me.

Especially since a plan to break the law by hiring diverse candidates at lower rates, and then publicly announcing it so that you get maximum scrutiny by social justice organizations probably isn't the most sensible way to pull off such a diabolical scheme.

Median pay for aerospace engineers in the United States is around $82K per year.

Median pay for aerospace engineers in India is around Rs 820k per year, which comes out as about $12500 per year.

So you still get a very substantial difference in favour of Indian costs.

Median pay for aerospace engineers in the United States is around $82K per year.

Median pay for aerospace engineers in India is around Rs 820k per year, which comes out as about $12500 per year.

So you still get a very substantial difference in favour of Indian costs.

Compare these Production Associate (which is what jose is ) to the average. He is getting MORE than average pay. That does not include the fact that Tesla has better benefits, treats employees well WRT lunch, offices, etc. and gives them stock options that are worth BOOKOO BUCKS

and a Tesla factory job probably comes with more benefits than other employers who don't require a collegiate-level education.

Why can't we find the right people here? I honestly don't know.

Umm, I think I see the problem:

...needed a programmer at $45k/yr.

If you're not willing to pay market rates, you shouldn't be able to use gimmicks like H1B's to artificially lower the going rate. I know that sucks for you. But that's capitalism. That being said, if you're in NYC (a guess based on your username), $45k/yr doesn't seem too low for new college grads according to this page and this page. But perhaps there are other factors at play. If you're paying what everybody else is paying for entry level college grads, why should someone work for you instead of taking a job with another company that might offer better benefits, more upward mobility, and other perks? I would think NIH research is compelling work. But maybe you need to take a hard look at your work environment. What red flags are there that may turn off potential hires?

Why can't we find the right people here? I honestly don't know.

Umm, I think I see the problem:

...needed a programmer at $45k/yr.

If you're not willing to pay market rates, you shouldn't be able to use gimmicks like H1B's to artificially lower the going rate. I know that sucks for you. But that's capitalism. That being said, if you're in NYC (a guess based on your username), $45k/yr doesn't seem too low for new college grads according to this page and this page. But perhaps there are other factors at play. If you're paying what everybody else is paying for entry level college grads, why should someone work for you instead of taking a job with another company that might offer better benefits, more upward mobility, and other perks? I would think NIH research is compelling work. But maybe you need to take a hard look at your work environment. What red flags are there that may turn off potential hires?

it's a LOT harder to get employment in India as a foreigner than compared to getting employment in the US as a foreigner

Now, would any of the involved engineers consider moving to India — to be paid 10 times less than they were — even if the country welcomed them?

Probably, not... Would they consider moving to North Carolina or South Dakota — to be paid 2-3 times less? Some might — but others will still complain (and write letters to Senators).

Here's one answer. (Looks like it tops out at around 55K/year.)

Median CEO pay is only $160k. That includes bonuses, stock options, etc.

You're probably thinking of the ridiculous amounts made by CEOs of the biggest companies (Fortune 500, S&P 500, etc). Yes they're mostly not worth it. But they only make up less than 0.02% of all businesses with employees (roughly 6 million). And only about 5% of all businesses employing 500+ people.

The media wants to make a story out of the poor-rich pay gap, so they cherry-pick the data which best supports their argument. While that data is relevant to the subset it's picked from, don't make the mistake of extrapolating it to the other 99.98%. Or even the other 95%. That's stereotyping and prejudice. Some people get all upset when you take a trait present in only 5% of, say, African-Americans and extrapolate it to the entire population. But are more than happy do the exact same thing when it comes to something like CEOs. You know that thing about CEOs being psychopaths? It's only 4% of them (vs 1% for the general population). Yet some people gleefully use that stat to justify their insults, prejudice, and bigotry against the other 96%.

The average police salary in the US is $56,810. They can retire after 20 years at 50% of their salary

Better look up your numbers again, reality is sometimes different.

CCIE jobs typically start at $250K.

No they don't.

You are complaining about wages that meet what a Police officer makes, without any of the requirements. Wages that are more than double what a person who enlists in the Military. And you try to excuse that with the "dead end" job excuse which can be applied to EVERY POSSIBLE ENTRY LEVEL JOB!

While we are at it, why is it okay for Government workers to Unionize, but Military people can't? Oh my, there is a convincing argument which translates to ALL GOVERNMENT JOBS.

I doubt that any of that will sink into your brain bucket. You will probably retort with the same argument again, and I'll simply ignore it. You have not convinced me of anything but your own ignorance and bias and I doubt you ever could.

Now if these jobs existed 3x years ago do you think I'd have served in the Army? Do you think I'd have struggled to put myself through 8 years of College as a restaurant manager instead of taking a TSA job?

Well, that tells me everything I need to know. What do you think is so easy about working a make work job that pays a practically subsistence wage. My guess is it's also a dead-end job, any serious agency or security company is going to look at them the way IT managers look at helpdesk people.

Here's the salary for TSA "officers", http://www.payscale.com/resear...
FYI; I think they should just close down the whole thing, TSA does nothing (good for citizens).

http://www.payscale.com/resear...

It's the argument politicians use against rights.

FTFY

Agreed. Another variation that is common is if they can't win an issue on its merits redefine it so you are protecting something or another from imminent harm, even if your really not. There are few absolutes. Assign a value to all the things that are now, "absolute rights". No, it can't truly be infinite, otherwise none of it can be modelled. Assign a value to everything else. Let people vote on where they really want the trade-off to be. Spell out the trade offs in ways people can understand. For instance, a lot of the anti terrorism efforts have not had huge returns on individual safety in this country. Are we setting the values on those efforts correctly? It is all about how to best allocate scarce resources. It is a pity politicians can't seem to have real discussions on the subject. As an example, consider payscale

It says there that spending $239k at Harvey Mudd College results in nearly a million dollar return on investment over time. Okay, now what does spending another $239k on the war on terror get us? That doesn't mean that all college degrees make sense. Many do not. The point is to have the discussion about where to devote resources based on realistic metrics. Useless crap like, "When I'm president, I'm going to get all the manufacturing jobs back," and other such nonsense needs to end, at least unless you have an actual realistic plan to do so with likely costs. It won't be free

This study answers all your questions: http://www.payscale.com/data-p...

Even when you control the data to account for all known factors, there is still a gap. It might only be a few percentage points in some cases, but that's still works of working for free every year.

The uncontrolled days is interesting too. It shows that there is some institutional bias in society, where women are penalised in ways men are not, e.g. after taking time off for maternity leave.

That also refutes your point about employers not hiring women because they are cheaper. The bias is institutional and mostly subconscious. Businesses usually at least try to avoid it so don't see women as being cheaper directly. In fact it's often the opposite, e.g. reluctance to hire women of child baring age or with young children, or passing them over for promotion because they are seen as less dedicated when they need to go at 5.

I've probably spent more time in training and education than the average lawyer, yet I earn 1/10th what they do.

A quick check shows that lawyers near you average C$71,777 annually, and that's after two to four years of postgraduate study in a specialized field, with ongoing continuing education.

In comparison, the median salary for your profession in your area is C$63,154, with no postgraduate studies or CE requirements.

However, lawyers get to write the laws, so a whole bunch of otherwise simple matters require a lawyer to write the above mentioned letters, because the law says they have to. It's a racket.

Yes. IT admins also get to build computers, so that's why our jobs are so easy, right?

If you actually want to learn how law really works, I strongly suggest reading The Illustrated Guide to Law, which presents a good summarized history of the (US-centric) legal principles in use today. It touches on the mistakes made in the past, and how they've been corrected to produce a more just (though more nuanced) modern legal system.

I've probably spent more time in training and education than the average lawyer, yet I earn 1/10th what they do.

A quick check shows that lawyers near you average C$71,777 annually, and that's after two to four years of postgraduate study in a specialized field, with ongoing continuing education.

In comparison, the median salary for your profession in your area is C$63,154, with no postgraduate studies or CE requirements.

However, lawyers get to write the laws, so a whole bunch of otherwise simple matters require a lawyer to write the above mentioned letters, because the law says they have to. It's a racket.

Yes. IT admins also get to build computers, so that's why our jobs are so easy, right?

If you actually want to learn how law really works, I strongly suggest reading The Illustrated Guide to Law, which presents a good summarized history of the (US-centric) legal principles in use today. It touches on the mistakes made in the past, and how they've been corrected to produce a more just (though more nuanced) modern legal system.

It depends on your gender. A detailed study found that men tend to get an increase in pay after having children, and women tend to get a reduction. There are a variety of reasons, one being inequality in access to maternity/paternity leave, but a big factor is perception. They also found that when a man says they value their work/life balance it tends to be looked on positively, where as if a woman says the same it tends to negatively affect her.

As for maternity/paternity leave being unfair on childless couples, you could argue that it's unfair for childless couples to benefit from all the money they save by not having children and transferring the responsibility and cost of creating and raising future generations on to others. Presumably those people want there to be young people around when they are old.

So, even if they do 10 times the work and twice the hours they are making considerably more then 10 times the income: http://www.payscale.com/data-p...

If what you say is true, it explains why things are so bad. Elitists who don't think anyone else can do what they are doing so poorly. You don't get 100% when your putting in the hours and workload your talking about. Especially if the job is thinking, planning, and creative.

Does the comparison of programming with child care provision and nail salon ownership make a valid point? I sought some data by googling "average salary X" where X is one of {nail salon worker, salon manager, child care provider, programmer}*. The top hits yielded:
Workers at nail salons often don't even make a legal wage, let alone a living wage
Median pay in this female-dominated area goes for around $11.90 per hour. (Salon manager)
The average pay in this industry is approximately $9.43 per hour. (Child care)
Computer programmers made an average salary of $80,930 in 2013.
* It's not at all clear that the majority of nail salon *owners* are female, so I left that out, substituting managers.

Your chosen examples of female-dominated workforces have far lower pay than programming, as well as significantly less social prestige. I appreciate that the first paragraph of your comment was snarky rather than making a serious point, but the data doesn't support your comparison. As for your second paragraph, being "excluded" is different from being "uninterested". You use a classic strawman argument conflating the two. There is no suggestion that women need rescuing from alternative career choices, simply that the "craft" of programming would be more advanced with a more talented set of "players" (references to gp post).

Does the comparison of programming with child care provision and nail salon ownership make a valid point? I sought some data by googling "average salary X" where X is one of {nail salon worker, salon manager, child care provider, programmer}*. The top hits yielded:
Workers at nail salons often don't even make a legal wage, let alone a living wage
Median pay in this female-dominated area goes for around $11.90 per hour. (Salon manager)
The average pay in this industry is approximately $9.43 per hour. (Child care)
Computer programmers made an average salary of $80,930 in 2013.
* It's not at all clear that the majority of nail salon *owners* are female, so I left that out, substituting managers.

Your chosen examples of female-dominated workforces have far lower pay than programming, as well as significantly less social prestige. I appreciate that the first paragraph of your comment was snarky rather than making a serious point, but the data doesn't support your comparison. As for your second paragraph, being "excluded" is different from being "uninterested". You use a classic strawman argument conflating the two. There is no suggestion that women need rescuing from alternative career choices, simply that the "craft" of programming would be more advanced with a more talented set of "players" (references to gp post).

Bob, Charlie, and Dave make 50k a year and Alice makes 35k, despite all of them performing the same. Alice cannot get a raise because she's female and every other business out there is only going to offer 35k because that's the going rate for female employees.

Oh Bullshit. http://www.payscale.com/career...

The average college graduate has around $30,000 of debt, hardly hundreds of thousands. The average trade school graduate has $10,000 of debt. Given that college grads have significantly higher salaries, and significantly more horizontal and vertical movement potential, I'd hardly say that a college degree is not worth it. ...

You must be talking about the US. In Europe I'd be surprised if the average university debt is even 1/4th of that. The last time I checked Oxford medical school had almost exactly the same tuition as MBTI (before their financial scandals saw daylight.) Asian, South American and African Universities cost even less and techies (unlike some tradesmen) are competing in this global market. Yes, your college degree is worth something but first consider that in India there are tens of millions of middle-class people with PhDs in whatever you think you're an expert at. In Spain, Brazil, China there are hundreds of millions of highly-educated and unemployed university graduates.

If I were a chancellor or comptroller of a state or alumni-subsidized university I'd be worried that people will find out that many US universities don't even give a fiscal ROI, much less a societal one. They are morphing into either trade schools or glorified country clubs.

Those with money focus on the fraternity aspect, rub elbows with wealth and push themselves into a cushy job with friends. They can major in some of the useless esoteric degrees (believe me, philosophy and psychology are quite practical compared to some college curriculum.) The others are channeled down the "trade- school" quick fiscal ROI path. They get a degree in Management Information Systems, Accounting, MBA or Computer Science and hope what they learned is relevant for at least as long as it takes to payoff their student loan.

Yes your college degree is worth something, so is a house, so are dot com stocks, beanie babies and tulips. But it isn't worth as much as most people believe it's worth.

The so-called "STEM shortage" is pretty much bullshit. If you take a look at the degrees that pay the best you find that standard STEM degrees dominate.

No degree is a guarantee of employment. If you can't be bothered to shower and show up, you're going to have a hard time. Degrees merely improve your odds of success significantly.

Because Microsoft and Facebook want and abundant (and therefore cheap & expendable) workforce.

The geek is economically and socially illiterate.

What Microsoft and Facebook needs are customers who feel financially secure, have a generous amount of disposable income, and the more of them, the better.

Microsoft typically pays about 15% above market. The lowliest entry level software engineer at Microsoft earns about $80,000/yr. Average Salary for Microsoft Corp Employees

The median household income in the US is $52,000.

You're going to have to control for where MS employees work if you're going to compare their average salary against average income across the entire states. If the majority of MS's employment occurs in areas with a high cost of living, $80k may have less buying power than another location that pays $40,000.

Because Microsoft and Facebook want and abundant (and therefore cheap & expendable) workforce.

The geek is economically and socially illiterate.

What Microsoft and Facebook needs are customers who feel financially secure, have a generous amount of disposable income, and the more of them, the better.

Microsoft typically pays about 15% above market. The lowliest entry level software engineer at Microsoft earns about $80,000/yr. Average Salary for Microsoft Corp Employees

The median household income in the US is $52,000.

Show me a driver who makes 30/hr.

Here are a few citations, that contradict each other, but all list pay over $30/hour.
Salary for a unionized UPS driver: $82,997
Wage for a UPS driver: $12-$33
This is just base pay. The cost to the employer is the burdened cost of base pay, plus taxes, medical, unemployment insurance, pension, etc.

Lots of people work delivery for UPS and Fedex

UPS driver $9.97-$32.74 per hour

Fedex driver $24,780-69,440 per year

A lot better than a lot of people make, esp. considering this is not high-skill labor.

Lots of people work delivery for UPS and Fedex

UPS driver $9.97-$32.74 per hour

Fedex driver $24,780-69,440 per year

A lot better than a lot of people make, esp. considering this is not high-skill labor.

Which means by your augment, Iran is a less sexist country then the US.

That is a false characterization of what I am saying (you'll note I referenced India's problem with sexism too). But what it does say is that in the field of sciences Iran is less sexist than in other fields. Or in the reverse - in the US the sciences are more sexist than in other fields.

One of the reasons women stay out of gaming is that it is not a profitable profession. You work very hard, work very long hours, suffer social isolation, and at the end of it you can get paid very poorly.

That does not pass the laugh test. It is just circular reasoning, women stay out of jobs that suck because they are women. Men take jobs that suck because they are men. All you are doing is stating the premise as the conclusion.

And your example of game programming being low paying is just cherry-picking, I don't even know if it is true for that narrow of a field. But one thing is for certain, the average programming job pays 12% more than the average HR job. That's economic opportunity for you.

Nurture, figure it out.

Which means by your augment, Iran is a less sexist country then the US.

That is a false characterization of what I am saying (you'll note I referenced India's problem with sexism too). But what it does say is that in the field of sciences Iran is less sexist than in other fields. Or in the reverse - in the US the sciences are more sexist than in other fields.

One of the reasons women stay out of gaming is that it is not a profitable profession. You work very hard, work very long hours, suffer social isolation, and at the end of it you can get paid very poorly.

That does not pass the laugh test. It is just circular reasoning, women stay out of jobs that suck because they are women. Men take jobs that suck because they are men. All you are doing is stating the premise as the conclusion.

And your example of game programming being low paying is just cherry-picking, I don't even know if it is true for that narrow of a field. But one thing is for certain, the average programming job pays 12% more than the average HR job. That's economic opportunity for you.

Nurture, figure it out.

Egalitarianism

Wage gap myth:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Majors by Gender: Is It Bias or the Major that Determines Future Pay?

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

The Wage Gap Myth

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

Young women now earn more than men in UK

Do you have brain damage or are you just willfully ignorant?

"In the case of female compensation, they never account for women that had children versus women that did have them. The difference is that women that have them tend to take time off work or do part time work or intentionally take easier jobs so they put less stress on the home life. The result is that over their lives they tend to make less money because of these choices."

They ALWAYS take this into account. At the professional level (doctors, lawyers, etc) where the educational process is very standardized and "metric-ized", AND controlling for children, etc (this is the fancy way of saying they take these things into account), women are still paid less than men, although the gap is closing.

http://www.payscale.com/career...