All Else Being Equal: Disputing Claims of a Gender Pay Gap In Tech

An anonymous reader writes "Synthia Tan writes that when you investigate the actual data, controlling for non-gender factors (like number of hours worked) the gender pay gap seems to disappear. 'A longitudinal study of female engineers in the 1980s showed a wage penalty of essentially zero.' In some cases women make more than men: women who work between 30 and 39 hours a week make 111% of what their male counterparts make." The researchers were studying more recent data, too; what are things like on this front where you work?

Comments

I really have no idea

[Chrisq]

I really have no idea what any of my colleagues earn (within salary bands), but I have no reason to think there is a difference. Certainly both make and female seem to be as happy with their packages.

Similar to most studies

[ranton]

I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap. When you factor in that women are known to negotiate less for salary the gap probably disappears completely.

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all). Focusing on the wage gap is pretty silly now.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anonymous Coward]

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all).

I think a big part of it is that those jobs tend to come with a shitty work/life balance and cultures that encourage crazy hours (especially in engineering type positions). Women tend to be more into the work/life balance and tend to have more time obligations outside of work (kids being the big one).

The only other argument that makes any sense to me is established culture, which kinda ties into that. An office full of mostly guys is going to have a very guy culture, same as an office full of women is going to have a women culture. All the little silly office stuff on it's own probably doesn't matter, but collectively I could see it making a job unappealing. I have a hard time listening to a female coworker talk about her kids for like a half hour at lunch.. an office filled with women who do this constantly would probably drive me insane, so I can see the reverse being true.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

Re:Similar to most studies

[Attila Dimedici]

The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Xest]

"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."

Hours worked is where I've seen the numbers most distorted. Most studies I've seen talking about pay gap don't account for hours and are based on the premise that most women in opposite sex relationships still opt to take on the role of picking up kids from school and such instead of their partner and so do less hours, but as this is omitted from the study the claim is made that they're paid less. Certainly in the UK few studies seem to take in hours worked, most just take the sex, the profession, and the annual salary and do nothing more than that.

So the issue of disparity in most cases is that in most couples it's still the female that is taking on the role of housewife but this is entirely a choice between couples and not a workplace problem in the slightest beyond the fact that this also impacts womens career progression because statistically you're more likely to know the company better the more hours you spend there, and hence be a more suitable candidate for promotion, hence why women are less likely to be promoted - because they're also more likely to be less committed to work and more committed to home.

The fact is some feminists want women to be able to take the housewife option, do less hours, AND still get paid as much as their male colleagues working longer hours and it's this that distorts the argument and makes the whole discussion nonsensical most of the time.

I don't pretend sexism doesn't exist and isn't a problem, I've certainly witnessed women suffer sexism in the workplace and have called it out when I've seen it, though I've also witnessed women abuse their sexual attractiveness to gain promotion with stupid sexually desperate male bosses too so I'm not overly convinced those two things don't balance out and I believe both need to be eliminated as far as possible.

The real key issue is getting a better balance between males and females that act as home makers vs. breadwinners if we want to see things balance out. Heeding calls for quotas based on statistically fraudulent studies that omit things that make it like for like such as hours worked though simply build resentment and have the opposite effect of making members of each sex view each other equally in the workplace.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Runaway1956]

My life experience? The women beside me have always made pretty much the same money I have made. Two enlistments in the Navy - an E1 made the same pay as another E1, without respect to age, color, religion, ethnicity, OR gender. An E5 made the same money as another E5, etc. I earned a nice chunk of change for sea pay, which few women had any access to back then - but that has changed today.

As a truck driver, I was paid either percentage of load, or paid by the mile. The women drivers out there made the same percentage, or the same cents per mile - just like any other driver, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, cultural or religious background.

In construction, ditto. A journeyman carpenter draws journeyman carpenter's wages, a first class helper draws first class helper wages, and a master carpenter draws master carpenter's wages, and no one cares about your hairstyle, or what you might wear off the job, or how many kids you have, or whether you delivered those kids yourself.

I've been in the workforce for - uhhhmmm - 42 years now. At no point in time have I ever worked beside a woman who did the same work I did, but made less money than I.

Wait - that's a slightly inaccurate statement. Seniority counts. I've worked beside a number of women who made MORE than I, because they tend to be more stable in their employment. I've often been junior to a woman. She takes a job, she likes it, and she stays on that job for decades. Me? Hell, I've changed careers a number of times. I've never had seniority anywhere. So, yeah, women often make MORE money than I.

The work that appeals to me usually pays better than the work that appeals to MOST women - but I've not seen or been privy to any actual barriers to women doing the same work I do. I have zero desire to be a waiter, only slightly more desire to be a nurse, or nurses' aid, or an orderly. I've cooked, but I don't want to cook anymore. I don't want to work in child care, or senior care. Women often LIKE those jobs, I don't.

I think the world is less sexist than a lot of people THINK it is. Or, the US is less sexist than you claim.

I am not surprised

[dptalia]

I've been discriminated against because of both my gender and my religion, but I have NEVER been paid less than my male colleagues. I may not have had the opportunities to grow given to me, but I've always made good money. In my current job I'm one of the highest paid people on my contract. My personal experience is that there's no pay gap - do your job and get paid accordingly,.

Re:I am not surprised

[Ol Olsoc]

When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

1. That hardly makes any sense, but okay.

2. Your wife and you have an extremely low bar for sexual discrimination.

So by your rather sensitive standards, every time I hear "You're not a woman - you couldn't understand", or "Men are pigs", then would that not be discrimination? Or about some feminine hygiene product being superior because it was invented by a female doctor? All of that is just more ways of saying "men are inferior".

We see this sort of thing all the time, but have been conditioned to the idea that only men are ever sexist.

All the same here

[germansausage]

I have 2 junior engineers and 2 engineers-in-training working for me. One of each sex (like Noah's Ark really) and men and women in each job class are paid the same. I have one senior guy who is paid more, but he has 25 years in the field and a lot more knowledge and skills.

Yeah, but women want it all

[NotDrWho]

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group? Ridiculous. Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals. Don't they realize how much easier it is just to relax with a bunch of inaccurate preconceptions?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality"

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?

Feminist = entire gender group?

Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.

Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Mitchell314]

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

You're new to this planet. See, there's this thing called human nature . . .

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

Not gonna say you're sexist, just that you hang out with bad women. What you've just described is the typical gal who hangs out in a bar waiting for Prince Charming to come along and pay her way through life. My sister was one such woman, and I viewed her as a negative role model. If a woman is hanging out in a bar trying to meet guys, it's because she's a boring person and doesn't have anything else better to do with her life. Women with actual hobbies and interests have no trouble finding men (which is why they're taken), and they tend to be nicer people overall.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[shadowrat]

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[NotDrWho]

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[YttriumOxide]

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Not the person you're replying to, but I felt I should step in here...

My wife always paid her fair share when we dated. I honestly felt a little uncomfortable about it at first, but she insisted.

She loves it when I buy her flowers and jewellery, but she'll buy me stuff I like too; so that seems even to me.

I'll hold doors open for her, and she is happy that I do. But she'll hold doors open for me too, and I'm happy that she does.

She most certainly would expect me to defend her in a fight; but equally, I'd expect her to defend me in one. (neither of us is particularly physically inclined, but we're also not really the types to get in to fights; so thus far it hasn't been a situation that has arisen)

Basically my point is that just because a woman expects some things from the guy, it doesn't mean she's asking for unequal treatment... she may be willing to do all those same things too.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Curunir_wolf]

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Maybe not, but in our culture it is typically portrayed as perfectly acceptable for a woman to slap a man, or physically attack him in other ways (throwing drinks, etc.). There are really good, legitimate reasons for this double-standard, based on average strength / power differences, so I'm not necessarily against this. It is never considered acceptable for a man that feels insulted to respond with a physical attack, so to be fair it should not be considered acceptable for a woman to do so, either.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[freak0fnature]

My ex wanted me to be prince charming, yet claimed I was too insensitive when she started talking to me with disrespect or accusing me of being incompetent or not smart enough to "properly" shingle a roof. She expected me to help out or do most of the "traditional female chores", and do all the "man chores", while we both worked full time and had a child. Not to mention she expected me to be happy in a relationship where she didn't put out, and spent far more than we could afford. She was a well educated, intelligent, good looking, had hobbies and interests, modern woman. We are both 130+ IQs, she had 2 bachelors and I had 1 (though I make 2x what she made). She left looking for something better and has spent the past 5 years saying how there are no good men out there. Even had the balls to say that to my parents. All of her friends are the same way. They take their children with them and expect as much money as they can squeeze out of their ex's. That is the modern view of "equality". Meanwhile I remarried the most opposite person I could find...someone who enjoys taking on traditional female rolls, enjoys being a wife, enjoys taking care of a man, is not lazy in the least bit (though is also educated, has a bachelors in biochem and speaks 3 languages fluently). The budget is balanced even with my ex getting child support and my wife isn't working. I know this relationship will last, because she is not a feminist.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[boristdog]

Women will get men to do stupid things for them as long as there are men willing to do stupid things for them.

Men will get women to do stupid things for them as long as there are women who will do stupid things for them.

It's almost as if people will take advantage of other people if they allow them to do so.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men. Logically the entire female gender consists of either people who believe themselves morally inferior to men, or are feminists.

I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.

Meanwhile the fundamental principle of sexism (and racism, ageism, etc.) is that you are taking some empirical data (generally gathered informally) and extrapolating it to the entire gender (/race/age) group.

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.

An example of this would be mischaracterizing feminism per se, a basic principle agreed on by - for the sake of argument - all women, as an extreme viewpoint held by a small but vocal minority.

In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.

OP expected to be called a sexist for making a fundamentally sexist remark, and I did so.

It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.

The real question here is why are you arguing with me, for calling him on his sexism, and not him, for being blatantly and admittedly and unapologetically sexist?

Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.

But that's a question only you can answer ...

And with ease.

Read more carefully.

a feminist vision of "equality"

Important qualifier there.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jythie]

More accurately, there are men and women who will take advantage of others, but that does not mean 'men' or 'women' do. There will always be jerks, but jerks do not define the whole.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jedidiah]

> The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men.

The problem with this is that it's like prattling on about the fundamental principles of the Republican or Democratic parties. What these people say they believe and how they actually act are two entirely different things.

Ragging on feminists is not "sexism". It's strictly an ideological remark. It's not about gender. It's about a particular political faction with a certain name.

What you are trying to do is elevate feminists above criticism by smearing anyone that tries to criticize. It's kind of exactly the sort of thing the OP was complaining about.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Nemesisghost]

It's not just feminist who are this way, but all special interest groups. Everybody claims they want equal treatment, but in reality what they want is preferential treatment. And the ones who get screwed over are those who belong to the formerly dominate class, but never leveraged this dominance for themselves, who now find themselves at a disadvantage because of the "equalization" that has taken place. As a straight white male in the United States, I can't compete equally with my minority peers, I have to be better than them. Otherwise, with all other quantifiable characteristics being equal, they will get the jobs & services I want.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

I'm the wife in the situation. I just wrote my husband an $800 check for my cut of the mortgage and food last month. Problem?

Controlling for...

[Sockatume]

I was under the impression that one of the issue was that women are less likely to get offered exciting projects, overtime, etc. etc. so they wind up stuck in relatively junior positions doing limited hours.

Re:Controlling for...

[Anonymous Coward]

They get offered all that at first but company stops asking after constant rejections. Young women, at least from my personal experience, are more focused on things outside of their career. There were several female co-workers who were more talented than me but unlike them I was willing to put in more hours to deal with problems at work. Last I heard one of them now runs a Yoga studio and another went back to school for PhD.

Re:Misogyny

[ShanghaiBill]

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

They could also solve it by attacking the methodology. Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"? So the guys get paid more, but it is okay because they stick around till 9pm playing Minecraft and reading Slashdot.

IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would employers be hiring so many overpriced men?

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[erroneus]

Now THAT is an insightful rhetorical question.

Employers, especially today, have loyalty only to their money; their profit margins; their bottom lines. It doesn't actually fit that there would be institutionalized sexism if only because it is not the most profitable way to do things. All of these "-isms" are lies. Who profits from the lies? Turns out a lot of people do. Look to the budgets and pay of SPLC leadership among others. These non-profits are very expensive to run.

Re:this isn't new

[sribe]

Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home.

Says who?

I remember when I first read about these issues, 30 years ago, one of the surveys claiming that women did the majority of work at home, counted exterior house maintenance, yard maintenance, and car maintenance as mens' hobbies instead of work at thome.

Re:Because men don't quit to have children

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Jeesuz.. are you indoctrinated with political correctness or are you just prematurely trying to fend off flames? I've worked with many female engineers and scientists, and was married to one for nearly 20 years.

Three biggest factors I see:

1. Women stop to have children, and the *may* come back to the work force. Many never do, so there aren't as many females in senior paying positions.

The next two are anecdotes I've noticed over my own career that seem to be a constant theme (e.g. I legitimately think there's a trend):

2. Women are weaker negotiators during the hiring and raise/evaluation phases. While there are some monster bitches out there, they're not called the 'fairer sex' for nothing. Men are much more likely to take a stand and risk their job for what they deem to be 'fair'.

3. Women get sick of the engineering work environment, the lack of personal fulfillment, and say 'to hell with this, I'm out of here".

Missed a few things.

[jythie]

I applaud the author for trying to keep things even and dig into the numbers, but she missed two rather critical things.

The first thing she touched on was women staying in STEM. She dismisses this as personal choice and finding something 'more fulfilling', but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers. They did not really want to leave the industry in order to take a lower paying job in another field, but they found treatment to be pretty bad and opportunities to be fairly restricted.

And that brings us to the second point, opportunities. While it is true that actual pay for the same job tends to be fairly even, advancement opportunities for women still tend to be pretty limited. The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female and men are generally seen more as 'management material' and 'leaders', while the same leadership behaviors in women are often dismissed as being 'bitchy'. Dominance is often rewarded in men and punished for women, which results in fewer women getting those higher paying jobs within the same organization.

Re:Missed a few things.

[phantomfive]

Those are interesting hypotheses, but as you mention, the evidence in the article directly contradicts your first point. It would be interesting if you found a study or something better than your friends to support that point.

And let's be honest, who hasn't had lousy bosses and annoying coworkers? Those are reasons to find another company, not to change careers.

Re:Missed a few things.

[GoCrazy]

If we're going to go off anecdotal evidence, most of the women I've met who no longer do engineering have done so for personal (raising a family), career (joined politics) or academic (pursued PhD in Physics instead) reasons. You leave a job because of coworkers. You leave a career due to personal choice.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the last line of the article:

this perception is just one more factor discouraging women from entering the tech space.

Re:Missed a few things.

[DaveV1.0]

but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers.

Most of the men I know that have dropped out of STEM did so because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers through out their careers. They got tired of the crap, but the stuck it out for a long time. From what you are saying, women don't stick it out as long. BTW, you don't mention what the problems were. Was it because the manager wanted her to work 60+ hours per week? Was it because she was expected to be available on vacation? Was it because she was expected to be on-call? Was it because the co-workers got tired of swapping shifts, on-calls, etc?

The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female

Really? do you have any evidence to back this up? Or, is it that you considered your work to be the same quality as your male counterparts and your boss didn't?

Your post is just you grasping at straws to justify your preconceived bias.