Slashdot Mirror


Female Computer Programmers Make $0.72 For Every Dollar Made By Male: Study (siliconbeat.com)

An anonymous reader cites an article on The Mercury News' Silicon Beat tech blog: Female computer programmers make 72 cents for every dollar earned by male programmers. That difference is after researchers adjust for factors such as age, education, years of experience, job title, employer and location, according to a new study by Glassdoor (PDF), the jobs and recruiting marketplace, which looked at salary data of more than 500,000 people over 140 professions. The well-known U.S. wage gender gap is 76 cents for every dollar men earn. But women earn 94.6 cents for every man's dollar after adjusting for all factors other than gender. In other words, the wage gap in the U.S. is about 5.4 percent.

33 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wonder it was submitted by anonymous.

    1. Re:Bullshit by SumDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even in the summary they state the real number: ~ 5%. This is one of those massive myths that keeps going and going. For the same positions, men and women get paid the same amount.

      Women do have trouble with confidence. There's a great Salon article called The Confidence Gap that addresses this. Women have to walk the line between assertive and "bitchy." Oddly enough, women in focus groups are more likely to label an assertive woman as bitchy than men!. A lot of this comes from their own gender!

      Women also tend to take jobs that are more fulfilling, even if it's at a lower pay. In some respect I think men could learn a lot from this. That's really the smarter move.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even in the summary they state the real number: ~ 5%. This is one of those massive myths that keeps going and going. For the same positions, men and women get paid the same amount.

      The summary also states that the gap is 28% for programmers, after adjusting for all of the same factors that give the 5% gap overall. So the point of this article is, why is the gap so much worse for programmers than it is for other fields?

    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It really isn't hard to figure out. There is a massive pay disparity among programmers. Silicon Valley programmers can make ten to twenty fold what a coder in Nebraska is making. There are a far far larger number of male programmers so they are statistically far more likely to be qualified for those positions.

      The field is dominated by young adults. Women are far more likely during this period to be out for lower paid or completely unpaid maternity leave which will skew your numbers even if they are otherwise equally paid.

      Women are far more likely to be family focused putting family needs ahead of work needs. Even if the workplace puts no obstacles or prejudice against this and supports it that is going to translate into lower productivity and performance and that is going to be reflected in salary over time.

      Last but not least programming and tech in general is a difficult field to get valid data on. It is very difficult to control for how well qualified someone is in tech since the most important factors is the impression of past and current achievement and not degrees or paint by numbers corporate assessment at least beyond entry level or academia which obviously has to value the paper credentials they are selling.

    4. Re:Bullshit by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My guess is that women don't tend to self-identify as programmers or aim for careers as programmers. The ones who do end up in the field do so with relatively low seniority compared to their experience because they start out in QA or tech support instead of as an "associate software engineer" or whatever.

      The female QA specialist I work with could easily be a software engineer -- she's become our de-facto Python guru -- but nevertheless, her job title is still "QA specialist" and (I assume) she gets paid accordingly. Now, if she did make the transition to be a developer officially, do you think they'd start her off as a mid-level one, or call her entry-level? The latter, probably. And if that happened, would she fight for the more senior title/pay? Probably not.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Bullshit by bfpierce · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because 'Computer Programmer' in this instance is 'Mainframe Programmer', one of the older 'types' of computer programmer.

      More recent job titles that gap is much closer to the national average, it's not a statement on 'everybody who writes code'.

    6. Re:Bullshit by guises · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does say that they adjusted for location. It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.

      Something vague and hard to measure, like your idea that women are putting family needs ahead of work needs, could account for a portion of the difference. But it would have to be unique to tech - are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not. So that doesn't explain the 5% to 28% disparity.

      Even if you could come up with something like that, it's not going to account for the full difference. 23% is a big number, and some portion of that must come down to bias. Not necessarily discrimination (though that's certainly in their somewhere) but somewhere in the back of some HR manager's head is the expectation that men are going to be better than women in a male-dominated field, and this will influence their decisions in subtle ways.

    7. Re:Bullshit by Forgefather · · Score: 3, Interesting

      5% is a problem but far less of one because the average amount gained by someone who negotiates their salary and someone who doesn't is 7%, and men are twice as likely to negotiate for a salary increase as women. Factoring that in the pay gap shrinks to within a pretty comfortable margin of error.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    8. Re:Bullshit by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      5% is statistical noise. It's not being an "asshole", it's being numerate.

      I've made my own compromises that have impacted my salary. So I don't buy into the SJW nonsense. Girls are indoctrinated differently. Depending on the size or type of company that will work for or against a female programmer.

      Neither is the fault of tech companies or male tech workers.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Bullshit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.

      How would they adjust for it? My company doesn't keep a database of who is working late at night, and even if we did, these researchers wouldn't have access to it.

      are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not.

      I don't think women in tech spend more time with their families. But I do think that men in tech spend less time with their families, or don't have families.

    10. Re:Bullshit by bfpierce · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to read the article linked.

      "Part of the explanation for the large computer programmer wage gap, said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, is that these are the scientific programmers, “people who would do coding with mainframe computing or other scientific related computing. It’s one of the older profession.”"

      That's straight from glassdoor, who also did the actual study.

      If you're going to break out TFA, actually read TFA.

    11. Re:Bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not rewarding a poor work/life balance is one of the issues we need to fix, for everyone. It's bad for men too, it creates a perverse incentive to harm yourself.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1%>0, .5% >0 are THESE 'problematic'? And even if you think anything OTHER than '0%' is 'problematic' how much effort & tracking, rules, laws etc. are YOU willing to engage in to make sure that there is 0 'statistically determined wage gap' that can't be explained by choice at any given point in time when doing the sampling?

      Seriously, this is why no feminist wants to use the ACTUAL gap number as 5% is 'statistically insignificant' and is very likely due to 'personal choices' (where they live, what type of car they drive, material desires, personality etc., etc.).

      The point being that 5% isn't a number worth even chasing the details around...there is certainly 0 way to label such a trivial difference as 'gender discrimination', to do that you'd actually have to ask individual hiring managers 'did you pay this woman less because she's a woman' to actually know that there is a 'gender issue'.

      So..who's the actual 'asshole' here?

  2. Negotiating by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe men are better at negotiating salary. Negotiating makes a huge difference. When I was promoted at my last job, I did not negotiating because I was afraid I wouldn't be given the job. The person (a lady) who was promoted next did negotiate and started about 5 thousand more than me.

    I'd be interested to see what the starting offer was for men and woman and what disparity was there.

    1. Re:Negotiating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That irrelevant.

      Regardless of the reasons, if women are as productive as men, then their cheaper labor would pemean they would drive men out of the industry. That's not happening, though...

    2. Re:Negotiating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "A 2005 study by Linda Babcock, Hannah Riley Bowles and Lei Lai supports this explanation for why women may be less likely to negotiate their starting salaries. The study found a substantial social backlash towards women who negotiated. Women who negotiated were penalised, with both men and women evaluators expressing less desire to work with or hire them":

      https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf
      "Four experiments show that gender diVerences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by diVerential treatment
      of men and women when they attempt to negotiate. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants evaluated written accounts of candidates
      who did or did not initiate negotiations for higher compensation. Evaluators penalized female candidates more than male
      candidates for initiating negotiations. In Experiment 3, participants evaluated videotapes of candidates who accepted compensation
      oVers or initiated negotiations. Male evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations;
      female evaluators penalized all candidates for initiating negotiations. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness explained resistance
      to female negotiators. In Experiment 4, participants adopted the candidate’s perspective and assessed whether to initiate negotiations
      in same scenario used in Experiment 3. With male evaluators, women were less inclined than men to negotiate, and
      nervousness explained this eVect. There was no gender diVerence when evaluator was female."

      https://hbr.org/2014/06/why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers/
      "However, in most published studies, the social cost of negotiating for pay is not significant for men, while it is significant for women... Women get a nervous feeling about negotiating for higher pay because they are intuiting — correctly — that self-advocating for higher pay would present a socially difficult situation for them — more so than for men."

      https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/20131206_PP_womennegotiation_1.pdf
      "Studies have shown that women’s reluctance to enter negotiations is partly because they are penalised more than men for doing so.15 Because negotiation involves agentic behaviours, women who negotiate must operate outside prescribed gender norms, and can experience backlash for doing so in the form of economic and social penalties (e.g., they can be viewed as hostile, selfish, devious and quarrelsome).16 Women who negotiate agentically can bedisliked and some colleagues may not want to work with them.17 This loss of social capital has economic implications for these women who may not be hired or offered promotions, despite being competent, because they are perceived as lacking in social skills.18 Women are aware of this backlash and try to avoid it.19 The more women anticipate backlash, the less inclined they are to initiate negotiations.20"

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781400048X
      "As expected, negotiators deceived women more so than men, thus leading women into more deals under false pretenses than men."

      http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/34/2/186
      "Women experience social and economic penalties (i.e., backlash) for self-promotion, a behavior that violates female gender stereotypes yet is necessary for professional success. However, it is unknown whether and how the threat of backlash interferes with women's ability to self-promote."

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00306.x/pdf
      " We review research demonstrating the Catch-22 that female leaders face, such that they are required to display agency to overcome the lack of fit between their gender and leadership yet when they do so, they risk prejudice and hiring discrimination (i.e., backlash)."

  3. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    So they're overpaid?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. More f'ing advocacy research... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the first line of the "report" is:

    'It is a well established fact that men and women are paid unequally.'

    Is it any wonder that their "research" finds that men and women are paid equally?

  5. The solution seems clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I, as a business owner, can save 28% salary costs on my employees by exclusively hiring women, why would I *ever* hire a man? If women are equal in performance and skill, there is no reason for me to hire men.

  6. and the HB1 makes 0.60 + 60-80 hours a week by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and the HB1 makes 0.60 + 60-80 hours a week

  7. Studies are worth $0.10 for every dollar spent by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Funny

    And that's being generous.

  8. Bullshit. by Darron_Wyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The well-known U.S. wage gender gap is 76 cents for every dollar men earn." No, it's been disproven. Over and over again. Stop posting this incorrect crap.

  9. The article is self-contradictory by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The first 2 sentences of the article are:

    Female computer programmers make 72 cents for every dollar earned by male programmers. That difference is after researchers adjust for factors such as age, education, years of experience, job title, employer and location

    But then the rest of the article disagrees completely:

    For every dollar a man in this role earns, this is how much a woman makes:

            Game Artist – $0.84
            Information Security Specialist – $0.85
            Data Specialist – $0.76
            Software Architect – $0.89
            SEO Strategist – $0.90
            Front End Engineer – $0.90
            Database Engineer – $0.90
            Sharepoint Developer – $0.91
            SAP Developer – $0.92

    On the upside, two professions in great demand show women doing at or better than the national average:
    Software Engineer – $0.94
    Mobile Developer – $0.97

    I suspect the first sentence should say "That difference is before researchers adjust..." Going further, and reading the linked GlassDoor PDF, I can't even find a 72 cent number in there. So I'm totally confused as to how they got that introduction. Can anyone else make sense of this?

  10. Missed the important part by cirby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Further, comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar)."

    Oddly enough, while they adjust for "everything," they don't mention things like:

    Maternity leave
    Taking time off to pick up kids after school
    (Men often do these sorts of things, but be realistic - women take more time off to handle their families)

    They also include "years of experience," but they don't allow for "years of experience with gaps due to taking time off for family."

    The study compares a lot of different things, and boils it down to "amount paid in base salary." But they leave out the most important part: "hours actually worked." While this doesn't directly affect base pay, it affects small pay differences because the employer knows that the male employee will end up working more - and more consistent - hours. Thus the less-than six-percent difference.

  11. Re:Adjusted for every factor by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Competence and productivity are immeasurable, especially at the point hiring decisions are made.

    Look at my career: I have a CV that's impressive in some respects, but lagging in others. My employment history, achievements, and adaptability are clear; yet my CV doesn't carry the incredible weight of high-power, specialized technicians in computer security or systems management. In practice, there are trivialities I simply stall on because of gaps in my knowledge and a poor work ethic in specific situations; there are also insanely complex problems nobody else can solve as efficiently or effectively as I can, simply because I can effectively use analogical thinking and draw from an enormous source of broad and deep knowledge on a variety of topics to immediately comprehend complex systems made up of familiar or vaguely-familiar parts. I fall down when I hit a black box with unknown inputs and outputs.

    That means not only does my CV not adequately describe my competence or productivity, but you can't adequately predict my competence and productivity in practice. I can perform poorly, average, or extremely well on any given problem; and most of the problems that come my way are new, which means I have to use old knowledge to shape out a new machine made of rearranged parts. I'm constantly grinding open black boxes, and also just flat-out failing on them. I figured out Puppet, Docker, and C# MVC; I can't get my head around OpenStack, Foreman, or all the front-end stuff in a Web application. I need someone to show me where the seams are so I can pry the black boxes open.

    At hiring, I tend to get low-to-middling salaries, currently in the 50-percentile median as per Payscale. It's only by luck that it's worth it; and even then, I tend to replace all my job duties with heavy amounts of scripting and automation, systems that maintain themselves, and other labor-reducing solutions. I spend a lot of time getting paid to do nothing.

    Is that competence? I have deep flaws in my competence in any practice. Is it productive? As long as you're not unlucky.

    The rabbit hole gets deeper when you start factoring in things like ADHD (maybe that went away?), manic episodes, and other severe psychiatric problems. Good luck measuring the competency of someone who's crazy.

  12. Lack of diversity among the Rust contributors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While the submission focuses on salaries and compensation within the corporate sector, what about the total lack of diversity we see within some notable open source projects?

    Take the Rust programming language, for example. Despite its community having an intense focus on diversity and tolerance, and despite the project having one of the most stringent code of conducts around, and despite the project even having a Moderation Team to stamp out perceived injustice, why do we see so little diversity among Rust's contributors?

    The extreme homogeneity of the Rust community is the exact opposite of what we'd expect, given how much effort and focus they put on diversity. We'd expect to see around half of the participants being women. We'd expect to see much more racial diversity. Yet we don't see any of that, and instead see severe uniformity.

    Why do we see so little diversity among the Rust contributors?

  13. Terrible summary by shawn2772 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a terrible summary, though in this case the fault lies with Glassdoor's summary of their own data, rather than slashdot.

    If you look at the details in the appendix, you'll see that their sample size for the "Computer Programmer" title was only 138, as compared to 2330 "Software Architects", 3525 "Front-end Engineers", 13461 "Software Engineers", 2199 "Programmer Developers", etc. All of those other job categories had much lower gender pay gaps in the 4-6% range. That's still too large, but it's much better than 28%.

    So what really happened here was that the report analyzed based on self-reported job titles and it so happened that a very rarely-used title, computer programmer, with a small sample size, just happened to have an extreme gender pay difference. Personally, I wonder what kind of company calls their people "computer programmers". In my 25 year career I've had a variety of titles, including "Software developer", "Software engineer", "Software architect", "I/T specialist", "I/T architect", "Software team lead", etc. with various other tags attached like "junior", "senior", "consulting" and so on. I have never, ever had "computer programmer" as my official title, and never known anyone else with that title either.

    1. Re:Terrible summary by jasnw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod+2 if I had mod points. This summary is statistical cherry-picking at its worst. Gives those who want to rant about misleading gender-bias studies something to rant about rather than helping sort out a fix for the remaining 5% or so pay offset.

    2. Re:Terrible summary by shawn2772 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Statistical cherry-picking is a great concise explanation of the problem. I wish I'd used it. What happened here is almost worse than cherry-picking, though, since it seems to have been more clueless than targeted. It appears that what Glassdoor did was run the numbers, sort by gender gap (ignoring questions of sample size) and then shout about the one that came out on top. It would actually be very surprising if none of the small categories turned out to show some extreme behavior.

      Really, what's more interesting is some of the other high-disparity jobs that do have a sufficiently-large sample size to make you think there's a chance that the data is good. Such as "C Suite" (870 reports, 27.7%), "Pharmacist" (904 reports, 21.8%) and "CAD Designer" (1044 reports, 21.5%). A gender gap among pharmacists seems particularly surprising to me.

      Though you still have to keep in mind that this is all subject to really significant bias, since the data is all self-reported by self-selected people.

  14. Re:Oh No... Not Again! by Verdatum · · Score: 3, Informative

    It isn't one of these 77 cents on the dollar studies. They did factor for all of that, it even says so in the summary. That's why over all professions, they concluded 94 cents on the dollar. But the study found specifically that female computer programmers get 72 cents on male programmers' dollar.

  15. Re:Women get paid less. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Say a fair price for a specific job at age 30, with your experience (after taking off 2 years to raise a child) is 86k. But because you are a woman, you get paid only 72k, and a man doing the same job gets paid 100k.

    But you are married to a 40 year man. Because he is older, and never took time off to raise the children, he is making 150k. If was female, he would have only earned 108k. A fair price salary would be 129k (half way between 108 and 150). But being male, he makes 150k.

    Your combined salary is now 150+72=222k.

    Now compare that if you both got a fair salary of 86k+129k = 215k.

    That is, a married couple living in a society where women take time off to raise a child, and women marry older men, but everyone gets paid a fair salary regardless of gender, end up making $7,000 less, than if they live in a discriminatory society where men make more than women do.

    Gay women get screwed the most as they both get the 14% discount to their value. Gay men make out like bandits because they both get the 14% upgrade. But married couples - and that includes the brides as well as the grooms - are still CLEAR winners in our current system.

    As long as the majority of women in our culture expect to get married to an older man, expect to take time off to raise their kids (while their husband keeps working), then they can also expect to benefit from getting a lower salary.

    This is despite the fact that the system is clearly and obviously biased and unfair.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  16. Re:Right by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Funny

    sad news for you, women have a kind of "stealth penis" that develops from the same tissues as your dong during gestation. They can even discretely masturbate it with thigh movements while typing code, while you have to work one-handed!

  17. Meanwhile, in Canada by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

    Programmers make $0.75 US dollar for every Canadian dollar they earn.