Slashdot Mirror
In Tech, Wage Gender Gap Worsens For Women Over Time, and It's Worst For Black Women (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch report: According to a new study involving more than 120,000 job offers transacted on Hired, a jobs marketplace for tech workers, the average female candidate is still making less than her male peers for the same work, and sometimes far less. Hired's data shows that 63 percent of the time women receive lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company, with white women offered 4 percent less on average, and women more broadly offered up to 50 percent less in the most extreme examples. Along the same vein, for one out of every 10 job openings that Hired analyzed, companies offered white men salaries that were at least 20 percent higher than those offered to women. According to the American Association of University Women, it might take another 136 years for the pay gap to disappear entirely. Perhaps more illuminating in this new report is what happens to women's salaries over time, and who is receiving the lowest pay of all for the same jobs at the same companies: Latina and black women. [...] It found that white women with four years or less of experience actually ask for more money than their male counterparts -- possibly because they're armed with information about what the market is paying for more entry-level jobs. A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less than their white male counterparts and receiving it. Indeed, over time and across the country, white women in tech earn an average of .90 cents for every dollar made by their male peers for the same work.
How much do you want to bet the solution is going to be to start paying male programmers less?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Male Nurses: ~8%, Male Teachers: ~20%, Male on the job deaths: ~90%+
Speaking of reading skills:
A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less than their white male counterparts and receiving it. Indeed, over time and across the country, white women in tech earn an average of .90 cents for every dollar made by their male peers for the same work.
The trick is you have to read more than the summary.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I was curious where the data for this report was being sourced, and we can see it's from hired.com. Under their methodology section we see "This report is based on proprietary data gathered and analyzed by Hired’s research and strategy data scientist, Dr. Jessica Kirkpatrick. The analysis in this study was done using a combination of voluntary, self-reported demographic data and a classifier that identified the gender of the candidate based on their first name."
Searching for Jessica Kirkpatrick in Google returns a few articles about her where the highlight is.... that she is in fact a woman. Her own public social media is nothing but a torrent of women's rights and equal pay stories and articles. So we have a clearly opinionated data scientist working with a set of "proprietary data" gathered by a private recruiting organization which focuses on diversity. Was there some other conclusion that anybody expected other then "MUH WAGE GAP IS REAL?"
Hired's data shows that 63 percent of the time women receive lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company,
That sounds awful, till you realize that from simple statistical fluctuation you'd expect that number to be 50 percent, in which light 63 percent seems to indicate some trend, but not nearly as big a one as the writer clearly intends to signify. How large is the average fluctuation? What's the probability women could have gotten such offers by chance (which would require knowing for e.g. the sample size, which, speaking of, that doesn't seem to be given in the report)? You know, anything that might reveal the statistical significance of the findings, which seem to be entirely absent from the report and without which raw numbers are almost entirely meaningless.
with white women offered 4 percent less on average, and women more broadly offered up to 50 percent less in the most extreme examples.
The report (linked in the article and here) says the average is 4% for all women. Also, "up to 50% in the most extreme examples" means "we found 1 case where that happened", which, again, you'd expect (in fact, you could probably find some extreme examples where a man was offered that much less than a woman), or at least, you'd *probably* expect (can't say for sure without knowing the variance of the job offers, which I supposed you could extract from the chart, but doesn't seem to be given in numerical form). 4% also just happens to be the average amount less women ask for than men. They also don't (AFAICT) look into issues like time taken off career for maternal leave (which, sorry, means you're going to be worth less due to not having been able to keep up with current developments, it sucks, but life choices have consequences), hours worked (statistically, men tend to work slightly longer hours than women: IIRC it's something like 8.4 vs 7.8 per day, but no clue if that is true in tech or not), etc. etc.
I should be clear: I'm not saying there isn't sexism in tech. There sure as shit is, for a lot of reasons, just like there's ageism, racism, religious discrimination, and a bunch of other -isms and -tions. But biased, politically motivated, and downright misleading articles like this one really aren't the way forward.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It's always the same articles on /dot. It goes like this.
1. Trump did this....
2. Trump did that
3. Not enough women in STEM
4. Women don't get paid enough
5. Transgender people want their own bathrooms
6. Not enough women in STEM
Take your SJW sh*t over to Twitter where the rest of your unemployed friends hang out.
You hear that corporations? There's a discount on labour! Save, save, save! Apparently if you hire black women they have identical skills, experience, and work just as hard as the average person in your company. Why are you hiring anyone but them? DISCOUNT!!!
Everyone says companies are willing to do anything to save a buck, but apparently, when it comes to labour, they won't. Weird, eh? I wonder if there could be another reason...
Correlation != causation. Lets think this through. If a fully qualified black woman who is a perfect match for a given job will get paid 75% of a while male why the hell aren't all businesses hiring black woman and telling white men to pound sand?
It's more likely, as the article indicates, women short changing themselves in part -- and likely that they make different career choices than men. There aren't many IT jobs where you don't find your self working god-awful numbers of hours a week at least SOME times and quite a few where ~50 a low average. Not many woman who also want (or already have) families would willingly enter that type of work environment. With regards to race playing a factor, the single parent household rate is higher with black women than white -- again -- signifying different career choices and motivations.
You also don't see a lot of woman working on oil rigs, in the logging industry or commercial fishing. Long hours, long time away from home will usually equal fewer woman.
The feminist movement has made it abundantly clear that women are competent and capable of success, and that they do not need men to provide for them or protect them.
So....there is nothing for me to do in response to this information. The women can take care of this problem themselves, without my help.
probably a government handout - that .9 we pay for every gallon of gas is going to women in IT!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Friendly reminder that /. has degraded to sociopolitical bullshit.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
That doesn't make sense. Are we supposed to take the anecdotal "evidence" over the economists that are studying economic factors in demographic wage earnings? If so that sounds retarded.
There is no wage gap.
Economists have debunked this time and again.
Well considering the extra money that women get for harassment lawsuits, alimony and child support, pensions and property tax breaks when their military or first responder husbands are killed, free drinks and dinners while out and on dates, and other miscellaneous perks and giveaways, I'd say women are still FAR ahead even if they are making less for specific jobs.
That doesn't even take into account that women are now earning far more college degrees, and at an accelerated rate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And yet... no links? Just a statement, and that merits modding up?
There is a wage gap, it comes up again and again, but the *reasons* are disputed.
As someone who's worked in the industry for about 15 years... the wage gap is real. Several of my previous employers published internal figures about it, but the public research as well as the anecdotes I've heard over the years all point to this fact: women are promoted less, get less at promo, are less likely to ask for promotion, and are less likely to be recommended for promotion. Over time this results in a wage gap between similarly experienced and qualified women and men.
Now, some employers take steps to try to make sure that women are recommended for promotion as often as their male peers and/or assign salary programmatically, and they've seen the wage gap shrink and disappear. The same wage gap that you pretend doesn't exist, by the way. But then again you're clearly not speaking from having been around the industry, just from your ass.
Or just Purge the waste of biomass like any other cancer.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.