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.
So women ask for less...and they get it.
Newsflash; that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Did you know it's illegal to pay one sex/race/gender/anything less than another?
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.
This "tech" blog has devolved into an every day routine with click bait articles about girls in tech, gender pay gap, h1b visas, global warming. This article hit two, bravo.
Eskimo woman here. We get $0.00 for every $1.00 that our white male peers make. We can't get a job. we can't even get a job interview. I can club a baby seal just as well as a man but nobody will hire me as a front-end engineer. Totally bullshit.
Male Nurses: ~8%, Male Teachers: ~20%, Male on the job deaths: ~90%+
Since compensation in the private sector is more or less based on performance and since we are talking large statistical samples, might it be that males generally excel at IT functions?
Also for career paths in general, on a large statistical basis, women are much more likely to leave the work for some period of time to raise children or in some cases they marry have a partner that allows them to not work or work part time. This is highly disruptive to their career growth and their compensation. This I suspect, is the majority or any pay discrepancy between males an females on a large statistical scale.
Otherwise, I think the whole this is a political wedge to gain votes. I am a business owner and I suspect all business owners are going to hire the lowest cost, yet most productive employees they can. If women were willing to work for less and were such great deals, all companies would hire women exclusively. This argument falls flat.
Become a lobbyist instead; it pays well and doesn't go out of style.
Table-ized A.I.
It's always anonymous cowards posting the social justice bully material ?
Who you calling pasty?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Why don't businesses only hire females and minorities? If females only make 20% less or whatever number it is these days, then it would make prudent business sense to hire only minorities and women since they're on the whole cheaper.
This post brought to you by sarcasm!
The actual statistic from reputable sources is 4-7% And even those sources can't explain the reasoning because there are so many variables.
If your interested, a good breakdown of why the gender gap statistic is specious.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
.90 cents for every dollar
I'm quite sure that they're not asking for parts of a cent per dollar earned.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
There is a really easy answer. I hire all men but on the EO report I write that half are identified as women. 13% identify as black and 12% hispanic.
This keeps the Rachel Dolezal types happy and we move on to more important issues, like getting shit done.
N/T
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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?"
In the 20+ years of my technical career, I don't think ever worked with a black woman. White women, yes. Asian women, yes. Hispanic women, yes. But never black women.
Since industry always wants to pay as little as possible to all of it's employees, wouldn't this mean that if this wage gap is real, women would get preferential hiring? Why would a company go out of it's way to hire the most expensive and presumably no more talented gender?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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
The problem is that people are devaluing themselves... feeling that it's a privilege to work at a company, rather than feeling their work is a privilege for the company to have at its disposal. Market dynamics should definitely come into play when it comes to wages... but it's nearly impossible for an individual to know exactly how much the market values their labor at... which differs based on the company a person works for and the specific tasks they're doing. It's already frowned on to share your income with your co-workers, yet what's clear here is that if the men and women were sharing their salary info with their co-workers, then those workers that are being under paid would have a much better understanding of what they should be asking for!
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.
If you have the same credentials and attitude and job as another yet dont earn the same then is more than likely that you were introduced differently to the company or failed to negotiate a adjustment to your pay.
Reducing the dispute to any of the characteristics of inequality defined in the 14th Ammendment such as race or sex or color or gender is your doing and not your company officers.
Business wants the most qualified and best product, you introduce your own problems. Start your own company and run a company as you think it should: you yourself are more racist and sexist and colorful than you think you are arent.
You are lieing to yourself, just like Slashdot isnt good at editorials and reporting.
There is no wage gap.
Economists have debunked this time and again.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
More like Economists explaining how career choices, motherhood, etc. take their toll.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Repeat after me:
Can the person/animal/insect/alien do the job?
I tend to rant.
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...
This article http://blog.interviewing.io/we... discusses an interesting experiment where males and females had their voices masked for technical interviews so they could analyze the differences in how women perform while controlling for gender discrimination. Some fascinating results that show how women react differently to tech interviews than men, possibly resulting in them getting less employment offers and/or lower salary. I wonder how much this effect can be attributed to the results mentioned in this slashdot article. Like most problems with women's performance/success compared to men, this is mostly a cultural issue. There are things we can all do to pitch in and improve the situation but its not really something the government can legislate away.
On the other hand, i wouldn't be surprised to find the tech industry is actually more discriminating toward women than other industries, given that we already know there is rampant agism (reluctance to hire older programmers) and a culture that encourages workers to forgo family and other commitments in favor of longer hours and 'crunch time'
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.
Or even better: internalized misogyny (I discovered this Youtube channel just a while ago thanks to a comment above).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I don't believe .... professional statisticians
Read: liars. You just opted to read the ones foisting the same lie you choose to believe in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes.
So women ask for less...and they get it. Newsflash: that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
That was my thought going in. I've read quite a few books and research on the topic because I don't want to be the one who perpetuates the gap. But over the years I've learned a critical truth: Women Don't Ask! (There's even a book by that title.)
The data in the article is quite clear, and the article states it outright: "69% of the time women ask for less money than men". 70% of these women are making less than men because they didn't ask to make the same wages. While it happens more frequently with women, sometimes it happens with men, too. The HR person ask "What is your requested pay?" and the candidate says a low number. They HR drone will smile, tell the applicant they can arrange to use that number, and the person gets the wages they requested.
Lots of books (including the one Women Don't Ask mentioned above) discuss reasons behind it, but for all the reasons the fact is that it happens. Women ask for less money. Over a full career, men ask for more money roughly four times as often as women. The amounts they ask for are usually larger. Men ask for raises, men ask for promotions, men find different jobs for money, and they do all of them far more often than women. However, women are much more likely to talk about needing money with their peers, to talk about financial difficulty with their coworkers, and yet not actually ask for more money, assuming that somehow the managers will notice their efforts and their needs without requests being made.
In one set of studies -- graduating students at Carnegie Mellon, 57% of the males negotiated salaries, only 7% of the females negotiated salaries. In their sampling, the rate that was negotiated was almost exactly the amount of the wage gap. Those who negotiated their pay were making the higher rate. Those who accepted the initial offer without negotiation were making the lower rate.
When it comes to annual performance reviews, there is a similar striking difference. Many of the men and a few of the women fill their performance review with every positive thing they have done, presented in the best light. Some are 10 or even 20 pages filled with accomplishments, stating they are worthy of a large raise, a bonus, and a promotion. Most of the women and a few of the men have very short performance reviews, either minimally mentioning that they helped the team, or listing all the ways they needed to improve over the year. Many of the latter type don't even ask for a COLA raise, effectively asking that they take a relative reduction in pay.
From the books and studies I've read about it, the fact that women don't ask accounts for nearly all the wage gap. Some of it is real, some if it is actual discrimination, but the vast majority of it is women sabotaging themselves before the wage discussion even begins.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Yes. A woman shouldn't need to ask: we should be able to empathise with them on how they'd feel on being left out of getting a raise, and give it to them every time we give a man a raise. It's 2017, for crying out loud!
Economists don't know jack. The real world has debunked them time and time again.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There are many books on that, like "Women Don't Ask" and "Nice Girls Don't Get The Corner Office", where economists and business researches study why it happens. Several books on the topic propose that nearly all of the gender gap comes from women not asking for wages or negotiating for themselves.
Simply, men ask for bonuses, promotions, and raises about 4x more than women do. Men ask for more with each request, about 2x more than women do.
(Obviously there are exceptions to the groups. Some men don't ask, and some women do ask, but overall the trends are quite clear.)
Men are more likely to negotiate their wages at hire, nearly 8x more likely to negotiate. Some women will negotiate, but few do. Of those who do negotiate, most women will ask for less; perhaps for one job a man may initially ask for $10,000 more, the fewer women who ask for the same role are more likely to start at $6,000 or $4,000 or less. Men are more likely to ask for raises and promotions out of cycle, roughly 6x more likely to ask for a raise or bonus or promotion after completing an assignment or project. It is quite common for men to quietly approach their boss with: "I finished the project, I'd like a raise", or "That contract is complete, I'd like a bonus", or "I just landed this deal for the company worth $x, I'd like a bonus for that." Women almost never do that. (The stats come from several studies in the books mentioned above.)
When performance reviews come around, men usually write more self-praise, take credit for accomplishments, and ask firmly for a large raise and bonus; women tend to deflect praise to the team and ask for minimal rewards, often even asking less than COLA (effectively taking a pay cut). In reviews, I've seen that women are also more likely to list their faults and problems and areas for improvement instead of listing their accomplishments.
Men usually take an active role in talking with their bosses to get the raises and promotions and bonuses. Women will often talk to their peers, particularly to their female co-workers, but will usually assume that their actions speak for themselves and not mention it to the boss. Of course, the boss sees a team where everything is working well, hears no complaints, hears no requests for more money and promotions, and lets the team carry on.
The various authors point out that it isn't due to a lack of negotiating skill, it applies even to fields in marketing and law where persuasive negotiation is critical and the women are well-trained, yet for many reasons women tend not to negotiate on their own behalf.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
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
Not on the wage gap, their conclusions represent what anyone sees. That there is no "wage gap", meanwhile the pay gap is simply a non-discriminatory indicator of real world life choices.
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
Around the time when HuffPo-grade stories start popping up, I guess.
True Story:
Early on I was a contractor at a previous employer. A senior coworker left who was making a lot more than me. The manager decided to split the rec into two junior roles, and I was offered one I asked for 55 and was offered 35. I declined. I took a contract job with another employer. A few weeks later my old boss called me up, Another senior team member had left, and he was now able to offer me more. He offered 40-something (I forget exactly). I said no, 55. He called me back the next day and offered 50. I accepted and came back to my previous employer.
Meanwhile, he had hired the other half of the rec. It was a female outside hire, who actually had a few years of experience over me. I learned later that she had been offered the original 35 and took it.
Of course, she wouldn't have had the same chance to negotiate as hard I did considering I had contracted and was a known performer, but the point is that she didn't negotiate at all.
Over the next 3 years, she got multiple raises that I didn't, and was even promoted ahead of me. But I don't know how quickly that happened and how long it took to recoup the difference in wages. But more importantly, after three years when my boss wouldn't give me a decent wage... I left and negotiated for more elsewhere.
1. Hire women more. Pay them the same.
2. Promote women more. Stop pretending you are promoting them, we know you aren't.
3. Stop hiring from your frat.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Fox news.
Nuff said.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
I guarantee this study did not study "the same work" because no study I've ever read actually did, except for the ones that end up shrinking the gap, which runs against the popular narrative, which is why you only see those studies in academia.
My guess was that this Math was done by one of those that think they get paid less while doing the same work (but obviously not with the same quality). Because competently done statistics consistently fail to find this "gap". Of course, the propaganda-technique of the "big lie" requires repeating the lie (baseless as it may be) until everybody believes it from sheer repetition.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, they mean to say "the same work done better", because clearly women are superior in any regards. But that dies fail any real statistical test to badly that they compromised by suggesting it is "the same". It is not. While the women with excellent tech skills are comparable in result quality and performance (and get paid the same), there are a lot fewer of them. The reason for any such wage gap is that is a lot easier for women to be lazy than for men and that there is a faction of women that use this. They now try to not only be lazy, but also to get the same money as their non-lazy male and female competition.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"There is a wage gap, it comes up again and again, but the *reasons* are disputed."
Define "wage gap". If we take the wages of all women and average them and then take the wages of all men and average them then we can see a "wage gap". This alone is not a problem since women typically choose jobs that don't pay as much. For example, there's a lot of women working as school teachers and a lot of men working as lumberjacks. We don't fault the men for the higher pay because dealing with chainsaws that can rip off your arm is much more dangerous than a classroom of kindergarteners. Women usually choose the lower pay, and safer job, over the higher pay, and more dangerous, job. But that's not how the "wage gap" is typically defined, and it's not how this article defines it either.
The claim is that if we see women and men doing the exact same job, with the exact same experience and education, that somehow this "wage gap" still appears. But to anyone that has done an honest evaluation of this "wage gap" has seen is that in reality there is no "wage gap". It turns out that long ago we've made it illegal to pay people differently based on gender, age, race, and on and on. If there actually was a real and honest wage gap in America then a lot of employers would be in court over it right now.
There is no wage gap. People that claim there is one will try to shoehorn *reasons* to make the case. Once people see the supposed *reasons* for this gap it all goes away.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
Women work fewer hours per day, per week, per year, take more days off, are more likely to use their vacation time, take time off for years at a time to have children, retire earlier, and have 70% of the purchasing power in the United States.
Even ignoring all but the last point the wage gap, if any, is irrelevant and should be higher (look at the bottom for just a few references). The numbers mean the average woman in the US spends 100% of her income and 40% of a male's. Even if the wage gap was 39%, women end up ahead. What is the value of earning more money if you don't get to spend it?
http://www.thefemalefactor.com/statistics/statistics_about_women.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/9e28517f-8de1-4e59-bcda-ce536aa50bd6
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2
If woman are so low cost to hire, every company would hire many more woman to keep wage costs lower.
Save 4-20% or more per wage and ensure only woman make it past the interviews.
Every company would be top heavy with woman due to the executive wage scale savings.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
She was living proof that race is as much (if not more) of a social construct than gender, yet the same people who insist that having a functioning penis and testicles isn't a barrier to claiming to be female wanted to lynch her. I don't understand why racial identity can't be as or more plastic than gender.
I suspect she could have kept up her self-identification as black forever if she hadn't faked the hate mail and some other sketchy behavior. It's an open question as to whether assuming black identity is part of a larger pattern of neurotic behavior that includes the faked hate crimes or whether they are distinct.
What was so funny and ironic is that the constant refrain is how horrible it is to be black and how many privileges white people have, yet when someone white wants to essentially forfeit those privileges for a lower status they're accused of "appropriating" something from blacks. I don't get it -- if it's so shitty to be black, what's wrong with someone not black who wants to be black? Does it dilute the shitty nature of blackness? Or are they just pissed off that someone would waste perfectly good whiteness, like pouring a nice craft beer out of the bottle so you could fill it with Bud Lite?
>* Universal basic income will not have people sitting at home getting high and playing video games
And what's wrong with that? Weed and video games are cheap. Would you prefer they be out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff? Because that's the choice you have. Either pay them enough to survive and have a little cheap entertainment so they don't cause problems, or pay for cops and prisons and the economic effects of crime.
Well considering the extra money that women get for harassment lawsuits, alimony and child support
Hey, they deserve the money for child support. Raising those little demons costs a lot of money, and putting up with them is a form of torture and should be compensated handsomely.
Hopefully soon, we'll have that new male contraceptive that's being tested in India (where they inject something in the seminal vessels that blocks sperm, but can be easily dissolved with another injection to restore full fertility unlike vasectomies which are more invasive and not as reliably and easily reversible). They really should make that mandatory for all men under the age of 30.
Force them into back end development with a 60 hour work week, then their collective earnings will go way up.
Discrimination is illegal, and has been illegal for longer than most /. readers have been alive. It is quite impossible to have a more level playing field than Law. Your only possible argument would be to claim that there is no prosecution of discrimination cases, to which I will tell you that you are a liar. You can search PACER, News Papers, or your own favorite Web Search Engine to find plenty of cases which have a legal status (filed, in trial, court decision, court action) which includes findings for the plaintiffs in those cases.
What you, and many others of the SJW variety (but also simple minded) want is FAVORITISM, not EQUALITY. If you were actually honest about your request people would have some level of respect for you. Being dishonest while demanding favoritism results in people despising you for your complete lack of virtue.
If my language seems a bit mean for your taste, remember I'm not the one being dishonest and demanding group favoritism. Show me some respect by being honest and I'll return the same respect.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
dealing with chainsaws that can rip off your arm is much more dangerous than a classroom of kindergarteners
Spoken by someone who has clearly not stepped into a kindergarten classroom recently... it's brutal. ;-)
Maybe )))other((( people are too busy collecting welfare to negotiate for any salary.
As gender is just social category (not to be confused with sex, the biological category) there is no difference between gender and "desired gender" outside of insignificant matters of social (dis)recognition. It's like if there were a room where only "nerds" are allowed; being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself, and telling someone who identifies themselves as one that they're "really not" is descriptively meaningless because there is no "really" at stake; it's purely an insult.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
No seriously, as someone with no stake and barely any opinion on the matter, the only thing I've ever really heard about it has been from here on Slashdot and always to the tune of "H1B bad". When has Slashdot ever said "H1B good"?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself
Surely it's just as much a judgement others make about you. Matters of social recognition are hardly "insignificant" here.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
Listen up Ladies. You know all those other tech companies that pay you 70 cents for every dollar they pay the men. Well if you come to work for Onkeltech I will pay you 72 cents for every dollar I pay my male employees. I know; it sounds too good to be true. Send resumes now.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
How many teachers have had their arms ripped off? (and not by a Wookie)
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.
If women are not being promoted, for various reasons, how can they have the same experience and qualifications as the men? Either in the same job, or a higher position they are seeking?
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.
Your statement is untrue.
Gee, this is fun.
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.
dealing with chainsaws that can rip off your arm is much more dangerous than a classroom of kindergarteners.
I take it you have never been in a classroom of kindergarteners, have you?
If women are not being promoted, for various reasons, how can they have the same experience and qualifications as the men? Either in the same job, or a higher position they are seeking?
You really believe that promotions come purely as a result of experience and capability? You haven't had my bosses. Part of the problem is that discrimination manifests itself in being passed over for promotion in favour of someone who looks and has the background as what the higher-ups expect.
But to anyone that has done an honest evaluation of this "wage gap" has seen is that in reality there is no "wage gap".
Throughout history this sort of argument has always been presented as truth in some form - sometimes even by honest people. There were the middle ages, when The Nobles were "obviously" better than peasants and serfs; because peasants were obviously coarse people who were worthy enough when it came to the lower occupations, but who simply didn't have the high-mindedness required to make a True, Holy Knight of God. Never mind the fact that they never had the opportunity to cultivate their aesthetical sensitivities in the daily grind, not least because the socalled High Born actively kept them away from any such opportunity.
Then there were Victorian times, when the upper and middle classes were "obviously" a far better breed than the working class and the poor, who wasted their lives in drunkenness and filth. Never mind that 14 hour working days and unliveable wages made it impossible to strive for betterment. And so on ad nauseam; I think you can see where I am going with this: maybe, if you completely disregard the disparity in opportunities given to different segments of society, you might find a man and woman, who have the same job - say, a nurse, and compare their wages, and "Voila! - they get the same". But that is only a very small part of the picture - there are reasons why you find more women or more blacks in lower paid jobs, and a very big part of it has to do with institutional bias and a culture of not wanting to admit there is a problem, because people like you are selfish and all too willing to feel happy about the status quo. If you are an engineer, you ought to realise that it hits you as well - why do you think that managers are always these rather incompetent individuals, whereas you and others, who might actually make very good managers, never get the promotions? They simply don't want you up there, because they know you might outshine them.
Dear (other) AC, honestly, I am not sure about what is your exact position in this matter. At first sight, it seems that you are plainly saying what you think that I would like to read; an approach which might be used by different people to accomplish different goals. You might be an anti-feminism (third wave or modern or similar, like the presenter in that video calls it) thinking that found a new member for this anti-movement. But you might also be an insecure feminist relying on the old "let's say some words which I consider that define certain behaviour to see if that person agrees with them", living by generic labels which you assign more or less randomly by applying a few generic truths.
Either way, note that this whole pro/anti fight doesn't concern me at all. I consider everyone identical regardless of any generic feature like gender, race, nationality, etc. I don't like hypocrites, imposing attitudes, any form of fanaticism or group anything (hating, bashing, promoting, misunderstanding, etc.), but am also very tolerant and my usual behaviour is not minding what I don't like (+ quite a few exceptions, as you can see by reading some of my comments here). I don't need my position to prevail or to convince anyone about the way in which I see certain things in a specific moment of my life. I will behave in every specific situation as I consider, by trying to avoid generic ideas as much as possible.
I liked the video and its presenter. I liked the fresh air brought by a secure woman which, in principle, seems more compatible with how I see things than some generic ideas which are quite popular lately. My work (programming/engineering) is completely gender-(or any other abstract feature) neutral and will never let anyone affect it by bringing so irrelevant issues into account. I have read some curious stuff in internet and even had one incident which might be defined as this-matter-related problems; but always associated all this with ignorance- or dishonesty- or unfairness-driven (insecure) personalities. I know the kind of people and women (as such, as persons, as workers, etc.) which I like and it seems that there are lots of them.
In summary, I am sure that some people might find interesting your definition, but I personally don't care about all this. I will react exactly in the same way against anyone trying to impose generic, fanatic, dishonest, unfair, etc. nonsense to me/my work or to somehow contaminate what I do/say: zero tolerance.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
No, that wasn't my point. Being promoted into a higher job brings more responsibilities and requirements, and well as giving more experience in that line of work. Generally speaking of course. Jobs that equate to 'slack off until it's time to go golf with the boss' aren't my focus.
If women aren't being promoted, they are not gaining the experience of the higher office, so they can't have the same experience. That part of the above comment doesn't make sense in that regard.
I'm not insisting that all promotions are done in a fair and unbiased manner, or that they should be, or even can be.
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.
You don't seem to understand the basics here. If 75% of the women take more time off work to care for family, it isn't surprising that 63% of them don't make as much money as others who do not, including the other 25% of the women.
Your own statement shows over 1/3 of the women are not paid less. Maybe you should look at differences between them and the ones who are, rather than all women versus all men.
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.
And in what way are you contradicting what I just said? I know lots of women in tech (up to PhD level). None of them is lazy. The ones promoting these studies are _not_ in tech, but they are trying to further a "women are paid less" there agenda nonetheless, because they think they can get away with it and profit themselves from it even when not in tech. My point was not at all that there are lazy women in tech.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
To celebrate that I will not write clarifications of this kind (or ;) or :) or LOL or similar next to a not-too-evident-for-everyone joke) again and to somehow address the most typical misconceptions that random fanatics might want to see in my previous comment, this is who I am:
- As clearly highlighted in my profile description, I am a man, 39 yo, heterosexual, leftist, Spaniard, white. I never post anonymously (although I am an AC, Alvaro Carballo).
- As clearly stated in my current signature, I am the sole author of anything (anywhere, anytime) done by Custom Solvers 2.0 or varocarbas.
- As clearly shown by some of my posts here (which, after being written, cannot be edited/deleted), these are my positions in some conflictive issues:
* PewDiePie is an idiot, although his video was clearly not meant seriously (neither a joke, as highlighted in some of my comments).
* I don't like Trump.
* I think that generic prejudices make no sense.
This post also describes what I will try to avoid in the future here: non-technical conversations. I am with the ACs complaining about the big number of non-technical articles! Let's make Slashdot eminently technical again!
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Married man (regardless if with kids or not) also earn significantly more, on average, than singles.
And, last time I checked, in big US cities single women earn much more (about 20%) than single men.
In my humble opinion married women simply do not consider their salary to be that important.
Sorry, I meant insignificant in a technical sense: the term "nerd" does not signify any concrete set of properties. You can't go down some checklist to determine whether someone is "really" a nerd or not, because there's no objective reality to it. It's just a socially constructed category. (I was trying to avoid that phrase in my previous post because it triggers a lot of alt-right snowflakes -- I'm doing it on purpose now).
You're right that it is just as much a judgement others make about you, and so too is gender. But since there's no underlying objective reality being argued about, it's purely a matter of social acceptance/rejection/etc. By saying someone's not really a nerd (or analogous), you're merely doing a social action with your words, not actually making a truth-apt claim about reality.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I've seen people saying that the H-1B idea is good, but the general opinion is that as practiced it is bad.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There is a gender-based wage gap. Economists have looked at the reasons behind it, and found that it's not simply male vs. female. This study also looked at the wage gap as it specifically affects black and Latina women, and I don't know about any studies trying to figure out the reasons for that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If women aren't promoted because they're women, that would be a gender-based reason for part of the wage gap that could easily be missed in a study. Figuring out exactly why we have a wage gap gets real complicated. Heck, if there's discouragement of women in a field to the point that the average woman who applies is better than the average man that applies, having equal pay could indicate gender-based discrimination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This suggests to me that women in the US should be more productive than men, because less burnt out. Are you actually saying that using vacation time should be grounds for lower pay?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Great, let's start with you and your family as soon as any of you have some kind of health problem. Agree?
Agreed. Once I have the health condittion of "out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff", you have my permission to kill me, as a cancer on society.
Now that we have that out of the way, can I count on you to help eliminate the rest of the cancers? Or will you waffle on your decision?
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.
As a very naive young adult, I took a position something along the lines of Level 2 Desktop support. There was a young woman in the same position who had started two months before me. On paper, she was slightly more qualified than me. I really enjoyed those early years of my career and one day I said something to the effect of "I can't believe they actually pay us $35k a year to play with computers all day." She instantly turned sour and said "They are paying you $35k per year?" At that moment I learned two lessons. "There might be something to this gender wage gap" and "Never divulge salary to coworkers." I had even underestimated my pay by about $7000 per year. Turns out I was getting about $14,000 more to do the exact same job. That was quite eye opening.
"MCS" is "mobile cloud service", a technical role. You're projecting your own racism and sexism onto others.
Yes, and that probably reflects the statistics of who enterprise architects are: most well-educated white males. Why shouldn't Oracle's ads reflect the demographics of their customers?
And to be clear, the fact that enterprise architects are rarely black women is neither due to discrimination or accident: it's a role that requires risk taking, systems thinking, and pretty tough political battles, and statistically, far fewer black women then white males do well on those dimensions.
Reality check: at most employers, if you're an individual contributor at level N, promo to level N+1 doesn't mean you get more responsibility or new expectations. Managers have similar expectations of you, based on what they know about you and the work you do, regardless of what they put down on a form. This is still even more true of raises, which are a form of promotion, but by definition don't carry extra responsibility.
Yeah... I gotta say though, ajlisows, in the long run you did her a favor. It's better to know that you're being screwed than not to know it. It's empowering because it lets you make choices about whether you want to stay there, or ask for more money, etc. I'm always in favor of sharing, but it does take courage to have those conversations. I think you did the right thing. I always participate in anonymous salary comparisons forms and answer when coworkers ask me my salary, for precisely this reason.
You are right, it was the right thing to do. She immediately went to the bosses with that information. She did ask me if I was okay with that and I told her that I was. I'm thinking that she was going to go anyway. She got a pay bump....not quite to my level but within $1.00 per hour of what I made. I got a slight talking to from the CIO but I told him that she was worth the extra money. She stayed there another 3 years and was a really solid employee the entire time...which actually benefited me because I got to work with someone competent. Without that pay raise she would have been gone within a year.
Fast forward 16 or so years and she is one of my best friends and is now a little bit higher up the salary ladder than I am. She likes to remind me of that. (It's by a small margin, I'm nowhere near starving, and she is very generous with her money, so it isn't in a malicious way). I should have suggested she get in the kitchen whilst remaining barefooted and pregnant. ;)