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.
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.
For some reason, corporations prefer to hire expensive white men, rather than cheap black women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
"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.
>* 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.
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.
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."
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.