Slashdot Mirror
Google Accused of 'Extreme' Gender Pay Discrimination By US Labor Department (theguardian.com)
The U.S. Department of Labor is accusing Google of discriminating against its female employees and violating federal employment laws with its salaries for women. "We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce," Janette Wipper, a Department of Labor regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday. The Guardian reports: Google strongly denied the accusations of inequities, claiming it did not have a gender pay gap. The allegations emerged at a hearing in federal court as part of a lawsuit the DoL filed against Google in January, seeking to compel the company to provide salary data and documents to the government. Google is a federal contractor, which means it is required to allow the DoL to inspect and copy records and information about its its compliance with equal opportunity laws. Last year, the department's office of federal contract compliance programs requested job and salary history for Google employees, along with names and contact information, as part of the compliance review. Google, however, repeatedly refused to hand over the data, which was a violation of its contractual obligations with the federal government, according to the DoL's lawsuit. Labor officials detailed the government's discrimination claims against Google at the Friday hearing while making the case for why the company should be forced to comply with the DoL's requests for documents. Wipper said the department found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot of salaries and said officials needed earlier compensation data to evaluate the root of the problem and needed to be able to confidentially interview employees.
You can Google average salary info for the type of position you are looking for.
No need to specify your gender...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
There must be a mistake because google is all about not being evil. Its right their in their corporate motto. That is how we know we can trust them with everything, the motto and the free stuff.
I get that depending on how you slice and dice the numbers there is anywhere from no pay gap to a full blown social crisis.
However, what I don't get is that while there is always ample representation of gender, race, and ethnicity, there never seems to be anything discussed about longevity in the workforce. Let me explain. If a man starts working right out of college and works continuously to the age of 50 he will have achieved a certain salary, depending upon his career and other factors. If a woman were to do the same I would expect that they would achieve to a comparable level. The same goes for minorities, both men and women. However, if a woman drops out of the fast lane at age 25 or 27 for 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc., to raise a family (by that I mean either stops working, goes part time, or chooses a different full-time job specifically for the added flexibility or other family-friendly benefits), then at age 50 she simply will not have the same level of experience.
Every time that I hear the gender pay gap brought up I have to wonder if the numbers being analyzed account for that situation. Now, some people advocate making it illegal to be stay at home mom. I don't think that is the right solution. Perhaps we need to encourage fathers to spend more time with their families and less time working.
Either way, boiling it down to a single number: 1) doesn't tell the whole story; and 2) does a disservice to those women who have made a conscious choice to prioritize family above work. My mother did that and I am very happy that she did.
The cost for this to "go away", will be more behinds the scenes compliance to government information requests.
Yes, I've wondered the same thing. I've seen several studies that show that that accounts for some of the gap, but by no means all of it. Another related factor is that women often need more flexible work hours to manage families, which impacts pay in many fields. Still, even after accounting for factors like that, women earn less than men.
You offer a man $70k and he says no, that's not enough. You offer a woman $70k and she agrees. That's not discrimination, that's women being unwise.
There is nothing constitutional about the right.
I don't get it. What does Trump have against Google? And since when has he started to like women for anything other than feeling them up?
Sure, you can go for women's pay, but you cant go for age discrimination since we're not over the age of 40, despite supposed equal protection under the law.
Fucking hypocrites.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I get that depending on how you slice and dice the numbers there is anywhere from no pay gap to a full blown social crisis.
However, what I don't get is that while there is always ample representation of gender, race, and ethnicity, there never seems to be anything discussed about longevity in the workforce.
Uhhh, almost every single study I've read over the last few decades on gender pay gap takes that very thing (longevity) into account.
If you see an analysis that doesn't in some way take into account longevity, then you know you're looking at a waste of time.
Some men do, but what you're seeing is the difference between anecdotes and statistics. Statistically, men are less likely to do those things than women. When looked at in the aggregate, this creates a bigger wage gap than would otherwise exist.
And the difference doesn't end there. You also have to factor in people choosing whether to ask for a promotion or not. Most people (men and women alike) assume that higher pay means greater demands on their time, and choose not to ask rather than take on the extra responsibility. Women are more likely to not ask, at least in aggregate, because they are statistically more likely to have greater outside responsibilities beyond work.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You don't get raises if you don't ask, and the men seemed to be more headstrong about asking.
Its not just asking, its being willing to leave. I worked at a company part time as a software developer while in school working on a computer science degree. It was a great job, flexible hours to accommodate my class schedule, etc. When I graduated I brought up the topic of my salary, expecting at least the industry average of the region. Management said that would be too large a percentage increase and offered me something below the industry average. I pointed out that I have been with them for over two, am fully trained for their specialties, and have received very good reviews. My manager said his hands were tied, too big a percentage increase. I started a job search that night.
Six weeks later I was back in front of my manager submitting my resignation after accepting a new job elsewhere. He instantly offered to match my current job offer, which was a little above what I had originally asked of him. I asked what happened to the percentage increase problem. He said that in light of the new circumstances that could be waived. I told him I was sorry (I lied) but that I had already accepted the other offer and would not be breaking my word (the truth).
I was happy, liked the work, liked my coworkers, but I was young, aggressive and not going to take that sort of BS.
There are many factors that affect these things. Asking for a raise is one factor among many.
The government once sued a university for gender discrimination because they accepted a significantly higher percentage of male students than female. It was a pretty clear case, they accepted something like 60% of male applicants and 40% of female applicants. Here's the weird thing - every department at the school accepted a higher rate of female students. For any given program at the school, women were *more* likely to be accepted than men. At first, that might seem mathematically impossible. Here's how it happened:
The school's crown jewel was its very highly regarded nursing* program. It had some other departments too, but the school was known for the nursing program. The nursing program had a lot more applicants than the available slots. Most people who applied to the nursing program weren't accepted. Also, most people who applied for the nursing program were female.
Therefore, most women weren't accepted, even though the nursing program and every other program at the school were biased toward admitting a higher percentage of female applicants than male applicants. Males just didn't tend to apply for the nursing program as much, and that was the program that had the most competitive admissions.
Statistics are strange sometimes.
I forgot the footnote. I don't remember for sure if the competitive program was nursing, or something else. The interesting bit to me is that *every* department admitted a higher percentage of women, but they got sued by the feds because the university as a whole admitted a higher percentage of men. That seems like a mathematical paradox at first, so I was paying attention to the math, not which department it was.
Average would be .98 or so on the dollar, assuming the same job, experience, etc. The majority of the advertised pay gap is from the different jobs that men and women gravitate towards, with a significant additional portion being from women being more likely to take time off for family.
Actually, most studies account for the time off. They basically show both the general all men vs all women numbers and ALSO show equivalent comparisons - years at work, degrees, all roughly equal. Not that hard to do statistically. It comes out to about $5,000, on average.
What they usually do NOT account for is height. Every inch of MALE height adds about $789 a year (female salary is not as dependent on height - some studies say not at all.) Men are taller than women by about 5-6 inches, which roughly translates to $4330, which is pretty close to the difference between male and female salaries, after accounting for education and experience.
To add insult to injury, some studies attempt to claim that this is 'justified', as the tall men are supposedly better educated and better socialized - without questioning whether the education and socialization are simply the result of prejudice in their favor when they were children.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Those over 40 are regularly discriminated against.
Over 50? Forget about it: they openly seek to push you out.
Been there; done that.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
I am a man, and have done this for my family. My contract was not renewed for 'poor attendance' with a fortune 100 company in Portland. This feedback was not shared with me until after I had left.
It's not that we don't want to, we aren't *allowed* to.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I would expect Google to be a very data driven company. Given the person's abilities he or she gets the type of salary they deserve. Google has no interest in wasting talent. It just might be that on average the women in Google are not making as much impact as their male counterparts. I have seen this many times: women are more preoccupied with their lives and don't work with the same diligence as men.
Women more rarely fantasize about problem solving and making a mark. They have the same dreams for high social status as men but very little actual interest in the path that takes them there. Men are more inclined in getting a high from solving a problem or completeting a task. Men are programmed as problem solving drones. It is a serious advantage.
That all presumes we aren't already making them choose the way they chose now.
There is the strain of thought that says everything exists the way it does today for no other reasons than free will.
Its funny how the people arguing for that POV are always the ones whose 'free will' has lead them to benefit the most from the status quo.
They googled for it.
The other genders have difficulties as well, but your point is well taken -- this story should have used the term "sexes" and not "genders" if it is going to follow modern terminology. The "gender pay gap" phrase is a holdover from earlier times, so it tends to stick around.
The NYT is a morning paper; The Guardian published this story at 6pm GMT, after the Times finished its main run.
And a few hours later... here's the NYTimes story:
US Regulators Accuse Google of Underpaying Female Workers
https://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
So... you're wrong.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
I'm going to agree with you that the wage gap is largely not a result of sexism, but of women having to choose between work and family.
It's more complicated than that. In companies like Google, you have to ask for raises and promotions. While ambition and desire fo better compensation are common across genders and races, the preferred way to get ahead vary.
Imagine you are at a restaurant and you want a second dessert. Would you feel more comfortable if you had to ask a waiter for it, or if you could simply go to the buffet and grab a second one without having to deal with the waiter? Or what about buying sex toys, do you prefer to shop online or do you want to go to the store and ask the sales clerk for that big pink dildo that they keep behind the counter? It's the same thing with raises and promotions; some people prefer to have opportunities presented to them, other are okay with asking.
In theory a good manager should look out for their direct reports and make sure that they are rewarded for productivity and offered promotions when opportunities are available, knowing that not everyone is comfortable asking. But in companies like Google this is not how things work, people who are more comfortable asking for what they want have an edge.
Sure, some women are comfortable asking for what they want and some men are not, but on average it's a behavior more common in males and that explains part of the discrepancy. It's wrong.
lucm, indeed.
the entire google topic always saddens me. So much potential to make the world better and now completely undone by corporate cancerism, the American business philosophy that buried capitalism
Some companies never make the transition from the "make it or break it" attitude that make startups successful to the more resilient corporate structure that is a safe haven for all types of workers. That's why Google is struggling. The balls-to-the-wall, 80-hour a week culture means that only the Red Bull crowd will thrive in such organization. That leaves a lot of extremely competent people on the sidelines.
Some of the best techies I work with are pure 9-to-5 workers; you can set your watch by them, at 5 minutes past 5pm they're already out of the building so they can join their family or meet with friends. And yet, during the hours they work, they deliver amazing value to the organization. Those people will never work at Google, and that's Google's loss.
lucm, indeed.
I understand and agree with all of that, but my point was that if our main focus was not on equality, but on what is ultimately best for society and economy, then the arguments about the whys and hows and what is fair become irrelevant.
True. The problem with that is that basic freedom and also politically correct bullshit stand in the way of what is "good for society".
For instance, studies show that children raised by foster parents have a better than average chance of achieving success and financial security when they grow up, while children of single moms are massively over-represented in jail. And yet, single moms are treated like heroes in the mainstream media, and any politician who would promote adoption for children of single moms would be crucified in public.
I'm not taking a side in that issue, all I'm saying is that the "good of society" thing is too vague. I think some things are unavoidable - for instance, women give birth, not men - and those things should drive public policy, but even that is asking a lot. I mean, recently people had to choose between a reality TV star and a crooked evil witch for their next President; that's how fucked up society is. We can't expect common sense to prevail.
lucm, indeed.
Now you're reminding me of How Google Works . My short summary is that they seem to be saying they want most of the google employees to be in the Venn diagram intersection of the set of super-productive engineers, the set of hyper-creative dreamers, and the set of extreme money-grubbers, though they describe the last set more diplomatically. They reworded it in terms of a kind of an acute awareness of the economic realities of how to profit. They also want them to be extremely competitive members of all three sets.
When they get people like that, there really aren't any substitutes to be accepted (or they would have hired them already). You suggest that it's reasonable to accept normal working hours, but that isn't how the google picked them in the first place. The hiring process is so skewed that the candidate who also wanted a home and family life was already eliminated from consideration. At least I think that's how it works most of the time, notwithstanding a few anecdotal exceptions.
Specifically relevant to this article, on that foundation they want to reward employees in relative proportion to their success as measured by bottom-line profits. Since some projects produce huge profits and others don't, the people involved with the the lucky projects get much more money. That's where we get to my speculations of how it produces the gender discrimination. The more I think about it the more I'm inclined towards the credit-claiming theory. Work Rules! hinted how difficult it is to assess proper credit so the aggressiveness on the claims may help produce the extreme results in the compensation.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Since some projects produce huge profits and others don't, the people involved with the the lucky projects get much more money.
There was a similar management craze in the late 90s: Small Business Units. The idea was to allocate resources (IT, facilities, etc.) according to how much each business unit brought in.
But here's the problem with profit-driven compensation: they give an incentive to take risk, not to manage risk. That's how lots of people lost their pension money and how Uber is burning billions every quarter. It's more gambling than pursuit of a solid business model.
lucm, indeed.
That's why Google is struggling. The balls-to-the-wall, 80-hour a week culture means that only the Red Bull crowd will thrive in such organization.
I don't think that's how Google works. It's how Apple worked. I think of Google as the place to go if you don't want to work hard.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Some traditionalism does lead to increased happiness and longevity of marriage. People aren't are necessarily doing it because they're appealing to tradition though. They're doing it because of biology. Men and women compliment each other. Women tend to be nurturing, while men tend to be more protective and have a greater ability to provide. Modern society is breaking some of these things down, whether it's good or bad, I still think it's too early to say. We're at a transition point. However, we can't ignore biology. Men and women value things in different ways.
Men get more money, and more women have access to a lifestyle in which they don't have to work at all, to which men have little access. I'm not saying it's fair; I'm saying it's all unfair, and both genders are maintaining this state of affairs together. With, by the way, a little help from biology. After a birth, men aren't physically debilitated. Only economically :) (like everyone else. god damn kids are expensive.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Men earn much less than women in the model industry and the porn industry. But nobody cares about men.
The companies that crow the loudest about Fake News and Social Justice are misogynistic hell holes.
But, what do you expect? I bet 50% of their management are H-1B workers now and we all know what kind o attitude they bring with them from the Third World regarding women.
Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was "with her" all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?
Or, the other way around, has the previous Administration sat on it because Google was all for the Democratics? Worse, maybe, Google's unprecedented cooperation was due to the subtle blackmail in the first place?
Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.
Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Google has had a history of leaning left - years ago they were accused of filtering gun related searches.
I'm enjoying a bit of schadenfreude here watching lefties attack their own.
OR maybe what needs to be done is change the work environment to make it easier for both men and women to take time off without career penalties.
Reality sucks sometimes.
In companies like Google, you have to ask for raises and promotions.
Promotions yes, raises no (except for the raises that come with promotions). At Google you have to apply for promotion. Raises are just allocated annually by management.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm not sure how to go about checking this -- it's been years since I've had a regular print copy of any paper, and Times isn't local to me. Having said that, when you search the online site for that article, the search results specifies that there was a print headline for the story: https://query.nytimes.com/sear... If I find a copy of the Times later this week, I'll take a look. But your assertion still makes no sense... if they were as biased as you claim, why would they carry the story in their online reporting?
or chooses a different full-time job specifically for the added flexibility
Just to point out that it's not only women who make this decision. I view raising my daughter as my most important job. Nothing I do at my 'real' job will matter in 50 years. Raising my daughter will impact the world statistically speaking for years after I shrug off the mortal coil.
So I don't work the jobs where they expect 80 hrs out of me. I moved career paths to positions and companies which have more respect for work/life balance. I actually make a point of mentioning my kid during interviews, because I figure if they decide that's a strike against me, I don't want that job anyways.
Just sayin'
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Wage disparity would end almost overnight if we got rid of this ridiculous notion that wages should be a secret. If you knew what everyone else was being paid you'd immediately know if you were getting the short end of the stick. It would be obvious if there was any systemic bias in wages.
Really, why wouldn't you want your peers to know what you make? The only reasons I can only think of are, "I might be getting paid too little and they'd all think less of me if they knew", or "I might be getting paid too much and they'd take it away from me to make it fair".
Keeping it a secret only benefits unscrupulous employers. The ones who will give you a low starting offer and low raises on the grounds that you'll never really know how much better you could be doing if you went elsewhere.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why You Should Tell Coworkers Your Salary
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
on the H1B program. It's entirely possible that's what's causing the extreme distortion. India is a much more conservative state which is going to mean fewer women in the workforce, especially in high paying jobs. And those engineers are mostly coming from there (with a smattering from China)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There's a lot of things wrong with your statement:
1. The 'majority' of those votes weren't more than the margin of error.
2. The recounts that Jill Stein initiated became silent as soon as the recount was showing in Trumps favor.
3. The electoral college was created to prevent 'ivory towers' from dictating the vote over the rest of the nation.
4. The Internet and the 'social' media that exists there only accounts for a small percentage of the voting population and not representative of any demographic as a whole.
And honestly if you really want to end slavery then you need to join a military and fight Islam. They are the ones selling people *today*. It's Illegal in the 'Western' world and has been for generations. It's alive and well in the middle east.
Please get some perspective.
Our forefathers were far more educated and experienced in the ways of the world than all the young-adults in America today put together. When I was young and stupid I thought like you. Now that I have a family, job and certain responsibilities I see the wisdom that went into creating America. Without the revisionist history or the altruistic ideology that I learned doesn't work. You kids have some nice ideas, but you should spend more time off the Internet learning what makes people tick.
Good luck out there.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Hilary won the popular vote
Oh, and she didn't win diddly because she quit the night of the election before the counting was done.
If you want to blame someone for her loss it's her. For forfeiting the election and walking off the stage before the final score was even tallied.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
While I generally agree with what you said,actually it is a bit more complicated than that. Marriage makes for joint property,
Our culture is set up to benefit (only talking about gender and sexuality here):
Large benefit:
straight couple where the wife doesn't work full time.
Gay married men
single men
Neutral:
Straight couple where the wife works full time.
Large penalty:
Single women
lesbians married couples.
Because women get paid less, while men get paid more, lesbians get screwed, gay men make out like bandits,
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
They're not discussing it because by and large it's not happening. Real wages have been falling for 30-40 years now. To make up for that women don't "drop out" anymore. At least not in America (might be different in Europe). Liz Warren wrote an entire book on it. It's called "The two income trap".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Saying you're for Social Justice doesn't get you a pass from us. Whatdayathink we are? Televangelists?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
False dichotomy. It is a thought-crime because the very same actions may or may not be criminal depending on the thoughts in one's head. It is also an "actual" crime — for the last 50 years or so — and I argue, that it should not be. For reasons identical to those put forth in favor of Freedom of Speech:
Because discerning the exact motivations of the suspect employer — racism, sexism, or sincere conviction, that the ill-affected employee is underperforming — with any certainty is so difficult, it is best left unprosecuted. But the current situation is worse — "discrimination" is prosecuted selectively! Colleges, for example, loath being seen discriminating against Blacks, but having higher entry-requirements for Asians is considered acceptable.
This meaningless truism explains nothing.
Your argument conflates government and private discrimination and is therefore invalid. I said nothing about government — which must not discriminate indeed. But is Google a part of government? No, it is not — it should therefore be legal for them to discriminate based on whatever characteristics they wish.
Should you wish to reply, be sure to answer the following question:
Everything you listed so far can be used to call for prosecution of both...
Is this a new way of asking, why I hate America?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's why Google is struggling. The balls-to-the-wall, 80-hour a week culture means that only the Red Bull crowd will thrive in such organization.
I don't think that's how Google works. It's how Apple worked. I think of Google as the place to go if you don't want to work hard.
That's how Google *used* to work and probably a reason it is struggling *now* for growth. From my observation it's turned into a bifurcation of old-timers that are sticking around because it's comfortable, and newer folks that don't want to take any real risks. The real risk takers often don't work at google because they perceive the reward for risk is too low at Google (unless you are buddy-buddy with an old-timer). Generally it's the real risk-takers that are correlated with the 80-hour/week startup culture.
Some Google managers still want it to run like it's an 80-hour/week startup, so they are mostly getting resume-builders that will put up with that for a couple years and then either settle in until they bail to something shiny and new... Most of the other managers have already settled-in. That's why they seem to be transitioning from hiring to acqui-hiring (like many big companies do after a while) for growth.
Like a true little snowflake throwing a tantrum lmao.
Since some projects produce huge profits and others don't, the people involved with the the lucky projects get much more money.
There was a similar management craze in the late 90s: Small Business Units. The idea was to allocate resources (IT, facilities, etc.) according to how much each business unit brought in.
But here's the problem with profit-driven compensation: they give an incentive to take risk, not to manage risk. That's how lots of people lost their pension money and how Uber is burning billions every quarter. It's more gambling than pursuit of a solid business model.
Well I can easily give you the official google line on that part: Don't punish failure. They want their employees to tackle tough and ambitious projects.
Of course the REAL-world problem is that most truly challenging projects fail. That's not a big problem for a small startup that just declares bankruptcy, but it's a huge problem for a giant corporation with shareholders and all that jazz. That's why (1) most innovation is done by small companies (that define success by being acquired by giant companies) and (2) the google restructured itself into this Alphabet thing to isolate the risks.
Separate problem, but reviewing the moderation of this discussion, we might not want to go there. Oh, wait. Why would I care what the moderators think? (Especially since it's so obvious they mostly aren't thinking, but just venting their own inability to contribute.) I tend to think all these things are interrelated. Obviously it's significant if men are also more willing to take the big risks on "tough and ambitious projects" where the big gambles can produce the giant profits (once in a while). Should be added to my original list?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
While what you said may be true, it doesn't solve the issue. I used to work at Texas A&M. A&M is known for having probably the best veterinary school in the country. Because it's the best, the vet school gets four times as many applicants than they have spots available - 75% of applicants are declined. In 2015 the vet school accepted
114 women and 24 men. (114 of the 138 accepted are women - can't complain about that, under your criterion.)
http://vetmed.tamu.edu/dvm/fut...
Also, A&M has a vocational school component, which is where I used to work. That department trains a thousand firefighters every year and doesn't turn down any applicants. All females who apply and pay the fee are accepted, as are all males. I don't have the numbers handy for the fire school, so let' suppose it is:
980 male applicants, all accepted
20 female applicants, all accepted
We can add the fire school and vet school together to get the numbers for the entire university (for the moment we pretend there are no other departments):
134 women accepted
1004 men accepted
Again that makes it look like they discriminate against women, though in reality for the competitive admissions (the vet school), almost all accepted applicants are women.
* When all depertments are included, Texas A&M actually admits more women than men. That makes it a great place to meet women, if you're a young guy.
Disparities equals discrimination. (If it's not the law, it sure acts like it.)
The burden of proof is on you, and if it turns out you somehow manage to prove yourself innocent, your accusers pay no penalty.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
See, what I would like to know is how much the women were hired on for vs what the men were hired on for...you know, initial salaries. If they started equal, but over time the men got raises because of time worked or particularly great contributions to the company, then there's no problem. However, if women were initially hired on for less than the men, or it could be proven that they worked an equal number of hours or made equal fantastic contributions, then there's a problem. The biggest tell would be, honestly, the initial salary for equally qualified candidates of both genders. Raw salary numbers without context won't tell you a thing, especially if there are more men working for Google then women.
They'll never learn. As the bullet is entering their brain, they'll still be loving Big SJW.
In only a couple of decades we went from wrong, to evil, to crazy... How long before anybody disagreeing with Illiberals is declared dangerous to society (and, charitably, to themselves too) and becomes subject to mandatory psychiatric treatment?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No. That it drives you into impotent rage is a sign, that works as intended... For eight years dissent was racist — it was such a problem, even Obama's fans acknowledged it.
It is now patriotic again — a very welcome development. And to think. we very nearly escaped dissent becoming sexist for eight more years instead...
My signature is short, painfully sarcastic, and to the point. Meanwhile, yours:
is unwieldy, grammatically incorrect, and an example of Complex Question Fallacy. You've picked a wrong fight, kid...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.