Google Found it Paid Men Less Than Women For the Same Job (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The story we're used to hearing is that women get paid less than men. In Google's case, according to its own internal pay audit, it turned out male-identified Level 4 Software Engineers received less money than women in that same role. That led to Google paying $9.7 million to adjust pay for 10,677 employees. It's not clear how many of the employees who received pay adjustments were men but Google does cite the underpaying of men as a reason for why the company paid more in adjustments for 2018 than in 2017. But The New York Times reports men received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money.

Comments

Does it matter?

[war4peace]

Paying everyone the same amount for the same job reeks of communism. One person could be a better "Level 4 Software Engineer" than another. I've seen this time and again.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Oh sure now that the ladies are making more.

Re:Does it matter?

[Registered Coward v2]

Paying everyone the same amount for the same job reeks of communism. One person could be a better "Level 4 Software Engineer" than another. I've seen this time and again.

While that is a nice idea, for many large companies pay withing a level is pretty much withing a defined band; bonuses and promotions are often the way to recognize higher perfromance. It may be that Google discovered a wide enough gap on individual compensation within the band to decide to close the gap; i.e. for simialr years of service or ratings some clustered near the top and i\otehr near the bottom. It's quite possible that the difference is do to workers being in different departments and thus having bosses that are more or less generous with salary bumps..

Re:Does it matter?

[tomhath]

It isn't about individual differences, it's about systemic discrimination.

It's also in the company's interest to ensure employees feel they're treated fairly, otherwise they'll exercise their capitalist prerogative to leave and find another job.

Re: Does it matter?

[zarr]

It could be that women are less likely to seek promotion, causing them to end up with a disproportionally large number of high performing level 4s. I don't know how it is at Google, but here "level 4" is pretty much entry level. So, without looking at performance, and the pay distribution in the other levels it's hard to draw conclusions

Re:Does it matter?

[DrStrangluv]

Not exactly. Some people are better **software engineers** than others. That's why they were promoted to Level 4. But the idea is, within a given level, the difference should be close enough that a big company doesn't have to negotiate salary with 10,000 different employees individually. Here's what "Level 4 Software Engineer" makes. If you want more, do better work to get promoted to Level 5 (or whatever is next up the chain).

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

Then they get promoted to Level 5. I will guarantee based on my experience over a few decades, and what I know first hand as a manager, is that "better" does not matter very much. Starting alary is most definitely not based on performance. Your annual raise may be based on performance, but often only partially. If a bad worker starts with pay $25K higher than you, it will take you a very long time for your annual 3% raise to catch up because that worker is probably getting a 2% raise. Bonuses count for more, but bonuses are also very iffy and depend upon corporate performance that you have little ability to influence.

So, trying to even everyone out is already much more fair than what currently exists at most corporations. Also note that Google already pays more than its neighbors, so being below average at Google still puts you above average most of the time.

Re:Does it matter?

[Dirk Becher]

Sure. On the other hand:

- Most engineers are male. This also applies to the top tier.
- Google has a well known history of pro-feminist politics.

No one would bat an eye in an industry which is dominantly female but in this case...

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

It's very often that people doing the exact same job will be in different pay grades. That's based upon your years of experience often, or how well you negotiated after the interview, or just based on whim (were they more desparate to fill that slot this year than they were in the past). It's only after the person is hired and has been working awhile that you learn that the high paid worker is actually less productive than the lower paid one, at which point it is very difficult to fix the situation.

Re:Does it matter?

[Targon]

There are probably different pay rates for the same "level", so level 4 would be a range, but on the flip side, if they hire men and women at different times and offer better pay to new hires, there will come a point where the people who have been there longer are actually making less money. This goes along with the situation where there are significantly more men working in technology positions, so companies look to hire more women. The women they hire get offered a better rate of pay(job should be an upgrade from their prior job). After 2-3 years, the people working there previously are now making thousands less than the newer, generally female hires(to balance the male/female ratio), and you see this sort of thing. It isn't about paying men and women differently, it is PROBABLY just the pay adjustments happening.

Back in 1996, companies in the SF Bay area were doing pay adjustments to keep their employees, so most people got a raise based on skill, experience, etc. If there was the focus on gender and how many men there were compared to women, from year to year, as the, "to keep up with pay for the job in the area we are giving pay increases", you would have seen more men or more women in any given year getting higher pay increases, or lower pay increases. Of course, if 85 percent of your applicants are male, if you are set on hiring a 50 percent male/female ratio, you are probably passing over better qualified male employees to meet a gender number equality target, and that is worse for the company in many ways.

Re:Does it matter?

[Hognoxious]

For suitably "larger breasted" values of "better".

Re:Does it matter?

[jellomizer]

Pay adjustments like this isn't communism, it is making sure they are getting paid the market amount.

The problem a lot of companies have is when they hire new employees they offer them a competitive salary, however this competitive salary, can be more then it was for the person who got hired for the same job last year. Meaning the person who got hired last year, may leave that job and get a new one who will be paying the higher rate that is demanded. The company realizing the Supply and Demand of that job has changed, and gives the employee price adjustments, is capitalism at its best.

If the person is a better Level 4 Software Engineer, then most of everyone else, perhaps he should be promoted to a Level 5 Engineer.

You can be the best Burger Flipper in the World, but you are not going to be paid a 7 figure salary to flip burgers better then everyone else. Especially with the cost benefit of the worlds best, vs Mediocre just doesn't make sense to pay this guy more then 20% more. Capitalism isn't about ability, it is about supply and demand. Being good at your job, normally will increase your demand, but there isn't much elasticity for most jobs.

Re:Does it matter?

[HornWumpus]

You still negotiate individually. It just becomes a negotiation about which job category the employee is in next year.

The good ones are ready to 'vote with their feet' at a moments notice. 'Strict corporate policies' mean _nothing_. 'Department raise budgets' mean _nothing_. Those are just management lies for chumps.

Also: Once you've gone to the trouble of finding a better offer, NEVER accept the counter from the place that was trying to 'get away with it'. They haven't changed, they're just momentarially desperate. They will hold you 'disloyalty' against you, especially if a manager has to eat a pound of shit (or accept no raise/smaller bonus him/her self). Go with the place where you are the 'promising new hire', not the 'entire department raise budget extorting mercenary.'

If you want money, the best way to get it is coming in the door. Even if you've managed to double your salary, all future raises are considered against what you made when you started.

Re: Does it matter?

[jellomizer]

I expect Google trying to change its culture, worked to hire more women, new employees tend to get paid more as they are negotiation on a different Supply/Demand level then when the older employee got hired. Being right now Unemployment is low meaning for these high demand jobs there are short supply. Crating higher costs for new employees.
Being Google has adjusted salaries to everyone, probably means just that has happened.

Re:Does it matter?

[sycodon]

What is someone does it exceptionally well and the other sucks at it, while not sucking at it so much they get fired?

Re:Does it matter?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And since capitalism is based in favoritism, that's a feature rather than a bug.

Re: Does it matter?

[Creepy]

Actually, that is probably why women are paid more - they're scarcer and equal opportunity employers want them to meet diversity quotas. The job I'm at now has several hundred white male IT contractors (and 2 female, both India natives) so they can show their diversity in employees (which are far more balanced in gender and color ).

Re:Does it matter?

[jrumney]

If they are a better Level 4 Software Engineer, then they should be promoted to Level 5 more quickly. Paying people the same for the same job doesn't prevent merit based career advancement.

Re:Does it matter?

[jrumney]

Then you give the first one a promotion, and hold the second back.

Re:Does it matter?

[uncqual]

Unfortunately, job descriptions rarely map cleanly to individuals, particularly those with exceptional skills in a few areas.

I've known Software Engineers that had zero interest in being "leaders" or "architects" - perhaps because they eschewed conflict, were somewhat antisocial, didn't like being responsible for other peoples' work, or just didn't like doing that sort of work. However they were absolutely awesome at some particular aspect of their job such as having an unparalleled ability to track down and eradicate concurrency related heisenbugs which occur extremely rarely and leave core files that are quite inscrutable. These bugs can hold up releases by months, piss off Fortune 50 customers who have spent big bucks on your product, and harm the reputation of the company. Noticing and resolving them quickly (hopefully before Alpha) is generally far more important than any new feature in a release.

There, unfortunately, often isn't a proper standard job description for such people but they can be the most valuable employee on your staff and almost impossible to replace and worth twice as much salary as the typical "conformant" Level X (who is striving to get to Level Y). They are not likely to be promoted because that puts them in a situation they would find untenable - for example, having to engage in conflict over designs - and be doing less of the more valuable work they love to do and are excellent at. These people tend to be stuck at Level X, get great bonuses every year, and end up at the top of their pay grade -- yet they are way underpaid compared to their actual contributions.

Re:Does it matter?

[Z80a]

And this is generally compensated by giving the better one a better title.

Re: Does it matter?

[reanjr]

But it's the only way to combat bias.

Well, either that or making everyone's salary available on a public list. It's the knowledge imbalance that generally drives the pay disparities.

Re:Does it matter?

[bickerdyke]

Wouldn't he be Level 5 then?

Re:Does it matter?

[swillden]

Paying everyone the same amount for the same job reeks of communism. One person could be a better "Level 4 Software Engineer" than another.

Absolutely. But that's what performance ratings are for. People with higher performance ratings get larger bonuses, more equity and bigger raises (and, eventually, promotions). But if Google HR decided that a base pay adjustment was needed, then that must mean that women were getting higher pay after accounting for performance rating history.

Two people with the same job category and the same performance history should make the same amount of money, and this should be true regardless of their gender. If one gender is systematically underpaid it makes sense to make an adjustment -- and to investigate the root cause of the systematic difference.

Re:Does it matter?

[bickerdyke]

But that's why I'd assume they added Levels so that they can still promote those - just call them "Rock Star" developers within the Software developer track up to level 80 and keep them at what they are good at and don't force them onto a management position to advance their career.

Re:Does it matter?

[labnet]

Paying everyone the same amount for the same job reeks of communism. One person could be a better "Level 4 Software Engineer" than another. I've seen this time and again.

Yep. Equality of outcome (women 50%) is stupid, because why draw the line there; what about black women, what about transgender black women what about mexicans, you can slice and dice it forever. Why IT, what about concreters or nursing?
The Scandinavians have already shown, that when you try your hardest to have equality of the sexes, the LESS women do STEM, not because they don't have the brains, but because they would rather have social jobs rather than 'things' jobs.

Re:Does it matter?

[sfcat]

Note, the same people modding this down also modded down the exact same argument made with regard to pay disparity in favor of men.

How would you know? You aren't mod'ing this topic...

Re:Does it matter?

[Larry Lightbulb]

That's the Peter principle - everyone is promoted to the level of their incompetence.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Communisim" lol. Competition between workers is ALWAYS leads to lower wages. This is just basic labor theory.

Re:Does it matter?

[Cederic]

there is a statistical bias in actual pay that can only be explained (in a statistically significant way) by bias. In this case, against men

Which makes the no-longer-Damore class action against Google for discriminating against men even more interesting.

In general, against women.

In general my understanding is that women get paid exactly the same as men for doing the same job, except where they're paid more. Such as in this instance.

Re:Does it matter?

[epine]

The good ones are ready to vote with their feet at a moments notice.

If you can trust Laszlo Bock's book, Work Rules: Insights from Inside Google (2015), Google had a very aggressive policy of matching compensation to achievement so as to retrain their best employees.

His comment on bands: if all the corporation in SV decide to trap people in bands, the best people will simply reprice themselves on the open market every two years. That said, the argument that you're exceptional probably doesn't make itself without a concerted push from the employee side.

No matter how progressive a shop might be, rarely is anyone going to force you to demand what you're worth. In fact, people in charge might make a concerted effort to ensure that no-one else ever helps you along by accident:

Newly unsealed documents show Steve Jobs' brutal response after getting a Google employee fired

Wikipedia editors revolt against board appointment of Arnnon Geshuri

Eric:

On this specific case, the sourcer who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour. We are scrubbing the sourcerâ(TM)s records to ensure she did not contact anyone else.

In general, we have a very clear "do not call" policy (attached) that is given to every staffing professional and I reiterate this message in ongoing communications and staffing meetings. Unfortunately, every six months or so someone makes an error in judgment, and for this type of violation we terminate their relationship with Google.

Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs. This was an isolated incident and we will be very careful to make sure this does not happen again.

Thanks,
Arnnon

This finally got back to Steve, who affixed a happy face, and passed it along to the unindicted co-conspirators within his own HR department.

Re:Does it matter?

[dryeo]

And how do you decide who is the most productive? Most lines of code? Most bug fixes? Most hours spent at work?

Re:Does it matter?

[BoogieChile]

In that case, they should be a "Level 5 Software Engineer", surely?

> Paying everyone the same amount for the same job reeks of communism

Only if you're one of those weirdly brainwashed Americans who equate publicly funded public utilities like health and education with socialism.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

How effective they are at actually getting stuff done? Not even using metrics or such, it's easy to see someone who is not actually getting work done on time versus someone who is very effective and contributing. Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned, difficulty in adding simple features or doing basic debugging; versus someone who implements lots of features and quickly resolves bug issues that are filed. Boiling down to "is the company getting its money's worth from this person?"

I've seen some really lopsided cases. The low productivity person is so bad that there's eventually a Performance Improvement Plan and later is laid off, but was actually making $50K more than the highest productivity person. The difference all came down to the pay grade given when they were initially hired. After the fact it's extremely difficult to lower someone's salary much less put them into a lower pay grade, and it's also very difficult to give someone else a large enough boost in pay to reach parity. I also once got a very big raise when I told my boss how more much the local goof off made than I did (the goof off had been recommended by the owner).

Google's plan here really only affects employees within the same pay grade. Most companies do try to even things out over time so that most employees are somewhere near the middle the pay range for their level (ie, easier to wrangle a larger raise if the employee is below the midline). So the biggest differences in pay for the same job are likely to come from being in different pay grades, not variances within that grade. And the pay grade very much depends upon what you started with when first hired, and in my experience the hiring process is where the most bias can happen since there is so much gut feeling going into it. So Google really isn't saying anything useful here, if they really did want to show that they were being fair in pay between men and women they'd show the distributions in pay across the pay grades.

Re:Does it matter?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

A better solution would be to have job titles (and thus pay levels) reflect skill, and then have tight salary bands for the job level. Transparency is good for everyone. The employee knows what their boss thinks of them and can have frank discussions about how to improve (or why their boss is missing their contributions). Coworkers know how much credence to give comments from each other, at least how skilled the person making them is. And also how much to expect to ask of each other. The boss benefits because their team is better (see above) and the company doesn't have to deal with the issues covered in this article.

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

You can be working as a Level 4 Software Engineer for a year or for 10 years. Surely there's a difference. I am a Level 3 grade in what I do, have been for over 8 years. Should I be a level 4? Yes, by all accounts. Why am I not? Politics at work. I lack some "soft skills" (namely being able to aptly asskiss). Nothing technical preventing me from acceding to the next level. So I am paid in the upper margin of Level 3 band. There is someone at Level 4 who is less technical than me but customers love her because she always says "yes sir", and then offloads the heavy work to me. I don't mind, though, I understand those soft skills are required and I don't have them.

And there's one more thing you're overlooking when saying: "for many large companies pay withing a level is pretty much withing a defined band" - you forgot to add "and within the same state/country". Having me as an example, my 3rd world country salary for a level 3 in a global corp is about 1/8th of the salary for the same level in the USA. So what should I do? Demand equal payment? Because we ARE doing the same thing, with arguably the same success.

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

You are right. I will demand to be paid the same amount as my USA-based colleagues. OR ELSE! :)

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

It's job level, country, and how close to the maximum that level is.
If it's level 4 out of 10, then yes the difference between salaries (within the same geographical area) should be relatively small, maybe 10-15%. But at level 9 of 10, you might be sitting there for 10 years before becoming "a god of $skills", and the salary band should be much larger. You have to give small raises to a senior engineer, and if after 8 years of work as a senior engineer, they get a freshly-appointed senior engineer colleague who is paid the same amount, it might just not be fair to the older employee.

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

At some point, moving from one level to the next becomes a very lengthy process. Much like in sports, for example tennis. Imagine top 10 as the uppermost level, entering it could take years of work. At the same time, a lower level (e.g. top 901-1000) is much more dynamic. And it makes no sense to have 80 levels of skill. How do you fit an engineer in exactly level 74, but not 73 or 75?

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

What if there isn't a level 5? Or what if Level 5 is the highest? It could take years to gain enough experience and skill to reach level 5.

Re:Does it matter?

[bickerdyke]

I used Lvl80 as an example for some high level but I don't think there is an actual level cap. So I guess you get promoted through the levels as long as you learn new stuff and improve.

Re: Does it matter?

[ShieldW0lf]

Actually, that is probably why women are paid more - they're scarcer and equal opportunity employers want them to meet diversity quotas. The job I'm at now has several hundred white male IT contractors (and 2 female, both India natives) so they can show their diversity in employees (which are far more balanced in gender and color ).

Yeah, but... shouldn't that money come from the advertising budget?

Re:Does it matter?

[religionofpeas]

What if you only have 10 levels, and you're level 10 ? Where do you go from there ? Nowhere.

That's why these jobs go to level 11.

Re:Does it matter?

[religionofpeas]

What about short men vs tall men ? Or bald vs pointy haired ? Or clean shaven vs hipster beards ?

Re:Does it matter?

[lucasnate1]

Oh look, the "capitalist" assumes that people are paid according to how better they are and not according to how much leverage they have over management (a combination of several factors, being "better" is just one of them)

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

The problem is defining the levels. What defines level 10? What defines level 11? What defines level 2186?

Re:Does it matter?

[Registered Coward v2]

You can be working as a Level 4 Software Engineer for a year or for 10 years. Surely there's a difference.

I would expect when doing salary comparisons time of service would be a consideration; although in some cases new hires start at a higher salary due to market cases. In such cases, companies often give across the board raises to keep staff happy.

And there's one more thing you're overlooking when saying: "for many large companies pay withing a level is pretty much withing a defined band" - you forgot to add "and within the same state/country". Having me as an example, my 3rd world country salary for a level 3 in a global corp is about 1/8th of the salary for the same level in the USA. So what should I do? Demand equal payment? Because we ARE doing the same thing, with arguably the same success.

Companies pay what local markets demand, not what the highest does. Often, that's why the work is there because it is cheaper.

Re:Does it matter?

[SharpFang]

What defines senior project lead? What defines project manager, senior system architect, division manager etc?

Simply, at current stage, promotion path means you lead 'line' position and must enter 'management' position at certain stage. The levels could map requirements for current promotion path 1:1, simply whenever you're up for a promotion, you just get to choose if you want to enter a management position, or a parallel 'line' position.

Re:Does it matter?

[SharpFang]

Oh, then you're screwed. Because the laws of physics prevent the existence of level 5. If the management ever introduced level 5, because there are employees at level 4 who deserve a promotion, that would make the universe to collapse!

Re:Does it matter?

[AmiMoJo]

That's just blaming "market forces" for your own poor behaviour. If you were desperate enough to hire someone you were willing to offer more money, you should also offer your current employees that much so they don't leave.

"This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation.

Re:Does it matter?

[dasunt]

How effective they are at actually getting stuff done? Not even using metrics or such, it's easy to see someone who is not actually getting work done on time versus someone who is very effective and contributing. Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned, difficulty in adding simple features or doing basic debugging; versus someone who implements lots of features and quickly resolves bug issues that are filed. Boiling down to "is the company getting its money's worth from this person?"

We got a ticketing system, which provided metrics for my boss to work with.

When the ticketing system was communicated to be important, I starting focusing on responding to and closing tickets ASAP and severely curtailed doing things that I thought improved the company but weren't being measured.

Now I don't know what measures of success my boss wants (maybe she needs the metric to prove her worth to her superiors), but I feel like I'm less productive and providing less of a benefit. Personally, I'd rather demote the importance of the ticketing system so I could be more effective. But since trying to communicate this issue has been met with a brick wall, I'm going to do what they want.

Re:Does it matter?

[scamper_22]

You really have to recognize yourself as an employee.

In no job, are your contributions actually mapped to your pay. It doesn't matter what industry. Maybe the closest you will get is sales. But even there, there's so many intangibles.

Really, unless you're a founder or something, you're just an employee or worker bee. I don't say that as some kind of rational to be shitty or not do a good job. But you kind of accept that your pay doesn't really match your contributions.

You get paid within a range for your position and go on and live your life. Quite frankly, if you're making more than 100k, I don't think they should even track discrimination pay. You're playing at the higher levels and if you don't recognize your worth or fight for your pay and position, you don't deserve to be making more than 100k. And for the record, I just a regular employee who doesn't play at the high levels. But if some senior manager or executive were to ever complain about pay discrimination, I would instantly lose any respect for them. leaders don't get to whine and complain about discrimination.

And for the rest of us, after taxes, small variations in pay are just that. They're small. I'm going to lose sleep because someone makes an extra 5-10k than me? Not bloody likely. It doesn't matter much for those of us in 'middle class' jobs.

Where that 5-10k would matter is in the working class, and those jobs are generally standard pay across the board. I worked in warehouses. I don't stack skids much fast than the next person. We all generally got paid the same, baring shift leaders...

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Because it is a legitimate comment and not a redundant, troll, or flamebait. People who mod those down are doing so out of bias rather than valid criteria. "The people" who mod down both share the same bias and inability to tolerate comments which run counter to that bias.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

" Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned"

I've seen too much metric hacking to go by these things. An inexperienced newbie might close ten fold or even a hundred fold the number of tickets while the more experienced person might target the issues that cause a multi-million dollar client to be retained or prevent the loss of one or in some cases might be dramatically harder cases that require research and months to solve.

Not all work is equally valuable.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."

That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how you accuse Darinbob of blaming market forces for an employer's poor behavior, but when it comes to an employee's poor behavior of not being a good negotiator, why, they are just a victim of coicumstance! (intentionally misspelled because I like how the late great Curly Howard pronounced it)

As someone who negotiates poorly (or rather, not at all) and thus will always be underpaid compared to my coworkers who are better negotiators, allow me to say that the fault is all my own, that "that person negotiated better" is absolutely a valid excuse, and to please stop trying to fix the problem by disposing of the whole negotiating aspect. You want to fix the problem, then negotiate on behalf of someone who can not or will not negotiate on their own behalf.

And if it turns out you can not get them a higher salary, then accept that maybe, just maybe, they were already being paid what they deserved.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"So what should I do? Demand equal payment? Because we ARE doing the same thing, with arguably the same success."

Yes. Then compete on a level playing field for the job and may the best person win. That is what those of us in the US want. Don't be foolish enough to do it alone or at work through. Have someone else start a petition to that effect.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"In such cases, companies often give across the board raises to keep staff happy."

ROFL. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re: Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"What if the whole point of your favoritism is based on some perceived need beyond the job?"

Of course it is. You don't promote people based on effectiveness in their current job. That would be shooting yourself in the foot. You promote people based on abilities that make them suited to better jobs.

Re:Does it matter?

[AmiMoJo]

That leads to some very shitty outcomes, especially when the company has power to force workers to work for less and less money. It's the reason why things like the minimum wage and anti-discrimination rules exist.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Something to keep in mind you assume everyone making six figures is a "leader" is that median rent for a one bedroom apartment in SF was just reported as over $3600/mo. That means you need at least $10,800/mo NET salary to get through a rental management companies 3x rent requirement. So that is at least $170k/yr not for a high priced apartment, but a median apartment in SF.

Where I come from being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment on your own counts as just out of college or entry level professional.

Granted, elsewhere in the country $170k/yr is a solid salary but it is hardly comparable to leadership. Depending on what type of role you are filling this might feel like the moon but it isn't the moon.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

That is so sexist. You have no idea how large the breasts are on those underpaid men after all the stress eating they've done!

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

The first two we should correct for, the first might even justify a protected class it is so strongly attached to discrimination. Discriminating against hipster beards is just common sense.

Re:Does it matter?

[Registered Coward v2]

"In such cases, companies often give across the board raises to keep staff happy."

ROFL. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Perhaps, but every company I've worked for or has been a client has done that.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

True meritocracy is that because you deliver you are in a position to strongarm the boss into paying you more but if you don't deliver the boss strongarms you.

The problem is that there is more to the equation than work performance. You might be a single earner home with kids and suddenly your risk level vs when you were a single guy is dramatically different.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Better than all level 4's, sure, better than some? Maybe not. What about someone whose skills rate level 4 but is a good level 4 who has been in position for 10 years. Should that person not make more than someone who took up the job yesterday? Should someone with six months experience in a level 4 position make as much as either one? What about that person who took up the job yesterday but has 10 years experience being the equivalent of a level 4 at a competitor and caught the eye of someone at Google? It might even be about robbing the other company as much as wanting the level 4 his dev skills might be 4 but he's been strategically effective. Should Google have no ability to leverage its deep pockets and engage in strategic decisions on salary?

What about someone who is extremely talented but will continue to stay in position forever contentedly at a fraction of their peers salary? Why should Google have to pay them more when Google could use those funds to gain someone less passive, perhaps aforementioned strategic hire?

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"Oh look, the "capitalist" assumes that people are paid according to how better they are and not according to how much leverage they have over management (a combination of several factors, being "better" is just one of them)"

I don't know about that guy and having leverage over management is luck but you make your own luck. The ability to make your own luck is the primary criteria of "better" in the worth paying more for and promotion sense because it tends to translate as duties and role changes. Ideally you want the people who are best at making their own luck to shift up to the place where that manufactured luck translates into making you as much money as possible.

That guy who perfectly shapes all the pegs and holes with precision each and every time... he is better at his job but that isn't necessarily going to translate into being better at any other job. He is probably giving you the most value right where he is and being paid as little as you can while retaining him.

Re:Does it matter?

[AmiMoJo]

This is just arguing over semantics. I would have assumed that someone who was stuck at level 4 for ten years wasn't all that good, otherwise they would have advanced. You are assuming that level 4 has some other meaning that covers a range of people with between zero and a decade or more of experience... In other words the issue is defining what level 4 is.

More money for more experience is fine.

Re:Does it matter?

[scamper_22]

yep, I agree. It depends on your geographic region.
But you get the point. Leaders who make more than a normal middle class life don't get to complain. Whether its 100k or 200k, u get the general point.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Perhaps neither of us works at Google and can say with certainty. Speaking for myself, my assumptions were based on other companies and positions with numbered roles like this.

Typically as the levels increase there is a definition that goes with it which defines equates to a change in the types of underlying work you are assigned or your role on projects. Generally these differences are thought to associate with skill but that isn't always the case. Sometimes for whatever reason a person really likes exactly the role or type of work they are doing and doesn't want that shift. Over time that person can and likely will become better than their peers or even the people who have advanced in exactly that role. Having those people to learn from also makes their peers better and conversely makes the experienced hand showing them his tricks stand out less and be less likely to be promoted.

For instance, in a lvl 1 vs lvl 2 support role the lvl 2 might own different types of issues. An excellent lvl 1 might not be able to fix all the issues but might know exactly which gathered information always leads to those resolutions and ask the right preliminary questions. Issues taken by that lvl 1 might pass to lvl 2 frequently but have lower resolution times across the board. One of those lvl 2's on the fast track to lvl 3 might be great at deep diving and finding answers others don't but be a scatter brained and myopic. He (or she) likely was promoted because he never passed anything to a lvl 2 as a lvl 1 and probably will do the same at lvl 2 with lvl 3 complexity issues. He has the right combination of owning issues to a fault and actually ultimately solving them. His peer lvl 2's will be annoyed because they have higher closure rates but the real reason he gets promoted beyond them is he already a lvl 3 and just not labeled as such. Those great level 1's exist to increase the efficiency of the higher paid lvl2's, the lvl2's exist to screen out problems which don't need the unique and inefficient form of thinking employed by the lvl3's. Being a lvl3 doesn't mean you are that much better at doing the work of a lvl1 than a good lvl1 or any better at all. It ideally means, you are better at doing the work which gets assigned to lvl3s.

Even when you stay within the same job title there are differences between the work at different tiers. It isn't just a pay grade indicator.

Re:Does it matter?

[lucasnate1]

I did not attribute things to luck and I agree with you that you can "make your own luck". I just don't think that your own luck and the organization's luck are the same. When I was young, I did a lot of work in companies and never asked for a raise, so I didn't always get one. Now that I know better how to bargain, I can get better paychecks. This means that "I made my own luck", but did not improve the company's luck in any way. Other people might get a bigger wage through connections or through political pressure (how dare you not give a person of color enough pay, you racist!).

My only claim here is that "How helpful you are of the business" and "How much you earn" are not 100% correlated, hell, sometimes, in some companies, these things are barely connected.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"That leads to some very shitty outcomes, especially when the company has power to force workers to work for less and less money."

It does indeed for the unremarkable workers. On the other hand it leads to better outcomes for the talented people and exceptional people who have leverage because their work will be leading to higher profits and therefore there is a bigger pie they can strongarm their employer into sharing. The rules you speak of are good for setting a minimum baseline but not how it should work beyond that. Otherwise you are rewarding the mundane as much as the exceptional in doing so giving them as loud a voice and making them as likely to be looked up to by future generations.

There is a problem when you are rewarding the children of the wealthy and/or the previous exceptional generation. Nature as the primary predictor of exceptional performance has been debunked. But there is nothing wrong with this concept of rewarding the exceptional beyond the mundane.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

In the last 15 years I've seen it happen once at a very young company.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

I get the point I just disagree with how you are drawing the line. You are basing a line on income and earning. I disagree with that standard. A doctor, lawyer, or engineer still has the right to argue against discrimination even if that fight may not carry the same level of desperation.

Some of these people are at the upper echelons of the working class but they've made smart decisions and worked hard to be there. Or maybe in some cases got lucky. The point being, your kids have a fair shot at being those people in 20 years if they have the stuff and the drive.

The target for this point shouldn't be the working class at the top or the bottom. The target should be those who aren't working class whether they happen to work anyway or not. Point your rage where it belongs, the executives and the wealthy. The people who make hundreds of millions to billions in wealth growth but pay an effective tax rate of 15% or less on some tiny subset they cashed in. Those people don't get a vote.

Re:Does it matter?

[Registered Coward v2]

In the last 15 years I've seen it happen once at a very young company.

Fair enough. I've seen at a number of companies, mostly larger ones where they staff could easily change jobs (engineering, technical, etc) if they felt they were not fairly compensated.

Re: Does it matter?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but the whole point of excluding the outgroup is to include the ingroup.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

"I just don't think that your own luck and the organization's luck are the same."

Of course they aren't the same but most people aren't going out of their way to suck at their job, at worst they are neutral to it. If you are good at making your own luck for yourself, you'll be good at making your own luck to not have poor performance. The same abstract skills that let you recognize and prioritize negotiating as the low hanging fruit to success vs the other thousands of more difficult paths you could have tried let you recognize the low hanging fruit in most anything.

No matter what your job, being able to negotiate successfully means you've targeted sellable attributes and successfully sold them. You've outwitted a system rigged against you successfully and extracted higher pay. Now clients and competitors are also systems rigged against you, they also need sold, even by support staff, the solutions presented to them need to be sellable. This can mean knowing which features to prioritize, which tickets to hit first in the queue, identifying opportunities that will save accounts and avoiding the purist trap, it can even just mean being able to hold someone's hand in the right way that they feel high touch and handled by experts while peers actually do all the work. Your abilities in making your own luck and selling yourself means a higher probability of doing the right thing in any of these cases. All of it should be recognizable but also will likely reflect poorly on metrics. Which is why someone with these skills should earn more than a peer with great metrics and lacking the skills.

How man pegs you shove into holes each day is a performance metric. It's beautiful in that you need the pegs in the holes and the metric provides something shiny and distracting so you can identify those who can see past what is put in front of them.

How else are you supposed to do it? You can't pay everyone more and you can't promote everyone.

Re:Does it matter?

[Shaitan]

Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.

What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.

Re:Does it matter?

[Registered Coward v2]

Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.

What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.

No worries. Based on my experience, that only occurs in industries or areas where replacing staff is expensive; for example in an engineering company where an employee is finally productive after a year or two and losing him or her is expensive; thus it is better to raise their pay than replace them. I would guess it is a small subset of companies that do that; either because they can hire new staff cheaper or management is clueless. I know of several airlines who deliberately suppress wage growth so flight attendants leave after a while because it is easier to hire and train new ones than pay higher salaries plus it ensures cabin crew are always young and attractive. They want cabin crew who are looking for a short term gig that lets them travel have fun but want to eventually move on to something else.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

I was not using metrics at all here and was very much trying to avoid such things in the description. The company is not a charity who hires people just to dispose of excess case, a person is hired to do work. And this particular person was very much not pulling his own weight, and would be rated low both objectively and subjectively by management and coworkers.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

I was not talking about metrics. Most supervisors can easily tell subjectively if workers are top tier or bottom tier, the metrics only exist in some places as a means of justifying those ratings. Sure, some people here are arguing against metrics, I can understand that. However in the example I gave was very much about a good worker being paid very much less than a terrible worker, trying to make the point that pay does not correlate to quality of the worker.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darinbob]

The pay is not directly in the hands of the hiring manager. We can make recommendations, but they can and will be overridden. I've had my annual raise and bonus allocations be changed higher up the chain of command (very much pissed me off).

Re:Does it matter?

[mopower70]

""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."

That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.

Uh.. people in strong positions are in a different market. I agree that negotiation isn't a valid excuse because it's not negotiation at that point: it's having done your research to know what market you're in. When I hire, I don't negotiate salary. I have a pay scale based on your skill and that's what you get. If that doesn't work for you, then my company isn't for you. I don't try to hire experienced top-tier salary at the low end of the scale and see if they can negotiate their way up. Who the hell would work for a company like that?

Re:Does it matter?

[war4peace]

Exactly in the same spot. Were they paid less because they were less skillful, because they didn't negotiate as aggressively, because they were actively discriminated?
The simple fact that X is generally paid less than Y doesn't tell the whole story.

Re:Does it matter?

[Hognoxious]

Careful, you'll set the Creimertards off.

Sexism

[SurenEnfiajyan]

There is still sexism in this world, I told you!

Re:Sexism

[Shaitan]

"In this case Google had proposed some changes, looked at them and noticed that they would create unfairness for men, and decided not to do them."

In this case Google applied changes that people like you applauded and people like me protested and the evidence on closer examination showed that no amount of bias could cover how disparate the result was. That is the problem with solving imaginary balance problems, it leaves things unbalanced.

Re:Sexism

[AmiMoJo]

What changes specifically are you referring to?

Re:Sexism

[Shaitan]

It's somewhere between. They made changes to policies and practices to correct alleged unfair treatment of women. This story is about a subsequent review which found post change disproportionate compensation in favor of women and corrected compensation one off in favor of men to get back to an equitable baseline. Presumably the "diversity" centered policies that resulted in the disparity remain in place at Google so the inevitable imbalance over time will return, the correction may not.

Yes but that isn't how they feel

[Shaitan]

The ladies feel like they are being paid less and how dare Google suggest their feelings aren't valid?!!! I expect they'll correct this correction within a couple weeks.

Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does cite the underpaying of men as a reason for why the company paid more in adjustments for 2018 than in 2017. But The New York Times reports men received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money.

The point of an adjustment is to adjust the lower paid party disproportionately to the higher paid party. So what is the problem here? Oh, just looking for something to bitch about? Carry on then.

Reality is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are more likely to get a college degree (in the US anyway) and that has had a knock-on effect in job opportunities and futures for a huge number of US men.

It's not really a surprise that women are starting to get paid more in some jobs. They can't get men into those jobs to begin with because more and more of them aren't getting the education they need to get there. So there's fewer people overall to compete for those jobs.

Re:Reality is....

[geekmux]

Women are more likely to get a college degree (in the US anyway) and that has had a knock-on effect in job opportunities and futures for a huge number of US men.

Are women (or men for that matter) also more likely to obtain an actual useful degree?

Even a 100% college graduate rate isn't worth a shit if the end result is a nation full of social justice warriors who majored in transgender studies.

Re: Reality is....

[c6gunner]

That's hilarious. I guess you haven't bothered looking at the degree distribution in computer science and STEM more broadly.

Re:Reality is....

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Women are more likely to get a college degree (in the US anyway) and that has had a knock-on effect in job opportunities and futures for a huge number of US men.

True.

It's not really a surprise that women are starting to get paid more in some jobs.

This doesn't follow. I think you're bad at stats. If 95% of people getting a degree gating to the highest paid jobs are women, we would expect women to make more overall. We wouldn't expect those people in the same job to have a pay differential.

Re:Reality is....

[avandesande]

Another possibility is that women may stick around longer which would reflect in their pay

Re:Reality is....

[AmiMoJo]

It's more subtle than that. There are far more men with CS degrees, but sometimes they are not being paid as much at the start of their careers. Later in their careers they tend to do better than women. On average, caveat caveat caveat etc.

Re:Reality is....

[geekmux]

Why is it always gender studies used as the example? What about all the guys playing football, 99.99% of which never get more than a mild brain injury out of it?

Ironically enough, football players are smart enough to go after degrees in finance or business, which can benefit them if they're successful enough to make it in the NFL or any other elite level.

Society has yet to find value with gender studies degrees. The only people actually hiring for that (colleges) are the ones trying to convince us that it's somehow still worth something.

Re:Reality is....

[AmiMoJo]

The same argument applies to all sorts of things. What is the point of having a PhD in History? We already know pretty much everything useful to know about history, it's just filling in some trivia at this point. Or psychology, that's all unreproducable quackery right? And anything in the arts, I mean we don't need creative people, they don't build anything.

People used to get degrees in Latin, back in the 70s and into the 80s. It was actually pretty popular with employers, a sign of an organized and logical mind apparently. "Useless" degrees are not a new thing.

Re:Reality is....

[cordovaCon83]

Ironically enough, football players are smart enough to go after degrees in finance or business, which can benefit them if they're successful enough to make it in the NFL or any other elite level.

People with degrees in finance and business are pretty useless IMO. Moving money around is hardly a real skill. They aren't completely useless though, but pretty close.

Re:Reality is....

[Shaitan]

"Why is it always gender studies used as the example?"

Because it is the most preposterous field of study. The entire concept is so ridiculous you can't help but use it as an example. Its an extreme like the Google janitor, the McDonald's coffee, the Hoodie in the dark self-defense killing, or the robber who gets injured robbing a house suing the homeowner.

I don't care what gender you feel like you are. Gender is part of physical reality. I don't even care about your chromosome mix because that is a model we came up after observing the physical reality of gender. You start with observing physical reality, if your tests and hypothesis (such as our models associating chromosomal mixes) don't match the physical reality you change what has been proven to be a flawed model not the physical reality.

What you most definitely do not do is undermine everything written and recorded by redefining the word gender itself from the meaning that has always applied.

A person can have feelings that don't match reality. Everything we assume follows from that reality can also be false. What can't be false is the actual physical reality. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A hermaphrodite is a hermaphrodite. You can figure out which someone is by looking at their junk at birth and absolutely nothing can or will ever make the answer different. Feeling like you aren't the gender you actually are is akin to thinking you are a chicken. Feeling like you don't fit societal definitions of what your gender is supposed to be like well that is an entirely different ball of wax for which the blame most likely falls on society.

People who want to self-mutilate or be mutilated surgically because of their feelings are mentally ill. In an individual case maybe the answer is just to go ahead and let them have whatever cosmetic surgery they want. That is a question I leave to doctors but it won't actually change their gender and neither will hormone pills or changing their manner of dressing. The fact is that we as a society have a lot to answer for and a lot of fix so that we stop making people feel like the kind of man or woman they actually are isn't a man or woman respectively so that they don't have this disconnect with reality.

Gender is a reference to your birth junk, nothing more, nothing less. You ARE a man or women (or hermaphrodite) based on your condition at birth. Maybe you are a man who likes fashion, dresses, makeup, tear jerkers, and in every other way identifies with the culture we've built around women and hate the culture we've built around men. That makes you a different and less common sort of guy, not a woman. That isn't an opinion, it is simple objective reality. It is true, it will always be true. Man and woman are just words, labels they can't be innately wrong because they don't mean anything other than objective definition, your junk at birth, that we've attached to them.

Yes, there is the issue of the best way to treat these people who we've already broken to make them as comfortable as possible but the most important focus should be on not breaking more and the rest of us need to at least agree to not debate objective reality if we are going to do that. The current efforts seem best targeted at confusing future generations and gender confusing as many of them as possible to cater to a tiny minority group of mentally ill people. I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I'm pretty sure that isn't it.

Re:Reality is....

[Shaitan]

"Society has yet to find value with gender studies degrees."

HR

Re:Reality is....

[Shaitan]

And men are discriminated against in college admissions and funding as well.

Re:Reality is....

[geekmux]

The same argument applies to all sorts of things. What is the point of having a PhD in History?

Since you haven't noticed, there is a significant demand for history teachers. Because history is something we still feel is valuable to teach, else you might just end up repeating it.

I sure as hell can't say the same for a degree in gender studies. And the unemployable with that degree would agree, regardless if they're willing to admit it or not.

Re:Reality is....

[geekmux]

Ironically enough, football players are smart enough to go after degrees in finance or business, which can benefit them if they're successful enough to make it in the NFL or any other elite level.

People with degrees in finance and business are pretty useless IMO. Moving money around is hardly a real skill. They aren't completely useless though, but pretty close.

Based on the amount of debt the average American holds, I find it pretty fucking hilarious that you're dismissing the value of a financial education.

Everyone at every level can benefit from being able to balance a budget and manage finances.

Re:Reality is....

[AmiMoJo]

A degree in teaching would be more useful for that. The hard part is teaching kids, not learning school level history curriculum.

Re:Reality is....

[cordovaCon83]

Everyone at every level can benefit from being able to balance a budget and manage finances.

I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. I often see companies suffer however when they base their business decisions solely on crunching numbers (finance) or networking with a buddy (business). Even worse are business analysts and financial analysts that end up more of a burden on a company than a benefit. And how would one ever call them on their bs? They are the ones guarding the books.

I've met too many bad business analysts to hold the career in general in high regard. They should have gone to college for something more beneficial to society. Please refer to the Fyre Festival documentaries for anecdotal evidence.

Re:Reality is....

[geekmux]

A degree in teaching would be more useful for that. The hard part is teaching kids, not learning school level history curriculum.

It takes some time before schoolchildren are old enough to start learning history.

And if they're still acting like little shitheads by that age, then learn to blame the parents, not the topic of study. It's sure as hell not history's fault that little Johnny is an asshole.

Re:Reality is....

[Kartu]

Why is it always gender studies used as the example?

Because one of its founders suggested reducing population of men to 10%

and, perhaps, because one of the G. Studies journals managed to publish re-phrased "Main Kampf".

Doesn't sound like something practical. One could argue that neither is literature, but at least there are people who enjoy that.

Re:Wonder how many guys are transitioning

[HornWumpus]

All it takes is a bow in your hair. Cartman led the way.

Women Are Wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure now that the ladies are making more.

Hilarious. Called the Women Are Wonderful effect.

Both men and women treat women better across cultures as a result. So when women say they are being paid less, well women don't lie, so it must be true. When women are being paid more, who cares!

Now we get to watch people who claim to be feminists in that they believe in treating women and men equally will not in any way whatsoever fight against women being paid more than men.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Shaitan]

"Now we get to watch people who claim to be feminists in that they believe in treating women and men equally will not in any way whatsoever fight against women being paid more than men."

Of course not, after all it is only fair with all that special treatment men get.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Targon]

It depends on the company, and the culture of the people already there. Many companies do not discriminate when it comes to gender, but if 85 percent of job applicants are men, that might explain why there are fewer women than men being hired. Pay isn't always going to be better for men in companies as well, so assuming that the culture of old-school corporations being sexist applies to newer businesses is not a good thing.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Hognoxious]

Generally one person gets one salary, so how many of each of the 27 genders there are has no bearing at all on which are paid more.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Marxist Hacker 42]

85% of job applicants are men
75% of people hired at a certain Fortune 100 company are female, by policy, at certain levels (Grade 8 and above).

Result: that's the only tech company that hit their "diversity" goal early, by discriminating against men.

Re: Women Are Wonderful

[Type44Q]

Work well does not your translator...

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Chas]

And remember.
If you simply try to have a civil discussion, you're shut down as a misogynist who suffers from "male fragility".

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[MrKaos]

Now we get to watch people who claim to be feminists in that they believe in treating women and men equally will not in any way whatsoever fight against women being paid more than men.

It's not about getting equal, it's about getting even.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Opportunist]

Yoda, you are drunk. Go get some sleep.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Opportunist]

In my experience, they all compete. The difference is that a man will charge at you, a woman will backstab you.

I'm still not sure which one I prefer.

Re:Women Are Wonderful

[Shaitan]

That isn't a troll, it is just the facts.

Re:Many things are not clear.

[DamnOregonian]

Is it? Is your hypothesis that workplace pay discrepancies are in fact based on Y chromosomal traits, thus precluding transsexuals women from being impacted?

Stole from Peter to pay Paula

[WillAffleckUW]

The problem was that Google took from the total pool per job classification, robbing Peter to pay Paula, when Paula was underpaid relative to the total group, but this meant less left to pay Peter.

They should have lifted Bill's pay package compensation as a senior exec to pay Paula, while not reducing the pool for Peter, under the Peter Piper Principle, which says to pay Peter Piper you take the compensation package away from the school principles.

Supply and Demand works!

[PackMan97]

1. Tech companies are craving a diverse workforce and seek to hire more female software developers 2. For decades, women have been avoiding computer science and technical degrees as well as avoiding jobs in the tech industry. Therefore The demand to hire female coders has significantly exceeded the supply of talent to fill those jobs. Therefore, in order to hire a female tech worker, companies are having to offer above market salaries. I do not understand the problem here. Isn't everything working as expected?

Re:Supply and Demand works!

[Moridineas]

Do you post on DBR?

Re:Supply and Demand works!

[Cederic]

No. The BBC was forced to reveal the salary of everybody earning above a certain amount, which revealed that the highest paid TV presenters were all men.

The women complained, so a pay review was initiated. Top salaries got cut and people being underpaid got pay rises.

More men than women got pay rises. For the record, 52% of the BBC appearing on TV are female and there's absolutely no fucking shortage of women wanting to get a job on TV.

So it's not necessarily market supply/demand at all. It's far more likely to be anti-male bias, which is sadly increasingly apparent in all walks of life.

Re:Supply and Demand works!

[PackMan97]

Not necessarily. Believe what you want, but teams with diverse backgrounds and thoughts do actually create better software when targeting a global audience. Now if I were building Call of Duty 9, I might want a lot of young white males on my team to make sure I capture the wants and desires of 95% of my target audience. :)

Re:Supply and Demand works!

[Kartu]

Believe what you want, but teams with diverse backgrounds and thoughts do actually create better software when targeting a global audience

Intuitively it should be, but there is no serious study showing significant correlation, let alone direct link.

There also are other factors at play. If you get diverse team by setting said "diversity targets" in HR, most of the time you will end up hiring people less suited for the job and there will go your "better software".

I'm sure Yahoo's stakeholders can tell you a lot more about diversity hires, how is that former CEO of theirs (who also happened to be managing things at google at some point) doing, by the way?

How was it calculated?

[Hydrian]

I'm wondering how it was calculated? Was is just raw salary, salary + available benefits, or salary + used benefits? I suspect women use more of the benefits than men do. Women are more likely to stay home when kids can't go to school. Men are often more likely to have unused vacation. Also in term of health benefits, women tend to be the more expensive gender.

Re:How was it calculated?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

in term of health benefits, women tend to be the more expensive gender.

Is that really true Do you have any stats to back that up? Because I thought that was solely due to the fact that women disproportionately use end-of-life care.

Men are often more likely to have unused vacation.

Well, that's a shame. We need to get away from the idea that unused vacation is acceptable.

Re:Disproportionate?

[Fly Swatter]

The writer wanted the reader to wrongfully conclude that women were once again somehow slighted. Carefully chosen words to make it sound biased for click-bait purposes, I suppose.

old addage

[Virtucon]

The job of management is to get somebody to do something they don't want to do for less than they're willing to do it for.

Are there any men in San Francisco?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be true for Google developers at large but I thought their SF office was staffed only with betas and trannys. Do they even allow straight men to work at Google HQ? Can't have any toxic masculinity there.

Supply and Demand?

[brian.stinar]

Google is actively trying to increase the diversity of their workforce. That means they are discriminating for under represented groups. Differences in pay are the easiest way things are subsidized / discriminated for.

In the supply of Level 4 Software Engineers, I'd actually think that Google would have to pay females significantly more than males to attract them, since they are almost certainly represented in the pool of Level 4 Software Engineers much less than men. Rare attributes are more expensive than common attributes.

It's not possible to treat people equally, and try to increase the diversity of a workforce that draws from an uneven pool of people. If 9/10 CS graduates are men, then why would companies be expected to have anything other than a 9/10 distribution in their workforce? When the expectations are different, then there has to be some sort of discrimination / subsidy in effect.

Isn't this basic economics, combined with basic statistics?

Re: Supply and Demand?

[reanjr]

It's not that all companies are really expected to have balance. Just the really well known companies with really great careers. The failed startups and mom and pops paying below market are OK to hire all men, which provides the 9/10 balance.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Solandri]

That may work for promoting diversity at a single company. But it does nothing to promote diversity in the industry. If 25% of the people working in software are women, and Google hires 50% women, it doesn't change the fact that 25% of the people working in software are women. All it does is force the ratio to be skewed more towards men in the non-Google companies. The overall percentage for the industry remains 25% women.

If you believe in diversity, it has to be promoted on the supply side. That means encouraging more women to pick the software industry as a career. Forcing companies to hire some arbitrary diversity percentage (demand side) accomplishes nothing, other than generating a lot of animosity and possibly skewing pay to favor the employee group over-represented in your diversity mandate relative to the industry.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the states, the graduate pool is much more female than the worker pool, by a degree that exceeds many other industries that require comparable educational backgrounds. Simply put, the Pipeline Problem cannot fully explain the lack of diversity in many tech companies. Also note that even internally, Google reports a different diversity mix than other big software companies in California, implying that something is going on beyond just the ambient environment that applies to everyone.

It is entirely possible to treat people equally and increase the diversity of the workforce, if the reason the workforce is non-diverse is because people are not being treated evenly. An unspoken assumption that you've made is that right now Google is 100% pure and perfect on everything, except for this diversity initiative. Even if that were true, pay differences do not need to exist. There could be differences in hiring practices, for instance (to use a dumb unrealistic example, if you post your ad outside a nail salon or outside an army base, you will get a different applicant pool).

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

Equality of outcomes is crazy, equality of opportunity is where energy should be focused...if needed. If you look at the feminist utopias of Iceland or Finland, you find a greater degree of gendered separation of work. Almost as if, when given the choice, men and women choose different professions.

Of course, that kind of talk got Damour fired, so what do I know.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[swillden]

In the supply of Level 4 Software Engineers, I'd actually think that Google would have to pay females significantly more than males to attract them, since they are almost certainly represented in the pool of Level 4 Software Engineers much less than men.

I agree with this. Furthermore, I think this is fully justifiable based on value, not just rarity. Diversity of viewpoint has value in and of itself. If two people are exactly as good at designing and implementing software but one of them has a less-common background, that person is actually worth more to the team because they bring their "hard" skills and something else besides.

But your economic argument is certainly correct... or it would be if Google were competing against other employers who all paid men and women equally. Since women are somewhat underpaid industry-wide, merely paying them equally would make Google more attractive to female engineers than the other companies.

Also, it should be pointed out that there are options other than pay for attracting employees... and that women and men often have different priorities. Several studies have found that more women would choose better parental leave policies over more money, for example, while more men would choose the cash. So pay equality and more parental leave -- even if you offer the same amount of leave to mothers and fathers -- will be more attractive to women than men, helping to offset the overrepresentation of men in the hiring pipeline.

All of that said, I don't think it's unreasonable for Google to pay women more than men, for exactly the economic reasons you cite.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Cederic]

If you look at the states, the graduate pool is much more female than the worker pool, by a degree that exceeds many other industries that require comparable educational backgrounds. Simply put, the Pipeline Problem cannot fully explain the lack of diversity in many tech companies

If you think a fucking gender studies degree qualifies you for a job programming (or even that grievance studies graduates would want one) then you're an idiot.

Tell me, if I post a job advert on a US university campus looking for software engineers, what's the gender ratio of the applicants going to be? Are you really telling me 60% of my applicants will be female? Are you really telling me all of those women will have an appropriate level of mathematics, computing expertise, non-educational programming experience and ability to use abstract logic to solve problems?

Or perhaps there is a pipeline problem after all.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

I'd actually think that Google would have to pay females significantly more than males to attract them, since they are almost certainly represented in the pool of Level 4 Software Engineers much less than men. Rare attributes are more expensive than common attributes.

If the company is a really great place to work they can often pay less, because people are willing to trade a bit of cash for a better work life. I'd take a bit less money if the work was interesting or the terms of employment were good (no sick day quota or booking time off for the doctor, flexible hours, autonomy etc.)

When it comes to women and other underrepresented groups, paying a decent wage is important but so is stuff like having decent policies for parents with young kids or managers who encourage a 37.5 hour week.

Re: Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

It's difficult for smaller companies, and the feeling right now is that if the larger ones with hundreds or thousands of employees can make good progress it will filter down eventually.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

Nothing straw about it; it's called the gendered-equality paradox, and it's been known for a while now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

The straw part is calling such places feminist paradises.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[geek]

The straw part is calling such places feminist paradises.

Of course calling it a paradise is ridiculous. That's the point. They govern with their vaginas and try to convince us all it's the proper thing to do. Clearly it isn't as Sweden has shown.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

Why isn't it? Women there rate themselves as some of the most satisfied and happy in the world. Why wouldn't you call that a feminist utopia?

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

It's great that women there are happy, but that doesn't mean it has reached a post-feminist level where everyone is happy and able to live a fulfilling life free from systemic bias against them.

I'm not sure we even know what that looks like, ultimately.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

Of course calling it a paradise is ridiculous. That's the point.

Yes, that's why it's a straw feminist argument, it's ridiculous and no reasonable person, nor mainstream or even fringe feminist ideas, actually think that.

I could respond with a straw anti-feminist argument, talking abut how their fantasy of a Handmaid's Tale style "utopia" would suck, but that would be equally silly and flawed. All it does is prevent any kind of useful debate.

That's what you are doing - consciously or not. Trying to stifle debate.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

It's great that women there are happy, but that doesn't mean it has reached a post-feminist level where everyone is happy and able to live a fulfilling life free from systemic bias against them.

I'm not sure we even know what that looks like, ultimately.

It's not really surprising no one is willing to define a success condition, otherwise how could you continue the victimhood narrative? However, a society where women have equal opportunity and are free to choose their own life styles has to be considered a "success", at least to those a bit more rational than your typical feminist.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

It's not really surprising no one is willing to define a success condition, otherwise how could you continue the victimhood narrative?

I guess the scientists trying to build practical fusion reactors are just continuing their victimhood narrative since they can'y actually be certain what the final design will be.

However, a society where women have equal opportunity and are free to choose their own life styles has to be considered a "success", at least to those a bit more rational than your typical feminist.

That's the typical feminist definition. What you failed to consider is actually spelt out in the Wikipedia article you linked to earlier. Social factors influencing the choice, so that it isn't free any more.

This is the most basic feminist theory. How can you seriously criticise something don't even understand the basics of?

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

Sorry, you lost me at "feminist theory". No, wait, you lost me when you compared fusion reactors with feminism.

Seriously, did you actually read the bullshit you typed before you hit reply? Did you really expect anyone to take you seriously with that nonsense?

Re:Supply and Demand?

[squiggleslash]

AmiMojo: why do you bother with these idiots? I mean, this has to be the most stupid response I've seen so far - doesn't grok the concept of analogies (and cannot apparently parse a simple English sentence to determine what is being compared with what), attempts to define "feminist theory" and then gets angry when you use the phrase.

I mean, it takes a special level of stupid to be as dense as grasshoppa but it should have been obvious before you got to this stage.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

Comparing a physical science with a "gendered" science is a ridiculous analogy, and anyone who makes that comparison unironically is simply not to be taken seriously, and should probably be kept away from sharp objects for their own safety.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

AmiMojo: why do you bother with these idiots?

I dunno, I'm not as smart as I think I am... Or I love the -1 troll mods that always come with these topics...

My fantasy is that someone is actually reading these discussions and might be influenced. I guess at least you are... But occasionally the odd AC will chime in with thanks too, which really makes my day.

Also there is that "drink!" guy, I have to keep his blood-alcohol level up. Wouldn't want him to sober up.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[squiggleslash]

I get pissed enough to respond to many of these idiots too (are they idiots? Or just trolls? The last one though was just plain ridiculous), so I can't really comment.

When I saw this story coming up I had mentally prepared a response for an early post along the lines of "Oh, great to see this on Slashdot. I do hope we apply the same level of healthy skepticism that we do to stories implying women are poorly paid, despite overwhelming evidence of the latter, and already obvious problems with this story", but alas I was busy, so I missed the chance for a legit point to be modded down to -1, Trollbait, because for some reason Slashdot seems to have a surplus of really shitty entitled white men these days.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

AmiMojo: why do you bother with these idiots?

I dunno, I'm not as smart as I think I am... Or I love the -1 troll mods that always come with these topics...

My fantasy is that someone is actually reading these discussions and might be influenced. I guess at least you are... But occasionally the odd AC will chime in with thanks too, which really makes my day.

Also there is that "drink!" guy, I have to keep his blood-alcohol level up. Wouldn't want him to sober up.

I think I can safely say that folks who read your posts are indeed "influenced".

Re:Supply and Demand?

[grasshoppa]

I get pissed enough to respond to many of these idiots too (are they idiots? Or just trolls? The last one though was just plain ridiculous), so I can't really comment.

When I saw this story coming up I had mentally prepared a response for an early post along the lines of "Oh, great to see this on Slashdot. I do hope we apply the same level of healthy skepticism that we do to stories implying women are poorly paid, despite overwhelming evidence of the latter, and already obvious problems with this story", but alas I was busy, so I missed the chance for a legit point to be modded down to -1, Trollbait, because for some reason Slashdot seems to have a surplus of really shitty entitled white men these days.

Please tell me you're talking about the "wage gap". You know, that victim narrative where we ignore differences in job titles and hours worked and look strictly at "full time worker" classification. The number that's so blatantly misleading that it's only adherents are those so desperate for any data points as to ignore it's deficiencies.

Love the racism and sexism, too. Are you so intellectually deficient you can't make your points without falling back on hate?

Re:Supply and Demand?

[brian.stinar]

Yeah, I think this guy considers that all jobs into two categories - "requires degree" and "doesn't require degree."

That's one problem with allowing anonymous postings - people don't have to deal with any repercussions associated with their poorly formulated ideas.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Kartu]

I guess the scientists trying to build practical fusion reactors are just continuing their victimhood narrative since they can'y actually be certain what the final design will be.

Success condition of fusion reaction is pretty damn clear, mind you: producing significantly more energy, than consuming.

The piece you commented on literally asked for "success condition".

Re:Supply and Demand?

[brian.stinar]

The reason they'd be treated differently is that minority engineers are desired more than non-minority engineers. That is the entire basis of Google's Diversity Report. Look at page 5 of this report, and you can see the way that someone's gender is valued at Google. Look at page six - We have made progress in our leadership ranks, by gender and ethnicity. Now do you see the value placed on these attributes? They value these attributes, and actively discriminate in favor of recruitment, and retainment.

So, based on Google's diversity report, I believe your statement If you're a level 4 engineer then you're a level 4 engineer. is incomplete because it fails to take into account their Diversity Report, which actively states the relevances of these attributes.

Did you read Google's Diversity report before writing your post? Did you read it after reading my reply?

If a minority engineer is less common than a non-minority engineer, and that difference is desired, then they should cost more. I believe my above quotes show that difference is measured at Google, and desired at Google. Their response also makes sense given the constraints they operate under.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Kartu]

it's a straw feminist argument

No, it's rather "not true feminists" argument.
The theory was that choice gaps are mostly caused by some sort of oppression.
Hence, once one progressed as society, logically, males/females differences would be ironed out.

Yet it's exactly the opposite of what had happened in Scandinavia.

But instead of accepting the obvious fact, of theory being, let me put it mildly, somewhat wrong, let's deny the very fact, shell we...

Re:Supply and Demand?

[Kartu]

because people are willing to trade a bit of cash for a better work life.

We see those people all over the place:
1) Certain people spend 30% less time commuting to job
2) Certain people are 20 times less likely to die at work
3) Certain people are doing fraction of overtime other people are doing

Guess which gender those certain people are?
Plays very well with "gender gap" mythology, debunked decades ago, dead, but still alive, like zombies.

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

What I don't get is why you are so upset about it. Shouldn't you be pissed off that men end up commuting a long way, doing masses of overtime and then dying on the job? Shouldn't you support getting more women into the workplace so that your own working conditions also get better?

Re:Supply and Demand?

[AmiMoJo]

Useful idiots I think, fully bought in to the alt-lite bullshit.

Re: Supply and Demand?

[c6gunner]

This is known as trickle-down gender-theory.

Re: Supply and Demand?

[c6gunner]

I'm not as smart as I think I am

Can confirm: there's about an order of magnitude difference there.

Re: Supply and Demand?

[c6gunner]

Diversity of viewpoint has value in and of itself. If two people are exactly as good at designing and implementing software but one of them has a less-common background, that person is actually worth more to the team because they bring their "hard" skills and something else besides.

By that logic, google should be offering a premium salary to try and hire neo-nazis, what with them being one of the smallest minority groups in the nation. I'm sure that the resultant diversity would be well worth the extra money.

Re: Supply and Demand?

[c6gunner]

What I don't get is why you are so upset about it. Shouldn't you be pissed off that men end up commuting a long way, doing masses of overtime and then dying on the job?

Nope. Women have an in-group bias; men do not. That's why you instinctively fly to the defense of anyone in your group, while men tend to look at the situation more pragmatically. I don't care that the "men" group is more likely to die, or that they commute longer, or that they work longer hours. Those are the sacrifices which many of the men within that group chose to make, presumably in order to achieve some goals they see as worthwhile. Why in the world would millions of men making individual decisions upset me in any way?

Shouldn't you support getting more women into the workplace so that your own working conditions also get better?

I've never seen working conditions get better after having more women join the team. On the contrary, things generally get worse if the company is willing to kowtow to the women. In the cases where the culture of the company doesn't change, and the women just integrate seamlessly into the existing group dynamics, things pretty much remain unchanged.

How about blondie vs non-blondie

[eminencja]

Tab-users vs space-users (based on the user's real preference not project's coding guidelines) vim vs emacs? In the end everyone within the same position will have to have the same salary...

Re: How about blondie vs non-blondie

[astrofurter]

It's not vim vs emacs anymore. Now it's vi-keys OR emacs-keys (in the editor of your choice) vs the mouse-dependant.

Re: equality, diversity, free market.

[reanjr]

What leads you to believe Google can't? They have decided they want a diverse workforce. No one is forcing them.

Wh told you feminists are for equality?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are called FEMInists for a reason.

They are the exact opposite of the women who started the equality movement.

Re: Wh told you feminists are for equality?

[zeveroare]

No, they have an actual word for that... Egalitarian, look it up.

Re:Many things are not clear.

[DamnOregonian]

Hah. Alright then- good catch.

Re: equality, diversity, free market.

[Cederic]

Indeed, and they employ white men at well under the proportion you'd expect. Apparently 'diverse' means 'sexist and racist' - but we already knew that.

Thank fuck there are laws against those things. Fucking hurrah that white men supported and voted in those laws, because they need their fucking protection now.

Summary is completely false

[MobyDisk]

Are Men at Google Paid Less Than Women? Not Really.

Re:Summary is completely false

[MobyDisk]

That article says nothing to refute the findings.

It most certainly does. You only have to read the first paragraph to see it. It says

Google published a blog post with selected findings from its 2018 analysis, highlighting that proposed changes for 2019 would have paid male engineers less than female engineers in one lower-level job category, referred to internally as Level 4 engineers.

If Wired is correct then TechCrunch confused actual pay with a proposed pay scale. Furthermore, this was a single job group. It sounds like Google is cherry picking data to make a point in the court of public opinion, because they are being sued right now over the pay scale discrepency. You go on to say:

There's lots of quotes from a lawyer

There's a single quote from a lawyer, at the end of the article. It's interesting that you managed to read the end but not the beginning.

The real story

[slashmydots]

"The story we're used to hearing is that women get paid less than men" - the short version is most studies are exaggerated or falsified but the wage gap does exist but it is 100% due to women going to college for less high paying jobs in the first place.

Re: But PEOPLE are fair!

[illiac_1962]

Found the well spoken Russian.

Re:Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Opportunist]

What exactly is that privilege I have? That my chance to die earlier are higher? That my chance to die at a workplace related accident are higher? What exactly is that privilege everyone talks about?

Re:Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Opportunist]

This does not answer the question. Please answer the question.

Re:Male-identified only? So female?

[Shaitan]

"Or actual male, as in genetics, brain structure, body parts?"

Just body parts at birth should be considered for the purpose of gender. All the rest are things we've found trying to explain the differing body parts, the parts are the initial physical reality. You adjust the model to suit the physical reality you are studying, you don't redefine the physical reality when it conflicts with your hypothesis and research results. Otherwise you end up with faulty outcomes and data. The genetic connections we've found are just an attempt to discover what leads to the body parts, if they don't match the body parts it is our understanding of the genetics which is wrong the body parts still define gender.

Re:Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, the point is that to reach "diversity" goals we should be discriminating against men.

And how many Marxist Republicans do you know?

Re: Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That is privilege, don't you know?

Re:Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Don't forget the privilege to own everything and then be blamed when anything goes wrong.

Before you complain, verify the results.

[drainbramage]

Before you complain, verify the results, that's what I did with a simple google search.
If you can't trust the alphabet who can you trust?

Re: Do Republicans come in male anymore? No?

[Opportunist]

You don't say...

I guess I'll use it as the stfu-question for the extreme leftists now. Just like I use "define a kind" on the bible bullshit peddlers.