5 ms·

> payment inequality Perceived or real? I'm yet to hear about a company that has policy to pay women less. Most have personally-discussed salaries though. If s

by mantas 10y ago

> payment inequality Perceived or real? I'm yet to hear about a company that has policy to pay women less. Most have personally-discussed salaries though. If some ladies are paid less, they probably don't haggle as well. What should we do? Deny custom salaries and personal raises?

webvictim 10y ago
There are no companies which have such a policy, because it's illegal.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Speeding is also illegal. True, there are no companies that speed, but I think that's just because they can't drive.
emodendroket 10y ago
Yeah, no kidding, nobody has a policy to do that. But there are several factors, including: 1. Women tend to negotiate less aggressively 2. Women who negotiate aggressively tend to be perceived worse than men doing the exact same thing 3. Implicit bias affects the amount of money an employer sees fit to offer in the first place As to what to do, here some ideas: * Massachusetts' law barring employers from asking about previous salaries as part of negotiations seems like a good idea * More transparency about salaries would help * Maybe a "Costco auto club" model, where the price is set up-front with no haggling, would be a good idea. Reddit tried to do this but it was kind of tied up with all the other issues they had. Not 100% sure on this one.
- RHSeeger 10y ago
  > Maybe a "Costco auto club" model, where the price is set up-front with no haggling, would be a good idea. Reddit tried to do this but it was kind of tied up with all the other issues they had. Not 100% sure on this one. The negative to that is (unless every company plays by those same rules) you're limiting yourself in who you can hire. The more expensive (and, presumably, more skilled) developers will go work somewhere that will pay them more (based on that skill), while the cheapest (and, presumably, lowest skilled) developers will come work for you because they know you'll pay them more than others will. There are benefits to being able to pay people what you feel they are worth to your company. Is it worth losing those benefits.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I don't know. Maybe you just offer competitive salaries for everyone and everyone wants to work for you. Maybe your superstars actually get a different title and responsibilities and you're just more upfront about how you decide. I think there are plenty of companies out there with a pretty narrow band for any given position and this way of doing things eliminates the anxiety about whether you negotiated well or not. Also, I think most companies can't really hope to attract the world's very best programmers anyway. If everyone says they're hiring the best they can't all be right.
    - mantas 10y ago
      There will always be some companies paying more and some paying less. People who are not as good at getting a better salary in current system, would probably fail to get into better paying companies then. And we're back at square 1.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        How do you figure? If they're able to pass whatever company's interview and negotiation is no longer a factor it seems more likely that salaries will become more equitable. I'd guess the correlation between negotiating skill and technical skill is small at best.
    - mantas 10y ago
      HN doesn't allow to go that deep in comment thread, thus replying there... > How do you figure? If they're able to pass whatever company's interview and negotiation is no longer a factor it seems more likely that salaries will become more equitable. I'd guess the correlation between negotiating skill and technical skill is small at best. In 2-tier (technical + negotiation) interview, candidates have to show they're good enough technically first. Then they negotiate their worth. In what you propose, they'd have to negotiate their worth right away. If company isn't willing to pay, why would they hire said person for higher wage? Even purely technical job interview is sort of haggling. Well, aside from bullshit whiteboard tests which suck left and right.
- hajile 10y ago
  1. That's not the problem of anybody except the person who does not negotiate aggressively. 2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems to be true across all species). We don't have a clear, testable model for why this happens. 3. Implicit bias is not scientific and not relevant. Sorry for the lengthy write-up, but this should be called out for being farcical and/or psychologically dangerous. Implicit bias scores have no meaningful correlation with actual actions and the scores themselves will vary wildly for the same person for reasons that are unknown and unaccounted for. This lack of correlation turns it into a baseless accusation. Lots of people accept IAT (which has a super low predictive validity) as true while rejecting IQ which has an amazing amount of predictive validity in all kinds of areas. Interestingly, higher IQ is linked to lower rates of racism and other bias. Given that programmers have on average significantly higher IQ scores relative to the general population, you would expect such things to not be the primary issues of the field. Even if we assume implicit bias exists, does it matter if you cannot prove it has any real world effects (and such effects have not been proven). If we assume even further (against good evidence) that such implicit bias exists AND has real world effects, is there a solution? Lots of companies force their employees to undergo implicit bias training. There are ZERO studies proving that the training works. Much more scarily, we don't know if it has other negative psychological impacts. Companies messing around with peoples heads without any supporting studies and clinical trials is EXTREMELY dangerous. Finally, let's examine the theoretical framework for fixing implicit bias (under the assumption that it exists and that the individual does not consciously desire to be biased). We must start by either assuming that implicit outweighs explicit (radical behavioralism with no free will) or that explicit outweighs implicit. If explicit outweighs implicit, then teach people the golden rule, tell them discrimination is bad, and call it a day because that's all you can do. Implicit bias training is sold on the basis that this is not enough and will not work. It thus carries the implication that you cannot choose to not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but if you give them your money, they have the magic incantations to "pray the <bias> away". How do you change the subconscious? The first option is new age garbage. The second is hypnosis (we can't prove hypnosis even exists). The third is operant and/or classical conditioning of the most extreme variety (to reach past the conscious and modify the subconscious -- hopefully without ripping the individual apart in the process) may be enough to do the trick (immersive re-education camps are a must in order to ensure all aspects of the subject are controlled for). Basically no other ideas exist. TL;DR With no solid supporting science behind the idea of implicit bias, there remains only moral panic and ideological fanaticism attempting to sell either snake-oil cures or barbaric, unethical psychological experiments of a most Stalinesque variety.
- FT_intern 10y ago
  > As to what to do, here some ideas: This is jumping ahead of ourselves. The first step is problem formulation. Is this a problem in the first place? Why? How do we quantify the problem? How do we quantify a resolution?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Ok. You can investigate that one for yourself.
    - FT_intern 10y ago
      It's for the benefit of everyone including you. I find that in these topics, people jump to the problem solving step before problem formulation. In the best case, there might be a response of "because sexism/racism" to "why this problem". We have a limited amount of "diversity funds". If the appeal is emotional and one of righteousness, we should use the funds to aid the category of people with the most disadvantages. That would be foreign immigrants because their native language is not English (almost all documentation, code and communication is in English) and they do not have a good understanding of American culture which cripples them in politics and communication. Comparatively, the upper middle class white girl or african american is privileged.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        No, I don't think so. Understanding English is germane to the job; your gender is not. Besides that, why exactly are you talking about "foreign immigrants" as a distinct category from women?
d3ad1ysp0rk 10y ago
If only men predominantly "haggle well", is it possible that the ideal wage negotiation is modeled around an alpha male? It feels like rewarding productivity and giving equality in wage could be easily tied together, and benefit nearly everyone.
- mantas 10y ago
  And how would we measure programmers' productivity? LoCs?
shostack 10y ago
Claudia Goldin, Harvard economics professor, has some really interesting info on this I heard on a Freakonomics podcast a while back [1]. A big takeaway for me was that the data showed men and women being largely equal in pay for the earlier parts of their careers when you control for various things. When families start entering the equation, women often prioritize different things in their job, or consider changing jobs that offer these things. One of the big new priorities is...surprise...flexibility. When you have a family, flexibility because worth its weight in gold. If women are still predominantly the primary caretaker at home, it makes sense that they would need to optimize for whatever gives them the best balance there. However the dark side of this, as discussed int he podcast, is that it can often lead to things like bosses not giving out choice assignments with lots of travel for example, because they don't think the employee would want that or be able to manage it. That sort of thing compounds over time and leads to slower progression, less leverage when asking for raises, etc. The episode was a real eye opener for me because it brought some interesting data to the table. [1] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

by mantas 10y ago

webvictim 10y ago

There are no companies which have such a policy, because it's illegal.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Speeding is also illegal. True, there are no companies that speed, but I think that's just because they can't drive.

emodendroket 10y ago

Yeah, no kidding, nobody has a policy to do that. But there are several factors, including: 1. Women tend to negotiate less aggressively 2. Women who negotiate aggressively tend to be perceived worse than men doing the exact same thing 3. Implicit bias affects the amount of money an employer sees fit to offer in the first place As to what to do, here some ideas: * Massachusetts' law barring employers from asking about previous salaries as part of negotiations seems like a good idea * More transparency about salaries would help * Maybe a "Costco auto club" model, where the price is set up-front with no haggling, would be a good idea. Reddit tried to do this but it was kind of tied up with all the other issues they had. Not 100% sure on this one.

RHSeeger 10y ago
> Maybe a "Costco auto club" model, where the price is set up-front with no haggling, would be a good idea. Reddit tried to do this but it was kind of tied up with all the other issues they had. Not 100% sure on this one. The negative to that is (unless every company plays by those same rules) you're limiting yourself in who you can hire. The more expensive (and, presumably, more skilled) developers will go work somewhere that will pay them more (based on that skill), while the cheapest (and, presumably, lowest skilled) developers will come work for you because they know you'll pay them more than others will. There are benefits to being able to pay people what you feel they are worth to your company. Is it worth losing those benefits.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I don't know. Maybe you just offer competitive salaries for everyone and everyone wants to work for you. Maybe your superstars actually get a different title and responsibilities and you're just more upfront about how you decide. I think there are plenty of companies out there with a pretty narrow band for any given position and this way of doing things eliminates the anxiety about whether you negotiated well or not. Also, I think most companies can't really hope to attract the world's very best programmers anyway. If everyone says they're hiring the best they can't all be right.
  - mantas 10y ago
    There will always be some companies paying more and some paying less. People who are not as good at getting a better salary in current system, would probably fail to get into better paying companies then. And we're back at square 1.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      How do you figure? If they're able to pass whatever company's interview and negotiation is no longer a factor it seems more likely that salaries will become more equitable. I'd guess the correlation between negotiating skill and technical skill is small at best.
  - mantas 10y ago
    HN doesn't allow to go that deep in comment thread, thus replying there... > How do you figure? If they're able to pass whatever company's interview and negotiation is no longer a factor it seems more likely that salaries will become more equitable. I'd guess the correlation between negotiating skill and technical skill is small at best. In 2-tier (technical + negotiation) interview, candidates have to show they're good enough technically first. Then they negotiate their worth. In what you propose, they'd have to negotiate their worth right away. If company isn't willing to pay, why would they hire said person for higher wage? Even purely technical job interview is sort of haggling. Well, aside from bullshit whiteboard tests which suck left and right.
hajile 10y ago
1. That's not the problem of anybody except the person who does not negotiate aggressively. 2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems to be true across all species). We don't have a clear, testable model for why this happens. 3. Implicit bias is not scientific and not relevant. Sorry for the lengthy write-up, but this should be called out for being farcical and/or psychologically dangerous. Implicit bias scores have no meaningful correlation with actual actions and the scores themselves will vary wildly for the same person for reasons that are unknown and unaccounted for. This lack of correlation turns it into a baseless accusation. Lots of people accept IAT (which has a super low predictive validity) as true while rejecting IQ which has an amazing amount of predictive validity in all kinds of areas. Interestingly, higher IQ is linked to lower rates of racism and other bias. Given that programmers have on average significantly higher IQ scores relative to the general population, you would expect such things to not be the primary issues of the field. Even if we assume implicit bias exists, does it matter if you cannot prove it has any real world effects (and such effects have not been proven). If we assume even further (against good evidence) that such implicit bias exists AND has real world effects, is there a solution? Lots of companies force their employees to undergo implicit bias training. There are ZERO studies proving that the training works. Much more scarily, we don't know if it has other negative psychological impacts. Companies messing around with peoples heads without any supporting studies and clinical trials is EXTREMELY dangerous. Finally, let's examine the theoretical framework for fixing implicit bias (under the assumption that it exists and that the individual does not consciously desire to be biased). We must start by either assuming that implicit outweighs explicit (radical behavioralism with no free will) or that explicit outweighs implicit. If explicit outweighs implicit, then teach people the golden rule, tell them discrimination is bad, and call it a day because that's all you can do. Implicit bias training is sold on the basis that this is not enough and will not work. It thus carries the implication that you cannot choose to not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but if you give them your money, they have the magic incantations to "pray the <bias> away". How do you change the subconscious? The first option is new age garbage. The second is hypnosis (we can't prove hypnosis even exists). The third is operant and/or classical conditioning of the most extreme variety (to reach past the conscious and modify the subconscious -- hopefully without ripping the individual apart in the process) may be enough to do the trick (immersive re-education camps are a must in order to ensure all aspects of the subject are controlled for). Basically no other ideas exist. TL;DR With no solid supporting science behind the idea of implicit bias, there remains only moral panic and ideological fanaticism attempting to sell either snake-oil cures or barbaric, unethical psychological experiments of a most Stalinesque variety.
FT_intern 10y ago
> As to what to do, here some ideas: This is jumping ahead of ourselves. The first step is problem formulation. Is this a problem in the first place? Why? How do we quantify the problem? How do we quantify a resolution?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Ok. You can investigate that one for yourself.
  - FT_intern 10y ago
    It's for the benefit of everyone including you. I find that in these topics, people jump to the problem solving step before problem formulation. In the best case, there might be a response of "because sexism/racism" to "why this problem". We have a limited amount of "diversity funds". If the appeal is emotional and one of righteousness, we should use the funds to aid the category of people with the most disadvantages. That would be foreign immigrants because their native language is not English (almost all documentation, code and communication is in English) and they do not have a good understanding of American culture which cripples them in politics and communication. Comparatively, the upper middle class white girl or african american is privileged.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      No, I don't think so. Understanding English is germane to the job; your gender is not. Besides that, why exactly are you talking about "foreign immigrants" as a distinct category from women?

d3ad1ysp0rk 10y ago

If only men predominantly "haggle well", is it possible that the ideal wage negotiation is modeled around an alpha male? It feels like rewarding productivity and giving equality in wage could be easily tied together, and benefit nearly everyone.

mantas 10y ago
And how would we measure programmers' productivity? LoCs?

shostack 10y ago

Claudia Goldin, Harvard economics professor, has some really interesting info on this I heard on a Freakonomics podcast a while back [1]. A big takeaway for me was that the data showed men and women being largely equal in pay for the earlier parts of their careers when you control for various things. When families start entering the equation, women often prioritize different things in their job, or consider changing jobs that offer these things. One of the big new priorities is...surprise...flexibility. When you have a family, flexibility because worth its weight in gold. If women are still predominantly the primary caretaker at home, it makes sense that they would need to optimize for whatever gives them the best balance there. However the dark side of this, as discussed int he podcast, is that it can often lead to things like bosses not giving out choice assignments with lots of travel for example, because they don't think the employee would want that or be able to manage it. That sort of thing compounds over time and leads to slower progression, less leverage when asking for raises, etc. The episode was a real eye opener for me because it brought some interesting data to the table. [1] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...