5 ms·

This stuff is cancer. I think Google made a terrible mistake trying to placate those who want equality of outcome. It's not achievable or even desirable. In an

by b6 9y ago

This stuff is cancer. I think Google made a terrible mistake trying to placate those who want equality of outcome. It's not achievable or even desirable. In an effort supposedly to combat sexism and racism, discrimination on the basis of gender and ethnicity is now normalized and practically codified. But equality of outcome still proves elusive, as it always will, so people say Google still hasn't gone far enough. It never will be able to satisfy such people. But I think a huge amount of damage may be done in the process of trying, in the form of making gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc, more important when we want to be making progress toward a world in which those things are not considered very important at all.

pc2g4d 9y ago
Another way of looking at it is that efforts at pay equality simply counteract bias built in to the system. Though it's often unspoken, gender/ethnicity/etc. already are hugely important in pay, even if the bias is unconscious. There could be various reasons women are paid less which, from a business perspective, make some sense, e.g. the likelihood the business will lose its investment in the employee on account of her quitting work to raise children. By pressuring employers to pay women more than they assess them to worth, it may actually discourage employment of women and decrease diversity in the workplace. But surely it's some of both: women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children, AND women are unfairly (if unconsciously) discriminated against by men who assume they're less capable simply because they're women. I actually feel pretty comfortable with per-job-code on-average pay equality between men and women. I think it's symbolically important, as well as acknowledging that simply having more female voices in the organization has worth in and of itself. But I would hope it could be enforced by social norms rather than requiring onerous government action.
- boolint 9y ago
  "Women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children". Hmmmm....
  - pc2g4d 9y ago
    "[T]he gender pay gap only exists for women over 40, suggesting it is less about gender and more about something else entirely. Indeed, women in their twenties currently out-earn men and it is only when they start a family that the pay gap starts to emerge. "Is this down to nasty employers undervaluing female staff once they’ve had a baby or to outdated societal expectations that women are the main child carers? "Or could it just be that many women who become mothers prefer to cut back their hours, work part-time, decline promotions, overtime and travel away from home so that they can see more of their children? Every survey suggests that women are doing this of their own free will but, hey, what do they know?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender-pay-gap-might-be-unfair-but-its-not-the-fault-of-sexist-employers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender... It's a fact that only women can bear children. It's also a fact that women (for whatever reasons---not saying it's right or wrong) opt at a higher rate than men to reduce their hours or leave their career after the birth of a child. So, from a business perspective, there _are_ some additional risks associated with employing women that simply don't exist for men. Women and men are different and in practice deal with parenthood differently as far as work is concerned. If there's ever to be equal pay for equal work, the discussion will have to include the issues as they are in addition to egalitarian ideals. Also: http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can-affect-women-who-never-even-have-child-n548511 http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can...
    - boolint 9y ago
      I just think it is extremely discriminatory to make hiring and salary decisions based on the faulty assumption that all women want to raise children.
      - pc2g4d 9y ago
        It is discriminatory and I think it's fair to feel upset at being painted with such a broad brush. It seems right now that the choice faced by society is framed as binary: should we require equal pay across genders, or should we not? And each of these possibilities has both costs and benefits. Here are some costs and benefits of equal pay worth considering: Costs: By requiring employers to pay women more than the employers assess to be their worth, fewer women will be employed, this at a time when gender ratios in many professions (especially IT!) are horrendously lopsided. Essentially, equal pay can be implemented as a price floor, meaning that the amount of female employment demanded will be less than it would at the natural equilibrium. Legislating equal pay might change some attitudes, but just entrench others. Benefits: The women who are working get paid more. Society is seen as more just which likely alleviates angst all around. Women's voices are seen as more valuable because women are paid just as much as men, which disempowers sexists in their discrimination. More women will want to work at the higher price point, giving firms a better pool of applicants to choose from. Invert these points to get costs/benefits of the status quo. Both choices seem to incur both notable benefits and substantial costs. Surely there's some third way?

by b6 9y ago

pc2g4d 9y ago

Another way of looking at it is that efforts at pay equality simply counteract bias built in to the system. Though it's often unspoken, gender/ethnicity/etc. already are hugely important in pay, even if the bias is unconscious. There could be various reasons women are paid less which, from a business perspective, make some sense, e.g. the likelihood the business will lose its investment in the employee on account of her quitting work to raise children. By pressuring employers to pay women more than they assess them to worth, it may actually discourage employment of women and decrease diversity in the workplace. But surely it's some of both: women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children, AND women are unfairly (if unconsciously) discriminated against by men who assume they're less capable simply because they're women. I actually feel pretty comfortable with per-job-code on-average pay equality between men and women. I think it's symbolically important, as well as acknowledging that simply having more female voices in the organization has worth in and of itself. But I would hope it could be enforced by social norms rather than requiring onerous government action.

boolint 9y ago
"Women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children". Hmmmm....
- pc2g4d 9y ago
  "[T]he gender pay gap only exists for women over 40, suggesting it is less about gender and more about something else entirely. Indeed, women in their twenties currently out-earn men and it is only when they start a family that the pay gap starts to emerge. "Is this down to nasty employers undervaluing female staff once they’ve had a baby or to outdated societal expectations that women are the main child carers? "Or could it just be that many women who become mothers prefer to cut back their hours, work part-time, decline promotions, overtime and travel away from home so that they can see more of their children? Every survey suggests that women are doing this of their own free will but, hey, what do they know?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender-pay-gap-might-be-unfair-but-its-not-the-fault-of-sexist-employers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender... It's a fact that only women can bear children. It's also a fact that women (for whatever reasons---not saying it's right or wrong) opt at a higher rate than men to reduce their hours or leave their career after the birth of a child. So, from a business perspective, there _are_ some additional risks associated with employing women that simply don't exist for men. Women and men are different and in practice deal with parenthood differently as far as work is concerned. If there's ever to be equal pay for equal work, the discussion will have to include the issues as they are in addition to egalitarian ideals. Also: http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can-affect-women-who-never-even-have-child-n548511 http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can...
  - boolint 9y ago
    I just think it is extremely discriminatory to make hiring and salary decisions based on the faulty assumption that all women want to raise children.
    - pc2g4d 9y ago
      It is discriminatory and I think it's fair to feel upset at being painted with such a broad brush. It seems right now that the choice faced by society is framed as binary: should we require equal pay across genders, or should we not? And each of these possibilities has both costs and benefits. Here are some costs and benefits of equal pay worth considering: Costs: By requiring employers to pay women more than the employers assess to be their worth, fewer women will be employed, this at a time when gender ratios in many professions (especially IT!) are horrendously lopsided. Essentially, equal pay can be implemented as a price floor, meaning that the amount of female employment demanded will be less than it would at the natural equilibrium. Legislating equal pay might change some attitudes, but just entrench others. Benefits: The women who are working get paid more. Society is seen as more just which likely alleviates angst all around. Women's voices are seen as more valuable because women are paid just as much as men, which disempowers sexists in their discrimination. More women will want to work at the higher price point, giving firms a better pool of applicants to choose from. Invert these points to get costs/benefits of the status quo. Both choices seem to incur both notable benefits and substantial costs. Surely there's some third way?