6 ms·

Can someone explain how they would be able to get away with paying women less than men? And if your answer is: "They just pay them less." 1) Why? What is the

by PKop 9y ago

Can someone explain how they would be able to get away with paying women less than men? And if your answer is: "They just pay them less." 1) Why? What is the purpose of them doing this? 2) Why don't they also just pay men less as well? 3) Wages trend, in a competitive market, towards marginal productivity of labor. What is preventing competitors in the market for engineers from poaching all of the underpaid yet equally talented women at below market costs, say half the gap Google is assumed to be creating? Surely this would be a clear path towards extra profits, no?

mikeash 9y ago
Wages are set by supply and demand. Systematic discrimination results in less demand for women, which results in lower wages. There is some profit opportunity for companies who take advantage of this, but it's not enough to erase the difference. Consider, for example, how pervasive racial discrimination was (and still is) in business despite the fact that accepting minorities as customers and employees would be financially advantageous.
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  This view implies there is a huge, and frankly quite easy, money-making opportunity. Why aren't you exploiting it?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Sure, a moderate percentage savings in labor costs will totally make it easy to compete with Google.
    - PKop 9y ago
      What does "making more money for your company" have to do with competing against Google?
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  There is no systematic discrimination.
- PKop 9y ago
  Why don't the people (like you) that exist in different businesses (don't tell me you think there are 0) hire the underpaid women, either for a small raise, or a complete gap-eliminating raise? Surely you don't think you're a lone voice supporting wage equality.. just look at this thread. They'd either be doing a purely altruistic social good righting the injustice of sexist wage discrimination and/or making more money. That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear. Why isn't this happening? When Bezos said "Your margin is my opportunity"? Did he secretly imply an asterisk to that statement carving out the unspoken rule that he and his competitors certainly would not compete for the underpaid women labor? You use the example of racial discrimination. So, is Silicon Valley filled to the brim with sexist hiring managers? Are there no whistle blowers courageous enough to out their bosses that refused to pay equal rates when confronted with the discrepancies? The tech industry is one of the most progressive... are you telling me these progressive minded people are standing idly by at best or actively carrying out this travesty at worst?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    "That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear." But it doesn't. You can talk about "should" all you want but ultimately you need to look at the world. I don't have answers to all of your questions. Certainly some companies are being hurt by this, and others take advantage. That doesn't eliminate the problem unless you believe in perfectly efficient markets with no friction, barriers to entry, etc.
    - PKop 9y ago
      Those are all questions that naturally follow from the assumption that men (women too?) are discriminating against women against the best interests of the companies they work for because .... well I'm not sure you've spelled out the motive... but essentially "sexism"? It doesn't sound plausible when everywhere you look you have people shouting on the rooftops about how women deserve equal pay. So who the hell isnt paying them equally?
      - 9y ago
throwawaaay 9y ago
My take is that Google isn't doing this intentionally - in fact, all salaries are generated by a "compensation team" which supposedly has an algorithm that generates an offer based on prior comp history, other offers, etc - and I believe it probably also specifies how much wiggle room there is for negotiating (granted, I have not seen said algorithm - this is based on my experience as a candidate). It's a system designed to be fair - gender is not taken directly into the equation. This is what Google means when they say that there is no gender pay gap - how could there be, when salaries are generated by an algorithm that doesn't take gender into account? A man and a woman with an equal compensation history and the same counter offers should, in theory, get the same Google offer. However - it's entirely possible for the inputs into the algorithm to be skewed based on gender, and that's where I think the systematic gap may appear. A person's salary history can be incredibly gendered - women are less likely to negotiate for their first job (even if it wasn't at Google), and that initial gap can follow them for their entire career. Women are more likely to take time out of the workforce to care for family/children, which can result in lower pay when they return. Other companies known for high counteroffers (for example, Uber) may be biased against women and be less likely to give them a good offer. There are any number of reasons why a woman might have less negotiating leverage against Google than a man, and as long as offers are based on these inputs and not strictly on level and performance, it is easy to see how a gender gap might arise.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  But if that's what causes the gender gap -- things like starting salary and time off from career, and men with those similar features receive similar pay -- then it's not a problem of sexism, at least, not on the part of Google. (I don't mean breaks on the maternal leave scale, eg months, I mean breaks of years.) I've noticed that many of these complaints about gendered things are arguments for a particular social arrangement (eg, no consequence to a break in career) and not arguments against sexism, as such. I don't think we shoukd be using equality laws as a bludgeon to effect changes in society outside of things like sexism or racism: that's what causes Trumpian backlashes. Most people are onboard woth fighting sexism; it becomes a mixed bag when talking about proposals like "taking years off should have no result on earnings".
stevenwoo 9y ago
This is not a Google specific thing, it happens in almost every company in the United States. Salesforce is a great public example of a company trying to eliminate gender bias in pay and they are having trouble doing it with constant internal monitoring/feedback. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/companies-cant-solve-the-gender-pay-gap-all-at-once/521886/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/compani... Also since Google claims to be gender neutral yet unable to reveal the data, we can't judge whether or not the problem is if pay is tied to position - is it similar to the original programmer salary question, did the pay go up because the culture changed or do fields requiring a lot of time in the office just get more salary - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-pr...
jrs95 9y ago
You're assuming they're equally talented, you don't actually know that to be the case. Even if that assumption is correct, talent isn't the only factor that determines salary. I don't think employers actually have the data they need to ensure the wages they pay closely correlate with productivity. If Google isn't intentionally paying women less because they are women, then I think the answers to these questions pretty much has to be 1. Because they can & to save money 2. Because they can't 3. Because they're operating under the same set of assumptions as everyone else in the industry, and better heuristics would probably cost more than they'd save on labor.
dorgo 9y ago
Maybe the lower wage for women can be seen as a compensation for the risk that they get pregnant? It's more a problem for small companies, I guess.
jacques_chester 9y ago
> Wages trend, in a competitive market, towards marginal productivity of labor. In a equilibrium model based on perfectly identical, perfectly rational agents, yes. And in a model of horseracing based on perfect, identical spheres rolling down a perfectly smooth slope, all race results will trend towards the acceleration predicted by g. And yet we observe differences in reality and accept that observable reality, not the model, is correct. Equilibrium models are useful, but once you add the ability for agents to have varying preferences according to which other agent they are interacting with, you get emergent behaviour that doesn't show up in the original models.
projectorlochsa 9y ago
Women are just less aggressive when negotiating and are more agreeable than men. It's statistics and it's obviously biological. Women also feel satisfied with compensation at one moment and have no desire to increase their working hours/responsibilities for a meager (if any) improvement in their quality of life (that would appear with higher salary). Men on the other hand, seem to have more of those crazy individuals that waste enormous hours and overachieve despite the meager improvement in quality of life, if we ignore the bragging rights it gives them. Also statistics, and obviously biology. Not to mention the fact that accomplished women most often have older and more accomplished men as partners, which also removes an incentive for them to make more money. It is also the case that women do accept part-time work positions (which makes them earn less) more than men. Is it the patriarchy? Is it Google? I'm pretty sure it's just the way it is.
- fdsfsafasfdas 9y ago
  What do you mean by "obviously biological"?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tscs37 9y ago
    There are inherent differences between men and women, not only in biology but also in the brain/psychology. In general, Men have a higher diversity in IQ and Risk Taking. The TL;DR is that Men will have a tendency to take higher risks than women, which is then rewarded more, if it succeeds, however, it is punished more severely when one fails. Punishment generally involved poverty and unemployment. This doesn't mean women cannot take risks, just that they have a lesser inclination to. Negotiation for a wage on your job is a form of risk taking, in case of failure you can certainly sour your work relationships which ruins your long-term income projection.
    - 9y ago
curiousgeorgio 9y ago
Exactly. I wish more people understood basic forces of economic behavior half as well as they know how to regurgitate social justice catchphrases.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Point three seems to be assuming that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true, but it is called a hypothesis precisely because it has not been proven to be true.
- PKop 9y ago
  Do you have a hypothetical reason why it couldn't be exploited in this scenario?

by PKop 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

Wages are set by supply and demand. Systematic discrimination results in less demand for women, which results in lower wages. There is some profit opportunity for companies who take advantage of this, but it's not enough to erase the difference. Consider, for example, how pervasive racial discrimination was (and still is) in business despite the fact that accepting minorities as customers and employees would be financially advantageous.

bobcostas55 9y ago
This view implies there is a huge, and frankly quite easy, money-making opportunity. Why aren't you exploiting it?
- mikeash 9y ago
  Sure, a moderate percentage savings in labor costs will totally make it easy to compete with Google.
  - PKop 9y ago
    What does "making more money for your company" have to do with competing against Google?
hyperdunc 9y ago
There is no systematic discrimination.
PKop 9y ago
Why don't the people (like you) that exist in different businesses (don't tell me you think there are 0) hire the underpaid women, either for a small raise, or a complete gap-eliminating raise? Surely you don't think you're a lone voice supporting wage equality.. just look at this thread. They'd either be doing a purely altruistic social good righting the injustice of sexist wage discrimination and/or making more money. That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear. Why isn't this happening? When Bezos said "Your margin is my opportunity"? Did he secretly imply an asterisk to that statement carving out the unspoken rule that he and his competitors certainly would not compete for the underpaid women labor? You use the example of racial discrimination. So, is Silicon Valley filled to the brim with sexist hiring managers? Are there no whistle blowers courageous enough to out their bosses that refused to pay equal rates when confronted with the discrepancies? The tech industry is one of the most progressive... are you telling me these progressive minded people are standing idly by at best or actively carrying out this travesty at worst?
- mikeash 9y ago
  "That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear." But it doesn't. You can talk about "should" all you want but ultimately you need to look at the world. I don't have answers to all of your questions. Certainly some companies are being hurt by this, and others take advantage. That doesn't eliminate the problem unless you believe in perfectly efficient markets with no friction, barriers to entry, etc.
  - PKop 9y ago
    Those are all questions that naturally follow from the assumption that men (women too?) are discriminating against women against the best interests of the companies they work for because .... well I'm not sure you've spelled out the motive... but essentially "sexism"? It doesn't sound plausible when everywhere you look you have people shouting on the rooftops about how women deserve equal pay. So who the hell isnt paying them equally?
    - 9y ago

throwawaaay 9y ago

My take is that Google isn't doing this intentionally - in fact, all salaries are generated by a "compensation team" which supposedly has an algorithm that generates an offer based on prior comp history, other offers, etc - and I believe it probably also specifies how much wiggle room there is for negotiating (granted, I have not seen said algorithm - this is based on my experience as a candidate). It's a system designed to be fair - gender is not taken directly into the equation. This is what Google means when they say that there is no gender pay gap - how could there be, when salaries are generated by an algorithm that doesn't take gender into account? A man and a woman with an equal compensation history and the same counter offers should, in theory, get the same Google offer. However - it's entirely possible for the inputs into the algorithm to be skewed based on gender, and that's where I think the systematic gap may appear. A person's salary history can be incredibly gendered - women are less likely to negotiate for their first job (even if it wasn't at Google), and that initial gap can follow them for their entire career. Women are more likely to take time out of the workforce to care for family/children, which can result in lower pay when they return. Other companies known for high counteroffers (for example, Uber) may be biased against women and be less likely to give them a good offer. There are any number of reasons why a woman might have less negotiating leverage against Google than a man, and as long as offers are based on these inputs and not strictly on level and performance, it is easy to see how a gender gap might arise.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
But if that's what causes the gender gap -- things like starting salary and time off from career, and men with those similar features receive similar pay -- then it's not a problem of sexism, at least, not on the part of Google. (I don't mean breaks on the maternal leave scale, eg months, I mean breaks of years.) I've noticed that many of these complaints about gendered things are arguments for a particular social arrangement (eg, no consequence to a break in career) and not arguments against sexism, as such. I don't think we shoukd be using equality laws as a bludgeon to effect changes in society outside of things like sexism or racism: that's what causes Trumpian backlashes. Most people are onboard woth fighting sexism; it becomes a mixed bag when talking about proposals like "taking years off should have no result on earnings".

stevenwoo 9y ago

This is not a Google specific thing, it happens in almost every company in the United States. Salesforce is a great public example of a company trying to eliminate gender bias in pay and they are having trouble doing it with constant internal monitoring/feedback. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/companies-cant-solve-the-gender-pay-gap-all-at-once/521886/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/compani... Also since Google claims to be gender neutral yet unable to reveal the data, we can't judge whether or not the problem is if pay is tied to position - is it similar to the original programmer salary question, did the pay go up because the culture changed or do fields requiring a lot of time in the office just get more salary - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-pr...

jrs95 9y ago

You're assuming they're equally talented, you don't actually know that to be the case. Even if that assumption is correct, talent isn't the only factor that determines salary. I don't think employers actually have the data they need to ensure the wages they pay closely correlate with productivity. If Google isn't intentionally paying women less because they are women, then I think the answers to these questions pretty much has to be 1. Because they can & to save money 2. Because they can't 3. Because they're operating under the same set of assumptions as everyone else in the industry, and better heuristics would probably cost more than they'd save on labor.

dorgo 9y ago

Maybe the lower wage for women can be seen as a compensation for the risk that they get pregnant? It's more a problem for small companies, I guess.

jacques_chester 9y ago

> Wages trend, in a competitive market, towards marginal productivity of labor. In a equilibrium model based on perfectly identical, perfectly rational agents, yes. And in a model of horseracing based on perfect, identical spheres rolling down a perfectly smooth slope, all race results will trend towards the acceleration predicted by g. And yet we observe differences in reality and accept that observable reality, not the model, is correct. Equilibrium models are useful, but once you add the ability for agents to have varying preferences according to which other agent they are interacting with, you get emergent behaviour that doesn't show up in the original models.

projectorlochsa 9y ago

Women are just less aggressive when negotiating and are more agreeable than men. It's statistics and it's obviously biological. Women also feel satisfied with compensation at one moment and have no desire to increase their working hours/responsibilities for a meager (if any) improvement in their quality of life (that would appear with higher salary). Men on the other hand, seem to have more of those crazy individuals that waste enormous hours and overachieve despite the meager improvement in quality of life, if we ignore the bragging rights it gives them. Also statistics, and obviously biology. Not to mention the fact that accomplished women most often have older and more accomplished men as partners, which also removes an incentive for them to make more money. It is also the case that women do accept part-time work positions (which makes them earn less) more than men. Is it the patriarchy? Is it Google? I'm pretty sure it's just the way it is.

fdsfsafasfdas 9y ago
What do you mean by "obviously biological"?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tscs37 9y ago
  There are inherent differences between men and women, not only in biology but also in the brain/psychology. In general, Men have a higher diversity in IQ and Risk Taking. The TL;DR is that Men will have a tendency to take higher risks than women, which is then rewarded more, if it succeeds, however, it is punished more severely when one fails. Punishment generally involved poverty and unemployment. This doesn't mean women cannot take risks, just that they have a lesser inclination to. Negotiation for a wage on your job is a form of risk taking, in case of failure you can certainly sour your work relationships which ruins your long-term income projection.
  - 9y ago

curiousgeorgio 9y ago

Exactly. I wish more people understood basic forces of economic behavior half as well as they know how to regurgitate social justice catchphrases.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

Point three seems to be assuming that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true, but it is called a hypothesis precisely because it has not been proven to be true.

PKop 9y ago
Do you have a hypothetical reason why it couldn't be exploited in this scenario?