3 ms·

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 gene

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".
- throwawaaay 9y ago
  Right - I'm not saying Google is sexist. I think they try very hard not to be. But, if the end result is that a man and a woman doing the exact same job with the same perf ratings at Google are paid differently, because the woman happened to be paid less at her previous job - is that fair? There is a reason that NYC just outlawed companies asking for salary history.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    If you're not concerned with it being sexist, why the focus on men and women? Would you be equally concerned if men and women were paid in aggregate the same, but the subclass of each that negotiated worse was paid less? I just find it dishonest to frame the question as about men and women, as you did just now, if your concern is that people who negotiate a worse first salary are paid less. You're at best co-opting an unrelated issue. I would say that in answer to your question, it's not fair, just as it wasn't when it happened to two men, but I'm not sure it's something we should change. I'm also going to say that you should stop framing it as a gender equality issue when it's not -- it's a capitalism implementation issue.
Sacho 9y ago
> 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. I mean, what do you propose should be done to combat this? Should people who put more time into their career not be rewarded more? Further, you don't even need women to take time out more often from the workforce for there to be a problem. The current Median Age at Marriage for the USA[0] shows that men marry women about ~2 years younger. Assuming that both partners take equal time to care for the family, and assuming both partners started their careers at the same time, the moment the average married couple gets a baby they will skew ~3 career years(~2 + pregnancy) towards the man, until they get close to retirement age. Even if they split the family effort equally, those 3 years on average will still be in favor of the man, accruing more career experience and thus better pay. How do you propose to fight this issue? [0] - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s...

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".

throwawaaay 9y ago
Right - I'm not saying Google is sexist. I think they try very hard not to be. But, if the end result is that a man and a woman doing the exact same job with the same perf ratings at Google are paid differently, because the woman happened to be paid less at her previous job - is that fair? There is a reason that NYC just outlawed companies asking for salary history.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  If you're not concerned with it being sexist, why the focus on men and women? Would you be equally concerned if men and women were paid in aggregate the same, but the subclass of each that negotiated worse was paid less? I just find it dishonest to frame the question as about men and women, as you did just now, if your concern is that people who negotiate a worse first salary are paid less. You're at best co-opting an unrelated issue. I would say that in answer to your question, it's not fair, just as it wasn't when it happened to two men, but I'm not sure it's something we should change. I'm also going to say that you should stop framing it as a gender equality issue when it's not -- it's a capitalism implementation issue.

Sacho 9y ago

> 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. I mean, what do you propose should be done to combat this? Should people who put more time into their career not be rewarded more? Further, you don't even need women to take time out more often from the workforce for there to be a problem. The current Median Age at Marriage for the USA[0] shows that men marry women about ~2 years younger. Assuming that both partners take equal time to care for the family, and assuming both partners started their careers at the same time, the moment the average married couple gets a baby they will skew ~3 career years(~2 + pregnancy) towards the man, until they get close to retirement age. Even if they split the family effort equally, those 3 years on average will still be in favor of the man, accruing more career experience and thus better pay. How do you propose to fight this issue? [0] - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s...