6 ms·

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

by 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?
  - dorgo 9y ago
    Suppose I have two equaly good candidates for a job with only two differences. 1. Gender (man vs woman) 2. salary expectations (man wants 10% more than woman) I could hire the woman and pay less because "sexism" or because it increases my profit (nobody knows for sure). My competitor will hire the man because the woman already has a job. Next time my competitor is faster and hires the woman and I'm left with the man and have to pay him 10% more.
    - PKop 9y ago
      Why would the man in this scenario want more than the woman? Isn't this whole argument predicated on women wanting money they aren't getting? If the women don't want the money then what are we upset about? We're (I assumed) talking about companies mandating lower wages for women. If the whole argument for some presumptive gender pay gap is that women demand less money, this would: 1) Be fixed by directing all of the ire and heat associated with this topic at the message: "Women. Demand more money. If there's a gap, this explains it and therefore the power is in your hands." Is the "pay gap" politicized as a "Women aren't asking/expecting to get paid enough money in negotiations. They need to do this. We will work to get women to demand what they are worth." Or, is it framed as: "America business is sexist. Our modern economy is sexist. Women are ---getting paid--- less than men as a result, and we need to change this." ? 2) Not the responsibility, or "fault" of companies paying wages the market will bear... or if you think it is, you're banging your head against a wall thinking you're going to get economic actors to act against their self interest when the path of least resistance is to get the other side of the transaction to act in theirs. But since it's a contradiction to think equally qualified, motivated women don't want more money, then we can assume women want to get paid what they can get. So we're left with the company being the one pushing wages down only on women, but not men. Because they're all sexist. Even the people in this thread who oppose the pay gap.. when it comes time to take part in hiring decisions they put their sexist hat on and line up for the patriarchy. I leave you with this: http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap ^Here's a strongly sympathetic post in support of the issue of "gender pay gap". They are true believers. Yet, lets look a little closer shall we: Note how far down the page this little gem is placed: "Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men." 98, my friend. Did you realize this whole controversy is over a 2% gap? The pay gap (as popularly understood) does not exist. The data shows this. It is a political issue, as well as a cultural one, taking a stand on what certain people believe women should do with their life. They should not have to bear the burden of child rearing, and should want to have professional career ambitions equivalent to that of the average man. This is the position taken and pushed by activists concerned with the gender pay gap. One can be open to the viewpoint, like I am, that women should absolutely be encouraged to have a professional career, if they think that is right for them, and be compensated commensurate with their value. I'm not in support of socially mandating that path as the only acceptable, respectable one. I'm certainly not supportive of politicizing the issue of gender differences as it relates to family, career, and relationships etc by fooling people into believing that since "the average per person salary for all women across all jobs across all levels is 77% of the avg for all men across all jobs across all levels" is some economic and social crisis we have to politicize and legislate away. Its a wedge issue to create division.

by PKop 9y ago

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?
- dorgo 9y ago
  Suppose I have two equaly good candidates for a job with only two differences. 1. Gender (man vs woman) 2. salary expectations (man wants 10% more than woman) I could hire the woman and pay less because "sexism" or because it increases my profit (nobody knows for sure). My competitor will hire the man because the woman already has a job. Next time my competitor is faster and hires the woman and I'm left with the man and have to pay him 10% more.
  - PKop 9y ago
    Why would the man in this scenario want more than the woman? Isn't this whole argument predicated on women wanting money they aren't getting? If the women don't want the money then what are we upset about? We're (I assumed) talking about companies mandating lower wages for women. If the whole argument for some presumptive gender pay gap is that women demand less money, this would: 1) Be fixed by directing all of the ire and heat associated with this topic at the message: "Women. Demand more money. If there's a gap, this explains it and therefore the power is in your hands." Is the "pay gap" politicized as a "Women aren't asking/expecting to get paid enough money in negotiations. They need to do this. We will work to get women to demand what they are worth." Or, is it framed as: "America business is sexist. Our modern economy is sexist. Women are ---getting paid--- less than men as a result, and we need to change this." ? 2) Not the responsibility, or "fault" of companies paying wages the market will bear... or if you think it is, you're banging your head against a wall thinking you're going to get economic actors to act against their self interest when the path of least resistance is to get the other side of the transaction to act in theirs. But since it's a contradiction to think equally qualified, motivated women don't want more money, then we can assume women want to get paid what they can get. So we're left with the company being the one pushing wages down only on women, but not men. Because they're all sexist. Even the people in this thread who oppose the pay gap.. when it comes time to take part in hiring decisions they put their sexist hat on and line up for the patriarchy. I leave you with this: http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap ^Here's a strongly sympathetic post in support of the issue of "gender pay gap". They are true believers. Yet, lets look a little closer shall we: Note how far down the page this little gem is placed: "Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men." 98, my friend. Did you realize this whole controversy is over a 2% gap? The pay gap (as popularly understood) does not exist. The data shows this. It is a political issue, as well as a cultural one, taking a stand on what certain people believe women should do with their life. They should not have to bear the burden of child rearing, and should want to have professional career ambitions equivalent to that of the average man. This is the position taken and pushed by activists concerned with the gender pay gap. One can be open to the viewpoint, like I am, that women should absolutely be encouraged to have a professional career, if they think that is right for them, and be compensated commensurate with their value. I'm not in support of socially mandating that path as the only acceptable, respectable one. I'm certainly not supportive of politicizing the issue of gender differences as it relates to family, career, and relationships etc by fooling people into believing that since "the average per person salary for all women across all jobs across all levels is 77% of the avg for all men across all jobs across all levels" is some economic and social crisis we have to politicize and legislate away. Its a wedge issue to create division.