6 ms·

Here is a clue for everyone: you aren't paid according to the value you bring. You are either paid according to some pseudo-arbitrary schedule or you are paid

Here is a clue for everyone: you aren't paid according to the value you bring. You are either paid according to some pseudo-arbitrary schedule or you are paid what you can be had for. Unless Google has a secret pay penalty for females, the problem here is women being willing to work for less. No lawsuit is needed to correct that.

tyingq 9y ago
What's being alleged is: “They are concerned that women are channeled to levels and positions that pay less than men with similar education and experience,” I have no idea if that's true, but if so, that could be a sort of "secret pay penalty". It is a somewhat difficult path to negotiate at hiring as levels and titles aren't consistent across companies.
- rimliu 9y ago
  I am pretty sure you can find big pay differences when comparing only men with the similar education and experience.
  - xapata 9y ago
    You are proposing the model: wage ~ education + experience + error If the errors are correlated with education or experience, that indicates a confounding variable problem. Most data shows that including race and gender as explanatory factors improves the model: wage ~ education + experience + gender + race + error Until the coefficients of gender and race become approximately zero, one can say that the market is discriminatory. The counter-argument is that race and gender are not actually the real explanatory variables, but only proxies for better variables, like "ethic" or "determination". Those kinds of arguments are often viewed as racist and sexist.
    - dp-tyvek 9y ago
      According to my understanding, rimliu is proposing that wage ~ education + experience + gender + race + additional_factors + error where additional_factors consists of other unknown factors (e.g. charisma, intelligence, appearance?). In which case, if education, experience, gender and race are kept constant, there is still going to be a fair bit of variance in wage caused by these unknown factors. Either way, it would be pretty hard to model when these factors are far from orthogonal. Imagine the impact race would have on work experience if race is a big factor when hiring people.
      - xapata 9y ago
        Looking at it a different way, if productivity is defined as the combination of all relevant features (education, experience, ethics, etc.) then racism/sexism imply non-zero coefficients in wage ~ productivity + race + gender This also assumes a competitive market where wage will asymptotically approach productivity.
golergka 9y ago
"Value" is subjective. Market value, however, is something that can be measured quite effectively. And I think most of developers on HN do it regularly, when they go to interviews without any real intention of changing their workplace.
thesmallestcat 9y ago
Quite recently, Google was found guilty of colluding to depress engineer salaries via "no poaching" agreements. Google doesn't get the "free market" benefit of the doubt anymore in these matters.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  They were only successfully accused of poaching in the USA, but the accused are global companies, and it seems unlikely they didn't do the same elsewhere too. They might well still be doing it too.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  They were only successfully accused of poaching in the USA, but the accused are global companies, and it seems unlikely they didn't do the same elsewhere too. They might well still be doing it too.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  how did that story end? last time I heard the lawyers were trying to low-ball the defendants by accepting a ridiculously low payout
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  "no poaching" is illegal but it doesn't go against free market principles. It's just companies willingly agreeing not to poach, as long as there is no coercion, it doesn't go against free market principles. Now, the question of whether it is unethical or not is a whole other topic. I think that "no poaching" is not very efficient anyway as it usually happens between incumbent companies only whose stock isn't growing as much as it used to. There's always an Uber or a Facebook around to poach your best employees anyway with generous stock options offers, and they do.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
m-p-3 9y ago
> you aren't paid according to the value you bring As soon as you cost more than the value you bring, the business will lost interest in keeping you anyway.
bb611 9y ago
> you are paid what you can be had for > No lawsuit is needed to correct that. If they can either get Google to settle or convince a jury they deserve compensation, they've retroactively increased their pay. It's a high and expensive bar, but if they clear it they get paid more for work they already did. So to put it into the perspective you're espousing, these women are simply negotiating their rate after the fact.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > So to put it into the perspective you're espousing, these women are simply negotiating their rate after the fact. The time for that would have been before the fact, not after the fact. You can't just change a bilateral agreement in hindsight and on your own accord unless you are Darth Vader "altering the deal", which might actually be the best analogy for what's happening here, dark side and all.

tyingq 9y ago

What's being alleged is: “They are concerned that women are channeled to levels and positions that pay less than men with similar education and experience,” I have no idea if that's true, but if so, that could be a sort of "secret pay penalty". It is a somewhat difficult path to negotiate at hiring as levels and titles aren't consistent across companies.

rimliu 9y ago
I am pretty sure you can find big pay differences when comparing only men with the similar education and experience.
- xapata 9y ago
  You are proposing the model: wage ~ education + experience + error If the errors are correlated with education or experience, that indicates a confounding variable problem. Most data shows that including race and gender as explanatory factors improves the model: wage ~ education + experience + gender + race + error Until the coefficients of gender and race become approximately zero, one can say that the market is discriminatory. The counter-argument is that race and gender are not actually the real explanatory variables, but only proxies for better variables, like "ethic" or "determination". Those kinds of arguments are often viewed as racist and sexist.
  - dp-tyvek 9y ago
    According to my understanding, rimliu is proposing that wage ~ education + experience + gender + race + additional_factors + error where additional_factors consists of other unknown factors (e.g. charisma, intelligence, appearance?). In which case, if education, experience, gender and race are kept constant, there is still going to be a fair bit of variance in wage caused by these unknown factors. Either way, it would be pretty hard to model when these factors are far from orthogonal. Imagine the impact race would have on work experience if race is a big factor when hiring people.
    - xapata 9y ago
      Looking at it a different way, if productivity is defined as the combination of all relevant features (education, experience, ethics, etc.) then racism/sexism imply non-zero coefficients in wage ~ productivity + race + gender This also assumes a competitive market where wage will asymptotically approach productivity.

golergka 9y ago

"Value" is subjective. Market value, however, is something that can be measured quite effectively. And I think most of developers on HN do it regularly, when they go to interviews without any real intention of changing their workplace.

thesmallestcat 9y ago

Quite recently, Google was found guilty of colluding to depress engineer salaries via "no poaching" agreements. Google doesn't get the "free market" benefit of the doubt anymore in these matters.

londons_explore 9y ago
They were only successfully accused of poaching in the USA, but the accused are global companies, and it seems unlikely they didn't do the same elsewhere too. They might well still be doing it too.
londons_explore 9y ago
They were only successfully accused of poaching in the USA, but the accused are global companies, and it seems unlikely they didn't do the same elsewhere too. They might well still be doing it too.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
how did that story end? last time I heard the lawyers were trying to low-ball the defendants by accepting a ridiculously low payout
patrickaljord 9y ago
"no poaching" is illegal but it doesn't go against free market principles. It's just companies willingly agreeing not to poach, as long as there is no coercion, it doesn't go against free market principles. Now, the question of whether it is unethical or not is a whole other topic. I think that "no poaching" is not very efficient anyway as it usually happens between incumbent companies only whose stock isn't growing as much as it used to. There's always an Uber or a Facebook around to poach your best employees anyway with generous stock options offers, and they do.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- CaptainZapp 9y ago

m-p-3 9y ago

> you aren't paid according to the value you bring As soon as you cost more than the value you bring, the business will lost interest in keeping you anyway.

bb611 9y ago

> you are paid what you can be had for > No lawsuit is needed to correct that. If they can either get Google to settle or convince a jury they deserve compensation, they've retroactively increased their pay. It's a high and expensive bar, but if they clear it they get paid more for work they already did. So to put it into the perspective you're espousing, these women are simply negotiating their rate after the fact.

freeflight 9y ago
> So to put it into the perspective you're espousing, these women are simply negotiating their rate after the fact. The time for that would have been before the fact, not after the fact. You can't just change a bilateral agreement in hindsight and on your own accord unless you are Darth Vader "altering the deal", which might actually be the best analogy for what's happening here, dark side and all.