4 ms·

I keep wondering what is the economical explanation for the existence of the gender pay gap? Assuming women and men employees are (generally speaking) equally

by air7 9y ago

I keep wondering what is the economical explanation for the existence of the gender pay gap? Assuming women and men employees are (generally speaking) equally skilled yet differently compensated (for whatever reason), rational employers would actually prefer to hire women over men. Just like with any other purchase, all things being equal, cheaper is better. Perhaps "old" companies with a "tradition" might have a status-quo bias, but new startups/smart CEOs that really try to minimize their burn rate would obviously see this. Over time more and more women employees would be sought after more then men, which would eventually lead to an equilibrium and remove the pay gap. So why hasn't this happened (yet)?

paperpunk 9y ago
Because it's more complicated that. Hiring decisions, career progression decisions, salary decisions are not made by an algorithm trying to balance the sheets. They're made by humans with biases.
michaelt 9y ago
Companies actually do irrational things all the time. Have you seen how many people on here report they have to change jobs to get a raise? Or how often companies will spend $200 worth of employees' time on bureaucracy before replacing a $100 broken chair?
mikeash 9y ago
"rational employers" Well there's your problem. Humans are mostly irrational. Massively so. Rationality isn't the default state, it's not to be expected, it's a rare and precious jewel. So many nerds dismiss the idea of systematic bias because "rational people wouldn't do that." This is true. It's also true that leprechauns wouldn't do that. Both statements are equally tied to reality.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  Except that the "systematic" bias only seems to be happening in some fields, and ironically in a field that kind of relies on rationality, or at least logic. Obviously, it's because everybody in that field is either a frat boy or evil, and there can be no other explanation /s
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Implying programmers are systematically rational in all areas of life? Have you ever met any programmers? The alternative is not that everybody in that field is a frat boy or evil. It's that they're... human. We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it.
    - guitarbill 9y ago
      > We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it. That should even out then, right? Or is bias somehow not normally distributed? I'm happy to call BS on "bias" and "irrational" explanations - sounds like something you make up when you want to dismiss something and can't be arsed to come up with a proper explanation. There are preferences for prettiness/beauty and especially tallness. They are biologically routed, well documented, and have good predictive power. I guess you could call that a bias. From looking at high competency fields such as doctors or lawyers, there doesn't seem to be a gender bias, neither biologically, nor culturally. So which systematic bias are you proposing that would employers to act so irrationally, but yet somehow opt for the more expensive labour cost. Even if e.g. a CEO is racist, he's not going to lose sleep over offshoring jobs. Is gender different, if so why/why not? On the flip side, if it is a systematic bias like tallness, do we have an obligation to combat it? Height doesn't get nearly the same treatment. Either way, the "bias"/"irrationality" argument is lazy and incomplete.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Remember when black people were terribly oppressed in the South, so big companies rationally took advantage of this to hire labor for cheap and out-compete others, thereby ending racial discrimination through the power of economic rationality? Do you seriously suggest that bias should be evenly distributed? For every person biased against women in some field, there's another person equally biased against men? After all of these discussions about this topic on HN, I'm starting to wonder if HN actually has users posting from a parallel universe. Because some of the things being described don't match the one I live in at all.
thehardsphere 9y ago
Because the "pay gap" comes from the fact that men and women in aggregate make different choices with respect to how they develop their human capital. When you compare groups of men and women who make the same choices with regard to their careers and what to study, the gap disappears. In the case about 20% of college graduates who studied Computer Science are female, and about the same proportion are seen employed as Software Engineers in the industry. Those women are not any cheaper than their male counterparts, because they're just as qualified. Why women and men make different choices in aggregate, as well as if any of that is problematic, are topics of further debate that I don't think we have concrete answers to yet.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> So why hasn't this happened (yet)? A possible explanation is that men, in the aggregate, are more motivated by compensation and willing to put up with more hardship or danger in exchange for more money. There are a lot of jobs that pay a lot of money because they're dangerous, like working on an oil platform. Suppose those people get paid $90,000 whereas below average tech workers get paid $70,000 and above average tech workers get paid $100,000+. If you're a below average male tech worker who is in it for the money, maybe you take the oil job instead for the extra $20,000/year. The equivalent women take the $70,000/year non-dangerous job, causing the male average for "tech jobs" to be higher than the female average. It's also possible that more men than women are willing to work longer hours or jobs with less flexible hours in exchange for a higher salary. Employers rationally pay people willing to do that more than people who aren't.
- to_bpr 9y ago
  >It's also possible that more men than women are willing to work longer hours https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf
- devmunchies 9y ago
  > A possible explanation is that men, in the aggregate, are... Ironically, thats the type of talk that can get you fired from Google. We have to be able to address the reasons if we want a solution, even if it hurts your sensibilities. That to me is the answer to this question: So why hasn't this happened (yet)?
kirillkh 9y ago
It seems that the most likely explanation for the pay gap is the gap in dedication and energy spent at work. Until recently, many studies had found a bias against hiring women women in education and tech. But once corrected for lifestyle/marital status (i.e. single men without children compared against single women without children, etc), we observe the opposite picture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna...

by air7 9y ago

paperpunk 9y ago

Because it's more complicated that. Hiring decisions, career progression decisions, salary decisions are not made by an algorithm trying to balance the sheets. They're made by humans with biases.

michaelt 9y ago

Companies actually do irrational things all the time. Have you seen how many people on here report they have to change jobs to get a raise? Or how often companies will spend $200 worth of employees' time on bureaucracy before replacing a $100 broken chair?

mikeash 9y ago

"rational employers" Well there's your problem. Humans are mostly irrational. Massively so. Rationality isn't the default state, it's not to be expected, it's a rare and precious jewel. So many nerds dismiss the idea of systematic bias because "rational people wouldn't do that." This is true. It's also true that leprechauns wouldn't do that. Both statements are equally tied to reality.

guitarbill 9y ago
Except that the "systematic" bias only seems to be happening in some fields, and ironically in a field that kind of relies on rationality, or at least logic. Obviously, it's because everybody in that field is either a frat boy or evil, and there can be no other explanation /s
- mikeash 9y ago
  Implying programmers are systematically rational in all areas of life? Have you ever met any programmers? The alternative is not that everybody in that field is a frat boy or evil. It's that they're... human. We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it.
  - guitarbill 9y ago
    > We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it. That should even out then, right? Or is bias somehow not normally distributed? I'm happy to call BS on "bias" and "irrational" explanations - sounds like something you make up when you want to dismiss something and can't be arsed to come up with a proper explanation. There are preferences for prettiness/beauty and especially tallness. They are biologically routed, well documented, and have good predictive power. I guess you could call that a bias. From looking at high competency fields such as doctors or lawyers, there doesn't seem to be a gender bias, neither biologically, nor culturally. So which systematic bias are you proposing that would employers to act so irrationally, but yet somehow opt for the more expensive labour cost. Even if e.g. a CEO is racist, he's not going to lose sleep over offshoring jobs. Is gender different, if so why/why not? On the flip side, if it is a systematic bias like tallness, do we have an obligation to combat it? Height doesn't get nearly the same treatment. Either way, the "bias"/"irrationality" argument is lazy and incomplete.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Remember when black people were terribly oppressed in the South, so big companies rationally took advantage of this to hire labor for cheap and out-compete others, thereby ending racial discrimination through the power of economic rationality? Do you seriously suggest that bias should be evenly distributed? For every person biased against women in some field, there's another person equally biased against men? After all of these discussions about this topic on HN, I'm starting to wonder if HN actually has users posting from a parallel universe. Because some of the things being described don't match the one I live in at all.

thehardsphere 9y ago

Because the "pay gap" comes from the fact that men and women in aggregate make different choices with respect to how they develop their human capital. When you compare groups of men and women who make the same choices with regard to their careers and what to study, the gap disappears. In the case about 20% of college graduates who studied Computer Science are female, and about the same proportion are seen employed as Software Engineers in the industry. Those women are not any cheaper than their male counterparts, because they're just as qualified. Why women and men make different choices in aggregate, as well as if any of that is problematic, are topics of further debate that I don't think we have concrete answers to yet.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> So why hasn't this happened (yet)? A possible explanation is that men, in the aggregate, are more motivated by compensation and willing to put up with more hardship or danger in exchange for more money. There are a lot of jobs that pay a lot of money because they're dangerous, like working on an oil platform. Suppose those people get paid $90,000 whereas below average tech workers get paid $70,000 and above average tech workers get paid $100,000+. If you're a below average male tech worker who is in it for the money, maybe you take the oil job instead for the extra $20,000/year. The equivalent women take the $70,000/year non-dangerous job, causing the male average for "tech jobs" to be higher than the female average. It's also possible that more men than women are willing to work longer hours or jobs with less flexible hours in exchange for a higher salary. Employers rationally pay people willing to do that more than people who aren't.

to_bpr 9y ago
>It's also possible that more men than women are willing to work longer hours https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf
devmunchies 9y ago
> A possible explanation is that men, in the aggregate, are... Ironically, thats the type of talk that can get you fired from Google. We have to be able to address the reasons if we want a solution, even if it hurts your sensibilities. That to me is the answer to this question: So why hasn't this happened (yet)?

kirillkh 9y ago

It seems that the most likely explanation for the pay gap is the gap in dedication and energy spent at work. Until recently, many studies had found a bias against hiring women women in education and tech. But once corrected for lifestyle/marital status (i.e. single men without children compared against single women without children, etc), we observe the opposite picture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna...