4 ms·

> Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons. I think you give companies too much credit. Those pretty good reasons are typically that that's ho

> Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons. I think you give companies too much credit. Those pretty good reasons are typically that that's how much they asked, it wasn't unreasonable, and they passed the interviews. People's salaries are all over the map for the same sorts of positions, and it's not just IT and development. But, even though it might not be a clearcut answer to whether there is discrimination or bias in salaries, it should be explored. Even data with a wide, overlapping range doesn't mean that the mean and median can't be compared and valid conclusions drawn about probable bias. Google seems to take bias seriously, and I think if it could be proven with adequate certainty that salaries were affected by the sex of the employee alone, they'd do something about it.

stretchwithme 9y ago
I tend to think that successful companies tend to know what they are doing better than observers.
- ajross 9y ago
  But the problem is "know what they are doing" can still be unfair. Consider: you're staffing up a company and need folks now. You've found two candidates who seem equally qualified and want to hire them. Both are asking for only a modest raise over their current salaries, but one happens to make 50% more than the other due to arbitrary reasons[1] having nothing to do with qualifications. What do you do? Realistically you give them both what they ask and pay them unfairly. Congratulations, you're now part of the problem. [1] Yeah, one is a dude.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    And if we change [1] to "Yeah, one is a gal", then I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. Ultimately, the only alternative is to pay people equally. Which won't fly generally, as companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving.
    - kamaal 9y ago
      >>I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. Isn't that their very argument? Their point is a few need to be paid more even if they don't work for it, to make up for what is lost. They are asking for inequality by very argument. Equality by their definition would be injustice to them.
    - spaceseaman 9y ago
      > I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism. I can't attack this point without having to completely define someone who is "pro-diversity" (what's that even mean?), and give evidence that no one in that group has the traits you claim of ("look at this feminist, see I was right!"). More importantly, what's even your point if this straw-man were true? I could just as easily say this about anything. "Oh your life is shitty? Well I bet you wouldn't complain if things were working out well." It's an interesting case of vacuous truth! The argument is to make things better for the people who have it worse at the moment, correcting for previous inertia. In this case, the inertia is that men were previously paid more or gained an initial advantage that allowed them to be paid more, and then that advantage has percolated across their various positions until the difference becomes more stark all because as you say "companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving". If that's the case, then if companies could pay women less for the same work, why wouldn't they? Similar arguments apply to affirmative action and similar programs. That's the argument at least, whether I agree with it is an entirely different question. What irks me is you dismissing the argument with your little straw-man and moving on to "the only alternative". You completely disregarded the points of everyone opposite the aisle of you in the most condescending way.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        > The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism. I don't. You just criticized me at length :). Some of it I could even agree with :). My point is, the current narration coming from "opposite the aisle of me" is, on the one hand, "gender discrimination is bad", and on the other hand, "we need more discrimination to correct for existing one". Even if we leave out that I don't think there's that much discrimination happening as feminists would want you to believe (in fact, I think they're just reinterpreting everything in terms of gender, whether it is actually related or not) - still, you can't have it both ways. I'm just against hypocrisy, especially this extreme. When someone admits that they are advocating literal sexism as a corrective action (hopefully temporary), I'll accept that (even though I don't agree it's needed). What irks me is condemning sexism when it goes in one direction, while at the same time advocating sexism in the other direction.

stretchwithme 9y ago

I tend to think that successful companies tend to know what they are doing better than observers.

ajross 9y ago
But the problem is "know what they are doing" can still be unfair. Consider: you're staffing up a company and need folks now. You've found two candidates who seem equally qualified and want to hire them. Both are asking for only a modest raise over their current salaries, but one happens to make 50% more than the other due to arbitrary reasons[1] having nothing to do with qualifications. What do you do? Realistically you give them both what they ask and pay them unfairly. Congratulations, you're now part of the problem. [1] Yeah, one is a dude.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  And if we change [1] to "Yeah, one is a gal", then I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. Ultimately, the only alternative is to pay people equally. Which won't fly generally, as companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. Isn't that their very argument? Their point is a few need to be paid more even if they don't work for it, to make up for what is lost. They are asking for inequality by very argument. Equality by their definition would be injustice to them.
  - spaceseaman 9y ago
    > I'd expect a lot of pro-diversity people suddenly stop complaining that there's a problem. The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism. I can't attack this point without having to completely define someone who is "pro-diversity" (what's that even mean?), and give evidence that no one in that group has the traits you claim of ("look at this feminist, see I was right!"). More importantly, what's even your point if this straw-man were true? I could just as easily say this about anything. "Oh your life is shitty? Well I bet you wouldn't complain if things were working out well." It's an interesting case of vacuous truth! The argument is to make things better for the people who have it worse at the moment, correcting for previous inertia. In this case, the inertia is that men were previously paid more or gained an initial advantage that allowed them to be paid more, and then that advantage has percolated across their various positions until the difference becomes more stark all because as you say "companies always want to pay the minimum amount that can keep the employee from leaving". If that's the case, then if companies could pay women less for the same work, why wouldn't they? Similar arguments apply to affirmative action and similar programs. That's the argument at least, whether I agree with it is an entirely different question. What irks me is you dismissing the argument with your little straw-man and moving on to "the only alternative". You completely disregarded the points of everyone opposite the aisle of you in the most condescending way.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > The fun thing about making a straw-man is you make yourself immune from criticism. I don't. You just criticized me at length :). Some of it I could even agree with :). My point is, the current narration coming from "opposite the aisle of me" is, on the one hand, "gender discrimination is bad", and on the other hand, "we need more discrimination to correct for existing one". Even if we leave out that I don't think there's that much discrimination happening as feminists would want you to believe (in fact, I think they're just reinterpreting everything in terms of gender, whether it is actually related or not) - still, you can't have it both ways. I'm just against hypocrisy, especially this extreme. When someone admits that they are advocating literal sexism as a corrective action (hopefully temporary), I'll accept that (even though I don't agree it's needed). What irks me is condemning sexism when it goes in one direction, while at the same time advocating sexism in the other direction.