3 ms·

Your statement indicates you don’t understand the issue; women make less money than men overall. It’s not about same job pay (4% difference there), it’s about

by ohyes 9y ago

Your statement indicates you don’t understand the issue; women make less money than men overall. It’s not about same job pay (4% difference there), it’s about the glass ceiling. Women are less likely to get promoted to higher paying positions and because of that are defacto less qualified. So there can be an unfair pay gap without an obvious arbitrage situation.

oh_sigh 9y ago
If you have a woman who is a level X, and the only reason that she isn't at X+1 is because she is a woman, then hiring her would be a great opportunity if your company doesn't have a glass ceiling. And I do understand the issue - at least more than you give me credit for. If you see in my original post, I explicitly mention that these people are equivalently qualified. People abuse the 77 cents on the dollar figure to say that equivalent employees get paid less if they are women, which is what I was trying to call out with my post.
- ohyes 9y ago
  In that case I agree, the initial hypothetical is wrong because it isn't about same job/position pay, it is about likelihood to get promoted to a higher paying position. It is about women being stuck in the same position, while men are more likely to get to the next level. From my reading of your post, it appeared you were arguing that the pay gap wasn't a thing at all. It is a common talking point, which is the reason for my (and maybe others) confusion. Anyway it seems it was a bad reading on my part. Unfortunately, the language we're using is a bit too loose to be accurate. Equivalently qualified isn't a stand in for equivalently competent. If women are less likely to get promoted, they therefore are less likely to have as many qualifications as men. This is an externality you would have to deal with, it would lead you to actually pick less qualified women to hire into promotions because there's a higher chance that they were passed over in favor of a man.
- baddox 9y ago
  > If you have a woman who is a level X, and the only reason that she isn't at X+1 is because she is a woman, then hiring her would be a great opportunity if your company doesn't have a glass ceiling. Uhh, yes, but your company probably does have a glass ceiling even if you are unaware of it and don’t want it.
  - ohyes 9y ago
    Yes, it is a societal force, not something that you can change with an HR policy. In fact it is a law in most western democracies that you don't discriminate against women and minorities. This doesn't mean that those people aren't still vulnerable to discrimination.

by ohyes 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

If you have a woman who is a level X, and the only reason that she isn't at X+1 is because she is a woman, then hiring her would be a great opportunity if your company doesn't have a glass ceiling. And I do understand the issue - at least more than you give me credit for. If you see in my original post, I explicitly mention that these people are equivalently qualified. People abuse the 77 cents on the dollar figure to say that equivalent employees get paid less if they are women, which is what I was trying to call out with my post.

ohyes 9y ago
In that case I agree, the initial hypothetical is wrong because it isn't about same job/position pay, it is about likelihood to get promoted to a higher paying position. It is about women being stuck in the same position, while men are more likely to get to the next level. From my reading of your post, it appeared you were arguing that the pay gap wasn't a thing at all. It is a common talking point, which is the reason for my (and maybe others) confusion. Anyway it seems it was a bad reading on my part. Unfortunately, the language we're using is a bit too loose to be accurate. Equivalently qualified isn't a stand in for equivalently competent. If women are less likely to get promoted, they therefore are less likely to have as many qualifications as men. This is an externality you would have to deal with, it would lead you to actually pick less qualified women to hire into promotions because there's a higher chance that they were passed over in favor of a man.
baddox 9y ago
> If you have a woman who is a level X, and the only reason that she isn't at X+1 is because she is a woman, then hiring her would be a great opportunity if your company doesn't have a glass ceiling. Uhh, yes, but your company probably does have a glass ceiling even if you are unaware of it and don’t want it.
- ohyes 9y ago
  Yes, it is a societal force, not something that you can change with an HR policy. In fact it is a law in most western democracies that you don't discriminate against women and minorities. This doesn't mean that those people aren't still vulnerable to discrimination.