4 ms·

I'm genuinely interested to see the research that shows that women and minorities (other than those clearly disadvantaged by visa status) are being underpaid fo

I'm genuinely interested to see the research that shows that women and minorities (other than those clearly disadvantaged by visa status) are being underpaid for the same qualifications and same work. I've worked at many companies, including as a hiring manager, and I have not observed anyone ever trying to intentionally underpay female or minority candidates. If anything, the female or minority candidates were sought after by multiple companies to improve their diversity statistics, so had a better bargaining position and eventual salary outcome than an equivalently qualified male non-minority candidate. On the other hand, I have heard with my own ears in company meetings (not my current employer) that we already employ "enough" non-minority males, and should prefer to hire minorities and women over others. I've personally experienced and also heard from others that they've been pressured to give female and minority candidates the benefit of the doubt when they would've failed interviews had they been someone else. As an alternative explanation for any observed difference in pay... Anecdotally, there are lots of non-minority male nerds who spend ridiculous amounts of time reading tech books and working on work related side projects, to the point that they have no social lives and may never have a family. Even if we compare a sample of male and female candidates with the education and years of experience, a few outlier workaholic geeks (especially given power-law compensation) could throw off the averages and make it seem that women are discriminated against. I'd also like to see research that controls for things like... what school did the individuals study at, not just their degree? A CSU grad will probably make less than a UC grad. What classes did they take? (To control for people who take minimums vs take intense courses.) How many hours per week do they devote to their career outside of work on average? How many hours do they work on average? And so on. If these are difficult variables to control for, that makes my point... we can't say it's a result of discrimination unless we've controlled for all the actual variables. To zoom out for a minute... I'm very much interested in everyone getting equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work. But it does NOBODY any favors to try to make political points with sloppy or intentionally misleading research, because all it does is alienate potential allies and make them think the debate is not honest.

torpidor 8y ago
I think you don’t understand the point of view of diversity advocates. (I don’t mean this negatively, it’s often difficult to understand people who have very different perspectives) > I have not observed anyone ever trying to intentionally underpay female or minority candidates Most bad things that happen in our world are not intentional. Car accidents kill millions each year. One idea you may want to consider is that salaries are often set based on what someone earned previously. Therefore one bad actor can roll through 10 or more later positions without anyone acting intentionally. > there are lots of non-minority male nerds who spend ridiculous amounts of time... to the point that they have no social lives and may never have a family An alternative way to parse these same facts is that white men are more likely to be in an economic condition where it is possible to spend time on non-income-generating activities. For that matter I think at least some men believe a social or family life is not something they could have achieved. In any case I think it is harder to disentangle choices from cultural forces than you think. > I’d also like to see research that controls for things like... how many hours do they work on average? I’d like to see research that explains why working more hours is good for society. Buried in your questions are assumptions like “equal pay is fine as long as it doesn’t change the system too much” but the diversifist assumption is “lack of equal pay is a code smell for underlying problems in the system.” > we can’t say it’s a result of discrimination unless we’ve controlled for all the actual variables I think here you are projecting your values onto another position. (Intentional) discrimination is the problem that would annoy you, and so therefore diversity advocates should do research to establish a problem you would care about. From the perspective of incorporating you as a political constituency I don’t think you’re wrong. However, the actual pro-diversity position is something like “I’m annoyed that our society values traits common to X group and not traits common to Y or Z.” As a person in X group this argument is statistically unlikely to impress you, but it is harder to tease out if this is because you intentionally dislike Y (“intentional discrimination”), if there is something important we will lose if we start to prefer more Y traits (perhaps a traditional conservative type position) or if it is just hard to envision a society different than the actual one we live in.
- epicureanideal 8y ago
  Thanks for a very well thought out reply. I appreciate it. If the diversity advocates laid out the problem as "we would prefer society not require people to work 80 hour weeks and give up having families to get ahead, and we want to discourage people from doing that so we can all live well, otherwise it's a race to the bottom", that's a fantastic, HONEST argument. I would be willing to listen to and entertain such an argument. Historically this sort of argument was actually successful when applied to conservative groups (avoiding a race to the bottom). My main concern is that the current debate isn't honest. "Group X is discriminated against"... no, nobody cares that they're in Group X, they care that Person Y spent the last 10 years working 80 hour weeks, and that person regardless of having the exact same degree and exact same number of years of experience, brings a depth of skills that nobody working an average of 40 hour weeks can hope to match, and that gets reflected in the competition for them and in their salaries.
bobthepanda 8y ago
I am not saying that this is consistently happening. I am saying that the parent comment's flippant response of "just go find another job" only works if you assume that Oracle is the only bad actor doing this. We already know that companies have previously been investigated for this or have settled cases brought against them, so the number of other companies doing this is at least greater than zero. And without the threat of enforcement, nothing stops greater than zero companies from eventually becoming all companies. I don't really think there's a need to research the systemic issues when it comes to enforcement actions against individual bad actors.

torpidor 8y ago

I think you don’t understand the point of view of diversity advocates. (I don’t mean this negatively, it’s often difficult to understand people who have very different perspectives) > I have not observed anyone ever trying to intentionally underpay female or minority candidates Most bad things that happen in our world are not intentional. Car accidents kill millions each year. One idea you may want to consider is that salaries are often set based on what someone earned previously. Therefore one bad actor can roll through 10 or more later positions without anyone acting intentionally. > there are lots of non-minority male nerds who spend ridiculous amounts of time... to the point that they have no social lives and may never have a family An alternative way to parse these same facts is that white men are more likely to be in an economic condition where it is possible to spend time on non-income-generating activities. For that matter I think at least some men believe a social or family life is not something they could have achieved. In any case I think it is harder to disentangle choices from cultural forces than you think. > I’d also like to see research that controls for things like... how many hours do they work on average? I’d like to see research that explains why working more hours is good for society. Buried in your questions are assumptions like “equal pay is fine as long as it doesn’t change the system too much” but the diversifist assumption is “lack of equal pay is a code smell for underlying problems in the system.” > we can’t say it’s a result of discrimination unless we’ve controlled for all the actual variables I think here you are projecting your values onto another position. (Intentional) discrimination is the problem that would annoy you, and so therefore diversity advocates should do research to establish a problem you would care about. From the perspective of incorporating you as a political constituency I don’t think you’re wrong. However, the actual pro-diversity position is something like “I’m annoyed that our society values traits common to X group and not traits common to Y or Z.” As a person in X group this argument is statistically unlikely to impress you, but it is harder to tease out if this is because you intentionally dislike Y (“intentional discrimination”), if there is something important we will lose if we start to prefer more Y traits (perhaps a traditional conservative type position) or if it is just hard to envision a society different than the actual one we live in.

epicureanideal 8y ago
Thanks for a very well thought out reply. I appreciate it. If the diversity advocates laid out the problem as "we would prefer society not require people to work 80 hour weeks and give up having families to get ahead, and we want to discourage people from doing that so we can all live well, otherwise it's a race to the bottom", that's a fantastic, HONEST argument. I would be willing to listen to and entertain such an argument. Historically this sort of argument was actually successful when applied to conservative groups (avoiding a race to the bottom). My main concern is that the current debate isn't honest. "Group X is discriminated against"... no, nobody cares that they're in Group X, they care that Person Y spent the last 10 years working 80 hour weeks, and that person regardless of having the exact same degree and exact same number of years of experience, brings a depth of skills that nobody working an average of 40 hour weeks can hope to match, and that gets reflected in the competition for them and in their salaries.

bobthepanda 8y ago

I am not saying that this is consistently happening. I am saying that the parent comment's flippant response of "just go find another job" only works if you assume that Oracle is the only bad actor doing this. We already know that companies have previously been investigated for this or have settled cases brought against them, so the number of other companies doing this is at least greater than zero. And without the threat of enforcement, nothing stops greater than zero companies from eventually becoming all companies. I don't really think there's a need to research the systemic issues when it comes to enforcement actions against individual bad actors.