3 ms·

I think you're right. E.g.: Google is 70% men. At 100,000 employees: 70,000 Male 30,000 Female If 5% of men are underpaid that's 3,500 men. If 10% of women a

I think you're right. E.g.: Google is 70% men. At 100,000 employees: 70,000 Male 30,000 Female If 5% of men are underpaid that's 3,500 men. If 10% of women are underpaid that's 3,000 women. More men are underpaid (3,500 > 3,000). But women are twice as likely to be underpaid (10% > 5%).

haberman 8y ago
The article said disproportionately more underpayment was to men. Therefore your hypothetical scenario (which posits that the difference was measured in absolute terms) is not what Google found.
- Traster 8y ago
  It wouldn't be the first time a news article had a poor understanding of statistics. But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries.
  - haberman 8y ago
    > But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries. The article says the opposite with regard to where the salary adjustments went: > One effect of the adjustments was to create a pronounced imbalance in compensation among lower-level software engineers, one of Google’s largest job groups, with a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers. To offset that, further adjustments were made. Google said it saw no pattern in the reasons women were receiving more discretionary pay.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. Btw, note that this passage (that I also quoted yesterday for a comment of my own) is now nowhere to be found in the article, that has been heaviy edited since it was posted on HN.
      - haberman 8y ago
        > The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. It says no such thing. The "large number" of underpaid men is not being compared against the number of underpaid women. The article still contains these quotes, which clearly establish that the equity pay raises went disproportionately to men: > The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men [...] > In response to the study, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a higher percentage of the money.
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        >> a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. >> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men "Disproportionate" is used to signify something that is "out of proportion", in a lay sense, not in the mathematical sense of the ratio between two numbers. It is not a mathematical term that signifies a comparison between percentages, as your comment seems to suggest. >> they received a higher percentage of the money. This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more men in the company.
        haberman 8y ago
        > This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. No, it is saying that the definition of "underpaid" is "making less money than women at the same level." > This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more men in the company. It says that men accounted for 69% of the work force, but received more than 69% of the money that went to equity raises.
- frogpelt 8y ago
  And it can easily be justified by two assumptions: 1. The average under-compensated man had worked there longer or had been under-compensated longer AND/OR 2. The average under-compensated man was in a higher paid role.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7e 8y ago
    Both of these assumptions are false.
- mqrs 8y ago
  In the same example, 10% of men = 7,000 where as 10% of women = 3,000. That qualifies as disproportionately more and yet it remains a fallacy.
  - oarabbus_ 8y ago
    That would be proportionately more men, not disproportionately.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

haberman 8y ago

The article said disproportionately more underpayment was to men. Therefore your hypothetical scenario (which posits that the difference was measured in absolute terms) is not what Google found.

Traster 8y ago
It wouldn't be the first time a news article had a poor understanding of statistics. But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries.
- haberman 8y ago
  > But more importantly, you may find men occupy high salary roles in engineering whilst women work in HR - resulting in the salary changes going disproportionately to men, because a % increase in their salary is far higher than the women on lower salaries. The article says the opposite with regard to where the salary adjustments went: > One effect of the adjustments was to create a pronounced imbalance in compensation among lower-level software engineers, one of Google’s largest job groups, with a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers. To offset that, further adjustments were made. Google said it saw no pattern in the reasons women were receiving more discretionary pay.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. Btw, note that this passage (that I also quoted yesterday for a comment of my own) is now nowhere to be found in the article, that has been heaviy edited since it was posted on HN.
    - haberman 8y ago
      > The passage you quote makes it clear the disparity is in absolute numbers, not proportions, as your earlier comment suggests. It says no such thing. The "large number" of underpaid men is not being compared against the number of underpaid women. The article still contains these quotes, which clearly establish that the equity pay raises went disproportionately to men: > The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men [...] > In response to the study, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a higher percentage of the money.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        >> a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. >> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men "Disproportionate" is used to signify something that is "out of proportion", in a lay sense, not in the mathematical sense of the ratio between two numbers. It is not a mathematical term that signifies a comparison between percentages, as your comment seems to suggest. >> they received a higher percentage of the money. This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more men in the company.
        haberman 8y ago
        > This sentence compares the number of men identified as underpaid to the number of women identified as underpaid. No, it is saying that the definition of "underpaid" is "making less money than women at the same level." > This says nothing about the proportion of men or women who were found to be underpaid. It refers to the percentage of men who received more money. The justification for that is that there are more men in the company. It says that men accounted for 69% of the work force, but received more than 69% of the money that went to equity raises.
frogpelt 8y ago
And it can easily be justified by two assumptions: 1. The average under-compensated man had worked there longer or had been under-compensated longer AND/OR 2. The average under-compensated man was in a higher paid role.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 7e 8y ago
  Both of these assumptions are false.
mqrs 8y ago
In the same example, 10% of men = 7,000 where as 10% of women = 3,000. That qualifies as disproportionately more and yet it remains a fallacy.
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  That would be proportionately more men, not disproportionately.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]