7 ms·

> Legislation to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act have stalled in Congress for years, and today women still only make about 80 cents, on average, for every

> Legislation to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act have stalled in Congress for years, and today women still only make about 80 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by men. But congressional inaction does not absolve companies from their responsibility. Since learning that we were paying women less than men for equal work at Salesforce, we have spent $10.3 million to ensure equal pay; today we conduct annual audits to ensure that pay remains equal. If Benioff is going to quote the .80/$1 statistic, then the equal pay audits of SalesForce need to use the same comparison which is to take the average pay of all women in the company regardless of position or job and compare it to the average of all the men in the company regardless of position or job. If you actually do the comparison taking into account job and position, you get something like .93/$1 https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/13/tina-smith/do-women-get-only-80-percent-pay-men-do-same-job/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr...

weberc2 7y ago
And if you account for other factors, like flexibility and other benefits, you get within the margin of error--women may even out-earn men.
- grenoire 7y ago
  As a rule of thumb, if you would like to not get downvoted for controversial statements, please source your assumptions.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    Transcript of a Freakonomics podcast discussing this issue: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...
  - weberc2 7y ago
    Downvotes are fine with me; I don't put much stock in Internet points. I'm not trying to be persuasive in my single-sentence internet quip; if people care to learn more, they can do their own research.
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      You’re engaging in discussion and the downvotes aren’t disagreement here. They’re a sign your comment wasn’t contributing much of value.
      - jonahx 7y ago
        > downvotes aren’t disagreement here While this may be the official intention, in practice it is not the case. Afaict, disagreement elicits downvotes the majority of the time.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        What then do the upvotes signify?
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    This isn't controversial (among people who look at reality), it's well known and sources are easily found.
dev_dull 7y ago
This whole discussion is so tired to me. I’d like to see organizations who genuinely want to end inequality to start compensation transparency practices. Let’s see the numbers and we’ll decide for ourselves. After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  >After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded. I think it's in my interest that salaries are closely guarded. Virtually every time in my private life someone has found out how much I make it's been a problem for me.
- geebee 7y ago
  It does (or at least should) put Benioff in a difficult position, in terms of argument, if he cites his own company's pay gap as evidence of why we need broad societal change, but then refuses to provide the transparency and data that would enable society to evaluate his claim. If Benioff says "our company did an internal audit, discovered an internal pay gap, and took internal measures to correct it", ok then. But if he says they did an internal audit and on the basis of these results, the rest of us need to change, then he needs to allow us to verify his claim, the way we'd do with any policy argument based on data.
kolbe 7y ago
I don't think it's too unfair to read deeper into Marc's motives. Salesforce has never been interested in noble pursuits like making high quality products. They've been interested in creating moats to rent seek off of. They've been interested in promising functionality, then making it too hard for clients to leave once they find out its deficiencies. To that end, I'm sure Marc wants regulation because he knows that paying lawyers $5m a year to adhere to them is no big problem for Saleforce to pay, but it will sure as hell prevent Paul Graham from being able to seed a new company to disrupt Marc's fortune. And he will quote whatever statistic is necessary to accomplish that goal.
- mindfulplay 7y ago
  I think given the amount of effort Benioff had put in, I do think he comes from the right place. But just don't have the same level of rigor and mental investment as say Gates.
- chrshawkes 7y ago
  Marc is a grade A showboat asshole. Your comment hits the nail on the head.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jadell 7y ago
So why is average pay for women across all positions less than men? It's not like Salesforce employees are doing heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men. Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men (at which point we can then address the issue of pay inequality for the same position?) If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  Higher-paying executive and engineering positions tend to skew more male, and lower-paying executive assistant/secretarial/administrative positions tend to skew more female. There is plenty of overlap but the distribution skew results in men, on the aggregate, being paid slightly more than women.
  - jadell 7y ago
    Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?
    - daseiner1 7y ago
      why is that their responsibility at all? Women are electing not to enter that “track;” it’s companies’ jobs to convince them to?
      - jadell 7y ago
        Are they not electing to because it doesn't interest them, or are they opting out/washing out due to other factors? Have links to any studies that show one way or the other?
    - 7y ago
jimbokun 7y ago
Regarding the Politifact article, full credit to Senator Tina Smith for immediately correcting her tweet after being informed it was incorrect. Too many politicians double down when they get something wrong and try to defend it, instead of admitting they made an error.
peterwwillis 7y ago
I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not? Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to make less. In the past, philosophers have justified slavery because it seemed to make sense, but now we realize it's immoral. Couldn't the same be true of all kinds of equity gaps in our society? To reframe it a bit, men are the minority population, yet this pay gap still exists in their favor. If men were the ones making 8% less, I bet there'd be a lot more work to reach pay parity.
- Digory 7y ago
  You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings. Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice. Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy. Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?
    - daseiner1 7y ago
      Wow. This impulse to compare any and every sort of economic inequality to slavery is pitiful and disgusting.

weberc2 7y ago

And if you account for other factors, like flexibility and other benefits, you get within the margin of error--women may even out-earn men.

grenoire 7y ago
As a rule of thumb, if you would like to not get downvoted for controversial statements, please source your assumptions.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  Transcript of a Freakonomics podcast discussing this issue: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...
- weberc2 7y ago
  Downvotes are fine with me; I don't put much stock in Internet points. I'm not trying to be persuasive in my single-sentence internet quip; if people care to learn more, they can do their own research.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    You’re engaging in discussion and the downvotes aren’t disagreement here. They’re a sign your comment wasn’t contributing much of value.
    - jonahx 7y ago
      > downvotes aren’t disagreement here While this may be the official intention, in practice it is not the case. Afaict, disagreement elicits downvotes the majority of the time.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      What then do the upvotes signify?
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  This isn't controversial (among people who look at reality), it's well known and sources are easily found.

dev_dull 7y ago

This whole discussion is so tired to me. I’d like to see organizations who genuinely want to end inequality to start compensation transparency practices. Let’s see the numbers and we’ll decide for ourselves. After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.

Consultant32452 7y ago
>After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded. I think it's in my interest that salaries are closely guarded. Virtually every time in my private life someone has found out how much I make it's been a problem for me.
geebee 7y ago
It does (or at least should) put Benioff in a difficult position, in terms of argument, if he cites his own company's pay gap as evidence of why we need broad societal change, but then refuses to provide the transparency and data that would enable society to evaluate his claim. If Benioff says "our company did an internal audit, discovered an internal pay gap, and took internal measures to correct it", ok then. But if he says they did an internal audit and on the basis of these results, the rest of us need to change, then he needs to allow us to verify his claim, the way we'd do with any policy argument based on data.

kolbe 7y ago

I don't think it's too unfair to read deeper into Marc's motives. Salesforce has never been interested in noble pursuits like making high quality products. They've been interested in creating moats to rent seek off of. They've been interested in promising functionality, then making it too hard for clients to leave once they find out its deficiencies. To that end, I'm sure Marc wants regulation because he knows that paying lawyers $5m a year to adhere to them is no big problem for Saleforce to pay, but it will sure as hell prevent Paul Graham from being able to seed a new company to disrupt Marc's fortune. And he will quote whatever statistic is necessary to accomplish that goal.

mindfulplay 7y ago
I think given the amount of effort Benioff had put in, I do think he comes from the right place. But just don't have the same level of rigor and mental investment as say Gates.
chrshawkes 7y ago
Marc is a grade A showboat asshole. Your comment hits the nail on the head.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jadell 7y ago

So why is average pay for women across all positions less than men? It's not like Salesforce employees are doing heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men. Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men (at which point we can then address the issue of pay inequality for the same position?) If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."

oarabbus_ 7y ago
Higher-paying executive and engineering positions tend to skew more male, and lower-paying executive assistant/secretarial/administrative positions tend to skew more female. There is plenty of overlap but the distribution skew results in men, on the aggregate, being paid slightly more than women.
- jadell 7y ago
  Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?
  - daseiner1 7y ago
    why is that their responsibility at all? Women are electing not to enter that “track;” it’s companies’ jobs to convince them to?
    - jadell 7y ago
      Are they not electing to because it doesn't interest them, or are they opting out/washing out due to other factors? Have links to any studies that show one way or the other?
  - 7y ago

jimbokun 7y ago

Regarding the Politifact article, full credit to Senator Tina Smith for immediately correcting her tweet after being informed it was incorrect. Too many politicians double down when they get something wrong and try to defend it, instead of admitting they made an error.

peterwwillis 7y ago

I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not? Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to make less. In the past, philosophers have justified slavery because it seemed to make sense, but now we realize it's immoral. Couldn't the same be true of all kinds of equity gaps in our society? To reframe it a bit, men are the minority population, yet this pay gap still exists in their favor. If men were the ones making 8% less, I bet there'd be a lot more work to reach pay parity.

Digory 7y ago
You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings. Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice. Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy. Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?
  - daseiner1 7y ago
    Wow. This impulse to compare any and every sort of economic inequality to slavery is pitiful and disgusting.