7 ms·

> Indeed surveyed 1,000 women in the field and found that the main reasons women leave tech are: advancement opportunities, wage disparity, and work-life balanc

> Indeed surveyed 1,000 women in the field and found that the main reasons women leave tech are: advancement opportunities, wage disparity, and work-life balance. I wonder if they leave because of a perceived wage disparity/lack of advancement opportunity. Actually, everyone should be wondering that and we should try to get hard evidence. This report suggest that there isn’t much of a disparity, and it’s generally very hard for anyone to get to very high levels. If we had good statistical evidence that women aren’t discriminated against when it comes to promotions and compensation, then more would likely stay. If we had evidence that they were, well, then we could do more. I do have less sympathy for women who have an opportunity to work in tech than for women working as waitresses, or as social workers, or maid.s Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. But most women out there aren’t that lucky. What I’d like to see is the government doing more to make it possible for all working women with families to better balance their lives. Probably the best thing they can do is extend the school day and school year and provide stipends for child care. Mandating that more women get board seats isn’t going to help the single mother working at the grocery store cashier very much.

fastbeef 7y ago
> What I’d like to see is the government doing more to make it possible for all working women with families to better balance their lives. Or, you know, the dads could pitch in with running the household.
- victor9000 7y ago
  As if they don't? Do you live in the 1950s?
  - fastbeef 7y ago
    I’m not, but GP seems to be. edit: alright, it was a bit snarky, but he’s basically advocating government intervention so can get more time off from work to run the household
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - djcapelis 7y ago
    Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks in the present not just in the distant past and anyone who says otherwise is sticking their heads in the sand.
    - syshum 7y ago
      >>Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1] 1. Women with FT jobs on Avg work 7.7 hours per day, and put in 2.6 hour per day on household chores or 10.3 hrs total per day 2. Men with FT jobs on Avg work 8.3 hrs, and put in 2.1 hours per week on household chores or 10.4 hrs per total per day there is some data to show that heterosexual households Women primary work in the home (cleaning, cooking etc) and men primary work outside or on the home (lawn work, garbage, home maintenance, etc) So unless you are going to cherry pick which "household and childcare related tasks" to specifically exclude the "household and childcare related tasks" men generally do there is no way to conclude that "women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks" [1]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1] You can't use overall statistics to talk about specific cases of cross-sections. Yes, men work longer hours than women. But even in households where the woman is the primary earner, she takes on the majority of household chores, on average [1]. And this has been seen in multiple studies. See the "Work and Leisure for Dual-Income and Single-Income Couples" table here[2]. In single income families, a women earner spends 23 hours on household chores, compared to her (unemployed) parter, who spends ~29 hours on household chores. He gets around twice as much leisure time as she does. Reverse the genders, and an employed man spends 14 hours on housework, while the unemployed woman will spend 45 hours on housework. No matter who is employed, the mother always spends more time on housework than on leisure time, and the father always spends more time on leisure than on housework. That's true whether the family is dual income, the mother is the sole earner, the father is the sole earner, or neither parent works. In all cases, the mother spends more time on housework than leisure, and the father spends more time on leisure than housework. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782401?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782401?seq=1 [2]: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in...
xenihn 7y ago
I really don't understand how wage disparity can be given as a reason in the current market, assuming that you're a software engineer. If you don't like how much you make, go find a new employer. I know it's not that simple, but it's doable. Just quitting your career altogether doesn't make any sense, unless you never enjoyed it to begin with. >If we had good statistical evidence that women aren’t discriminated against when it comes to promotions and compensation, then more would likely stay. I live in SF, and I "only" make $150k a year. All of my friends in the city make at least double what I do thanks to RSUs. Some make three times as much. Three of them are women (!!!!). I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. I still have a very comfortable life. I'll probably wash out if there's another downturn, but I'll have saved up enough money to comfortably start over and do something else. The idea of quitting because I earn significantly less than other people with the same years of experience (or less) is insane. I can admit that they're better engineers than me. That's why they get the big bucks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Vadoff 7y ago
  >I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. Why? Have you tried to get into such companies? What part of the interviews are you failing at? If you've given up before you've even tried, then sure, you'll never get in. You don't have to be a ridiculously good engineer get in.
  - xenihn 7y ago
    I guess I was being overly dramatic there. I did manage to make it to onsites for the first time this year after failing phone screens before, so we'll see. I just haven't spent enough time practicing. I find it hard to do so outside of work, and everyone can see my screen in the office.
- lawlorino 7y ago
  > I live in SF, and I "only" make $150k a year. All of my friends in the city make at least double what I do thanks to RSUs. Some make three times as much. Three of them are women (!!!!). I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. This isn't statistical evidence, this is an anecdote about you and your friend circle.
foldr 7y ago
Ah yes, "are women just crazy and irrational?". Further research needed.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Good research is when empirical evidence lines up with the hypothesis so well that you wonder why anyone got paid to do the research at all. So let's get the empirical evidence. The shared anecdotes have pointed us towards a hypothesis, so now let's see if we match that and think about the ramifications of a different result. That's how research works.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    Dude you are gaslighting them. The burden of proof is on you. All these studies have been debunked.
stubish 7y ago
> I wonder if they leave because of a perceived wage disparity/lack of advancement opportunity. [...] This report suggest that there isn’t much of a disparity Keep in mind that the results of this report will be somewhat self selecting. There won't be much wage disparity shown if the people on the wrong side have already left. It is stated that wage disparity is a major reason that double the number of woman have left the industry by mid-career.
syshum 7y ago
>>>I do have less sympathy for women who have an opportunity to work in tech than for women working as waitresses, or as social workers, or maid.s Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. But most women out there aren’t that lucky. What I’d like to see is the government doing more to make it possible for all working women with families to better balance their lives Why is that a Gendered issue? Are there no men working in menial jobs that have no work life balance? Or should we just not give a shit about them?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
choppaface 7y ago
Oracle pays women less and got caught: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/18/oracle-women-workers-lawsuit-salaries-pay https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/18/oracle-wo... Microsoft also got “caught”— CEO Satya Nadella made a poorly worded comment that resulted in many women getting raises (so clearly at least some had hard evidence they were getting underpaid): https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/10/10/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-apologizes-for-comments-on-womens-pay/#6a59ebe16d2b https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/10/10/microso... I know of at least 4 cases were female colleagues of mine were getting held to the bottom of the band (or in one case the band was lowered).
- neilv 7y ago
  Nadella's 2014 comment is horrifying to read just now, considering the long-time backstabbing reputation of the company (at the time; currently improving, at least in PR). Quoting: > It's not about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along... And that, I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don't ask for a raise have. Because that's good karma. It'll come back because somebody's going to know 'that's the kind of person that I want to trust. That's the kind of person I want to really give more responsibility to.' And in the long term efficiency, things catch up. And I wonder… And I’m not saying that’s the only approach. > I wonder whether taking the long-term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of ‘hey, am I getting paid right? Am I getting rewarded right?’ Because reality is your best work is not followed with your best rewards. Your best work then has impact, people recognize it and then you get the rewards so you have to somehow think that through, I think. Had I seen this in 2014, not knowing Nadella, I'm sure it would've sounded to me like a horribly disingenuous attempt by an executive to suppress wages. Also possibly tone-deaf, and not only due to the venue and the context of ongoing exploitation/marginalization of women, but also due to non-gender-specific abusive industry behaviors, including one exposed shortly before then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
mkolodny 7y ago
There was an excellent article posted about this subject a few days ago: "Is it really just sexism? An alternative argument for why women leave STEM" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077603)
kqr 7y ago
> Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. On the contrary: world-wide, poor countries tend to have a larger proportion women in tech (and medicine, and ...). Not because they want to, but because they cannot afford anything but the most high-paying jobs!
austincheney 7y ago
> Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. I am considering leaving tech because selective biases play a larger role in hiring and advancement than they used to despite all efforts to the contrary. After talking with other people I am not alone in thinking this. I am willing to leave tech even though I cannot afford to because the hit to my finances is temporary but the barriers to my career from remaining in tech are permanent. Let me discuss selective bias in a bit more detail. When I first started programming candidate qualification was centered around the needs to the business. For example, did a candidate understand the minimum criteria of working in a given technology plus the advanced criteria that harmed user interaction, slowed execution speed, or some other measurable concern. Those days are long gone, at least in high level languages. Now the name of the game is programming fashion. Specifically, does the candidate write code according to a current trend a given team or interviewer wants without regard for any performance or measurable quantum. That change is disruptive but not in a healthy way. In the old days the desirable and rewarded developers were those who performed well, such as writing the best code in the least time. The people on the right side of a bell curve. Replacing that with fashionable and non-measurable factors limits candidate selection to the center of the bell curve, which are people who do not perform as well but are better rewarded for it. If I am willing to abandon a long time tech career even though it will hurt and have found others that share my frustration I can only imagine that perhaps this might be some small factor in why some women might want to leave in general. I suspect this problem has increased despite all efforts to the contrary because all efforts to eliminate hiring/reward bias were typically limited to identity factors that carried provable legal consequences.
- ethanbond 7y ago
  The reliance on measurable outputs from days of yore was probably not the result of some high minded meritocracy which is now gone, but from building things that needed performance - a need which has now diminished greatly for a large proportion of work. This reduction is simultaneously a result of higher level abstractions, as you say, but also a result of simply more tech in more places that doesn’t really need it. There are still plenty of places that must incentivize quality as a matter of survival, just your friends in the Bay Area won’t “oooh” and “ahhhh” when you tell them you work there.

fastbeef 7y ago

> What I’d like to see is the government doing more to make it possible for all working women with families to better balance their lives. Or, you know, the dads could pitch in with running the household.

victor9000 7y ago
As if they don't? Do you live in the 1950s?
- fastbeef 7y ago
  I’m not, but GP seems to be. edit: alright, it was a bit snarky, but he’s basically advocating government intervention so can get more time off from work to run the household
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- djcapelis 7y ago
  Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks in the present not just in the distant past and anyone who says otherwise is sticking their heads in the sand.
  - syshum 7y ago
    >>Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1] 1. Women with FT jobs on Avg work 7.7 hours per day, and put in 2.6 hour per day on household chores or 10.3 hrs total per day 2. Men with FT jobs on Avg work 8.3 hrs, and put in 2.1 hours per week on household chores or 10.4 hrs per total per day there is some data to show that heterosexual households Women primary work in the home (cleaning, cooking etc) and men primary work outside or on the home (lawn work, garbage, home maintenance, etc) So unless you are going to cherry pick which "household and childcare related tasks" to specifically exclude the "household and childcare related tasks" men generally do there is no way to conclude that "women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks" [1]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1] You can't use overall statistics to talk about specific cases of cross-sections. Yes, men work longer hours than women. But even in households where the woman is the primary earner, she takes on the majority of household chores, on average [1]. And this has been seen in multiple studies. See the "Work and Leisure for Dual-Income and Single-Income Couples" table here[2]. In single income families, a women earner spends 23 hours on household chores, compared to her (unemployed) parter, who spends ~29 hours on household chores. He gets around twice as much leisure time as she does. Reverse the genders, and an employed man spends 14 hours on housework, while the unemployed woman will spend 45 hours on housework. No matter who is employed, the mother always spends more time on housework than on leisure time, and the father always spends more time on leisure than on housework. That's true whether the family is dual income, the mother is the sole earner, the father is the sole earner, or neither parent works. In all cases, the mother spends more time on housework than leisure, and the father spends more time on leisure than housework. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782401?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782401?seq=1 [2]: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in...

xenihn 7y ago

I really don't understand how wage disparity can be given as a reason in the current market, assuming that you're a software engineer. If you don't like how much you make, go find a new employer. I know it's not that simple, but it's doable. Just quitting your career altogether doesn't make any sense, unless you never enjoyed it to begin with. >If we had good statistical evidence that women aren’t discriminated against when it comes to promotions and compensation, then more would likely stay. I live in SF, and I "only" make $150k a year. All of my friends in the city make at least double what I do thanks to RSUs. Some make three times as much. Three of them are women (!!!!). I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. I still have a very comfortable life. I'll probably wash out if there's another downturn, but I'll have saved up enough money to comfortably start over and do something else. The idea of quitting because I earn significantly less than other people with the same years of experience (or less) is insane. I can admit that they're better engineers than me. That's why they get the big bucks.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Vadoff 7y ago
>I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. Why? Have you tried to get into such companies? What part of the interviews are you failing at? If you've given up before you've even tried, then sure, you'll never get in. You don't have to be a ridiculously good engineer get in.
- xenihn 7y ago
  I guess I was being overly dramatic there. I did manage to make it to onsites for the first time this year after failing phone screens before, so we'll see. I just haven't spent enough time practicing. I find it hard to do so outside of work, and everyone can see my screen in the office.
lawlorino 7y ago
> I live in SF, and I "only" make $150k a year. All of my friends in the city make at least double what I do thanks to RSUs. Some make three times as much. Three of them are women (!!!!). I've accepted that I'm probably never going to get into a company that pays that well, and that's fine. This isn't statistical evidence, this is an anecdote about you and your friend circle.

foldr 7y ago

Ah yes, "are women just crazy and irrational?". Further research needed.

rolltiide 7y ago
Good research is when empirical evidence lines up with the hypothesis so well that you wonder why anyone got paid to do the research at all. So let's get the empirical evidence. The shared anecdotes have pointed us towards a hypothesis, so now let's see if we match that and think about the ramifications of a different result. That's how research works.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Dude you are gaslighting them. The burden of proof is on you. All these studies have been debunked.

stubish 7y ago

> I wonder if they leave because of a perceived wage disparity/lack of advancement opportunity. [...] This report suggest that there isn’t much of a disparity Keep in mind that the results of this report will be somewhat self selecting. There won't be much wage disparity shown if the people on the wrong side have already left. It is stated that wage disparity is a major reason that double the number of woman have left the industry by mid-career.

syshum 7y ago

>>>I do have less sympathy for women who have an opportunity to work in tech than for women working as waitresses, or as social workers, or maid.s Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. But most women out there aren’t that lucky. What I’d like to see is the government doing more to make it possible for all working women with families to better balance their lives Why is that a Gendered issue? Are there no men working in menial jobs that have no work life balance? Or should we just not give a shit about them?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

choppaface 7y ago

Oracle pays women less and got caught: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/18/oracle-women-workers-lawsuit-salaries-pay https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/18/oracle-wo... Microsoft also got “caught”— CEO Satya Nadella made a poorly worded comment that resulted in many women getting raises (so clearly at least some had hard evidence they were getting underpaid): https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/10/10/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-apologizes-for-comments-on-womens-pay/#6a59ebe16d2b https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/10/10/microso... I know of at least 4 cases were female colleagues of mine were getting held to the bottom of the band (or in one case the band was lowered).

neilv 7y ago
Nadella's 2014 comment is horrifying to read just now, considering the long-time backstabbing reputation of the company (at the time; currently improving, at least in PR). Quoting: > It's not about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along... And that, I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don't ask for a raise have. Because that's good karma. It'll come back because somebody's going to know 'that's the kind of person that I want to trust. That's the kind of person I want to really give more responsibility to.' And in the long term efficiency, things catch up. And I wonder… And I’m not saying that’s the only approach. > I wonder whether taking the long-term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of ‘hey, am I getting paid right? Am I getting rewarded right?’ Because reality is your best work is not followed with your best rewards. Your best work then has impact, people recognize it and then you get the rewards so you have to somehow think that through, I think. Had I seen this in 2014, not knowing Nadella, I'm sure it would've sounded to me like a horribly disingenuous attempt by an executive to suppress wages. Also possibly tone-deaf, and not only due to the venue and the context of ongoing exploitation/marginalization of women, but also due to non-gender-specific abusive industry behaviors, including one exposed shortly before then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- saiya-jin 7y ago

mkolodny 7y ago

There was an excellent article posted about this subject a few days ago: "Is it really just sexism? An alternative argument for why women leave STEM" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077603)

kqr 7y ago

> Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. On the contrary: world-wide, poor countries tend to have a larger proportion women in tech (and medicine, and ...). Not because they want to, but because they cannot afford anything but the most high-paying jobs!

austincheney 7y ago

> Women leaving tech are doing so probably because they can afford to. I am considering leaving tech because selective biases play a larger role in hiring and advancement than they used to despite all efforts to the contrary. After talking with other people I am not alone in thinking this. I am willing to leave tech even though I cannot afford to because the hit to my finances is temporary but the barriers to my career from remaining in tech are permanent. Let me discuss selective bias in a bit more detail. When I first started programming candidate qualification was centered around the needs to the business. For example, did a candidate understand the minimum criteria of working in a given technology plus the advanced criteria that harmed user interaction, slowed execution speed, or some other measurable concern. Those days are long gone, at least in high level languages. Now the name of the game is programming fashion. Specifically, does the candidate write code according to a current trend a given team or interviewer wants without regard for any performance or measurable quantum. That change is disruptive but not in a healthy way. In the old days the desirable and rewarded developers were those who performed well, such as writing the best code in the least time. The people on the right side of a bell curve. Replacing that with fashionable and non-measurable factors limits candidate selection to the center of the bell curve, which are people who do not perform as well but are better rewarded for it. If I am willing to abandon a long time tech career even though it will hurt and have found others that share my frustration I can only imagine that perhaps this might be some small factor in why some women might want to leave in general. I suspect this problem has increased despite all efforts to the contrary because all efforts to eliminate hiring/reward bias were typically limited to identity factors that carried provable legal consequences.

ethanbond 7y ago
The reliance on measurable outputs from days of yore was probably not the result of some high minded meritocracy which is now gone, but from building things that needed performance - a need which has now diminished greatly for a large proportion of work. This reduction is simultaneously a result of higher level abstractions, as you say, but also a result of simply more tech in more places that doesn’t really need it. There are still plenty of places that must incentivize quality as a matter of survival, just your friends in the Bay Area won’t “oooh” and “ahhhh” when you tell them you work there.