4 ms·

Low sample size has the potential to increase variance, but it isn't necessarily true. Also, you're comparing each group to the average of both groups, but we c

Low sample size has the potential to increase variance, but it isn't necessarily true. Also, you're comparing each group to the average of both groups, but we could instead compare them to an objectively determined value of what that job/role/level is worth to the company, regardless of how it compares to the employee average.

Thorrez 3y ago
Comparing salary to the role's worth has 2 problems: * If you set employees' salaries to how much benefit they give the company, the company's profit will be 0, which will make investors mad. * If the worth to the company is somewhere between the average pays of the genders, this doesn't achieve equality between the genders, which is the whole goal of this, unless you're willing to decrease employees' salaries, which will make employees mad. The current system is the minimum change necessary to achieve gender equality without lowering anyone's salary. Any other design either costs the company more, lowers people's salary, or doesn't achieve equality.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  > If you set employees' salaries to how much benefit they give the company, the company's profit will be 0, which will make investors mad. I don't see how this follows. > If the worth to the company is somewhere between the average pays of the genders, this doesn't achieve equality between the genders, which is the whole goal of this, unless you're willing to decrease employees' salaries, which will make employees mad. In this scenario, all employees within this tuple should theoretically be receiving the same pay. Since it's not related to the average of the group, the company would give raises to those under this figure and would withhold raises from those overpaid until inflation eats up the surplus. You'd do this on an individual basis, so gender doesn't factor in. But it would have the same outcome of equalizing pay among genders.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    >I don't see how this follows. Yeah, it depends on how "benefit to the company" is measured. One way would be to take the company's current revenue minus equipment expenses, and say that was generated by current employees, and thus that's how much the current employees are worth, and divide that between the current employees. So that gives a profit of 0. That ignores a lot of things though, such as value of past employees, value of investments provided by investors, and value that the current employees are producing that will only be realized by future revenue. It's hard to measure. >the company would give raises to those under this figure and would withhold raises from those overpaid until inflation eats up the surplus Yeah, that works, but it's not instantaneous. If you want instantaneous equality you need something else.
    - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
      Generally, looking at the margin better predicts real world behavior. If you add one employee, how much extra revenue would you expect to gain? A reasonable salary = (extra revenue - HR/overhead expenses - the minimum profit the company needs to justify the trouble of adding one employee). If the last term was zero, then there would be no reason for the company to exist, and so it wouldn't exist and neither would the job. But in reality, hiring managers are probably setting this internal rate on what the job market is showing along with how badly they need to fill a position in their particular case.

Thorrez 3y ago

Comparing salary to the role's worth has 2 problems: * If you set employees' salaries to how much benefit they give the company, the company's profit will be 0, which will make investors mad. * If the worth to the company is somewhere between the average pays of the genders, this doesn't achieve equality between the genders, which is the whole goal of this, unless you're willing to decrease employees' salaries, which will make employees mad. The current system is the minimum change necessary to achieve gender equality without lowering anyone's salary. Any other design either costs the company more, lowers people's salary, or doesn't achieve equality.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
> If you set employees' salaries to how much benefit they give the company, the company's profit will be 0, which will make investors mad. I don't see how this follows. > If the worth to the company is somewhere between the average pays of the genders, this doesn't achieve equality between the genders, which is the whole goal of this, unless you're willing to decrease employees' salaries, which will make employees mad. In this scenario, all employees within this tuple should theoretically be receiving the same pay. Since it's not related to the average of the group, the company would give raises to those under this figure and would withhold raises from those overpaid until inflation eats up the surplus. You'd do this on an individual basis, so gender doesn't factor in. But it would have the same outcome of equalizing pay among genders.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  >I don't see how this follows. Yeah, it depends on how "benefit to the company" is measured. One way would be to take the company's current revenue minus equipment expenses, and say that was generated by current employees, and thus that's how much the current employees are worth, and divide that between the current employees. So that gives a profit of 0. That ignores a lot of things though, such as value of past employees, value of investments provided by investors, and value that the current employees are producing that will only be realized by future revenue. It's hard to measure. >the company would give raises to those under this figure and would withhold raises from those overpaid until inflation eats up the surplus Yeah, that works, but it's not instantaneous. If you want instantaneous equality you need something else.
  - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    Generally, looking at the margin better predicts real world behavior. If you add one employee, how much extra revenue would you expect to gain? A reasonable salary = (extra revenue - HR/overhead expenses - the minimum profit the company needs to justify the trouble of adding one employee). If the last term was zero, then there would be no reason for the company to exist, and so it wouldn't exist and neither would the job. But in reality, hiring managers are probably setting this internal rate on what the job market is showing along with how badly they need to fill a position in their particular case.