4 ms·
This presupposes a lot of pretty nasty things. It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously
by pc86 2y ago
This presupposes a lot of pretty nasty things. It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case. That lack of equity (which is equality of outcome, not opportunity) is itself a problem and not simply a byproduct of different people being different. That when your entire sample size is 622, you can make broad generalizations based on the pay of ~37 of them. Even if you can, it also assumes that your salary in your job is based on objective set criteria and not a) whether you negotiate, b) how hard you negotiate, c) whether you have a BATNA that makes you need the job less, d) whether you had breakfast that morning or were more tired than normal or were coming down with a cold or any number of a myriad of other things that could affect a high-stakes negotiation.
The pay gap as a systemic issue (for equal work for equal hours with equal qualifications) has been debunked a thousand times over. But while it's certainly possible (likely?) that some individual companies have a racially or gender-driven pay gap, it's a far stretch to assume that the NYT is one of them.
Equality of opportunity is good, giving people a leg up early in their lives when they've been disadvantaged, regardless of their race or gender, is good. "Equity" for the sake of it is racist.
- darby_nine 2y ago> It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case. Obviously? A newspaper is exactly the kind of business to hire based on your personal narrative (including 100% of protected class intersections). That's the entire point of the opinion column. Granted, I don't think that the folks being discussed here are publishing any personal opinions, and I doubt the times is doing anything legally actionable or we would have heard about it, but the idea that they don't consider these factors just because it's illegal is laughable.
- pc86 2y agoYeah I didn't phrase it very well, what I meant was that you're not applying for any old job on the tech team. You apply for a specific job, presumably one you're qualified for that would be a step up in your career. If you look at a very small sample of people and one racial minority or gender has all the "lower" jobs, that doesn't tell you what jobs they were "offered" it just tells you what jobs they applied for.
- darby_nine 2y agoI'm pretty conflicted answering this. On one hand reporting is miserable; on the other hand it's virtually impossible to exclude bias in hiring, especially if the hiring requires skills that people pay to learn.
- keeganpoppen 2y agoman the downvotes on this thread are all over the place-- people need to take a long, hard look in the mirror about what discourse they actually tolerate, vs what they tell themselves... it's absurd. at best this comment is mildly combative, but it doesn't seem like OP took it personally, as they shouldn't have, but yet... downvote city. it's especially bizarre because i couldn't even tell you what ideological trigger shibboleth is being triggered here, even...
- pc86 2y agoI try not to talk about voting on here per the guidelines, but it is pretty interesting to me the cross-section of completely legitimate, valid viewpoints that will get obliterated if they're mentioned on the wrong thread. Like everyone else I'm predisposed to think my particular ideology is slightly more persecuted than the other one but it doesn't even seem to be liberal v. conservative, authoritarian v. libertarian, or Democrat vs. Republican. I'm sure the initial thread topic has something to do with it and I do recall dang saying they keep an eye a little more closely on threads that are particularly political. I'd be curious to see an analysis of downvoted comments in political threads and what their general ideological bent was.