If women are getting paid less for the same work, that's wrong. But I sense this is not what's happening here: we are paid less for whatever the reason and we are suing google for it because there's this new religion, that's having a huge bias against discrimination.
I'm sick of seeing this everywhere. Well f that. I'll have 15 children and my wife will stay at home all the time. Our civilisation survived because this was the healthy family model for thousands of years, I'm not participating for this sick liberal experiment any more.
Here is a clue for everyone: you aren't paid according to the value you bring.
You are either paid according to some pseudo-arbitrary schedule or you are paid what you can be had for. Unless Google has a secret pay penalty for females, the problem here is women being willing to work for less. No lawsuit is needed to correct that.
These large corporations only want a more female and diverse workforce because they have the perception that they can pay these groups less than their white male counterparts. They claim what they're doing is completely egalitarian, but in reality they abhor the idea of equal pay. Just look at the recent spat with Satya Nadella:
When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the same role at the company.
I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they should have different titles.
Is there any evidence that would convince you that Google is not being honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have.
Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises much more than men:
Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really uncontroversial fact.
These large corporations only want more female and diverse workforce because they have the perception that they can pay these groups less than their white male counterparts. They claim what they're doing is completely egalitarian, but in reality they abhor the idea of equal pay. Just look at the recent spat with Satya Nadella:
Well intentioned ideologies do not inherently produce a non-negative outcome. Negative outcomes are very much a possibility, particularly when views are flawed. And so at some point any ideology that is not extremely well supported by data should be challenged, even if that ideology is the nicest most well intentioned one in the world. Google's recent pay study is one little microcosm that demonstrates this. Under fire for the widely perceived belief that females are underpaid for doing the same work as males, Google engaged in substantial data crunching and analysis to correct any inequities. It turns out they were underpaying their male employees.
Why might this be? We already answered this. There is a widely held belief that females are underpaid for doing the same work as males. This may be true in some instances, but it's certainly nothing like a universal truth. But you can see even on these forums that many Google employees do treat it as something approaching a universal truth, many even refusing to belief it was false following Google's analyses. And so when a manager has discretionary funds to distribute, whom is he going to prefer? People, generally, want to do the right thing. And so in the pursuit of equality, you end up creating inequality. These sort of paradoxical outcomes are not uncommon.
Declaring that a view is not well supported by evidence, even when that view is nice, is not 'attacking'.
So you have an explanation why women earn less (which you believe - not sure if that is the correct one), but you still believe in discrimination? How does that add up?
I really wish they would quit promulgating this because it's actually counterproductive:
"women face continued pay disparity"
Seeing this statement tells me immediately that the author is grinding an ax.
In some fields of engineering (EE, for example), women actually get paid more (104% last I checked). And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay disparities in most tech fields almost disappear.
Complaining about discrimination or harassment? Sure, go for it. Lack of child care and having undue burden with family health issues? The stats back you up.
However, attempting to promulgate something which is not true hurts the overall movement when there is so much that is true and needs to be fixed.
This is not Reddit. You first need to show evidence that women are paid 60% of what men are paid for the same jobs. Once you can’t (because the evidence says the opposite) you then need to show evidence that women choose jobs and make career choices different from men because of cultural reasons. Once you can’t do that either because the evidence shows the opposite then you’ll need to adjust your beliefs in light of the evidence like a proper reasonable person. After which you can stop telling all women their decisions to live life differently from men makes them inferior to men. It’s both hateful to men and women when you do that.
I'm reminded of the story in 2019 when Google researched pay discrepancies internally and found it was actually underpaying more men than women for doing similar jobs:
Paying them equal to what the men get might be enough, since the last time people did a comparison, women at Google earned less. (It's possible this is fixed now, but since they aren't open with salary numbers, people assume it's not.)
Women are getting paid measurably less, even by Google at the moment. There are a few decades of underpaid women's salaries to make up for before we can call it even.
In Germany, a "study" is often cited saying that men were better paid than women. However, peer review uncovered that the media covering this study omitted the fact that the women also worked less hours than men and thus got less money (obviously).
This however does not stop "female-rights-activists" from citing it over and over again. I'm sick of it.
I also don't like the notion that women are portraied as victims here. Most women I know don't want to go into tech-jobs because they think it's fucking boring. Live with it, people!
I know it's also due to socialization, but do we really want to change the entire society just to shoehorn exactly 50% in our employee statistics? Who benefits from this?
I know no woman who is sad because she just can't get hold in a tech job. If a woman is passionate about something, and pursues it, it will work out for her. Same with men of course.
Oh, and why don't people go berserk because we have like 96% women as educators (kindergartens, pre-schools, ...). Oh yeah, right, I know, because you can't earn as much money with that.
You're asking me to explain something that may not even be true. According to the article, your scenario is not reality:
> When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
> Under fire for the widely perceived belief that females are underpaid for doing the same work as males, Google engaged in substantial data crunching and analysis to correct any inequities. It turns out they were underpaying their male employees.
It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk.
Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point.
Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women and men less.
Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.
I'm sick of seeing this everywhere. Well f that. I'll have 15 children and my wife will stay at home all the time. Our civilisation survived because this was the healthy family model for thousands of years, I'm not participating for this sick liberal experiment any more.
reply