Yeah, I've gone through and scanned that BLS report you linked to (actually you didn't, you linked to Forbes, but this is what they were talking about): https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf
It doesn't say what you think it does at all. This isn't a study of men vs. women working identical jobs and doing less work, this is a finding that across the entire workforce, a men's "work day" is somewhat longer than a woman's. Which is to say: Women are more likely to work part time jobs.
Please stop trying to mislead people.
From your link on the very first page:
> However, even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women—8.2 hours compared with 7.8 hours. (See table 4.)
Like I said this is an ~5% difference. If you don't like this particular study the results have been replicated dozens of times across a wide range of industries.
If you have some evidence that full time male tech workers work fewer hours than full time female tech workers I'd love to see it.
You can't see how working extra hours can increase productivity enough to warrant a small increase in pay?
Could you distill the overall argument?
Comparing two individuals based on hours worked is different to looking at populations.
And we aren't talking about 60-80 hour weeks (burnout zone).
Unless you are arguing women as a group are significantly more efficient compared to men?
What you did is go out through the whole world of statistics to find one value that kinda/sorta "fixes" this inconvenient finding in the direction you want. That's just baldly ridiculous cherry picking, and you should be ashamed.
You on the other hand are trying to draw conclusions that aren't backed by the data.
What you are doing is saying "No, I don't think the conclusion should be what the data says", and then you're going out and finding ("cherry picking") different data about related but not identical subjects that appears to contradict it.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to make a numeric argument here. And you're doing it with extraordinarily bad analysis.
Summary with a link to the research paper, which is really good science as demonstrated with experimentation and doesn't try to sell a narrative, BTW. Worth the read. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-resea...
"New research by ILR School professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn finds an eight percent gender wage gap that cannot be accounted for, even after controlling for observable variables that influence workers’ pay.
Gender discrimination in the workplace COULD be a cause, they suggest."
The data shows there is a difference in pay.
Underpaid means less pay for the same work.
That's not the same thing. Not even close.
In fact it is intentionally misleading.
Believe what you want. Just like climate change denial, there's enough uncertainty in these numbers to make any level of ostrich-headery justifiable. I just want to know why no one ever manages to show data that is "wrong" in the other direction...
Also, starving people of hours is just as effective at reducing costs as lowering the hourly. I don't think it's in your favor to argue that's something that should be controlled.
Are they?
From what I have seen the consensus is:
An overall small 3-6% wage gap after accounting for basic life choices.
Women under 30 + childless women significantly out-earning women with children + older women.
Women under 30 + childless women have almost no wage gap and in many industries are out-earning their male peers.
Life is rough for the bottom 50% of earners - male and female.
What exactly do you think the stats show?
> and the jobs that are heavily weighted towards women do not pay nearly as much.
Why are you talking about women like they are objects without agency?
My friends in game design work harder than I do and earn half what I earn.
They made a trade-off and work in a more interesting and rewarding job that pays less.
They certainly aren't oppressed and discriminated against.
Now this isn't really true at the bottom end of the scale. But it is for the middle class and up.
I do consider 3-6% damning.
If you only compare women to other women, of course you won't see a wage gap; you can blame it all on the individual.
It's this willingness to value personal views of the world to minimize the facts that allows the gap to continue. Do you really think you can reason about systemic discrimination by looking at the individual? That's as ineffable as wondering why some people win the lotto; individuals are dominated by noise, and you only see the disparity in aggregate.
Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap?
You do realise the gap is just the "unexplained by standard corrections" and not "% due to sexism" right?
> Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap?
I care that you are using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
At no point did I state I thought the wage gap is entirely due to sexism. although, I do argue it is evident sexism; I believe that still requires argument on your part that it's clearly not.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with different life choices leading to different outcomes, since the same is true within genders! That is, there's nothing sexist about that fact.
The truth is the people advocating for equalizing pay when the sexes make different choices are arguing for sexism, not against sexism.
If it's not baseless, presumably you have something to offer.
However, without evidence, you are most likely wrong. Does that wrongness amount to sexism? Hard to say; my inclination says yes since you're referring to shuffling hundreds of dimensions defining employment into "life choices". Yes, that is probably a factor; culture is a powerful force. But it's also probably not the only factor; there are likely myriad explanations. Are you blind to that, or just dismissive?
A difference on that magnitude can easily be something about aggregate behavior correlated to sex, an uncontrolled for variable, or just random chance.
So let me ask you: do you have any evidence that 3-6% gap is the result of sexism instead of merely being a fact correlated to sex? (Particularly if we were to confine the data to people under 40, to control for historical biases that take time to age out.)
However, there is abundant evidence that there's a systemic divide in opportunities. This is easy to see in the aggregate and particular. That is the interesting thing in itself: if we could be assured that the gap could sexist solely for life choices, this wouldn't be an interesting topic. That's a devilishly hard thing to argue for, however, so id prefer to move forward as a society assuming that we can do more to expose opportunities to everyone, assure that people are protected in their right to follow opportunities, and that we can demonstrate the effect of the policies at moving toward an ideal of equal pay.
If we can't move towards that, perhaps our ideal, well, isn't what society wants. I doubt that we've even approached that level of confidence in our support of communities subject to subtle bias difficult to divorce from "life choices".
That being said, I think we should generally imrpove sexist behavior and systems, which hurt both sexes (albeit, in different ways).
I just think the "wage gap" is one of the least sexist fascets of modern society (if at 3-6%), and mostly represents people perpetuating a misunderstanding of statistics. So in that way, I feel like people are over-solving a mostly solved problem, which seems likely to lead to more sexism, not less.
I think that effort spent on fixing the larger issues are also likely to stabilize remaining issues with wages, and we would all be better served focusing on the large gaps in other statistics instead of the small one here.
That said, Im always happy to see new statistics that tell me Im full of shit, so if you find what you're looking for, please post it.
Otherwise, have a good night! :)
Are the programmers in question being paid by the hour? Does programmer pay within each gender correlate closely to hours worked?
All the academic studies I have seen either adjust for it explicitly or put forward a strong case on why it isn't being included.
I'd argue it's a more logical and likely explanation than sexism though.
Why is it a foregone conclusion that the majority of women in this population worked fewer hours? A forbes study which averages across a large canvas of american workers is not a very good thing to compare to glassdoor's targetted subsection.
But by not controlling for it you reduce the studies explanative powers.
You don't get to just ignore it because it is convenient.
It doesn't even pass the "more likely than not" standard of evidence.
It also seems to me that that signal would show up weakly in the data because it wouldn't vary the immediate effect on apples-to-apples salary, only on promotions and possibly referrals.
So I think your complaint is specious and the inclusion of a totally unrelated data point from a radically different dataset is either very misguided or profoundly disingenuous.
Yes. And this makes any kind of data analysis a lot harder.
On paper I work the same number of hours as my Japanese coworkers. In reality they work more than double.
It's the same way on-call for many companies is just rolled into salary.
I've managed projects as a senior dev while the senior dev sitting next to me was purely technical. Etc etc.
The truth is two senior devs sitting right next to each other can have wildly different actual job duties.
I suspect glassdoor has taken at least some of those differences in work duties vs stated title into account.
> because it wouldn't vary the immediate effect on apples-to-apples salary,
Why wouldn't it?
Its not uncommon to stay at a certain level/title for 3-5 years.
You can't just ignore hours worked because "salary".
I come from a strong union background where you would get overtime or be able to take the time off later and where there were fairly rigid job duties. Where interviews and scoring candidates is all done in a very standardised fashion.
And oddly enough after adjusting for these explicit factors we had a very small unexplained gender pay gap. Much smaller than average for the tech industry.
Perhaps it's in our interest to make these factors explicit rather than implicit?
Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. What's more, you keep assuming that there aren't counter-examples in this dataset at all. It's just a given to you: "I read on Forbes that across all Americans women work slightly less per week" and brought that to this conversation.
But in this industry long hours are the norm, single people without family duties are the majority, and many compensation models very much incentivize long hours.
> You can't just ignore hours worked because "salary".
Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do.
> Much smaller than average for the tech industry.
The average pay bracket difference is indeed smaller. However, it's still large enough for concern, and the other issues I listed around work culture are problems that disadvantage women more than men in modern society.
> Perhaps it's in our interest to make these factors explicit rather than implicit?
I am always in favor of transparency and more analysis but I will not let ANY interpretation of the specific data we have on hand be constantly forced off on the grounds that we could collect better data.
Saying, "Women get paid less, let's make sure that's not happening" is a call to action, not an accusation leveled at anyone specifically. If women in your organization aren't being paid less, congrats. Job done.
Let's be clear: You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation on the grounds that it might not be happening everywhere, or that statistics might not be what popular media claims they are. That's counterproductive and frankly unwelcome. If that's your take, your take stifles the discussion here.
We can simultaneous recognize that tech is a more complicated compensation environment and also that women are reporting under-compensation. We're all adults capable of multi-tasking.
> Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do.
We are clearly having communication issues and I'm not sure how you are addressing what I'm talking about.
My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay.
> You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation
If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.
It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.
> and also that women are reporting under-compensation.
The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.
It could be a problem worth addressing if the gap was driven by sexism.
It could be a problem worth addressing if the small pay gap was a major contributor to women leaving the industry.
It could be a problem if the small pay gap was a strong contributor to women not entering the field.
It could be a problem if we we were seeing a rapidly widening gap.
Etc etc.
But you have to actually make a case.
And I'm telling you this is not a foregone conclusion.
> If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.
No. It should include both the initial position and the specific cases that inspired it and then move to a broader case. This is not customer service, these are people's lives.
> It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.
Are you suggesting that the decision to pay women equally, carefully audit corporate promotions, and firmly and directly punish racist and sexist harassment are actually open for debate? Is there an outcome where we might say, "Oh no, actually it's correct to pay women less for equal work?"
> The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.
How many individual women need to risk their careers explaining unconscionable behavior by their managers and employers HR departments before you're satisfied anyone anywhere is allowed to have this conversation? You should put that number out there.
> But you have to actually make a case.
You may not realize you're doing this, but you're actually interfering with everyone's ability to make a case by derailing every conversation and making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.
Look at you. You're here because marketing copy for an event triggered you. You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.
You are broadening the conversation to look at sexism in broader society.
Let's stick to the specifics here.
> making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.
Nonsense. Most rigorous wage gap studies control for a lot more than the GlassDoor study.
The particular data (working hours) that I'm saying should have been included is straightforward to measure and collect.
> You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.
A swing and a miss. It's like you aren't even trying to read what I'm writing.
No. No. No sheepmullet. You've been broadening the scope from unrelated articles to Japanese work culture whenever it suits you. It's too late for you to go, "HEY I WAS RIGHT IN THIS LIMITED CONTEXT."
Unbelievable.
> Nonsense. Most rigorous wage gap studies control for a lot more than the GlassDoor study.
Yes, because the include many more hourly, tipped and commission-based jobs. The Glassdoor dataset has almost none of those.
> The particular data (working hours) that I'm saying should have been included is straightforward to measure and collect.
Salaried jobs don't collect the data, and that's the majority of Glassdoor's data.
> A swing and a miss. It's like you aren't even trying to read what I'm writing.
Given your prior attestation you are not broadening scope despite mentioning Japan's dangerously broken work culture as a pole star, I'm wondering if YOU are reading what you're writing.
And given the moderation, you're not doing such a swell job convincing people here.
In my opinion, the problem is twofold. First of all, this gap - whatever you think it is, 6% or 9% or 21% - it is a problem. Most Americans live pretty close to financial ruin, like it or not. 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck [1] and 63% of Americans are one missed paycheck away from the streets [2]. A 6% pay gap is about two paychecks. Even though it may not seem like much to a HN reader with significant savings or a safety net, this small gap spread across the whole population actually causes problems.
The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves, or the people doing the hiring, but sexism and biases hidden everywhere. In my opinion, this is the best support for affirmative action: more women doing a certain job translates to more women interested in that career.
These two things combined are a double whammy that currently mean that less women work and women who do work are not always financially secure - and that's the big problem here. If you're a woman from an upper class background and have been encouraged by those around you, you may never experience any of these problems, and that's great. But if you're an average American woman, these things have a very real impact on your life.
This also explains the giant gulfs of opinion I see here on HN. Most people here are relatively wealthy - remember, if you earn more than 36k a year, you earn more than most working Americans. $70k/yr means you earn more than 75% of American workers. I'd bet the vast majority of US programmers on here earn above 70k/yr. It's easy to get caught in a bubble and say 'well the women around me seem to have no problems!' and forget about the majority of the country. At the same time, if you live in a low-income area, those two "missed" paychecks might be absolutely killer.
[0] I have a personal, unfounded feeling that it's closer to 10% - maybe 8-9% if I had to guess.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
[2] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-payc...
I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful.
It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged.
Instead, looking at it from the women's side, perhaps it is men that are overly encouraged to do certain things. For example, men are highly overrepresented in prisons compared to women, and that's not good.
That might be an extreme example, but the fact is that many studies show that men care more about careers that make money, while women care more about making a positive difference in the world (obviously, both only on average). Given that, perhaps society pushes men too much towards tech and finance and so forth. It would be better if we nudged men instead towards nurturing professions, where you help people every day, like nursing or teaching.
In other words, society influences both genders in various ways. Any difference could be either women pushed one way or men pulled the other.
> I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful.
> It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged.
Additionally, it seems implicit in the GP's POV that money (or higher pay) is necessarily the better end goal, rather than caring for others or improving society. What if money isn't the most appropriate proxy of value and worth?
(And to be clear, I wouldn't agree with using that to "whitewash" paying someone less because "their pay should be their enjoyment")
To say women are discouraged from taking higher paying positions takes away a woman's agency. Perhaps they made an educated decision?
From the glassdoor wage gap study you mentioned in [2]:
> After taking into account differences in education and experience, men working at tech companies overall make 5.9 percent more than women do
From a brief scan of the study they didn't control for hours worked and they are already down to 5.9%
Since full-time men work 5% longer than full-time women[3] just adjusting for hours worked almost entirely eliminates the gap.
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-repo...
Edit: Sorry I put the overall adjusted US pay gap of 5.4% when I meant to put the adjusted tech pay gap of 5.9% from the glassdoor study.