Women also feel satisfied with compensation at one moment and have no desire to increase their working hours/responsibilities for a meager (if any) improvement in their quality of life (that would appear with higher salary). Men on the other hand, seem to have more of those crazy individuals that waste enormous hours and overachieve despite the meager improvement in quality of life, if we ignore the bragging rights it gives them. Also statistics, and obviously biology.
Not to mention the fact that accomplished women most often have older and more accomplished men as partners, which also removes an incentive for them to make more money.
It is also the case that women do accept part-time work positions (which makes them earn less) more than men.
Is it the patriarchy? Is it Google?
I'm pretty sure it's just the way it is.
In general, Men have a higher diversity in IQ and Risk Taking.
The TL;DR is that Men will have a tendency to take higher risks than women, which is then rewarded more, if it succeeds, however, it is punished more severely when one fails. Punishment generally involved poverty and unemployment.
This doesn't mean women cannot take risks, just that they have a lesser inclination to.
Negotiation for a wage on your job is a form of risk taking, in case of failure you can certainly sour your work relationships which ruins your long-term income projection.
There will be exceptions but they're not the norm.
However - it's entirely possible for the inputs into the algorithm to be skewed based on gender, and that's where I think the systematic gap may appear. A person's salary history can be incredibly gendered - women are less likely to negotiate for their first job (even if it wasn't at Google), and that initial gap can follow them for their entire career. Women are more likely to take time out of the workforce to care for family/children, which can result in lower pay when they return. Other companies known for high counteroffers (for example, Uber) may be biased against women and be less likely to give them a good offer. There are any number of reasons why a woman might have less negotiating leverage against Google than a man, and as long as offers are based on these inputs and not strictly on level and performance, it is easy to see how a gender gap might arise.
I mean, what do you propose should be done to combat this? Should people who put more time into their career not be rewarded more?
Further, you don't even need women to take time out more often from the workforce for there to be a problem. The current Median Age at Marriage for the USA[0] shows that men marry women about ~2 years younger. Assuming that both partners take equal time to care for the family, and assuming both partners started their careers at the same time, the moment the average married couple gets a baby they will skew ~3 career years(~2 + pregnancy) towards the man, until they get close to retirement age. Even if they split the family effort equally, those 3 years on average will still be in favor of the man, accruing more career experience and thus better pay.
How do you propose to fight this issue?
[0] - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s...
I've noticed that many of these complaints about gendered things are arguments for a particular social arrangement (eg, no consequence to a break in career) and not arguments against sexism, as such.
I don't think we shoukd be using equality laws as a bludgeon to effect changes in society outside of things like sexism or racism: that's what causes Trumpian backlashes. Most people are onboard woth fighting sexism; it becomes a mixed bag when talking about proposals like "taking years off should have no result on earnings".
But, if the end result is that a man and a woman doing the exact same job with the same perf ratings at Google are paid differently, because the woman happened to be paid less at her previous job - is that fair?
There is a reason that NYC just outlawed companies asking for salary history.
I just find it dishonest to frame the question as about men and women, as you did just now, if your concern is that people who negotiate a worse first salary are paid less. You're at best co-opting an unrelated issue.
I would say that in answer to your question, it's not fair, just as it wasn't when it happened to two men, but I'm not sure it's something we should change.
I'm also going to say that you should stop framing it as a gender equality issue when it's not -- it's a capitalism implementation issue.
There is some profit opportunity for companies who take advantage of this, but it's not enough to erase the difference.
Consider, for example, how pervasive racial discrimination was (and still is) in business despite the fact that accepting minorities as customers and employees would be financially advantageous.
They'd either be doing a purely altruistic social good righting the injustice of sexist wage discrimination and/or making more money. That both avenues exist, implying enormous incentives, the discriminatory gap should disappear. Why isn't this happening? When Bezos said "Your margin is my opportunity"? Did he secretly imply an asterisk to that statement carving out the unspoken rule that he and his competitors certainly would not compete for the underpaid women labor?
You use the example of racial discrimination. So, is Silicon Valley filled to the brim with sexist hiring managers?
Are there no whistle blowers courageous enough to out their bosses that refused to pay equal rates when confronted with the discrepancies? The tech industry is one of the most progressive... are you telling me these progressive minded people are standing idly by at best or actively carrying out this travesty at worst?
But it doesn't. You can talk about "should" all you want but ultimately you need to look at the world.
I don't have answers to all of your questions. Certainly some companies are being hurt by this, and others take advantage. That doesn't eliminate the problem unless you believe in perfectly efficient markets with no friction, barriers to entry, etc.
Start with the data. See how men and women's pay stacks up. Once you know the outcome, then start asking questions about how it happens. (Note that I'm not saying what answer you'll find, only that you need to find the answer by looking at what happens, rather than making basic economic arguments.)
There are only two possibilities here. Either there is a wage gap, or there is not. If there is not, then you're being awfully strident about something where you could instead just point out "hey, this doesn't actually happen, here are the numbers." And if there is a gap, then your rhetorical questions don't eliminate it, so either the implication is wrong or there's something else going on.
I find arguments from economic efficiency and profit motive to be highly unconvincing. If stuff actually worked that way then you wouldn't have, for example, store brand products next to identical name brand products selling at a higher price, or a million other economically inefficient human behaviors we see.
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
What do we make of this statement, buried somewhat deep in the article (I would have made this the first line of the post):
"Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men."
I've seen similar from other studies, including a Harvard study that gets cited often.
I'm strident because I 100% think this is a political issue. It's gender politics. It's perhaps a lot of things. If the issue doesn't exist (certainly to the extent of "77% gap oh my!"), why do so many people get caught up in proclaiming the issue is a crisis?
I think it is a purposefully divisive issue who's propagation has serious consequences for women who are instilled with the idea they are being actively discriminated against, and who are lectured constantly that the only way they can be respected in modern society is by joining the workforce and being equally as career minded as the average ambitious man.
This social advocacy is perfectly fine. People can have a position on what they think the ideal role of women or men or whoever in society is. But be honest about it. And be tolerant of other viewpoints (namely, that perhaps many women would be happier at home, and those who otherwise would not be highly motivated to move up the corporate ladder shouldn't be shamed into having to do so.)
And damnit, be explicit about what you mean by "gap". Equal job, equal experience, equal "apples to apples" the gap is 2%.
If you don't see the obvious fact that people not explicitly stating the actual gap instead of disingenuously fooling people into believing it is 23%, then you won't understand why I'm strident about the issue. Those pushing it are without question strident about it, are they not?
I don't mind that you're strident about it, I mind that you're strident about pushing a bad argument.
1. Gender (man vs woman)
2. salary expectations (man wants 10% more than woman)
I could hire the woman and pay less because "sexism" or because it increases my profit (nobody knows for sure). My competitor will hire the man because the woman already has a job. Next time my competitor is faster and hires the woman and I'm left with the man and have to pay him 10% more.
We're (I assumed) talking about companies mandating lower wages for women. If the whole argument for some presumptive gender pay gap is that women demand less money, this would:
1) Be fixed by directing all of the ire and heat associated with this topic at the message:
"Women. Demand more money. If there's a gap, this explains it and therefore the power is in your hands." Is the "pay gap" politicized as a "Women aren't asking/expecting to get paid enough money in negotiations. They need to do this. We will work to get women to demand what they are worth."
Or, is it framed as: "America business is sexist. Our modern economy is sexist. Women are ---getting paid--- less than men as a result, and we need to change this." ?
2) Not the responsibility, or "fault" of companies paying wages the market will bear... or if you think it is, you're banging your head against a wall thinking you're going to get economic actors to act against their self interest when the path of least resistance is to get the other side of the transaction to act in theirs.
But since it's a contradiction to think equally qualified, motivated women don't want more money, then we can assume women want to get paid what they can get.
So we're left with the company being the one pushing wages down only on women, but not men. Because they're all sexist. Even the people in this thread who oppose the pay gap.. when it comes time to take part in hiring decisions they put their sexist hat on and line up for the patriarchy.
I leave you with this:
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap
^Here's a strongly sympathetic post in support of the issue of "gender pay gap". They are true believers. Yet, lets look a little closer shall we:
Note how far down the page this little gem is placed:
"Nationally, when we control for job title, job level and other important influencers of wages (like years of work experience), women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men."
98, my friend. Did you realize this whole controversy is over a 2% gap?
The pay gap (as popularly understood) does not exist. The data shows this. It is a political issue, as well as a cultural one, taking a stand on what certain people believe women should do with their life. They should not have to bear the burden of child rearing, and should want to have professional career ambitions equivalent to that of the average man. This is the position taken and pushed by activists concerned with the gender pay gap. One can be open to the viewpoint, like I am, that women should absolutely be encouraged to have a professional career, if they think that is right for them, and be compensated commensurate with their value. I'm not in support of socially mandating that path as the only acceptable, respectable one. I'm certainly not supportive of politicizing the issue of gender differences as it relates to family, career, and relationships etc by fooling people into believing that since "the average per person salary for all women across all jobs across all levels is 77% of the avg for all men across all jobs across all levels" is some economic and social crisis we have to politicize and legislate away. Its a wedge issue to create division.
I'll mention two things: the first is that other studies find that the 2% is closer to 5 or 7%. Still not 23 or 25%, but more significant. The second is that even that 2% number, over a lifetime and with interest is very likely something like an extra year's worth of income. That means retiring a year earlier, which I'd say is very significant.
In a equilibrium model based on perfectly identical, perfectly rational agents, yes.
And in a model of horseracing based on perfect, identical spheres rolling down a perfectly smooth slope, all race results will trend towards the acceleration predicted by g. And yet we observe differences in reality and accept that observable reality, not the model, is correct.
Equilibrium models are useful, but once you add the ability for agents to have varying preferences according to which other agent they are interacting with, you get emergent behaviour that doesn't show up in the original models.
And if your answer is: "They just pay them less."
1) Why? What is the purpose of them doing this?
2) Why don't they also just pay men less as well?
3) Wages trend, in a competitive market, towards marginal productivity of labor. What is preventing competitors in the market for engineers from poaching all of the underpaid yet equally talented women at below market costs, say half the gap Google is assumed to be creating? Surely this would be a clear path towards extra profits, no?