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.
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.