Well, you can't see it. The only people who know someones salary (generally speaking) are the bosses doing the paying, and the employee herself. You must be another employee, because otherwise you'd know for certain.

It seems obvious to say it, but these problems persist because they're largely hidden from view, unless you are the target.

The sad thing is, I can't really do anything about it. I don't know the salaries of any of the women at my work, and even if I did I can't request more money on their behalf, only stand behind them if they are the instigator and they're unfairly refused.

Instead, I decided to just drop my salary amount into conversations sometimes (it's probably middle of the road for developers at my company), so anyone can compare and make their own evaluations based on that. I don't know if thats good idea or not at the moment.

[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/08/internat...

You have provided statistics that show women get paid less than men in technology. But this does not show that women are not getting promoted, or are getting paid less, just because they are women.

Is it not also another plausible hypothesis that they are getting paid less, because, (for example) they make work/life balance choices that focus less on career advancement?

This of course, might indicate that there are other issues to be addressed, with how society structures work/life balance, gender roles etc and this is well trodden ground; but statistics that show women get a lower average (or median) pay do not necessarily show they are getting paid less, "just because they are women".

If "work/life balance choices" is code for "making babies", then yes, but you made have noticed that it's mainly women who have babies. :)

Pay rates until primigravidity are lower for women than men in most industries and (less) low for men than women in a few. After that the "male bonus" increases more than the fertility rates would suggest they ought to. There are lots of conclusions that can be drawn from that, but I think the most obvious one is that employers haggle down women returning to work from childcare, and that from that age women pay a penalty "because they might go and make babies". There's some evidence (comparison with other countries with different patterns of childcare) that this is the case.

I believe women and older candidates get less of a chance at interview because they are seen as less likely to be interested in putting up with that and may disrupt the clubhouse feel of all lads together.

Obviously it's not absolute proof but I know plenty of fellow programmers who've been expected to work 60+ hour weeks on 37.5-hour contracts, where anyone who's reluctant gets shunned by coworkers for not getting into the company spirit and is let go quickly. And those places have been almost all male and mostly under 35.

This is of course not just to the detriment of women, older men and anyone with a family, but also the young men who get manipulated into working hours they're not being paid for.

There is very little evidence suggesting that the problems you describe are a serious problem in coding, so bringing up these hypothetical problems is a bit confusing.

Maybe it's easier to understand the issue if you replace women with another group of people. Imagine if black people, jewish people or LGBT as a group were paid 90% of their counterparts. Does that make it easier to grasp why this is a serious problem.

Lets make it even easier. Would you still feel that it's not a serious problem if white men as a group were discriminated against, were getting less promotions and were paid less than their colleges.

Coding and programming is not a vacuum that exists outside of society.

What would make it easier to grasp that this is a serious problem is if you had evidence it occurred to any significant degree. You are telling me a huge business opportunity exists and no one is exploiting it.

If you can find good women being paid less for doing the same job or who find themselves not getting hired, send them my way. I'd love to hire them myself.

Until you do (or hire them yourself), I'm lumping you in with all the inefficient market crackpots.

You also realize that your link looks at age, but not work experience. I.e., a 35 year old woman who vanished from the workforce at age 28 gets paid less than a man who didn't. Not discrimination. It's lesser pay for lesser experience.