We have a free labour market, if it was true that NYT underpaid Black workers for the same productivity, they could easily jump ship to other company and make more $$.

What is stopping “black people” from escaping the supposed inequality at NYT and making more money elsewhere ????

You've attempted to explain away pay gaps by saying it's because of lower roles and/or lower productivity, but that's just the same problem with an extra step. Why are they in lower roles? Why are they assessed as less productive? Are they inherently dumb/lazy/bad, or are we just back to "the pay gap exists because of biases" again?

> What is stopping “black people” from escaping the supposed inequality at NYT and making more money elsewhere ????

Black NYT employees are likely very well aware that the biases they encounter are not unique to the NYT.

this is not a question of labor-corporation negotiation, this is more of sociology/economics question. I have my own theory, but people don't like the bitter truth opinions here for some reason.

> Black NYT employees are likely very well aware that the biases they encounter are not unique to the NYT.

thats another bull presented without proofs. Talented Black engineers are so rare, all big tech/FAANGS are actively hunting them and throwing money at them. Its never been more financially rewarding as ever than to be high performing Black engineer at big tech.

The fact that the situation is as GP described is undeniable. But there can be reasons why things are this way that extend beyond what the racists of yore believed about genetics. Most obviously: Not all subgroups of white people are equally represented in tech either. (When was the last time you were in a team where the majority hailed from Appalachia?)

But actual investigation and remediation can't begin until we can first point at reality and describe it as it currently is.

Rather than "talented engineers can already be hard to find, now divide that by 20".

I think it’s a totally different problem. The problem no longer is about how group X is compensated for doing job Y, but why group X is doing job Y in the first place.

Anyone who has applied for a job knows that switching companies isn’t free, as it would be in a “free market”. There’s any number of outside factors that could prevent it. And switching too often is also viewed negatively, which is not true of e.g. shares of Amazon.

And it’s almost tautological: people who are good at playing organizational games succeed in the organization. Actually measuring engineering productivity isn’t solved at all.

Do we? Your spelling suggests you're not from the US, so I wonder how familiar you are with market conditions. Gotta say your arguments here and above come off as a little shallow.

Do you have a reason to believe the labor market is not free? Like do tech workers in NYT experience slavery/involuntary labor or industry gatekeeping of some sort?

You don't want to be stuck under a bad boss, do you? or do you want to take a gamble that each manager will be perfect (manager can change without your control as well due to restructuring)?

if Corporation treats employees as a perfectly replaceable unit of a Human Resource, then I will treat them as a fungible unit of a Job Description

Take one factor, women earn less because of mid-career halts due to having children, like the father didn't also have a child. Women bear the brunt because we're expected to be the primary caregivers, and this hurts men too due to the "father babysitting his kids" problem of considering the father's involvement as secondary.

You can say this isn't a problem for her employer to solve but as long as we have no intention of upsetting the standard nuclear family gender roles men and women taking the default life path shouldn't consistently make one worse off than the other.

More broadly, once we start dividing "People" up into groups like "Black" "White" "Man" "Woman"; isn't a bit silly to think the groups won't expect and want and do different things? Like even if we assign people literally at random (and 'Race' isn't much different than this); wouldn't differences emerge?

If we defined the "groups" in a less historically informed way, we'd still have differences.

I think it's very easy to overstate how much those things are genuine differences in preference/ability. Allowing no-fault divorce dropped female suicide rates by 20%; were they happy in those marriages, or enduring them? Would they choose differently if offered the same opportunity?

Its just that American lawmakers don't value traditional American family, they'd rather woman have an abortion, instead of subsidized childcare and 12+ months of paid family leave.

This is not a gender issue, this is the issue of American elites refusing to provide incentives to working American families.

Remember, most of the American societal "struggles" across artificial wedge lines (straight vs gay, male vs female, democrat vs republican, pro-choice vs pro-life, coastal vs rural, etc etc) => are artificially created by the mainstream media and Uniparty in the DC to leech taxes from working families and selectively prop up one side of the struggle, so that another side is outraged and fought the other.

There is only one struggle in America: rich rentiers on Investment income/Trust funds vs Working class on W2 income.

everything else is distraction

> Its just that American lawmakers don't value traditional American family, they'd rather woman have an abortion, instead of subsidized childcare and 12+ months of paid family leave.

I'd be surprised if any federal elected official was on record with a position as ghoulish as this. I think the diversity of opinion on "what do we do about childbearing" is broader than "American lawmakers... would rather women have an abortion". At least the right is pushing a lot of incentives to make women staying home to raise children economically feasible again, and the left is really trying to figure out the care economy. There's a lot of hot button cultural stuff entwined with all of this, but also a rich policy discussion happening underneath.

And I don't think it's crazy for individuals who dedicate more of their life to work to make more money those who don't.

my position is each wife's gender gap is compensated by husband's gender gap, and on balance it all comes down to individual choices, division of labor at household level.

Using motherhood as a wedge issue between genders is an artificial issue that ignores incomes and choices at the household level.

Time to turn off the “Leave it to Beaver” reruns, I think.

I don't think there is any real agency there. That said I also don't think parenthood is the root of the issue.

Of course, I've been in a bad marriage myself, so I understand how someone can make a really poor decision about their marriage partner (esp. when young!), but it seems to me that a lot of people are in lousy marriages, and are only still in them because it's easier to put up with a crappy partner, especially when you have kids, than to divorce and try to deal with the huge challenges that life as a divorced parent presents. I suspect many, many people (primarily women) are just waiting until the kids are out of the house until they finally end their marriages.

All in all, this makes me wonder how viable traditional marriage as an institution really is any more.

Yes it should — if they’re making choices at a different rate.

That is, if men who take similar time off experience similar hardship and it simply happens to be that women prefer to stay home with the kids more often, there is literally no problem.

We don’t need to “fix” biology to fit our ideology: that’s backwards.