The Only Woman on Snap's Board Makes Significantly Less Than the Men | Hacker News Reader

The Only Woman on Snap's Board Makes Significantly Less Than the Men

fortune.com

27 pointssethbannon28 comments

Since when did Fortune put out such clickbait headlines? The article does not talk about what Joanna Coles' role at Snap is, how much involvement she has in day-to-day or strategic long-term planning, or numerous other factors that would determine a salary and stock-option grants. All it does is say that she makes less than someone else.

The headline should be "One person makes less than other people". Unfortunately, that wouldn't get any clicks or reinforce the simplified narrative that women make less than men.

Women do in fact make less than men. This isn't just a narrative, it's observable reality.

Unless you believe women in aggregate contribute less to society and therefore ought to make less than men do, the wage gap is a real problem that needs fixing.

> Women do in fact make less than men.

This argument has been rehashed to death. There are multiple studies, all adjusting for different variables.

The original comment's point is fair, in that the headline is clickbait, in that it associates this particular person's lesser pay with her gender, by singling it out.

It'd be equivalent to saying "only woman in company of 10 makes less than everybody else" without mentioning her level of experience or duties.

She is in fact the only woman on the board and she does in fact make less than all the other board members who are men. The headline suggests that Snap isn't doing well on the leadership diversity front, and they back that up with facts.

As for your argument that different studies adjust for different variables, that's irrelevant. My argument wasn't that individual women or women in specific jobs earn less than men do, it was that women in aggregate (meaning: all adult women) earn less in total. By adjusting for different variables you can only conclude that the wage gap is justified (e.g. because women on average have less demanding jobs, work fewer hours, whatever) not that the wage gap doesn't exist. So the level of experience or the duties of the woman on the Snap board is totally irrelevant here, because even if there are reasons for why she earns less that doesn't change the fact that she does earn less and that therefore Snap contributes to the wage gap.

>Unless you believe women in aggregate contribute less to society and therefore ought to make less than men do, the wage gap is a real problem that needs fixing.

From your argument, based on decisions women make, they contribute less to the company, and ought to make less than men do.

Therefore, the wage gap is not a problem isn't a problem that needs fixing. Stop dog whistling.

You misunderstand. Studies about the wage gap look for reasons why companies compensate women less, and how much those different factors contribute to the gap. Research on the wage gap doesn't conclude that these causal factors morally justify the wage gap, because they don't.

> Studies about the wage gap look for reasons why companies compensate women less

You're really begging the question here. You're assuming that companies do pay the women less regardless of their contributions to the company. As I have said before, there are dozens of studies out there, and you can find evidence for and against the existence of a non-justified gender wage gap.

> Research on the wage gap doesn't conclude that these causal factors morally justify the wage gap, because they don't.

That doesn't make sense. If adjusting factors for contributions to the company reduce the wage gap to zero, there is no wage gap and there is no moral justification needed.

Identifying reasons for the wage gap doesn't make the wage gap go away. The gap is still there because women still earn less. So unless you believe women are worth less than men the wage gap is a problem.

Yes, women, in aggregate, earn less money than men. The reasons are well documented and boil down to "women make choices that end up costing them income potential".

Women do make different choices, but that doesn't mean they therefore ought to make less money. Women only ought to make less if they contribute less to society than men do in aggregate, and I think the contribution of men and women is equal. Women do a lot of unpaid and supportive labor that is just as important for society to function, we just choose not to compensate women financially for this work.

What types of work are highly paid and which work is unpaid is not decided by nature (or by markets) but by our politics. Politics that stem from an age where women had practically no rights.

I think this is a fundamentally warped view of how society actually functions. When a woman drops out of the job market to raise children or care for a sick relative, depending on her husband's income to feed and clothe herself, she's being compensated for what she's doing even if she isn't getting a W-2. If they divorce she's entitled to ongoing support and half of the assets purchased with "his" income.

Furthermore, the idea that free people who make choices about their lives should all make the same amount of money flies in the face of common sense. A rig diver makes a lot more money than a preschool teacher, and he should, given the work he does is physically demanding, dangerous, and damaging to his body. If the government decreed everyone should be paid the same wage what you'd have is two preschool teachers and no rig divers.

Women are not actually fully compensated for the loss of income during pregancy/caretaking, which is one reason why women are far more likely than men to slide into poverty when they're old. Child-rearing is necessary for society to function, so why should women be financially punished for it?

People with more dangerous or more demanding jobs should get more compensation. I never said otherwise. Your suggestion that preschool teachers choose that job because it's financially appealing, is absurd. People choose their careers for many reasons, expected earnings being only one factor. It "just so happens" that women-majority occupations have lower compensation.

It's always interesting to see what kind of convoluted arguments people come up with to justify wealth and wages in society flowing disproportionately towards men, even though women do 50% of the labor (and 100% of the other labor).

>Women are not actually fully compensated for the loss of income during pregancy/caretaking, which is one reason why women are far more likely than men to slide into poverty when they're old.

Or it could be they are fully compensated for that lack of income and they're more likely slide into poverty because they live longer than men.

>It "just so happens" that women-majority occupations have lower compensation.

And they could do other things. It's been three generations since women were excluded from professions because they were women. Everybody finds a situation that works for them based on their talents and the opportunities they have. Women work fewer hours than men, refuse to commute as far, and avoid lucrative fields in favor of something they find more rewarding in other ways.

I'm okay with that, but I don't have much sympathy when they complain about money, either.

>It's always interesting to see what kind of convoluted arguments people come up with to justify wealth and wages in society flowing disproportionately towards men, even though women do 50% of the labor (and 100% of the other labor).

By which you don't like people pointing out your mental model for society and the economy are hopelessly oversimplified.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure women do 50% of the labor? It's not like there are any reliable statistics on the subject.

> By which you don't like people pointing out your mental model for society and the economy are hopelessly oversimplified.

That the wage gap is a real and serious problem is actually the scientific consensus. The wage gap has been studied for decades in dozens of countries. I'm not defending a contrarian position here, just the mainstream scientific view that labor compensation favors men.

> Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure women do 50% of the labor?

This is pretty well researched. See for instance:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/chapter4.pdf

You'll see that paid + unpaid minutes worked per day are about the same for each gender, but women do way more unpaid work and men do way more paid work.

>That the wage gap is a real and serious problem is actually the scientific consensus.

That's not true at all. That the wage gap is real and a serious problem is a political consensus among feminists.

>You'll see that paid + unpaid minutes worked per day are about the same for each gender, but women do way more unpaid work and men do way more paid work.

Surveys about hours worked say nothing at all about productivity. I'm willing to concede women spend as much time working as men. But so what? That's not the same thing as saying they do 50% of the labor.

>even though women do 50% of the labor

[citation needed]

>Women do in fact make less than men.

If they do then why don't employers hire women only since it's cheaper?

Here, have some reading material:

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-wage-gap-myth-that-won...

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

Also, check out Factual Feminist on youtube.

A lot of companies get pressured to have a diverse board, which means that the women and minorities on the board might not be expected to do anything besides being diverse. So it makes sense that Snap doesn't have to pay them as much.

> So unless you believe women are worth less than men the wage gap is a problem.

You really don't understand logic do you? Do you think that everybody should be paid equally? People who contribute less will get paid less and that's not a problem.

Women, who biologically generally have to take time off work for childbirth, do not contribute to the company during that time. In that case the woman is worth less to the company and should get paid less.

Not quite sure if you're trolling here, since this is a simple and abundantly clear point.

> Do you think that everybody should be paid equally?

I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this.

Regarding childbirth: since earnings are determined by politics, biology has nothing to do with it.

It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) and therefore ought to get less money. That's why you don't have a problem with the wage gap. It's not an uncommon view, but plainly sexist.

> but plainly sexist.

I don't see how it's sexist at all, but your insinuations are cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance and indefensible position, unless you mean sexist in a way that's morally neutral. For instance, men on aggregate have more upper body strength than women. Is that sexist?

> It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work)

Do not put words into my mouth. I believe that women, due to a combination of factors, such as cultural and biological factors, go into professions that don't get paid as well and don't advance quite as far into those professions.

They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Companies do. If you're not contributing to the company, they don't pay you.

> They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks.

Society determines how wealth is divided, though. Women getting paid less is not a law of nature (like upper body strength), but a consequence of our (sexist) socioeconomic policy. There are many things we can do to close the gap. See for instance:

http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...

> I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this.

Regardless of any other condition? Suppose 10% more men than women were working in any given year. Should the men in aggregate be paid the same as the women? What if 10% more women than men were working?

What if women on average worked 2 fewer years in their total career. Should the aggregates still be equal?

What if women on average had more education (or less education), or worked riskier (or less risky) jobs? I don't start with a premise that men and women should be paid the same in aggregate, unless you add additional qualifiers.

Men and women performing the same work, with the same skills and experience should on average be paid the same. Note "on average" rather than "in aggregate".

I have no problem with oil rig workers being paid more than food servers or nurses being paid more than valet parking attendants. I have no problem with career office workers being paid more than stay at home parents. Nothing in this paragraph is gender-specific; it's a function of the job and the value that job has to the employer.

> Regardless of any other condition?

Pretty much. There is no reason why one gender would suddenly become lazier or more productive than another gender, so equal pay looks like the sensible default position to me.

OK, so how do you implement it?

As an employer, how do I know how to trim the wages of the "overpaid" gender to make things balance out?

Do I go by how the individual identifies, or their genetic composition?

If someone takes a second job to help make ends meet, how do we notify their first employer to cut their wages appropriately?

Individual employers can't fix this by themselves. They can -- and should -- minimize their contribution to the wage gap, but ultimately political change is needed as well.

There are many studies on how to close the wage gap. For example see: http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...

From a reasonably quick skim, that study seems to boil down to "All we have to do is simultaneously dramatically increase wages, decrease unemployment, increase hours, decrease employer flexibility, increase collective bargaining, and regularize undocumented workers."

Seems easy enough; I wonder why no one's thought to do all those things together before...

> You really don't understand logic

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. You've been uncivil in other comments as well. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, so please stop.

While I have you... please don't engage in rehashed gender flamewars either. They're tedious, and this isn't the first time we've had to ask you.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13586154 and marked it off-topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com