She ended up getting a raise and additional stock to make up for it, after her VP got involved to rectify the situation. Her boss was like "whatever."
So imagine if white women are underpaid - it is a lot worse for people for color.
She ended up getting a raise and additional stock to make up for it, after her VP got involved to rectify the situation. Her boss was like "whatever."
So imagine if white women are underpaid - it is a lot worse for people for color.
Companies behave that way to _everyone_, get used to that. When you negotiate your salary, you have your mouth. Use it. You are the only person, who really cares, whether you earn adequately to what you bring to the table.
Is your choice to conflate "interns out of college" with "joiners" deliberate? Interns are a very special class of joiners and seeing them earn more than experienced professionals in similar roles is surprising, and is news - at least to me. Yuck.
However the company does seem to be in a large transition - and as a result we’re seeing some divisions starved out, while others are getting fat and carefree. The division I work in accounts for the lions share of “blessed revenue”, yet we’re starved for resources and people. You can’t back fill positions, and don’t even think about new headcount. So as attrition happens, the picture gets worse. While the sister division accounts for a tiny fraction of “blessed revenue” but they have what seems like unlimited resources and headcount.
The point is, your fortune at Oracle depends heavily on which division you work in, and whether or not Oracle wants your revenue. If your division is out of favor, Oracle wants your line of business to deplete through attrition - so no raises, no promotions, no new headcount and of course rif’s. If your division is appreciated - you see raises, promotions, new headcount etc.
As someone else pointed out, you can’t change divisions or positions and expect a pay raise. You can’t leave and come back and expect a pay raise. If you’re at oracle you can pretty much expect stagnant career and financial growth (unless you’re TK making terrible decisions and 35mm dollars).
I’m not surprised people at Oracle don’t make market pay. Or that other people systematically make more. I don’t think it has so much to do with gender though. They do systematically hire H1b’s though so that they can pay less and get that sweet sweet employee lock in.
Not only Oracle, it's very common practices. In my first job in the UK I worked for fin-tech. My salary on start for only 5k lower than a person who worked 20 years in IT and 13 years in this company. 14 months later I got 7k pay rise.
To be transparent, I am a white male American citizen. Considering how private most Americans treat salary information, I know almost nothing about how much my peers have been paid versus what I was paid at previous companies. I will say that I have heard of people making amounts of money that made me drool, and those people were across the whole range of color and gender. On the other hand, I have also known (very) junior developers who were grossly underpaid - multiple white males and I suspect their females and minority counterparts were underpaid as well.
It’s a problem, for sure. Racial income inequality is a problem and then there is the added problem that some of us just are not good at income negotiation and demanding fair or market pay. We trust the employer to give us what we deserve, when in reality, if the employer has a $120k upper limit on their hiring position, and you smile ear-to-ear at the first offer when they offer $90k; well, you just saved that company $30k per year.
That's what #talkpay tried to break. And to show I am not just talking, I tweeted mine years ago at https://twitter.com/chx/status/594598659150389248
Long story short, when the whole thing came out, imagine their surprise, (and delight), to discover a class of workers who would happily work for cheap. The big, BIG bosses proceeded to demand that everyone take a paycut. (Well, everyone who was making more than the average.) So a whole lot of colleagues ended up leaving and looking for other jobs etc.
In the end, it didn't really help the people on the bottom at all. I was just a lowly intern, but that experience definitely taught me a lesson about how the corporate world works.
I guess I never thought about it that way.
That's pretty weird. Usually the bosses know what everyone is making or can find out. Looking at cost is one of the main duties of a boss.
With that said, you should always be interviewing for your next role, as you will never get a salary bump at an annual review near what you would make switching jobs. Always Be Interviewing. You are looking out for you first.
It’s not clear whether that would lead to them negotiating for more money.
The flipside, which is largely why I am not in favor of legally enforced salary transparency, is that you ask for the salary range, they say $90-100k (or whatever), and you can justify why you should get 100 or 105 or 110 with examples. Or you can ask for $90k because you're happy with that and know you won't price yourself out of the position, or any number of other possibilities.
It just makes the entire process much less flexible, which I know a lot of us developers love, but in the business world it doesn't make much sense.
In general, you would expect salary negotiation to be worse for any given employee, because they have limited tools to research with compared to the hiring company, and far more limited (man) hours to do that research.
I would also imagine negotiation still exists, but now more emphasized on the extra benefits, eg PDOs, medical plans, bonuses, etc.
And ofc the added negative that the company can hide unfair practices, eg underpaying particular groups, or hiring someone's kid for 2x the pay, or whatever.
The main negative is that someone who was skilled at salary negotiations now makes less, but presumably most people aren't skilled, making it more a net positive. The biggest concern tbh is if the whole industry was overpaying its workers due to the fog of war, and this suddenly cleared things up, and employees across the board take a hit
But then one senior developer would claim that they are better or different than every other senior developer, and negotiation would return. Sure, Tim might be willing to accept the average rate of $95, but Jim worked as a staff engineer at Google, and so on.
No, keep the Government out of this.
Nowhere with open published comp numbers has ever come close to my comp. Maybe it would work better as a system if everyone was opted in but the current data points I see don't support higher salaries for people with my skillset.
As a general economic principle, I can't really see any situation where this information asymmetry works to the benefit of the workers. It might benefit some employees in critical positions that can bridge the information gap and gain an advantage over their peers.
But on average, no, transparency reduces the leverage of the employer; else they wouldn't fight to maintain that information differential, they would promote full transparency in order to pay everyone less as you say.
How do they go about this? Through means accessible to individuals?
It's a good question how the data is obtained. Maybe through mutual data sharing agreements in exchange for access? Anyway, I've see such reports for my country, with very detailed breakdowns for job types, seniority, broad technology area, forecasts etc.
Shrewd people can get this data, especially if they're willing to pay for it.
Every company pays in a bit to cover the costs/overhead with putting together a market report, and also submit the job titles and salaries of their workers. Possibly more data too, but I'm not certain. E.g. time with the company or years of relevant experience would be very handy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-02/equifax-h...
But companies aren’t just trying to maximize performance, they are also trying to minimize pay. It’s a lot easier to give someone a 20% raise if the starting salary is 50% lower.
Some people are underpaid because they don’t know how much they are worth, especially people from backgrounds where nobody makes this much money. Some people are overpaid because they are friends with the boss.
If a company is capable of paying $200k on average, salary transparency may make it harder for them to recruit people who are worth $500k. I’m paid a lot more than any company with a salary transparency calculator I’ve seen pays someone with my job title and experience. So I’m not going to try to work for those companies. I get the impression they are underpaying their employees, but their salary transparency allows them to recruit people who used to be even more underpaid.
From my experience you can go to management and tell them that you think you should be paid X. If that's within the normal range you often get the raise.
At my first company in the US I was told that everybody is making as much as I was offered so I said yes. After half a year I found out that most people made 30% more. I talked to my CTO and told him that I want more and I got more than 30% without much hesitation. I wouldn't worry about asking for more. They won't fire you.
I hear this a lot from well-paid tech workers. Just two days ago I responded to a comment here where someone said the solution was for people to "just negotiate better". Right.
That's why I am for unions. Get professionals to negotiate on the workers' behalf, and have everyone agree on precisely the factors (experience, etc) that should be used for determining salaries. Then nobody is dependent on either the goodwill of their employer or their own bargaining skills for a fair salary.
You’ll understand why I’m suspicious. If this worked reliably, why would anyone need to file a lawsuit over $400M in lost wages? Wouldn’t the company have just fixed the problem when they first saw it?
Unions exist in fields and countries where wages are more transparent, too. Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. That’s why we have a free press, but also elections and courts.
You don't depends on them but on an individual basis you can point this out and often you can correct this for yourself. They will still try to screw other employees. And yes,unions are a good way of ensuring this doesn't happen.
Instead they should get a competing offer, that pays way more, and actually leave the company.
Visas are easily transferred between companies.
Corporations have professionals bargaining on behalf of the company. Every solution I hear that doesn’t involve professionals actively bargaining for the workers is putting them right back at the mercy of the company.
This is called salary compression, and it's not unique to just minorities. Companies have to pay market to hire. They don't have to pay market to people who might be reluctant to leave, for a variety of reasons. It's fairly common for new hires to be earning significantly more than nominally "senior" employees who have been with the company for a decade or more.
The question is: is she as good at negotiating her salary as her male friends?
Also, it sometimes happens that the market's salaries increase over time, and new employees get paid more than the old ones. It's a difficult and well known manager's dilemma - I cannot hire a new person for the same price as the current employees, but if I have to raise everyone's pay first, I won't be able to hire the new person anyway.
So, the question is - did the interns' wages differ between them according to gender? Did she earn less than female interns, or male interns? How good/aggressive are the people you compare in terms of salary negotiation?
That's not a given. Courts tend to look at end results, not how you get there.
You're injecting a whole lot of assumption on how these negotiations are happening.
"Please give me a raise" is not a negotiation. To negotiate properly you need a trump card, "please give me a raise" doesn't show one.
I deserve a raise because...3 reasons. I have accomplished xyz and want a raise.
In my younger years I said I wanted a raise of 20 percent immediately after telling my manager that I told a coworker "to go fuck himself" twice.
Women are often penalized for not being "nice" in the workplace as well. It may happen in the hiring process or show up later in performance reviews. It is a delicate dance of negotiating, being strong and being "non-threatening."
I would presume no negotiation tactic has a perfect 0% or 100% success rate for any given gender expression, but I am curious about the relative rates for them and how this can best benefit all related parties.
The real question is why aggressive negotiation for doing the same job should lead to fairly different salaries. Forget gender, race, etc. If I can negotiate a higher salary than my coworker who does the same job, I'm not seeing a really good reason why I should get paid more.
If we are going to normalize this reason, then it's two faced for a company not to mention it. When it comes to the internal dialogue, performance reviews, etc, are all about the work you did, and how it impacted the company. If aggressive negotiation is a valid strategy, I would like the company to be transparent about it. List it at the same level as your work performance when listing the criteria by which you are evaluated.
Edit:
Too many of us treat salaries as a game. When we play board games, we often accept rather arbitrary rules. One of the rules that many put on this salary game is: "Well, he gets more pay for the same work because he can negotiate well". Somehow, we don't accept it as a rule in the "school game": "Well, Alice got a higher grade than Bob on this essay because she negotiated better. She brings me two apples a week, and recently threatened to stop giving me apples and give them to Ms Brown of geography."
I'm not, BTW, arguing against negotiating if you're an employee. I'm arguing that companies paying significantly different for similar work just because of negotiation prowess is fundamentally an admission that "Yes, we will pay people differently for the same work." It shouldn't need to become an issue where one group (women, here) feels disadvantaged. It's a problem even if there is no systemic bias. The appropriate thing for the company to do when an employee shows that the market is paying better is to do a salary adjustment (if they can afford it) for all similar employees (barring small deltas for individual performance differences). Without this attitude, they are fundamentally creating an "us vs them" scenario ("company" vs "employees"). Sooner or later, that mentality leads to a large amount of cynicism and an unwillingness to view themselves as a cohesive group ("I'm just going to do my job - I don't care about corporate goals, and am not here to improve the company beyond what they pay me for").
Because the most effective and stable reason to use in negotiation is that you are better and more valuable than the field of other employees and applicants.
There are multiple people with the job “MLB pitcher” or “NFL quarterback” and all their salaries are public. Is it surprising that some of them make wildly more than others?
I think the range of talent and ability for people with the job “senior software engineer” is much wider than the range of talent of “NFL quarterback”.
- allow people with the same job title (e.g. "Software developer") earn different salaries
- introduce fine grained competence levels (e.g "Software developer, level 23") and require promotion, based on detailed performance review, for every single request for a raise.
I prefer the former, because I don't like bureaucracy, but non-discrimination advocates are pushing towards the latter.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-27/u-k-s-und...
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/eeoc-nyc-owes-underpaid...
https://www.pinnaclepeople.com.au/news/underpayment-of-hospi...
You can imagine that their mid-level manager probably didn't fight for them as hard, perhaps due to some bias. Said manager may have evaluated said employee more harshly in yearly reviews as well without realizing it.
Their peers may have essentially done the same, lowering their perceived performance. Their peers may have also essentially boxed them out, making it more difficult to succeed.
Projects may have been handed to employees that were not underrepresented. This happens often, and is a strong motivator for career growth.
The hiring manager(s) originally responsible for bringing on the employee may have used algorithms or generally biased data that showed them the potential hire could be acquired at a low salary.
These are only small pieces of the puzzle, and may or may not be part of what happened at Oracle. They're all small/insidious factors that may not even be detectable or measurable at an individual level, but if you pay attention to larger trends, you can start to see them.
Remind me why they are so widely used again?
Oracle is famous for having a corporate philosophy of "make lots of money, nothing else matters".
Larry Ellison is famous for being a selfish megalomaniac: he owns an island on which hawaiian natives labor for him as serfs, and he has made two donations to charity in his whole life: one in exchange for dropping charges in a security fraud scandal, and one to establish an anti-senescence research institute for his own use.
Don't take a job at Oracle, don't buy their products when possible, they are the back alley mobsters of silicon valley.
It is more rare for a single household to have two extremely high paid professionals, so a single income of 350-500k is not 2x of 1% income. It is in the 1% (~420-450k household or so).
Also 350-500k sounds about the right range for senior-ish at top large tech company as a software engineer.
Edit to add:
> Also 350-500k sounds about the right range for senior-ish at top large tech company as a software engineer.
Senior"-ish," implying some not-so-senior folks are making $350-500k a year is absolutely ridiculous. But even barring that, I know HN is home to many, many highly paid folks at large technical companies in SV making boatloads of money.
Most software dev jobs in the country top out in the $150-200k mark for non-managerial, senior high-level architectural type jobs. Very good senior devs in my area are $110-135. I've never personally seen a salary or heard someone claim they made anything higher than $185. Surely they exist but they're well above-market or have extremely specialized skills that make it borderline impossible to get any sort of "market rate" for.
> A salary of $185,000 in Boise, Idaho should increase to $450,797 in San Jose, California
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/boise-id/san-jose-...
Total comp in the $200-300k range is common for seniors at tech companies in SV. But people tend to not understand exactly what that amount of money means here because it seems like so much money. It doesn't mean people in, say, Boise are underpaid or whatever, just that everything is way, way more expensive in the Bay Area.
Who is better able to afford to put his kids through college, go skiing every year in the Swiss Alps, buy a Ferrari, or retire in luxury in Florida--a guy who spent his career making $185,000 in Boise or making $450,000 in San Jose?
More money is still more money, the cost of housing notwithstanding.
Most everything is indeed more expensive. Electricity, for example is nearly twice as expensive. I just looked up gas and Costco vs Costco is $.80/gal more. Insurance is more. Property tax rates are about the same but since the value of properties is so much higher you pay a lot more in real dollars. And since the basics are more expensive, everyone’s rates go up because they have to buy the basics too.
However, I feel like you're are underestimating "some personal services". I don't have the time cook all my meals, I need to commute to get affordable housing, and I don't plan on just hanging out in the park everyday. So alas I find myself paying:
$15 for a simple saled
$11 roundtrip commute on caltrain
$100 for nosebleed seats to a band that was barely even considered famous during their heyday
These things really add up quick, and if you're not constantly careful about budgeting, you'll find yourself with less money than your counterpart in Boise.
Americans and their ridiculous concept of what middle-class is, hilarious. You're rich, own it.
You are right that someone with 450k gross should be able to comfortably handle this. It is different story for the majority that make 250k or less.
Think of average senior engineer Bob with a 10 year career, now working at mediocre tech company Xyz in Sunnyvale. There’s no way on Earth he’s making $300k.
Hot shot ML expert Alice working at Facebook? Sure!
How many more Bobs are there than Alices? 10x? 20x?
Median(?avg?) senior comp at Google is apparently 350k, 370k at Facebook.
That is reasonable for large top tech company, which was the original statement.
The original statement I made was 350-500 is about in line with senior-ish at top large tech companies.
The levels immediately below senior brush against that boundary (I made 350k one year when the stars aligned, and wasn't senior), and the levels immediately above are averaging at the very top of that limit.
If you disagree with the data, that's fine.
Edit: dropping random extra prepositions
In particular because more comp comes from stock, it's extremely sensitive to a market downturn.
Sources: -DQYDJ (https://dqydj.com/who-are-the-one-percent-united-states/) -CNN (https://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/index.html)
holy hell. I am need to quit my job.
What does any of that have to do with the national discussion above?
Long time employees are naturally severe underpaid - i think it is across the nation.
S/He replied that it's not what you're doing, it's where you're doing it.
It's why judging on these income bands makes no sense. $300k household income with kids is comfortable but not rich in SV, but you'd be living like royalty in most of the rest of the US.
I’m not familiar with the SF cost of living, but Nerd Wallet says a 2 bedroom apartment is about $4k per month. I figured $7k is more accurate so I’ll assume $96k in rent per year.
$300k is roughly taxed at 75k for an individual with no exemptions and standard deduction. That leaves $225k of actual cash to spend or save.
Ok, so after rent and taxes we’re at about $129k. I see cost of living for food and transportation is higher than Texas, but I bet you also drive less. Does that fancy tech company provide meals once per day or more? I bet they do. So, you have $125k left to spend on food, transportation, bills, entertainment, and invest.
If you invest 20% of your gross income - $60k - you’re still left with $65k to spend on those things. That’s $5400 per month or so. I’d bet that buys a lot of $15 coffees and $30 lunches. Or hookers and cocaine, if that’s what you’re into.
Everything is more expensive. Insurance is more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Movies, ubers, doctors, groceries, sales tax, you name it.
While that leftover $77k isn't exactly hand-to-mouth poor by any stretch, compare it to some other state -- what is a fairly decent middle-class family wage in the Valley is a truly bonkers amount of money almost anywhere else in the US (or world, probably)
If someone’s struggling (EDIT: just comfortable) with $300k I don’t know what to tell ya.
I haven't been to a movie in at least 4 years, so I don't really add things like that into my budgeting. Everything else.. sure, it's more expensive, but some of it is only 30-50% more expensive, and $300k is easily double the salary one would receive in most other states.
For instance, top law firms often pay interns the same salary as a first year associate (prorated for summer months, of course). That can be $180k/yr for some firms. My guess is that you could be a fairly senior paralegal, with arguably more responsibility and a greater impact on the firm, but still earn less than the summer associates. It would seem unfair, though I suppose the answer could be, well, go get admitted to the University of Chicago law school, give up three years salary and spend 200k on tuition, and get high enough grades to be hired into a top law firm, and we'll pay you at the rate of 180k a year.
This situation is starting to emerge in some Silicon Valley companies, where a bi-modal pay system similar to law is emerging. Just as graduates of lower ranked law firms might never earn a salary comparable to a first year associate from an elite school at a top firm, I have noticed that starting salaries for recent grads at Facebook may exceed what veteran programmers elsewhere earn. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that the intern salaries are higher than some other job titles at the company.