Hacker News Reader

Comment by zxcvvcxz | Hacker News Reader

> Then, he met his co-founder Maria De La Croix, through a feminist organization. As part of that movement, they protested the average pay gap between women and men by burning the extra wages he hypothetically earned because he was a man.

Wait what? Hasn't this common misconception been debunked, or at least to be shown to be very insignificant when controlling for obvious variables?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/...

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...

http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-th...

http://www.ne.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.99257.1346412310!/menu/sta...

https://www.med.upenn.edu/gastro/documents/Whogoestothebarga...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-wo...

View on HN

It hasn't been debunked because there is a wage gap, according to the first three articles you linked. You can argue about what constitutes "significant," but the first article notes that according to the BLS, "the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages" and "even smaller, 14 cents, when you look at hourly wages." The AAUW report, which looks specifically at college graduates working full-time, similarly found a gap of 14-19 cents. Also, the first three articles you linked are the meaningful ones here; links 4 and 5 are about gender differences in salary negotiation, and the last is an opinion column. It and the CONSAD report are the only ones of your link set that claim the gender gap is "very insignificant."

The variable CONSAD is controlling for, at least from my reading, is "people who have interrupted their careers by temporarily withdrawing from the labor force or switching from full-time to part-time work" -- mostly women who take maternity leave or part-time jobs to raise children. The amount of money those women would make if they hadn't interrupted their career is an interesting data point to determine, but I would argue that by using that "adjusted" amount, CONSAD has moved the goalposts, because that's not the median gender wage gap as actually experienced. The various studies linked to by the WaPo and the AAUW study all seem to be in general agreement around the 14-19 cents range. Whether that's "significant" is subjective, I suppose, but it doesn't strike me as a small amount.

I always have difficulty understanding what people expect here. How can they expect companies not to reward the people that progress in their career while others interrupt their career?

Are we supposed to just unfairly give people the same salaries when one worked part time instead for 4 years?

Are we supposed to just unfairly give people the same salaries when one worked part time instead for 4 years?

We're supposed to fairly reward two people the same for doing the same job. If you have more experience then you should have more responsibilities - that is what should increase your wage, not simply "time served".

Experience is worth paying for as well, not simply responsibilities. There's an entire industry called "consulting" based around that.

There are almost no jobs where two people are doing exactly the same thing where experience doesn't matter. It's idiotic to think an employer would prefer someone with less experience to do a job, regardless of responsibilities. Because employers prefer experience, that is reflected in the market value of the employees.

One thought is that we could reframe the question (as e.g., Sweden has done) and work to increasing gender equality.

If the starting point is recognizing that people have kids and it takes time to care for them, and both parents have that right and obligation.

From there, one could devise policies that encourage BOTH men and women to take parental leave and invest in high-quality childcare for when that parental leave is over.

What if a parent chooses not to take that time?

> and both parents have that right and obligation

Obligation? yes, right? not really

I wasn't offering a prescription with my comment, just observing that the evidence suggests the gender wage gap is a Real Thing. But:

Are we supposed to just unfairly give people the same salaries when one worked part time instead for 4 years?

Let's dig into that a bit.

Suppose Bob and Agatha are both working full-time at the same company as, for the sake of example, sales engineers, and they're both making $100K. Agatha goes on maternity leave, and afterward the company agrees to keep her on as a part-time sales engineer, working 25 hours a week at $62.5K.

If, after four years, she and Bob both apply for full-time senior sales positions, is it "unfair" for Agatha to be offered the same salary as Bob?

That's not nearly as good of a talking point.

I could wrong but you seem to be just citing data for the US. Aren't the founders from Europe? Does every country in Europe have fair pay between genders?

> As part of that movement, they protested the average pay gap between women and men by burning the extra wages he hypothetically earned because he was a man.

I feel like the better option would have been to split the difference with a female co-worker?

The point was to make it a costly signal.

Can we please have one discussion on hacker news that doesn't devolve into a discussion about inequality

Based on this piece of information alone, I am going to predict that the founders will fail.

I disagree. The founders seem insane. imo it's a trait that tends to do well with the chaos and adversity of startups. It's not for normal people (at least in the beginning)

https://changeinthe21stcentury.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/p...

I'd have much preferred an honest and evidence-driven response instead of a sarcastic one. This kind of attitude won't help your cause, nor your startups, get the good kind of traction at all. Some food for thought.

Good luck!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com