At Google Men Are Paid More Than Women

Spidey329 said:
Wow. Just wow.

The female engineers I've met that work for large corporations (one of them Intel) are just as talented/smart as their male counterparts.
Click to expand...

I suspect they are an exception to the rule. I would be willing to bet that 85% of the women at Google are dead weight, and close to 60% of the men are. I am NOT saying that women cannot be just as valuable or smart as the men. I am saying that for the most part they are not as valuable.


Similarly:
Some women can beat up men in a fair fight. Most men will beat up a woman in a fair fight. I would not pick a fight with UFC fighters (men or women). Put 1000 random men in a room to fight with with 1000 random women and a lot more men will be walking out alive. Orders of magnitude greater. Same with doing high end math, or driving in traffic.
 
nah... it's not wrong to be ignorant of something
 
Lenard said:
But was it wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. If you're going to claim that women can't do any work worth a shit, I've run into plenty of men who can't do any sort of work worth a shit either(and I'm sure most can agree to this), which makes your statement unnecessary.

As I said, you challenge the virtue signaling asshats with facts, and demand that they produce the facts to back up their bullshit claims. You don't do it by flinging gradeschool level insults.

The fact that you even have to go so far as to post some absurd nonsense about 1000 men fighting 1000 women just makes everything all the more ridiculous. No one is discussing salaries of women vs men in the UFC or whatever, we're talking about jobs at google and other white collar office job equivalent positions.
 
Lenard said:
But was it wrong?
Click to expand...

Replace "woman" in your post with a race and you'll see quickly how inflammatory it is.

You're generalizing an entire gender. It's true, the genders do provide advantages over the other (woman with some, men with others). But intelligence has shown to be pretty equal.
 
Merc1138 said:
Yes, it was. If you're going to claim that women can't do any work worth a shit, I've run into plenty of men who can't do any sort of work worth a shit either(and I'm sure most can agree to this), which makes your statement unnecessary.

As I said, you challenge the virtue signaling asshats with facts, and demand that they produce the facts to back up their bullshit claims. You don't do it by flinging gradeschool level insults.

The fact that you even have to go so far as to post some absurd nonsense about 1000 men fighting 1000 women just makes everything all the more ridiculous. No one is discussing salaries of women vs men in the UFC or whatever, we're talking about jobs at google and other white collar office job equivalent positions.
Click to expand...

1. I did not claim that women can't do work.
2. I made no claim that men are excellent workers.
3. I made no insults.
 
Lenard said:
1. I did not claim that women can't do work.
2. I made no claim that men are excellent workers.
3. I made no insults.
Click to expand...
Lenard said:
Has anyone even considered that the women just don't do good work, and get payed less because they have not demonstrated quality? Has anyone asked if the women are token employees who do not actually contribute in any way?
I suspect most of the women at Google are over-payed and unnecessary except for keeping virtue signalling lefties pacified. I suspect that most of the women at google contribute nothing to quality products or services provided by google.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's totally not a blanket statement about the quality of work from women :rolleyes:
 
Merc1138 said:
The fact that you even have to go so far as to post some absurd nonsense about 1000 men fighting 1000 women just makes everything all the more ridiculous. No one is discussing salaries of women vs men in the UFC or whatever, we're talking about jobs at google and other white collar office job equivalent positions.
Click to expand...

It is a parallel. Here is one that may be less emotionally charged. I will use it so you don't get your panties in a bunch:

It is true that dogs and cats can love their owners, but if you take 1000 random cats and 1000 dogs leave them in a room with their owners dead bodies the dogs will (for the most part) stay with their owners long after most of the cats have left. In many cases the cats may start to eat their bodies.

I am not saying that cats cannot be loyal, or that one of the dogs will not eat a person. I'm just talking likely outcome.
 
nightanole said:
So volunteer survey shows that a 2% sample of the company has less than a 10% wage disparity. Negotiating entry wage, and years worked are not shown...

Also not shown (but assumed) is the survey was not 50/50 spit from men to women.
Click to expand...
Other thing would ask are they taking that as $ made per year while not asking things like "hours worked a year". General a lot of these comparison's don't take in to count how much either side works. You can have 2 people one works 40 hours a week other works 38 hours a week. You would expect the one that works 40 would get more $ and likely get raises. Expand something like that to 1 year and it will add up.
 
Merc1138 said:
Yeah, that's totally not a blanket statement about the quality of work from women :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Has anyone even considered that THE women just don't do good work"

it wasn't. It was a statement about THE women working at Google. THE women responding to the survey.

Women do generally have lower quality work than men. I am not saying some women cannot do quality work. I just think that if you have 1000 men doing a particulatr job, and 1000 women doing a particular job the best quality would skew towards the men's work.
 
Spidey329 said:
Replace "woman" in your post with a race and you'll see quickly how inflammatory it is.

You're generalizing an entire gender. It's true, the genders do provide advantages over the other (woman with some, men with others). But intelligence has shown to be pretty equal.
Click to expand...

1. I could also replace woman with GOAT. But I was not talking about goats. i was talking about women and men.
2. Intelligence is not shown to be equal between these groups. Show me the tests on these people. Show me the metrics on the google employees intelligence.
 
raz-0 said:
If you actually look at broad studies. They will show a ~7% pay disparity between men and women. This is on par with the difference between active negotiators of pay and reluctant negotiators of pay.

I know lots of guys who don't like asking for raises, but they don't mind switching jobs. One thing I never see in any studies is how willing or reluctant women are to give up the stability of an existing job. It's an interesting question.

The google chart does bring up something else I find potentially very, very interesting in this issue. That being the question of if women are getting financially screwed due to workplace reform.

Put it this way. Where I work, we are incentivising the hiring of women into good jobs. Not so much into the grunt labor jobs. So like the goolge chart, it would often be the case the the tirer 1 jobs represent a lot more men in poorly paying positions for longer. The tier 2 jobs would represent skilled and educated entry level or newer workers. We pay women a bit of a premium there. However, most of the time the system of raises within a position are not really merit based and more COLA type stuff. The raises from promotion are capped to a max, and we are promoting more women earlier. Which means over time, they are getting paid less at the higher levels because they move up the ladder faster.
Click to expand...


Of course, The best pay raises I ever got came with the new job, not while at the current one. But if someone doesn't like switching companies and starting again as a new hire then they will not take advantage of the opportunities that a new job provides when it comes to pay increase.
 
Lenard said:
"Has anyone even considered that THE women just don't do good work"

it wasn't. It was a statement about THE women working at Google. THE women responding to the survey.

Women do generally have lower quality work than men. I am not saying some women cannot do quality work. I just think that if you have 1000 men doing a particulatr job, and 1000 women doing a particular job the best quality would skew towards the men's work.
Click to expand...


I think you have a point. Google hires dumb women to do work for them just for the feel goods. They pay them less for their shitty work, too.

I'm sure Google will survive as a company with that way of doing things. We should all hire the bad, but diverse, candidate at our employers. Save a few bucks.
 
lcpiper said:
Of course, The best pay raises I ever got came with the new job, not while at the current one. But if someone doesn't like switching companies and starting again as a new hire then they will not take advantage of the opportunities that a new job provides when it comes to pay increase.
Click to expand...

this makes sense if women are more prone to lean towards security. Men may be willing to accept higher risk. Higher risk can lead to better reward.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I think you have a point. Google hires dumb women to do work for them just for the feel goods. They pay them less for their shitty work, too.

I'm sure Google will survive as a company with that way of doing things. We should all hire the bad, but diverse, candidate at our employers. Save a few bucks.
Click to expand...

They may be getting hired for politics. It is like a fast food place hiring a black employee that they don't need to keep from being accused of racism. for the most part places like McDonalds hire friends of current employees. A Manager may hire a black applicant just because a political group is threatening them. The employee is not needed, but they have to keep a black dude on the payroll.
 
nightanole said:
So volunteer survey shows that a 2% sample of the company has less than a 10% wage disparity. Negotiating entry wage, and years worked are not shown...

Also not shown (but assumed) is the survey was not 50/50 spit from men to women.
Click to expand...

stop trying to be rational and just REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
 
In general the data in the article is pointless. Doesn't take into account anything about tenure, employment location (cost of living), job role, other compensatory items like stock, and itself is flawed because it's employee reported data that could contain mistakes/have bias.

If you read into the article in more detail, Google actually explains that all hiring pay and raise/compensation decisions are handled by an independent team that doesn't have any gender information about the person in question. All pay decisions are made based on quantitative data about the specific role. Also the article quotes the Google-provided report, that says takes into account the above mentioned points, which concludes that females make 99.7 cents per dollar as men (-0.3% less)....basically the same.

Riccochet said:
Women are a higher risk to employ and require higher benefits, such as maternity leave. Men don't get 6-8 weeks off, paid, when they have a kid.

There's your pay disparity.
Click to expand...

So if I was a women could I tell my employer when I am hired that I won't have any children and therefore I should get a higher salary? The maternity leave reasoning is idiotic, especially for these tech companies that offer both maternity and paternity leave.
 
Xrave said:
So if I was a women could I tell my employer when I am hired that I won't have any children and therefore I should get a higher salary? The maternity leave reasoning is idiotic, especially for these tech companies that offer both maternity and paternity leave.
Click to expand...

Those are benefits that a male employee does not receive. So it's factored in to the salary.

Again, risk assessment. Is a male employee going to be a risk of missing work, paid, for 6-12 weeks? No. So, you missed the point.
 
Men get paternity leave too under the FMLA and paid leave in many states. I have 2 kids and I took as much leave as I could both times. I took more leave than some Moms did even.

Time off for kids ain't just for vaginas anymore, it's a brave new world my dudes.
 
Xrave said:
So if I was a women could I tell my employer when I am hired that I won't have any children and therefore I should get a higher salary? The maternity leave reasoning is idiotic, especially for these tech companies that offer both maternity and paternity leave.
Click to expand...
First, not every company offers paternity leave as well. Second, simply citing that paternity leave exists doesn't change what sort of disruption it can be to the workplace when an employee is out for 6-12 weeks. So yes, as a manager I would indeed favor the employee who is least likely to throw a wrench into the works.
 
Merc1138 said:
lol, wtf would you tell a potential new employer exactly what you were making previously?
Click to expand...
Because many employers (e.g. Oracle) require a proof of your prior income before HR will extend an offer. I ended up making about $20K less than I should have, due to working a lesser job for a few years, primarily for family issues. I had the experience and qualifications, but not the recent income level that they could consider. And you can never make up the disparity at Oracle - you are forever limited in that same role unless you leave and come back. (They will only hire you back once or maybe it is twice after quitting.)

Caveat - this was a job reporting through sales. It is possible it is different for different roles, although from what I recall, that wasn't the case.
 
xinco said:
Because many employers (e.g. Oracle) require a proof of your prior income before HR will extend an offer. I ended up making about $20K less than I should have, due to working a lesser job for a few years, primarily for family issues. I had the experience and qualifications, but not the recent income level that they could consider. And you can never make up the disparity at Oracle - you are forever limited in that same role unless you leave and come back. (They will only hire you back once or maybe it is twice after quitting.)

Caveat - this was a job reporting through sales. It is possible it is different for different roles, although from what I recall, that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
Well sure that's if the employer asks for proof, but if they simply ask what you were making as long as you don't provide some bullshit number that's out of whack it's usually just fine.
 
*shrug* different things are important to different people. For example my wife would rather have more time off than money. So she actively negotiates for more time off versus a larger salary. If someone were to compare her salary to her male counterpart they would show that she is indeed being paid less but if you looked at the details of the situation you'd see that was by choice.

Sorry women there's no systematic force screwing you (unlike divorce and child custody court rooms). In comparison to your male counterparts you have it pretty fucking awesome in this country. Compare your status to women in the rest of the world (hello pakistan!) and holy shit you won the jackpot.
 
Nanogrip said:
That would mean transvestites would have way more better pay than both men and women, those sexy bastards.
Click to expand...
Ah shims. They take me back!

shim1.jpg
 
Anybody, of any race, gender, sexual preference, handicap, not agreeing on a popular color Lego, etc. just gets to sue their employer. And how are electronic gadgets working out for you? Your clothes? Your shoes? Your cars?

Workplace safety, fair hiring, equal pay, etc, needs to be paramount in US companies. But frivolous lawsuits just hurt the consumers.
 
Riccochet said:
Women are a higher risk to employ and require higher benefits, such as maternity leave. Men don't get 6-8 weeks off, paid, when they have a kid.

There's your pay disparity.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the solution to the pay gap is to give men more vacation time. :)
 
There's something I always see left out of these conversations, and it seems so obvious.

If women get paid XX% amount less then men, it implies that the men themselves are at parity.

But I ask you this, do the men get paid as much as the men?
 
westrock2000 said:
There's something I always see left out of these conversations, and it seems so obvious.

If women get paid XX% amount less then men, it implies that the men themselves are at parity.

But I ask you this, do the men get paid as much as the men?
Click to expand...
There's also the issue of... if women make xx% less than men, why doesn't every large corporation simply hire nothing but women for the massive savings in operating overhead by slashing their payroll? If the disparity is supposedly 10%, hire at a slightly higher rate to incentivize working for you due to it being an automatic pay raise, and slash your payroll by 9% at the same time.
 
bigdogchris said:
They just need to have pre-set pay grades (steps/categories) for every job. That way no matter who gets it, they all get paid the same.
Click to expand...

Even if this was the case in every job world-wide, I don't think it would settle things. There are people who seriously think that as general demographics, men and women shouldn't have pay gap. Of course that idea is nonsense, but some people just can't grasp it.
 
Riccochet said:
Your figures are way off.



This guy gets it.
Click to expand...
He doesn't get it, he's completely wrong but it's interesting to see who in the thread actually have had children.

FMLA is unpaid leave. All it does is protect you from getting fired when you take leave for a pregnancy.
In California, where one would presume our worker's compensation would be higher (and where Google is regardless), an employee can take *disability* leave for up to 6 weeks at 55% of her weekly pay and it caps out at around $1100 dollars per week. That's a cap of just under $7k since you and the guy you claimed "gets it" seem to be math challenged.
 
I'm willing to bet the difference in pay has more to do with the skill of salary negotiation than anything job related. I remember reading a study that showed most women don't negotiate starting pay as aggressively as men (if at all). I just did the math for my own circumstances and if I had settled for the salary I was initially offered I'd have made 76% of the salary I negotiated... creepily close to that 77 cents per dollar figure tossed out by every feminist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top