Google decides it is underpaying its men

When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found that more men than women were receiving less money for doing similar work.

The surprising conclusion to the latest version of the annual study contrasted sharply with the experience of women working in Silicon Valley and in many other industries.

In response to the finding, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money. The exact number of men who got raises is unclear.  [TC: I don’t fully understand the metric here.]

But the study did not tell the whole story of women at Google or in the technology industry more broadly, something that company officials acknowledged.

That is from Daisuke Wakabayashi at The New York Times.


To all SJWs, be careful what you ask for.

To decide to do the study is sexist. To decide after the study to increase some people's wages because of their gender is sexist. To claim that you are doing it in the name of fighting sexism is stupid.

is this a joke? i can't tell anymore.

It's hard to tell anymore isn't it Jason? "It" I couldn't tell which gender "It" was) could have used the word "racist" and it would have had the same effect. Keep'em coming "It", we love to laugh.

Hardly a joke. If the goal is to treat all people equally than why would you investigate certain people. In the bigger world everyone is paid differently and often based on their value to the company. To try to equalize it along gender or race lines would be sexist or racist. Simple as that. True equality requires benign neglect not agendized witch hunts.

I would love to see all companies publish their wage data (anonymized, tokenized) to researchers. We could work through the data and give a better picture of the reality.

"We could work through the data and give a better picture of the reality."

Phht. Social science research is garbage

In the UK companies with more than 250 employees are required to report their gender wage gap data. It's usually posted on the company website.

Biologically, women prefer people over math and are prone to neuroticism. This prevents them at performing well in highly technical roles such as being a tech employee. Fortunately at level 4, their biology adapts to the environment, which gives them certain advantages over men thus outperforming them and they are paid more. Unfortunately this advantage disappears at level 5 and women's underperformance results in less pay. This is biology. If you can't handle the science then you are worse than an anti-vaxxer.

Or a climate denier!

Here is part of the criticism of the Google study, not from The Onion: "Google seems to be advancing a 'flawed and incomplete sense of equality' by making sure men and women receive similar salaries for similar work, said Joelle Emerson, chief executive of Paradigm, a consulting company that advises companies on strategies for increasing diversity."

But she's right. Hire women as X and men as Y, pay Y more, and hey, equality?! Not really. You also need to demonstrate things like women are not driven out of Y by men asserting that they are irrational, neurotic, and too stressed out.


Women less pay for same work = discrimination

Women equaly pay for same work and less pay for different work = "disparate impact"

Women more pay for same or different work = complete and total silence by people who claim that feminism is all about equality

You have to demonstrate that? Does that include asking every women on the planet why she didn't become a Y and taking her at her word?

This makes sense if you understand Google.

Google's willingness to compensate underpaid men does not seem that credible, similar efforts made by other companies are not new in Silicon Valley.

The company was loath to hire any white or Asian men in late 2016 and throughout 2017 no matter how well recommended by engineers.

The board's compensation effort is much more likely due to talented male defections to Lyft, Uber and other hot Bay Area startups.

If we are looking for second-degree explanations for their actions, it is entirely possible that Google required this result to avoid litigation.

You can't say "Whoops, we've been underpaying women for the past decade" without getting sued into oblivion by current and former employees. On the other hand if they can show they have been underpaying their men instead there is no cost to the firm.

I know enough statistics to understand that Google can produce any result they want from their internal investigations.

I suppose it is also more credible than discovering, if that’s the word, that “Hey! We’ve been paying men and women the very SAME amount all along!”

+1. Google is totally doing this to prevent a huge settlement with the Trump administration who fights very very hard for women's rights.

I'm pretty sure you are misconstruing an article that talked about Google cranking up hiring efforts around non-whites. The issue wasn't the reluctance to hire whites, it was their overwhelming success at hiring whites which left targets for non-whites unfilled. So...more emphasis was placed on non-whites.

Is that hard to understand? Does it really seem likely they'd discriminate gainst whites? They're a mostly white company...

Doug: "Discriminating against X is no discrimination unless X are a minority."

I do have to say that pay at Google is so outlandish that it irks me when anyone complains. Not to mention the perks, status, and general work environment.

It is a fantastic employer.

Then why are you “Scared”?

He's an incel, hun.

As a a former Central Asian steppe nomad, I resent your use of the racial slur "hun".

I think Connie meant "hon." (Not because God of Thunder is the child of an English baron: that would be "Hon.")

Nor because he has two wings and clucks. That would be "hen."

Nor because he flies the Millenium Falcon. That would be "Han".

If your model is that Google is trying to right wrongs sjw style, then this might be surprising (I mean, the surprising thing being that they are bothering to equalize pay instead of lauding the fact that they pay women more). However, if that's the case, you also have to explain how they've spent close to half a billion dollars on programs to 'include' women and have not moved the needle a single percentage point in terms of the ratio of Google employee's who are women. If your model is that these programs are primarily liability shields, then no further explanation is needed as to why they aren't 'working'; they were serving their intended purpose the whole time. The same logic applies to staffing. If sjws are your highest litigation risk, filling leadership and rank and file positions with people who understand and want to avoid microagressions and other legal land-mines makes sense purely from a proactive litigation avoidance strategy. Now that there's increased scrutiny of sjw monoculture, and pending lawsuits from folks like James D'Amore, they're looking to limit liability exposure.

I'd like to see facts and figures about the economic aftermath of SJW in this world some day.

How many billions of dollars were burnt for nonsense programs?

How many (professional) lives were ruined for no or little reason?

How many companies went bankrupt?


Those numbers would be lower than you probably think.

Google is probably the best of these companies excluding maybe Microsoft, so not surprising it would err slightly rather than "a lot in the usual direction", to the order of about $2 million, which is what, 15 engineers? Whereas nobody would be shocked if Facebook systemically discriminated.

All big tech companies have been underpaying men for at least 30 years. Tech men know this so they often work in startups that are bought by big companies like Google in an "acquihire".

Back in the day, HR was interested in getting every hire under market and at minimum increase over previous salary. That would make a bumpy field of pay within a project or department.

It's an interesting change if Google tries to flatten everyone to an "equivalent work" level.

Maybe somebody in HR could talk about changing metrics for work or performance. How would you even? KLOC or Bugs-per-KLOC?

Good. Now we have proof you’ve never intersected with the tech industry.

You googled something, didn’t understand it, and pasted it into your comment.

The evidence grows that you’re intentionally making liberals look retarded. But to what end?

He's a clandestine Committee to RE-Elect the President member.

I guess we know who is pure troll now.

And who is determined to move from the topic at hand to bizarre personal attacks.

(I don't pretend that my experience was universal, but it was real. And it did include experience with primitive statistical metrics for programmer performance, which is why I asked (not told) for more recent info.)

No dude, I 100% believe you’re a retired “Human Resources Administrator” in LA county. Graduate of CSU Long Beach 1970s. I’m off by maybe 20 miles at most. Ask Art Deco, I’ve got him nailed as a retired SUNY professor in upstate NY. He doesn’t even bother to deny.

That puts everything into hilarious relief.

Amazing. You are now fully invested in a claim I never made.

Talk to your therapist.

If you hire generally more men than women, and then favor (fairly or unfairly), say, 10% of your workforce, then when determining who's being underpaid, you'll find that the 90% are underpaid relative to the 10% favorites, and that that 90% is majority men.

At 69% male employment, then even if the 10% is all male, that leaves 59/31 male/female ratio for the underpaid.

The only metric is retention.

In my narrow contacts with Google related stuff, it is surprising how many ex-googlers there are doing interesting stuff.

I suspect that as most companies doing complicated stuff there are a few people who generate the stuff that keeps it running. There have been lots of reasons for men to leave Google over the last while, and obviously quite a few have, and it is starting to hurt.

I used to work at Google. There was an interesting phenomenon that, despite being consistently rated as one of the best places to work, and having good compensation, there was remarkably high turnover. This even at sites outside of the bay area where such turnover was expected.

There was discussion of this internally at all-hands meetings. Not sure if they ever figured it out, as I left to go elsewhere.

Can either of you two mention why the high turnover? From the outside, I can only guess that they cancel projects left and right like Google Reader, Google Wave, etc. One Xoogler blogged about trying to get a promotion but the project he worked on got canceled a few months in. If their customer support is any indication, I can only guess that same faceless bureaucracy is occurring inside as well. But I don't know I'm only guessing.

I suspect the work is interesting and challenging, but there is a substantial bureaucracy involved in many decisions. For example to officially use a programming language requires 6 months of bureaucratic process. I think Typescript went through that process. Those types of strictures aren't what attract people into high tech.

There are two types of people; those who are in College and can't wait to get out into the real world, and those who want to spend their life in that atmosphere.

It is not clear whether you think the bureaucratic system is more or less like College, and good arguments for each, so I can't think of which!

I think there are a lot of factors. Among others:

* Google is a highlight on a resume. Put it on your linkedin and you'll find a lot of interesting opportunities coming your way. Many Google employees are smart and curious. When everyone keeps offering you exciting opportunities and money, it's easy to convince yourself to take them.

* At least when I worked there engineers were hired with little direction on what to do. We weren't even hired for a specific project -- there was an internal policy to hire the best engineers regardless of specific need. Some people find that empowering, others find it frustrating.

* I found the mindset to be cultish, like somehow you're supposed to believe Google is "changing the world". That's a much easier sell when you're a small company "doing no evil". It's a much harder sell when you're a large company, and many of your actions seem to be evil, or at least no different than other big companies.

* The cancelled projects certainly qualify. When I was there, there was an "all hands on deck" effort to build up Google Plus, and a genuine belief among management that the survival of the company depended on it. A couple years later, there was a total reversal. Not to mention the lack of direction on things like Google Reader, Google Voice, Google Hangouts, etc...

Lots of other reasons as well, I'm sure.

I know someone who went to Google as a new graduate. This person's intention was always to use google as a springboard to running their own company - Google was essentially seen as an apprenticeship.

I think that's what's going on - Google hires the brightest and best but those brightest and best know that in the end if they want to snag the riches and be masters of their own destiny they have to do their own start-up.

When a company is majority male and the males judge who is being competent and who is being underpaid, it's not hard to see that it's going to be biased against women. If the point is to show that you're being fair to women then you try and show men are being hard done by.

Google has fantastic internal (and visible by all Googlers) tools to measure retention. Retention is far better than is the norm in Tech.

The “go” links have existed for years.

I worked for Google when I was pregnant with my first child and again when I had my second child, five years later. I had post partum depression during my first preganancy and I was suffering with a lack of sleep the second time around. My manager and I had an agreement that I would be paid at 75% because that's how conscience I really was.

There is a contract of the company and there is a contract with the boss. And I live in realm of middle management.

Whoah - wild story. Can you tell us more about how this worked out? Did they actually cut your pay?

Pretty sure its a bot. Cool story though.

I am no bot. I worked in the account management branch of agency services. My job required lots of contact with advertisers as well as celebrities. The clients respected my work-life story but my boss was difficult. If I was willing to get my pay cut, why would I care about hitting quotas. Of course we hit our numbers because my clients arranged it, they weren't gonna sell me down the river or nothing. I think it really makes a big difference to know your station in the agency world.

it's frustrating that "women get paid less than men for the same work" is still a beat being pushed. being a woman at a majority-male company can be uniquely frustrating in ways that companies can work to improve w/o turning the whole thing into a zero-sum game. it is so obvious that women are not being structurally underpaid for the same work at a google. is it possible the author is in such a bubble that he genuinely does not realize this?

"The surprising conclusion to the latest version of the annual study contrasted sharply with the experience of women working in Silicon Valley and in many other industries."

They have to push it because the underlying narrative is what's important, not any semblance of solving a problem that doesn't in fact exist.

It's a standard disclaimer on these kind of studies. I've seen it enough times now to recognise the trope; "the data doesn't support the SJW narrative, but don't worry, we authors are still fully on board; please don't shoot us!"

"The surprising lack of witches in this territory contrasts with the lived experiences of local peasantry beset by Satanism and black magic. It is possible the statistics do not capture the subtle, structural elements of hegemonic witchcraft which makes cows sour their milk and new lambs born runtish and sickly. Witchfinders should increase their funding and zeal to find out where the witches are hiding.

Alternate explanation: Women face higher standards in the hiring process, therefore the ones who are hired at a given level are likely to perform better than the average man hired at the same level. If compensation is tied to performance, then it would make sense that women are "overcompensated" at any given level.

Yeah but these companies are bending over backward to increase the number of women in tech, so no.

Alternative Explanation #2: Because so many companies are trying to increase the number of women in tech, they bid up the price of the available female tech talent, with the result that in any particular company, the women tend to be overpaid compared to the men.

I have no idea, but it seems plausible.

Having worked at these companies, +1000. There's no way that Google was surprised by this result. Whatever sexism women may or may not encounter once they are hired, a demonstrably competent woman programmer is a valuable asset for reasons well beyond her contribution as a programmer. And everyone knows it.

+1. Inevitable consequence of over-paying for females at recruitment to make quota.

It's not a zero sum game to treat people fairly, and equally for the same work.

In fact, having this as a norm will increase the productivity of both men and women.

You’re an academic? No.

All the top firms are competing for female talent to avoid being sued/bad press. This bids up the rare female tech talent. They’re literally more valuable to a firm than an equally productive male. Same goes for minorities, minus asians of course. IN general not anything worth worrying about, it only affects software engineers, consultants, lawyers, and VC, and they make plenty of money.


What a convoluted argument.

If firms are competing to get female talent, then why is there gender or racial wage disparity generally?

Instead of hypothesizing, how about looking at facts.

By the way, your comment doesn't challenge the statement that having the norm of treating equally productive people equally increases productivity.

If firms are competing to get female talent, then why is there gender . . . wage disparity generally?

Because, in the real world, women are less productive, generally, due to a multitude of factors. A norm of "treating equally productive people equally" will reliably produce gender wage disparities.

The "74 cents on the dollar" claims are bullshit based on treating all jobs requiring the same level of education (HS diploma, associate's degree, bachelor's, master's, professional or doctorate) as equivalent, without regard to demand or productivity. So a guy who's been programming for recreation since age 13 who gets hired by a tech firm as a programmer straight out of high school is compared to a woman who has a no-degree-required job at a daycare, and feminists declare the difference in their pay is a gender wage gap.

The theoretical justification for this from the feminists is that the only reason there are gender disparities in what careers people pursue is social sexism conditioning men and women differently. Which, even if it is true, is not remotely the fault of the companies trying to hire from the available pool of tech job applicants.

If you adjust for job description and seniority, the wage gap becomes vastly smaller. And if you compare single, childless women to single, childless men, there is no gap at all. A feminist may complain that the uneven incidence of child care duties in a family is social sexism, but it's not the fault of an employer that women are more likely to take time away from work to care for family (thus lowering their at-work productivity, and thus any productivity-adjusted wage).

So, instead of parroting stupid propaganda, how about looking at actual facts?

No evidence for your assertion. But there is evidence of the disparity for the same work.

You have no evidence. Dare you to cite evidence supporting your assertions.

Bill, this is common knowledge. If you're going to claim the wage gap is a result of bias I think the onus is on you. This very post is evidence of bias against men, after all.

Bill said No evidence for your assertion. But there is evidence of the disparity for the same work..

Yet his is the simplest explanation of what has happened to create Silicon Valley.

I find what you and other SJWs say reflects a kind of basic dishonesty people find distasteful.

If there was *any* truth in your counterclaim, women would a significant percentage of founders and CEOs of software.
You might counter with YouTube's Susan Wojcicki, however, she was a humanities major in college and was essentially the Erlich Bachman of Google.

If what you believe is true there would be women founding world class software firms made up only of women, created simply to prove to the world the equality of men and women. But its not going to happen to a non-trans woman.

Today software developers look at SJWs and their journalists like Fat Tony and the mob, trying to get their cut.

Anonymous, You defend your assertion by claiming it's "common knowledge" I love the way you do not attack the problem.

Here is Google Scholar list of citations and research articles disproving your "common knowledge" assertion:,24&as_vis=1

There is absolutely zero evidence of wage disparity. What are you, a 19 year old sociology major?

In economics we have this nifty thing called ceteris paribus. It’s in Latin...

....anyways, since we can’t run actual experiments the trick is to find things as close to each other as possible. Cool right?

So we can compare childless men vs childless women, that’s pretty close. There’s no disparity. Actually, women right out of college out earn men. It’s when they decide to be mothers that the disparity starts. For obvious reasons.

When you can't prove anything with facts, you call people names.

It's either laziness or lack of evidence, or both. Here are Google scholar citations for 2019 evidence of gender wage disparity for the same job.,24&as_vis=1

Do you have a learning disability?

None of these hold up to even the slightest bit of review.

I clicked on your Google Scholar citation page.

The first two studies concern low-wage employment in Thailand and Bangladesh, respectively: "Parenthood Penalty and Gender Wage Gap: Recent Evidence from Thailand", "Analysing the glass ceiling and sticky floor effects in Bangladesh: Evidence, extent and elements."

The third study is more relevant, but you might want to red the highlights before citing it as evidence for your position:


Women were no less likely to select variable rate payment schemes as compensation for providing credence goods than men.

Overall earnings were higher for men than for women.

Disaggregating behavior by type of payment and gender reveals that women who chose fee-for-service provided significantly fewer units of services paid for than men who chose fee-for-service.

The difference in number of services provided accounts for the lower overall earnings for women in our experiments.


The "XX cents on the dollar" is based on comparing the income of all employees defined as "Full-time." Yet surprisingly the U.S. Dept. of Labor does not define "full time" but leaves that up to employers.

The comparison not only does not distinguish between the type of work done but does not adjust for the number of hours worked, as "full time" might be anything from 32 hours per week for 27 weeks to 60+ hours per week for 50 weeks.

And so no one's all that surprised that as one controls for more employment-related factors the "cents per dollar" stat creeps up, and sometimes to over 100 depending on which factors are considered.

Thus the "cents on the dollar" is bogus because it's not just not for the same type of work but not even for the same amount of work.

And, yes, arguments about these Google numbers will inevitably revolve around "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome."

Of course it's a zero sum game unless, by magic, more equality (which has little to do with fairness) will make everyone happy and more productive.

What work are the men doing that is underpaid relative to women doing the same job? The article indicates that women are disproportionately represented in lower level jobs; overpaying them at lower level jobs doesn't make up for being underrepresented at higher level jobs.

... but then are you saying that being unrepresented at higher levels is justification for overpaying at lower levels? If so I fail to follow the logic.

"Mr. Damore argued that biological differences and not a lack of opportunity explained the shortage of women in upper-tier positions."

That's one of a dozen or so explanations Damore offered as possible explanations. The hit job on Damore -- the way his views have been misrepresented even in the upper echelons of the media -- has been remarkably thorough and scary.

What was really amazing to me was all the high profile media sites willing to just flat lie about what was contained in a document that was readily available online. It turned out to work fine for them--most people wanted to have their opinion justified but didnt want to trouble themselves to read anten page document. But I do wonder whether those media sources will miss the trust of the small fraction who bothered to read it.

So it's OK to talk about women's biological inferiority if you also have 11 other beliefs?

If you are talking about Damore's memo, then please furnish the offending language in support of your characterization.

Take it up with Mr Will above. I speak only generally. To discuss one part of many opinions cannot be a "hit job". For instance, characterising Hitler as a mass murderer when he was also a vegetarian anti-Marxist socialist would not be a "hit job". The claim is preposterous. I have no idea about Mr Damore, but Mr Will is the one saying it.

Not what I said. That you are sprinkling in your own meaning where no such things are implied betrays your ideological blinders. Not good.

1. They are misrepresenting his views by mentioning only a small part of them as though it is the entirety;

2. He never said anything, at any point, about biological inferiority;

3. He was offering possible explanations, not insisting that any one of them were true explanations.

Please read more, think more, and react less in the future.

1 Nobody implied it was the entirety, and news about the biological inferiority of women is obviously newsworthy; 2 He asserted women select out of jobs that deserve good pay due to being bad leaders etc; 3 Insinuation is a thing, especially when your "possible explanations" lead to your decisive policy conclusions

" 2 He asserted women select out of jobs that deserve good pay due to being bad leaders etc; "

Did he though?

I mean, the alternative is pretending women and men are identical, but hey, if you want to characterize one as superior to another, nobody can stop you.

Yes. If he said that Asian-Americans are underrepresented in professional basketball in part because there are relatively fewer tall Asian-Americans, then no one would care much. But feminists get hysterical when anyone challenges their abstract ideology with claims based on biological differences.

You have this wrong. Maybe Asian-Americans should get hysterical when challenged. Every other group, blacks, whites, feminists, christians, jews, muslims, does this. It is part of the American tradition. Nobody is respected unless they raise some hell. It makes you visible and you start to have a story that people relate to. Otherwise you get picked on by everybody including Harvard who all prefer that your concerns silently disappear.

For today's journalists, the most plaintive weakly squeals get the most attention.

I bet you can demonstrate varying heights among American ancestral descent groups more convincingly than you can demonstrate that women deserve to earn less.

I can demonstrate that when adjusted for job description, years of experience, and child care responsibility, women don't earn less.

You can counter-assert the differences in job description are the result of sexism instead of preference, of course, and that in a non-sexist society men and women would take the same amount of time off to care for children. But I bet you can demonstrate varying heights among American ancestral descent groups more convincingly than you can demonstrate that those differences are due to sexism.

Well done, you win one golden rationalist neckbeard. But most normal people out there in the real world do actually say fair-minded things like nurses are undervalued / bankers are overpaid, so I think pushing that particular door labeled "job description" would reveal it a lot more open than it seems on the rationalist Voldemort net.

Oh hun, you’ve given up the game already.

You went from ‘there’s sexist discrimination’ to ‘I don’t like that people voluntarily pay certain people with job X more than another set of people with job Y whom I’m more partial to.’

Sweetheart, you may have a learning disability. Remember, you can always incoherently shout at strangers in the street, rather than making a display of your imbecility on the internet. Maybe give the FBI your IP address.

Bless your heart hun.

He said biological differences, not inferiority. But nice attempt to strawman his post.

Ok, a biological preference for low-paid work requiring low cognitive skills. How euphemistic do you want to get here, snowflake?

So, you went from strawman post to an ad hominem attack.

Oh hun, you’ve been beaten by JWatts in the realm of facts and now you’re just being childish and calling people names.

Darling, maybe logic isn’t your strong suit. That’s okay huh. You can always post on Mother Jones for some positive feedback. Crooked Timber also loves stupidity, you might find a home there.

Bless your heart.

Please don't hurt James Damore's feelings. He might sue you over his butthurtedness.

As usual, you've got matters backwards. The snowflakes were the ones triggered into PTSD by his words. Damore got fired from his job so that the snowflakes can have a safe space.

I like his "Goolag" shirt because Google, a trillion dollar corporation, is literally Stalin. dey r teh evilz.

Google's market Cap is only $800 billion, smartypants.

Yeah, and Google literally marched him out to a Siberian forced labor camp for reeducation. Oh wait, they didn't.

I was just goofing, too. Lighten up, Francis.

What goofing around? Damore's very important feelings are hurt. Feelings are real, son. And so is the legal battle to fix the emotional pain and discomfort caused by Google's Stalinist tactics of showering large sums of money to lure talent into working for them.

As if filling diversity quotas constitutes talent.

Right... suing for wrongful termination is always butthurt, or just when people you don't like do it?

Damore is kind of an idiot. He says Google discriminates against white men. Google is like 60-70% white men and is run, founded, and owned by white men. Then he calls them Stalinists but as the troll above mentioned, that's laughable. Don't remember the part where the USSR offered stock options and fat bonuses on top of 1%er level salaries. Finally, suing over a job where they could let you go for just about any reason is dumb. Millions of Americans get laid off all the time. If everybody sued over all their perceived aggrievances, it would shutdown the judicial system worse than Trump. Just let it go and move on.

This is separate labor supply curve market stuff, right?

This is a very smart move by Google. Since tech is filled with men, they will save tremendously on labor costs. It's time they stop paying these people $300-400K just because they are good at math. If tech companies are smart instead of colluding to drive down wages like before, they should use an AI, which ends up colluding anyway but gives much more deniability.

Guys on this board not good with simple math: "In response to the finding, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year" - that means the average employee made about $907k, which cannot be right, even if you assume two thirds of that is overhead. So more likely they are counting executive bonuses, not what $150k-250k engineers are making. Much ado about nothing. It still pays more to be on Wall Street or a gatekeeper.

Good comment, except your arithmetic is off by three orders of magnitude, so dumb comment.

OK, correction, I was taking shortcuts. The $9.7M/10.7k = $909 per employee, which must be the holiday bogus.

Playing with tech toys is intrinsically more fun to lots of people than pushing paper at a bank. You could also bank all the cash for a few years as an employee then strike out on your own with a startup. Jeff Bezos is the world's richest man because he left Wall Street (DE Shaw) and founded his own tech company.

"intrinsically more fun" - Maybe to people who write blog comments.

"Guys on this board not good with simple math: "


"$9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year" - that means the average employee made about $907k"

Proof that chess ability does not translate into other mental abilities like math.

Weird that msgkings would impersonate me for a comment like this. Forgot to change his username, I suspect.

Didn't surprise me one bit. It's Economics, where paradox and the unexpected result reign supreme.

Maybe nerdy guys are even worse at salary negotiation than women, and for the same reasons - being socialized to be timid/agreeable.

The engineers I work with aren't particularly known as timid or agreeable. Introverted in most of the cases, but not timid.

Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs, and Bezos are all nerdy but they are also partly sociopathic and do anything to get their way.

Cowen is distorting the findings of this study. Women are greatly overrepresented at the bottom and greatly underrepresented at the top, but overpaid (relative to men) because most of the women are at the bottom and being compared to their peers. Bottom's up. You go, girl! Can readers of this blog, you know, read?

Here's the comment I was looking for.

The logical fallacy comment? "overpaid (relative to men) because most of the women are at the bottom and being compared to their peers" is a nonsensical, illogical statement

rayward, could you supply a quote? I know you are a lawyer so I don't doubt your reading ability, but nowhere did I see that in the article. It made it sound like they compared men and women within their HR levels, and the pushback claim - besides the usual, women were discouraged from pursuing their love of tech and working at Google starting in the first grade - seemed to be that women were not assigned to the correct (higher) level at hiring - which made their pay wrongly seem too high for their level.

It is obvious that incompetent women--but I repeat myself--are overpaid, but what astonishes me is that Google was willing to admit this publicly.

Hi salaried google engineers are everyone’s favorite employment topic, but IMO the most fertile area to improve women’s salaries would be in developing metrics that differentiate quality administrative staff (secretive, admins etc) from lousy ones and tie to actual money/risk reduction for the company. Loads of companies have the standard 30-40k salaried admin who is either among the most valuable employees (often THE most when salary is considered) in the company or the least. However, as their job theoretically generates no revenue and any responsibility accrues to managers, they see no pay differential. The problem is, managers & sales people come and go and often it’s the secretary who just wants a stable income who ends being the only person who knows how things actually are supposed to work. Such people - if they’re any good - in my view tend to be chronically underpaid, and often have the one tragic flaw that they do a terrible job of advocating for themselves.

When Google managers initially considered what employees would be paid this year, they decided that more women than men should have their pay adjusted upward to account for factors like how they were compensated relative to their peers, the company said. The money in question came from a discretionary pool earmarked for such purposes.

One effect of the adjustments was to create a pronounced imbalance in compensation among lower-level software engineers, one of Google’s largest job groups, with a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers. To offset that, further adjustments were made. Google said it saw no pattern in the reasons women were receiving more discretionary pay.

How many male H1Bs compared to female?

Are the men underpaid? If they keep working there then obviously not, right?

While not entirely a surprising result. And not suggesting that similar compensation biased only on quality of work output is worth tracking and monitoring. Still, this leveling event and the previous one they reported is about less than $1000 a year per person. When the compensation is probably in the 150K area that's hardly a difference to get all excited about.

Feudal structures are the basic organization of companies. Most have the hierarchical feudal chain of command built of loyalty and trust. You’re an employee/serf not bound to productivity by force only the law of equality.

Dear Sir

I Like To Grow Up You Traffic System Campaign Or Submit Traffic To Your Website

This is a very simple internet traffic system, One-Click Traffic System

Get Instant Access And Jut Put You Link Choose The Different Traffic Source And Also Can Put In Keyword To Get Traffic.

Best Regards

Comments for this post are closed