this is curious, and has led to several raised eyebrows: see also the wired article on this subject.
this is curious, and has led to several raised eyebrows:
When Google conducted its annual pay equity analysis for 2018, the tech company found something nobody expected: It was underpaying men for doing similar work as women.
The underpayment — which flips the typical gender pay gap narrative on its head — mostly applied to one group of software engineers. The company emphasized in a blog post that despite this pay discrepancy, deeper structural issues can continue to lead to pay disparities between men and women.
To standardize compensation between genders within the group, Google disbursed almost $10 million to more than 10,000 employees. (Though it did not say how much of the money went to men.)
Google is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by women who allege systemic underpayment. And the Department of Labor is investigating whether Google pays women less.
James Finberg, the lawyer who filed the class-action suit, told Wired that Google's report contradicted expert analysis of the company's own payroll data. "It is very disappointing that, instead of addressing the real gender pay inequities adverse to women, Google has decided to increase the compensation of 8,000 male software engineers," Finberg said.
Why? If men are being paid less than women, it makes sense to increase compensation for the "discriminated" side to help even it out. If this were the other way around, Finberg would not be...
"It is very disappointing that, instead of addressing the real gender pay inequities adverse to women, Google has decided to increase the compensation of 8,000 male software engineers," Finberg said.
Why? If men are being paid less than women, it makes sense to increase compensation for the "discriminated" side to help even it out. If this were the other way around, Finberg would not be complaining.
It's disappointing for him that the suit that he filed was not only incorrect, but quite literally the opposite of what was actually happening. But that only shows that equality doesn't actually mean anything to him, it's just about winning a lawsuit.
You left out important context. Now that we have two conflicting claims here, which is more likely to be true? Ultimately since we don't have access to much information, it's going to be a bit...
Exemplary
You left out important context.
James Finberg, the lawyer who filed the class-action suit, told Wired that Google's report contradicted expert analysis of the company's own payroll data.
Now that we have two conflicting claims here, which is more likely to be true? Ultimately since we don't have access to much information, it's going to be a bit harder to see which claim holds up to scrutiny.
However, it's possible that both claims are entirely correct. Let me give you an example: Let's say at Google, women are more likely to stay in the same position than men (ie less likely to be promoted). For the sake of a hypothetical, let's assume that women stay in the same position for an average of four years, while men stay in that position for an average of two years. What this means is that it's entirely possible for women within the same position to be overpaid compared to men, because they've held down the position for longer and presumably the yearly raises add up to be more than what Google initially pays. As a result relative to male employees within that same bracket, men would be underpaid.
However, in the greater scheme of things, women end up being paid less on average because the average male employee rises up the ladder quicker. This is in effect the Simpson's Paradox in action. Without more information to work off of, we don't know if Google chose to act on a limited set of information, or if the payroll information itself is another small piece of the paradox. Calling the suit filing incorrect would be a bit presumptuous at this time because we simply don't know all the variables at play yet.
this is curious, and has led to several raised eyebrows:
see also the wired article on this subject.
Why? If men are being paid less than women, it makes sense to increase compensation for the "discriminated" side to help even it out. If this were the other way around, Finberg would not be complaining.
It's disappointing for him that the suit that he filed was not only incorrect, but quite literally the opposite of what was actually happening. But that only shows that equality doesn't actually mean anything to him, it's just about winning a lawsuit.
You left out important context.
Now that we have two conflicting claims here, which is more likely to be true? Ultimately since we don't have access to much information, it's going to be a bit harder to see which claim holds up to scrutiny.
However, it's possible that both claims are entirely correct. Let me give you an example: Let's say at Google, women are more likely to stay in the same position than men (ie less likely to be promoted). For the sake of a hypothetical, let's assume that women stay in the same position for an average of four years, while men stay in that position for an average of two years. What this means is that it's entirely possible for women within the same position to be overpaid compared to men, because they've held down the position for longer and presumably the yearly raises add up to be more than what Google initially pays. As a result relative to male employees within that same bracket, men would be underpaid.
However, in the greater scheme of things, women end up being paid less on average because the average male employee rises up the ladder quicker. This is in effect the Simpson's Paradox in action. Without more information to work off of, we don't know if Google chose to act on a limited set of information, or if the payroll information itself is another small piece of the paradox. Calling the suit filing incorrect would be a bit presumptuous at this time because we simply don't know all the variables at play yet.