Hacker News new | more | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010) (time.com)
315 points by kristianc 10 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 264 comments



"He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do."

It's interesting itself that more women graduate than men. But equal pay means equal pay for people with similar qualifications doing similar jobs. This comparison means nothing to me.


Sadly "equal pay" means whatever you want it to mean.

At some point the nurses union in Denmark argued that their education was roughly the same length as that of an engineer, so they should be paid the same on that basic. Completely ignoring that engineers spend five years at the university vs. the 3.5 years for nursing school and that engineers are pay wildly different salaries bases on their field of work.

In my mind, equal pay is for people doing the exact same job, and the exact same number of hours, but that just my interpretation. Many will use the equal pay term to advocate for a pay rise, because they feel that their line of work is underpaid.

If someone believe that they should be better compensated, just say that, don't hide it behind "equal pay". One issue of cause it that people don't understand economy, it not necessarily about the hours you work, the responsibility you have, but about the profit you generate for your employer.


> Sadly "equal pay" means whatever you want it to mean.

Exactly this. At a fundamental level every individual has an infinite number of "dimensions" (in ML parlance) associated with him, and "equal pay" people or groups will try and convince you that expected pay should be the same over a certain subset of dimensions while ignoring all the others. Invariably they will pick the most beneficial to that particular person or influence group. They will give you arguments from moral, while forgetting to mention that like in any midly complex problem, data bias and confounding variables are of paramount importance.

So "equal pay" means whatever you want it to mean because try and you may, you will never have a model with the full infinite set of dimensions that the real world has. Having to pick you pick the ones you want, a choice that others will attack.


You cannot dismiss rigorous statistical analysis by arguing it can never encompass the full dimensions of the data. Of course it can't. The map is not the territory; it is a useful way to find our way around it. Ignoring the map is perilous, if not arrogant, even though it is merely a flawed representation of the real truth.

You might argue that a specific study or meta-analysis contains a bias or misinterpretation, but only if you've actually examined their methodology, data, and reasoning. You cannot argue that all studies of complex topics are invalid simply because their topics are complex.


> You cannot dismiss rigorous statistical analysis by arguing it can never encompass the full dimensions of the data.

This simply means it's not rigorous. See Omitted-variable bias - from [1]: The bias results in the model attributing the effect of the missing variables to the estimated effects of the included variables. For example, including gender but not education or hours worked will result in attributing pay differences to gender, but including all relevant variables shows that's gender is irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable_bias


You entirely missed the point. We can never include every single relevant variable to perfectly explain the observation. It's impossible.

This doesn't mean statistics is useless.

This is the meaning of the phrase "the map is not the territory". All models are flawed, but some are useful.


No, statistics aren't useless, but its usefulness cuts both ways: if you can add one or two relevant variables and almost entirely remove the observation, then statistics tells you that the observation was only there due to omitted-variable bias.


Sure, that's fine. That's part of using statistics to the best of our ability.


I think there's some middle ground between saying that the analysis is rigorous and saying it's useless, no?


Indeed. But that's where all the hard work is -- trying to determine how rigorous something is, knowing it certainly isn't perfectly rigorous.


>You cannot argue that all studies of complex topics are invalid simply because their topics are complex.

If you take a random sample of studies you can make a statistical analysis. You don't need to examine every cow to make an argument that there are no pink cows, but you do need to do a random sample. And that's if you only want to meet the highest standards of evidence. Much lower standards can be far easier to meet.


> If you take a random sample of studies you can make a statistical analysis. You don't need to examine every cow to make an argument that there are no pink cows, but you do need to do a random sample. And that's if you only want to meet the highest standards of evidence. Much lower standards can be far easier to meet.

Your comparison of this problem with pink cows shows that you haven't given it two seconds thought. Estimating the number of pink cows in the world is a very simple problem. Determining pay gap is a very very complex problem that starts with defining what the question really is and associated fights between different interest groups which might prefer one or another definition, then goes on to the (social, privacy, and rights) problem of obtaining the data, and moving on into with the data analysis itself which is just hellish if you want to have any semblance of rigour, and finally policy take aways from the analysis which hinges crucially on how you defined the question initially.

Stop adding to the noise please.


>Estimating the number of pink cows in the world is a very simple problem.

If by 'estimating' you mean a scientific study that tries to answer the question, then it isn't simple at all. First we need a rigorous definition of pink cows. If I dye my cow pink, does that count? What if other people don't agree with my definition? A pig whose skin is pink is considered pink, so should I only rely on hair color? And what counts as pink? Are we only going with stereotypical hot pink? There is a red cow, but it is a really brownish red. Would a brownish pink be enough to qualify as a pink cow?

So once we solved all those problems, we need to come up with a methodology, and it likely won't be the same everywhere. We could make the problem a lot simpler by reducing our search space to say, only cows on ranches in the state of Montana. But to do a global sampling isn't easy.

>associated fights between different interest groups which might prefer one or another definition

To my knowledge (and with no peer reviewed research to back up my view), there is no groups who have a political stake in what counts as a pink cow. So for that reason it is simpler because there aren't political complications.

But you seem to be confusing something. You appear to be talking about studying wage gap. I was talking about studying studies of wage gaps.

So for my plan, it would work like this:

Taking all the studies of wage gap in the last n years, pick x at random. For each of these, determine if each one does or does not account for some factor that impacts pay regardless of gender (say height of employee). You can then compute what percentage of studies took this factor into account.

Then you repeat this with a few other factors, each time repicking the studies investigated. From those percentages, you can determine how often your selection of factors are taken into account, and from that you might be able to make the argument that the data is biased enough to not be usable.


Isn't that why we have 'replication crisis' in fields that 'can never encompass the full dimensions of the data'

Doesn't replication crisis prove 'that all studies of complex topics are invalid simply because their topics are complex.'


Science as a whole has developed knowing that it is impossible to encompass the full dimensions of the data, the goal is to find the best explanation given the available evidence.

The replication crisis is a result of the misuse or misunderstanding of the statistics, and the current nature of journals.


A heuristic in which you refuse to undertake any action without complete information of perfect reliability is always biased towards the status quo. Heck, it's straight from the CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual. So in the guise of "first needing to understand the complexities of the problem", you are rationalizing away the preponderance of evidence which shows that, yep, any way you cut it, there's a gender wage gap.


> A heuristic in which you refuse to undertake any action without complete information of perfect reliability is always biased towards the status quo.

I agree with that phrase, and I acknowledge that it's a problem, but you're jumping into conclusions about what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to say "we don't have complete information, so we should do nothing." Read on:

> you are rationalizing away the preponderance of evidence which shows that, yep, any way you cut it, there's a gender wage gap.

No, that's is precisely my point. It is NOT true that any way you cut it there's a gender gap. If you let me cut it how I want it I can have the gap be anything I want by carefully (as an example) picking which of the omitted variables I adjust for sampling bias and which ones I don't[0]. That is what I was trying to say.

[0] And lets not talk about confounding variables, that problem is at least an order of magnitud harder even than sampling/population bias.


In case anyone needs a PDF of the CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...


> Exactly this. At a fundamental level every individual has an infinite number of "dimensions" (in ML parlance) associated with him, and "equal pay" people or groups will try and convince you that expected pay should be the same over a certain subset of dimensions while ignoring all the others.

Surely the right response to a study which challenges your existing worldview would be "Hmm, that's interesting - I wonder what is driving that?" rather than "The equal pay people or groups will always try to convince you..."


It seems that GP did that, and learned that these studies ignore inconvenient factors.


What we should mandate is transparency. We all think we are expert negotiators but we are all idiots. We will all be better off if all salary and all compensation information is public and easily accessible. Sadly, a lot of people think they have something to lose and will never support it.


It would be an interesting experiment. Has it been done before? That could lead to some unpleasant things:

    * A lot of unavoidable angst as people of less worth to the business are proven to be paid less in no uncertain terms.
    * More internal strife as people jockey for identifiable rank within the organization based upon their salaries.  "Why is Sue paid $10k more than I am?  Sue wasn't at her desk all week last week while I was here busting my butt."
    * Eventually, many managers and organizations would just sidestep the battle by paying everyone the same thing based upon easy-to-identify metrics like seniority.  As a result, the people with more value to the business will find jobs at companies that pay them according to a better measure of their bottom-line worth.  With no one left but the lowest-common-denominator employees, the company flounders and fails.


> Eventually, many managers and organizations would just sidestep the battle by paying everyone the same thing based upon easy-to-identify metrics like seniority. As a result, the people with more value to the business will find jobs at companies that pay them according to a better measure of their bottom-line worth. With no one left but the lowest-common-denominator employees, the company flounders and fails.

In most fields, there are already companies which pay wildly different amounts for the same jobs, so the people contributing more in those similar roles are already highly incentivized to leave for higher-paying pastures.


In certain Nordic countries (Sweden at least, I believe), all tax data is public. By extension, everybody's income is public as well. It doesn't seem to be an issue.


A quick Google turned up some refutation of your statement:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907147

Looking further, it appears that Sweden has decreased the amount of transparency by requiring that people make specific requests that notify the taxpayer of the request.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-salaries-freely-availa...

Apparently, there were issues. I'd like to see this experiment run for a longer period of time in more culturally diverse environments, though.


I don't want my salary to be transparent. There is something called privacy. My salary is a private matter. I really don't believe I'm any kind of expert in negotiation.


His point is that your need for privacy is preventing group wins. You want to avoid a bit of shame or envy but by making this decision we, as employees, lose a lot of our leverage.

You wouldn’t have to negotiate a better salary if it would be obvious that you are underpaid.


I think a "fair" distribution of pay for software engineers would more unequal than it is currently. (This is the logical financial conclusion of believing in the 3x, if not 10x, engineer, which I do.)

I have people who work on my teams who are absolutely fantastic and, while already well-paid, probably should make more. I have other people on my team, with the same title, same education, same on-paper responsibilities, same city, same years of experience, who might be below the median pay and are still overpaid based on my estimation of their contributions relative to their peers.

You can't look only at a spreadsheet and determine that it's "obvious that you are underpaid", IMO.


That only works the way you think it works if most people agree with you. I doubt that... Plus it's really hard to determine who is actually a 10x contributor, even more so universally (across projects, teams, companies).


It's really not that hard to see, on a single team, who's contributing twice as much as who else. You don't even have to be a manager - sometimes managers are the last to be sure, actually. Generally people who complain about lazy coworkers end up settling on a lot of the same people... Being a manager just gives you official venues like feedback requests to realize "oh everyone else sees it too."


Managers are usually terrible at knowing who is contributing on a software team and they're the ones who set pay.

This is 100% a red herring as far as pay transparency is concerned anyway. If you're not being unfair you have no reason to hide anything.


It would also prevent raises.


You're assuming that I'm a world were transparency goes up, good negotiators go extinct? :)


Logically, if I know that in giving one person a raise, everyone will ask for the same raise, I just won't give anyone a raise that isn't negotiated by the entire group, which takes longer and is less likely to occur without conflict.

It actually extends to the whole market, too - if all salaries are transparent, then an RN makes x. They can't make more than that, anywhere they go. It gives a floor, sure - if they get hired, they'll get paid the same as everyone else; it just also makes a ceiling, and, I believe, may slow income growth in general.


Salary growth for the past 30 years has been slower than productivity growth.

So I'd see your point as already happening, companies have already capped salaries, except for executives, who basically set their own salaries.


However consumer prices have gone down over the same period. A refrigerator today costs much less in terms of labor hours than it did 30 years ago. So productivity growth has led to a rise in living standards.


> So productivity growth has led to a rise in living standards.

I love seeing this statement. It's true but the people who post it never follow up evaluating whether or not productivity growth has far out-paced the rise in living standards. If productivity growth has been exponential while the rise in living standards has been linear that's a sign that there's a problem regardless of whether or not living standards have risen.


No the assumption is that a good negotiator now has to negotiate for everyone. Because if you give a raise to him, others will come to know and ask for similar treatment.


> I really don't believe I'm any kind of expert in negotiation.

That means that transparency works _for_ you, not against you.


But that doesn't mean I'm ready to give up my privacy.


That is exactly what they want us to think. I'm glad you at least realize there is information asymmetry at play here. Thank you for keeping an open mind. You have come farther than many people I've talked to. We can get there.


Why? What benefit does that entail? Is is greater than the benefits of transparency?


Yes. My privacy is not a trivial matter.

Think of it like this. Will you be willing to post your entire web browsing history to a publicly available archive regularly? It will help prevent a lot of illegal activity if everyone agreed to do that.


But the bar -- as established by the 77% number -- is that a difference in pay is sexism.


> Exactly this. At a fundamental level every individual has an infinite number of "dimensions" (in ML parlance) associated with him

And of course, this applies not just to people but to most complex entities or ideas. The problem is, when dealing with humans, even intelligent ones, good luck getting them accept this approach when it interferes with their political/emotional/fiscal beliefs or desires. For reference, see recent discussions here on topics like trade tariffs.


We can use bayesian inference here to update the probability of equal pay as more dimensions are added.


If we for a while ignore the difference in education length, general education level, and requirements to even enroll. Then a nurse in Denmark is traditionally employed by the state, with a near guarantee of employment for the rest of life. An engineer do not get the same, and that alone is worth quite a bit in pay to many people.


> In my mind, equal pay is for people doing the exact same job, and the exact same number of hours, but that just my interpretation.

I find that hard to quantify in many professional settings. Say Sally and Tim are both project managers. They have basically the same education and experience levels. But Sally has more tact and is more organized. So she gets all the complicated and risky projects. Should Tim and Sally make the same? I'd argue, no.


> In my mind, equal pay is for people doing the exact same job, and the exact same number of hours, but that just my interpretation. Many will use the equal pay term to advocate for a pay rise, because they feel that their line of work is underpaid.

I'm with you here, but I think you also missed another point: at the same level of productivity. Equal hours at work doesn't mean equal productivity.


In fact equal hours is not a factor. If one person works 4 hours and gets as much done as another person working 40 hours they are wroth the same.


> the profit you generate your employer

Ideally maybe, but it's just market forces. How much does an employer want you and how hard are you to get and retain?


plenty of jobs generate no profit, or only indirectly. How are you going to measure the profit a secretary generates? Or a cleaner?


Compensating support-role positions is hardly a new problem for businesses.

They slice and dice budgets in many different ways to ensure that the overall business can maximize profits/productivity.


Not having much of a head for business, I think I'd try to estimate the amount of non-revenue time they save the directly-measurable employees. You count the time they save those employees as their revenue. You pay everyone about 1/4 to 1/3 of their revenues.

So if the contract specifies that the company gets paid $200/hr for developer labor up to 40 hr/week, you pay the developers $50/hr to $67/hr by the rule of thumb. If there were no support staff, they would each have to spend 2 hours a week on personnel management, which couldn't be billed to the contract. So an HR employee could support 25 other employees, since they can do the same work in 90 minutes (and still have to do the personnel management for themselves). Cleaning saves the specialists 30 minutes a week, so each supporting up to 119 other employees, since they can do the same work in 20 minutes (and still have to clean their own workspace). A manager saves each developer 8 hours a week, but can handle 10 developers (or 5 managers), since they can do that management work in half the time (and someone else manages them). The CEO is an otherwise uncounted manager of managers, paid out of the owner's share, so the first 5 managers don't require an additional manager to manage them.

You add as many support employees as are necessary to ensure that the employees directly measurable as making money spend all their working hours on making money, instead of something else. They get paid out of the fraction you didn't already pay to the revenue employee, and then the owners take what's left over. The closer you get to optimal productivity, the more calculations you have to do to get even better.

This would all go into a very complicated spreadsheet that changes the numbers based on how many direct-revenue employees there are, and how much support staff. Then I'd add a fudge factor so that if a measurable employee quits, nobody gets an automatic pay cut. This requires a lot of speculative hiring and firing in different categories. Everyone has to be paid according to the maximum they could be paid, if there were one more of them.

In this hypothetical, 20 developers have 2 managers, 1 HR, and 1 cleaner. Weekly revenue is $160k. Developers get $53333 of that, for $2667 each at $67/hr. Managers could get up to $10667 of that, for $5333 each at $133/hr. The HR person can get up to $2667, for $67/hr. The cleaner gets up to $667, for $17/hr. But the managers are operating at capacity, one more developer would require one more manager, for 3 managers over 21 developers, maxing out at $93/hr. So you target that instead. The same speculative calculation for the HR person means that one more developer adds one more manager, which puts the only HR employee at their workload limit of 26 (21+3+1+1). One more developer would require one more HR (22+3+2+1), which maxes out at $37/hr, so that's what you pay the one you have. You wouldn't need another cleaner until 102 developers (102+13+5+2), which would be as much as $43/hr. You never see cleaners paid that much, though, because cleaners have more competition as less-skilled labor, and they never hit the maximum any given company could afford to pay them. So you end up with payroll of about $63k/week, leaving $97k/week to pay the building lease, utilities, depreciation, taxes, etc. with the remainder to the owners.


> One issue of cause it that people don't understand economy, it not necessarily about the hours you work, the responsibility you have, but about the profit you generate for your employer.

I have a more simple view on this: the job market is just like any other market, with supply and demand. Those are the factors that will determine the price.


Easy for 'mrweasel' to say, safely working as a man without bias to hinder him? Let's just ignore systemic bias in gender pay because, well, it may not be cut-and-dried so just forget about it? I sense some bias.


Women are paid less not because their jobs are worth less, but because employers can get away with paying them leas. There are values other than market value. Society needs both nurses and engineers. Women and men should be equal not just in opportunity, but in outcome (ie, economic power).

In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for. Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.


You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which ideology they favor. This is in the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you would read them and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.

More explanation, for anyone who wants it, is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16402648, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062, and plenty more at https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20primarily&sort=byDat....


> Society needs both nurses and engineers.

Yes. And if more people want to become engineers, and if becoming an engineer is easier, then engineers will end up getting less money than nurses.

I mean... the more fun a job is, the more people will want to do it despite getting little money, right?

> In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for.

I recall reading some statistics that (in germany) 80% of domestic spending is done by women. Seems about right.

> Women should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.

Uh. That's outright discrimination there. Either against men or against childless people.


A good manager is expected to give an easier schedule to someone who is caring for a sick family member, why would it be horrible to give an easier schedule to someone who has to spend a lot of time taking care of a new baby?

Biology has already discriminated and made her life hard, should we make it worse? Should we make having children as difficult as possible for our fellow citizens?

Paternal leave is important too.


[flagged]


unplanned pregnancies exist, and abortion access is spotty at best, especially for poor people


Putting children up for adoption is an option more frequently than not, and vasectomies and tubectomies exist.


"Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace."

I think you have to work a bit more to support that assertion. I'm not opposed to the idea of some kind of compensation for home-makers, but putting that on employers seems backwards. Why should that not be a form of social support?


I’m speaking on the level of principle, not implementation. There are a variety of ways you could implement this, but I think that is a secondary question to the basic principle that donestic labor exists, is socially necessary, and is, unjustly, not compensated financially. Most people in this debate, even left-leaning people, don’t acknowledge that.


If a homemaker is married, they are compensated by their partner (including alimony and child support after divorce). If a homemaker is single, they receive charity from government.


Some, but not enough. Men and women should be absolutely equal in terms of economic power, they currently are not.


That's a strong statement with zero backing. Who else should be equal?

This experiment has been tried and it failed miserably, read up on the Soviet Union.


"Women (or whomever is the primary caregiver in a family or does more domestic labor at home) should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace."

Why should anyone be compensated anything for routine life-management work? What you're asking is akin to saying everyone should be paid to sleep. Sleeping, bathing, eating, maintaining the home -- these are all parts of functioning as a human. Taking care of children is a function of having chosen to have offspring - I would say it's a voluntary hobby, even.


As a proponent of a universal basic income, I would agree that yes, you should also be paid for sleep.


And under a plan where EVERYONE equally receives that UBI, I can see how you can say it's "being paid to sleep."

Under a plan where people are being paid unequal amounts simply for being alive, that's where it's wrong.


Raising a child is not just "being alive". It requires a tremendous amount of uncompensated labor.


Because unless you’re an antinatalist, some people having children is socially necessary. If the next generation had no children, society would collapse. Also, many women have unplanned pregnancies.


> Because unless you’re an antinatalist, some people having children is socially necessary. If the next generation had no children, society would collapse. Also, many women have unplanned pregnancies.

And that's the fault of the employer . . . how? If they have a child, it shouldn't be subsidized by their employer. Everyone in the West could abstain from having children for three generations and immigrants would make up the numbers - there's no need for most people to have children.


Society would shrink, it would not collapse.

Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. There's no such thing as a truly unexpected pregnancy. Undesired and unplanned perhaps, but not unexpected. In the event it does happen, there are options for either continuing or ending the pregnancy, I still see no reason why anyone should be compensated for voluntarily choosing to continue the pregnancy.


I guess "people that aren't rich have the right to comfortably raise a family" is an axiom that I had that I didn't really expect to have to defend.


If women had to be paid more for the same job, it would be irrational for any business to hire women.


Likewise, if businesses could hire women for an N% discount on labor costs, they would hire only women.


There’s a lot of things that are irrational to an employer, ie providing health insurance or limiting the hours their employees work. Fortunately labor laws exist and are enforced. And just to emphasize, I said the primary caregiver, who is usually but not slways a woman.


Employer provided healthcare is insane and is leftover from ecomic-distorting policies of WWII.


Well yea, healthcare should be a right of all people and not contingent upon employment but that wasn’t really my point

sudoke 10 months ago [flagged]

Healthcare requires the time and resources of healthcare professionals, and no one has the RIGHT to the time or resources of other people. We abolished slavery in this country, I'm sick of people like you arguing to bring it back.


We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Would you please not create accounts to do that with?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Exactly. The word "peers" in the title implies comparison between people with a similar background (education, industry, etc). But it seems the actual study just compares the average salary of all single, young, childless women vs the average salary of all single, young, childless men across the economy.


So it's making exactly the same mistake as studies that compare the average salary of all working-age women with the average salary of all working-age men, and then declare a "gender pay gap" of 20% (or whatever).


I was thinking the same. The study is stupid, but for the same reason any of the women's pay gap studies in the last few years fall short. Comparing apples and oranges is the new science.


Yep. In a world of such pervasive intellectual dishonesty, what's the best course of action? While I admire the people and arguments that have the most intellectual integrity, it seems that demagoguery just works better when it comes to shaping public policy.

At the end of the day, the problem is that most people (voters) wouldn't even begin to understand or appreciate the distinction between demagoguery and intellectual integrity.


The best way around this is to have education. Especially on topics like statistics literacy (not really just statistics, but how to read them), journalism, lobbyism and propaganda. These things should be taught in high school. Taking apart arguments in old propaganda (where there is less political motive) and encouraging people to look out for new propaganda.

Of course it doesn't seem the government would be interested in having such an educated populace.


> The best way around this is to have education

I agree completely, but would education really fix the 20% gender pay gap myth?

I find it very difficult to believe that most of the people who continually reinforce this myth actually believe it to be true. They simply can't all be that ill-educated and/or stupid. And yet the same articles appear in the media every single year. It's become one of those taboo subjects where dogma trumps facts.

The worst part is that it stifles discussion of the earnings gap that actually does exist, and stops us from having meaningful conversations about society's expectations of both men and women.


>I find it very difficult to believe that most of the people who continually reinforce this myth actually believe it to be true.

That is totally irrelevant to their decision process. People keep repeating these statistics because it's useful to make others believe that women are discriminated against in the workplace.


Trump should just cite the studies that show it's not true, but present it as a NEW DEVELOPMENT and thus #MAGA and take credit for it.


Statistics literacy would help, but there are a lot of highly educated people who repeat things like the pay gap myth. I think the problem is more about ideology and the lack of critical thought.


If even PhD's can't be expected to adhere to basic standards of intellectual honesty and critical thinking, then how can we ever expect the general society to grow up and realize the value of these things? How can we, the enlightened few (I say this half-seriously, of course, because obviously I am not without fault myself), ever expect to be able to lead a logical conversation with most normal folks we encounter in our daily lives, even with our parents, spouses and children? Seriously, most of us will never be able to choose their spouse from that tiny minority that understands honest and logical discussion. They will have to settle for something less. Most of us will have children who will never understand what we understand, simply because the school, the society and even our spouses will teach them to act based on emotions and false values. Basically, we are doomed to be eternally dissatisfied with the way our lives turn out to be!

I have to admit, conversations about critical thought in society invariably make me depressed.


This is a fantastic comment.

I've met several people who treat my tendency to value critical thought as if it's nothing more than a quirky personality trait, and acting based on emotions and feelings is just as valid. It's infuriating.


I tend to focus on intellectual integrity in argumentation. But when I talk to most people about "intellectual integrity" or "intellectual honesty", I think that they tune me out. Those terms don't really register.


It seems in this case we are comparing apples and apples for their ability to be made into orange juice.


I would argue that the analysis of wages based on different groupings is worthwhile; as long as you don't try to predetermine what you're going to get out of them.

This analysis doesn't show us that woman make more given equal background/education/etc. However, it does provide the interesting information that women (of that age group) are generally better educated. If we take out of it the desire to find out why they're better educated (and ways we can balance it out), we're better off.

The same is true of studies that show women are paid less, but then the real reason (behind the results highlighted in that study) is that they tend to take lower paying jobs [1]. Sure, you can't take out of that "employers aren't paying them enough", but you can take out of it "why are women generally in the lower paying jobs?", and look for ways to change that fact.

[1] I'm not saying there is or is not a gender gap for equal jobs, just discussing the useful takeaways of studies that ignore the difference in jobs when analyzing the gender gap.


So on [1], there is an interesting question of cause and effect. Are women voluntarily taking inherently lower paid jobs on average? Or is it involuntary / due to social pressure? Or are certain jobs lower paid because they're predominantly taken by women?

The latter is at least a possibility.


> If we take out of it the desire to find out why they're better educated (and ways we can balance it out), we're better off.

I would argue it is because female-dominated professions tend to have schooling requirements, by law. Male-dominated professions are less apt to.

Anecdotally speaking, I was able to start as a software developer, a male-dominated profession, when I was in high school and soon moved into doing it full time after that. As a result, I do not rank well when measured by my schooling. I later started farming and it did not require schooling either. Both jobs only required the desire to do them. In contrast, a female in my cohort interested in nursing, a female-dominated profession, would legally be prevented from doing so until completing many years of post-secondary schooling. And if that person wants to become a teacher, another female dominated career, later in life even more legal schooling requirements are necessary.

On the assumption that females have more schooling because they have to, in order to pursue the careers they want to do. Is the correction in easing the legal requirements for these jobs, or is the correction to enforce more stringent legal requirements on male-dominated jobs?


> I would argue it is because female-dominated professions tend to have schooling requirements, by law. Male-dominated professions are less apt to.

And you would base this off what data? Surely we shouldnt just be using our guts here.


> And you would base this off what data?

The data that shows that female-dominated professions are more apt to have legal requirements.

> Surely we shouldnt just be using our guts here.

Well, why not? We're not writing formal research papers here. Only writing comments for personal pleasure in our spare time.


I think anyone, regardless of training or education, should be able to be a nurse. To say otherwise is sexism.


It should probably mean something to you that women are collecting advanced degrees at a rate significantly higher than that of men.

However, given the "women earn ~70 cents for every dollar a man earns" rhetoric we traditionally hear about unequal pay, which compares female earnings to male earnings outright without controlling for education, qualifications, or the "same job"[1], it would seem this comparison is done in the same spirit.

1. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/...


> But equal pay means equal pay for people with similar qualifications doing similar jobs.

Not according to the UK government: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-overvie...


>But equal pay means equal pay for people with similar qualifications doing similar jobs.

This is a wonderful example of a double standard: when a study finds that men earn more than women, people say it doesn't matter that they aren't working in the same jobs because (as they say) discrimination keeps women from getting those jobs, but when women earn more then men, it's fine and dandy because they aren't working in the same jobs or experience levels, so no discrimination exists.


Aren't all gender pay studies like this? When they say women earn 80% less than men they don't take into account qualifications or jobs.


They don't. They usually take the average of all working men and average of all working women. Some go with not just working but "of working age".


Do they usually use average instead of median? That terribly skews the numbers with the top 0.2% being weighted much more highly than the bottom 99.8%.

The gender distribution for the top 0.2% doesn't matter since most men and women will never reach that income.


Right, they generally fail to take numerous factors into account. Once you start controlling for things (like choice) the gap quickly shrinks.


>But equal pay means equal pay for people with similar qualifications doing similar jobs.

You can have equal or better qualifications than someone else with less or no degrees.

Just not formal qualifications...


>"He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do."

If you're comparing degreed vs non-degreed folks, how is the comparison in the peer group?


Both definitions are useful. Different pay for the same work is obviously unjust at the surface because it affects individuals. But a different mixture of jobs that leads to unequal pay, while it doesn't involve anything so easy as pointing at an individual to blame, still hints at a structural problem in our society.


Not necessarily. It can point to different distribution of priorities between sexes. E.g. if women prefer to dedicate their energy to family and house, while men prefer to work more, it makes sense that men would earn more. If we quit assuming we all want the same thing and actually ask people what they want, we may actually learn something. There are studies that do ask this kind of questions and get interesting answers, and my complaint is that this study is not actually one of those, it only appears to be that on the surface.


Not an disagreement, but a rather large detail is that it isn't the distribution of wants and needs that determine the distribution of priorities but rather the strategies employed to reach those wants and needs. If the strategies diverge then so do the priorities.


[flagged]


I think about this whenever I hear, "teachers don't get paid enough." It's a noble profession, and there's no doubt about the importance of educating our nation's children... but have you ever heard of a thing called "supply and demand"?


Its not simple supply and demand though. Parents want everyone else to pay more taxes and pay teachers higher so smarter people choose to become teachers. People without school going kids want to pay as little as possible.


It's incredible to me that so many Americans consider free market as an ideal. They substitute compassion and cooperation with a superficial version of competition and cruelty.


The idea that the free market is cruel is skewed. It's clear you don't value liberty or personal responsibility with that sort of perspective. Nothing in this world is owed or guaranteed to you, and forcing people to cooperate with you is immoral but you would disagree.


I will not escalate this discussion as I feel it diverges from HN ethics of deliberation. I hope you have a great day!


It's incredible to me that so many people think that free markets actually exist.


It does... Look at the website you're on. Ycombinator is an entrepreneurer's forum


America doesn't have a free market - there are too many regulations and laws around it for it to be so.

Look at Bell for an example of how it absolutely isn't a free market.


Some regulations make the market less free, some make it more free. Many free markets degrade into oligopolies and eventually monopolies unless they are regulated.

Free market economics is something you learn on the first day of economic theory. But then you very quickly learn that they don't actually exist or if they did exist would be very bad for us (due to high external costs etc.) In what market do consumers really have perfect knowledge? Which markets really have no barriers to entry? Some economists argue that the existence of marketing and advertising immediately defeats any hope of a free market.


Why is a working free market predicated on consumers having perfect knowledge? Free != Efficient


That's just the definition of free market. How can it be be free if the consumers don't have perfect knowledge?


Because most people allowed to own property, run a business, and offer products and services?


The claim that we live in a free market system is not the same as the claim we live in absolutely free market system.


Writing off people you disagree with as ignorant doesn't really help anything.

And even if you're right, I'm not interested in a society devoid of compassion.


I'm not interested in a society devoid of compassion

That's a straw man, right? That's not what the poster to whom you were responding said.


I don't want to help anything. People that don't understand how their system works will learn the hard way regardless of what I say or what you claim to be interested in.


Might be related to the fact that white women have benefitted more from affirmative action than any other group. At least, that could explain part of the disparity in education.


I'm bothered by the implicit authority given to the word "study" nowadays.

Collecting data and drawing conclusions is much easier than contrasting assumptions for the sake of understanding the underlying issues, yet the former seems much more prevalent in public discourse.


I would further add that the credibility of the person performing the "study" is also no longer analyzed which it should be because implicit bias is a serious factor.


Implicit bias or confirmation bias?


I would say it could be either but none the less bias is a relevant variable that should always be considered. For example, studies on say smoking or the health benefits of a pharmaceutical performed by a tobacco company or big pharma respectively are openly and voraciously discredited as bias which they should be. Anything relating to social justice of any sort is swallowed as irrefutable fact without a second thought or an ounce of critical thinking applied.

It is then regurgitated argumentum ad nauseam and any statistical (read fair and scientific) analysis of the study and its bias are attacked as anti-something, racist, misogynist etc. It is academically and morally corrupt and cannot and should not be allowed. The academic community should be vocally standing against this practice but being that they are afraid to be called a name or slur they swallow it.

People have put their political subscription above everything else and it is sickening.


> People have put their political subscription above everything else and it is sickening.

Agreed.


The problem is that science relies on consensus, multiple studies confirming the same finding, whereas most lay readers find a single study and use confirmation bias to put away their critical thinking. Most people will just read science-writing by some news website or even the NYT, which cites a single study. They then synthesize this science writing about a single study as "fact" into their head, when really you need numerous studies and even meta-analyses of studies to establish a fact or theory.


After having a kid I think I can see what creates the gender gap and the same effect is happening to me. Now, if there’s a conference call at 5:30 at work, I skip it. If there’s a new project that’s going to make me work extra hours I decline it. Overall I am willing to sacrifice a lot of my career for time with my kid and most women take the majority of childcare responsibility. For people without children I wouldn’t expect there to be much of a gender gap.


And it is ok, that you skip it, the difference on pay gap is men having far worse life for those few extra bucks. It is not everything about the money and your path is correct. We (men) are doing it wrong and we are the idiots. The extra money is just not worth it, but we are pushed into craving for social status (which in most cases equals to income, car, house,...) due to the fact that potential mates (females) are searching for such mans (statistically womans are marrying to mens with ~30% higher income than they have) . And idiotically as it sounds, the "equality" will just make both genders work harder, spending life at workplace. Working for "8%" less money than you will get for your peak capabilities and you will have far better life. It is just not worth it.

Money is NOT everything.


Interesting theory. So you think if women make more, than men will try to increase the wealth inequality in other ways? I'm curious about that.

Alternately, they could also just learn how to validate and be with women's emotions (and their own).


> Alternately, they could also just learn how to validate and be with women's emotions (and their own).

That would mean unlearning every single thing society tells us not to do. I would ask you listen to this: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/19/594719471/guys-we-have-a-prob...

Humans are emotional creatures, modern men get that beaten out of them. If you're female I'd ask that you talk to some of the men you know and ask them if they've been emotional around women in the past and how that went. This is a societal problem and if we keep treating men as both the problem and the source of their own problem, its never going to change.

As it stands I highly doubt anything will change in America in my generation or the next two at the very least. Until it becomes a problem that can't be ignored this will continue to be ignored.


I studied PUA for a decade, coached it (and even saved the marriage of one of the all time most famous "gurus"). I was a master of shutting down my emotions, acting like a guy with avoidant attachment in order to trigger a womans anxious attachment.

I slept with tons of women and also couldn't sustain a "relationship" once any sort of actual intimacy was demanded of me.

Finally, after being at the brink of suicide, I realized that my emotions were deeply valuable things and that I needed to develop a relationship with them -- all of them, and stop trying to run from sadness or rage or jealousy or rejection.

Once that internal process reached a critical mass, I then began the work of retraining my nervous system to be oriented towards people who were more secure and able to be with others honest expression of emotion. This meant telling the truth and often feeling like shit when people did, in fact, reject me.

I regained my ability to feel, however, along with my ability to be with others feelings.

Now, I'm engaged to an incredible woman and have a coaching practice full of all sorts of folks seeking guidance on how to have real relationships. Some of my clients read HN, others run the companies you work for, star in the movies you stream or build the products you use.

It's hard work, but highly recommended and required if we are going to emerge into a new paradigm of human relating.

Gratuitous engagement video shot with drones on a remote tropical island that we are planning to turn into a village for visionaries like all of you here ;) >>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEiW-Jee2eI


Thank you for posting this. I have attempted to explain this very issue in the past. Women's verbal and non-verbal responses to men are extremely formative in how men learn to behave.


You mean women could stop evaluating men based on money?

Wealth for men is the single highest factor when predicting response rate for male profiles in dating sites (according to the data I have read). Wealth and earning rates of married men correlated to the rate in which their spouse will file for divorce. Men and wealth has a similar relation as women and appearance.

Men as a single group has as much ability to stop being evaluated for their wealth as women as a single group can stop being evaluated on appearance. In theory women could stop compete on appearance between other women, but its dubious if that would actually change male behavior. Similarly, men could stop compete for wealth but its questionable if that would cause any cultural change for women.


And it's unknown which factors here are cultural and which are biological. Society is trying to treat this as only a cultural thing but we're still highly evolved cellular automatons.


Or the pool of dateable men shrinks as women earn more (for those who insist on dating men who earn more than them). Eventually such women can earn too much to have a good chance of finding a man whose salary satisfies them.

The same happens with college degrees. More women than men go to college. But many women with college degrees want a man with a college degree too. Cue articles complaining about the shortage of marriageable men.


It is not about men "trying" to do it. They (at least most) don't want it. Who wants to work more if they have enough for their needs? But their needs are also having a partner and the partner wants a man who is "alpha" (which, in today ads powered world means rich). So he needs to do as much as possible to get better mate. Does he have a chance? I would maybe even go further, 3rd and 4th wave of feminism are bs. I agree with first two waves as woman position was unfair, but it is curious to me, why 3rd and 4th wave are tolerated by society that is (feminism claims) patriarchic, why don't those king pin mans just shoot them down? My explanation would be, that it is good for bussiness. Woman work more, and men also. And for less money, with doubling the work force. It is perfect for earning more money and catastrophic for society.


Well, there is a gender gap. In their 20s most people don't have kids and women are earning more than men by 8%.


From what I gather from the article, the study doesn't seem to account for the profession, which would make it as meaningless as other gender gap studies I have seen so far. A banker or lawyer is paid significantly more than a professor or a nurse. So at the end all you are measuring is the difference in salaries between professions rather than the actual gender gap between people with the same qualification and profession.


If men or women are choosing different career paths, that too is notable and worth reporting. Papers can report the gap without going into underlying causes.


Except that most newspaper are jumping to conclusions, saying that there are discriminations, women not getting the same chances, etc. That might be the case but these studies do not allow to establish that.


If women aren’t having the same access to more lucrative positions or fields that men are, then that is discrimination — in education or the workplace or both. Unless you believe that something about women drives them away from such positions/fields or makes them less qualified in such positions/fields, in which case you are in the Damore camp.


Of course something drives women away from some professions, and similarly for men. Where is the outrage about gender parity in lumber jacking, oil rigs, fishing, truck driving, etc, at nauseum, for most if not all the most dangerous jobs in the world? Its only the cushy, high-paid jobs that seem to be a concern and then only if there are more men in them. Where are the diversity committees to protect nursing from the horrors of gender imbalance? What an age of bullshit we live in.


Agreed -- if they aren't having the same _access_, it is discrimination. But once again, nothing in the study points to that.

Do you believe men don't have access to jobs in the field of nursing? On average, women outnumber men 9.5 to 1 in nursing in the US. [0]

[0] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/human-capital-and-risk...


I think nursing may be a field where certain stereotypes, etc. keep the gender balance of the working population a certain way. And I think you correctly point out that men do have _access_ to the field of nursing so it’s not ad much of a problem per se. That said, the reason I think you can say men aren’t denied access is because you don’t have hordes of men revealing patterns of regular and constant discrimination, as you do in technological fields today, so I don’t think the comparison says what you wish it did.

Furthermore I think it’s telling that you being up nursing, a not particularly lucrative field, as a female dominated one. It’s not a secret that the most scrutiny is going to those fields that are the more lucrative/powerful as discrimination in such fields serves to keep wealth/influence concentrated in whiter, maler hands.


A few years ago there was a nice government report here in Sweden on gender segregation for teachers, and guess what they wrote? Hordes of men revealing patterns of regular and constant discrimination, very similar to that in technological fields today, and cited research which points that any work place which is dominated by a single gender has a tendency to create a discriminating culture against the minority.

I would bet that if one looked at the drop rates of male nurse students it will look very similar to that of female programming students. If one looked at the reason cited why they decide to drop it will align to very similar answer, where the minority will cite an increase self-doubt and low support. If one looked at the rate people leave the field after working the first year, again we will likely find identical reason for programmers where many will citing clashing work culture as a top reason for leaving the profession. Looking at those staying after 3-4 year, again there is a similar pattern where the minority will move towards specialization (sub groups of the profession) where there is a higher ratio of members of the minority.

We have medical specializations which have a gender segregation that is above 99%, where for every person of the minority gender there is several hundreds of the majority. Why do such extreme segregation exist where both men and women has equal access to the same profession?


Not really. In France 60% of doctors are female. 80% for new judges. Is that the self perpetuation of a stereotype? Are these low pay/low influence professions? If you measure discrimination just by the outcome provided it is a lucrative/powerful profession then these should be deemed to be discriminations. I don’t believe they are.

In the technology field, I have studied engineering in France, where the top school were only accessible through an anonymous competitive exam. There is very little room for discrimination there. Just math and physics exercises on an anonymous piece of paper. But both the candidates and the students who were selected were 80% male. Of course recruiters end up hiring 80% male engineers, how could it be not the case? But that’s not discrimination.


Why can't it be a combination of both, ignoring compensation? Why can't one sex have a higher propensity towards a profession than the other, independent of compensation? It seems to me that it is a complex issue that has a lot more factors than simply discrimination.


I suppose it can be. The natural follow up is what you think it is about, say, engineering or law or finance or [insert field here] that men have a higher propensity toward? And why is it that nearly all of the most lucrative and powerful fields are the ones that men have a higher propensity towards? Trying to answer these gets prett hairy (and depending on your answers, very revealing about yourself) if you are trying to minimize the role of discrimination.


Maybe men and women are not driven to accomplish the same goals. For example, take a look at the StackOverflow developer survey. There is certainly a difference in what men consider valuable for a job and what women consider valuable given that specific data point. I don't wish to make broad assumptions about every man or every woman. I also don't think to point out these things has much to do with discrimination. Men and women have been evolving for a lot longer than men and women have been working in desks next to each other... it's no simple feat to coexist when the rules of the game are not clear. I think it only gets hairy if you don't fundamentally think there is a difference between a man and a woman, really the rest follows axiomatically.


Media is universally terrible at reporting science. This shouldn't be seen as a problem for actual researchers. It is not possible to perform a study that the media cannot misrepresent.


> ...the study doesn't seem to account for the profession, which would make it as meaningless as other gender gap studies I have seen so far.

Why is it meaningless? It used to be unjust that all doctors and lawyers were men. It was just understood that the wage gap then was downstream from career and employment gaps.


You are assuming that the equilibrium assuming complete fairness is 50% women in every profession. Which will simply not be the case (doctors is a good example, the female ratio is more like 60% today). And if it is off in any direction from 50% then the gap cannot be measured ignoring the profession.


"Applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities"

This is a trend that I have personally witnessed since joining the corporate workforce as a recent college graduate living in a major city.

In general I saw my female colleagues getting promoted faster and moving up faster than their male counterparts.

In no way do I think it was favouritism, I just believe our senior management thought these young women were better prepared and organised than their male counterpart in their 20's.

Whether or not this trend continues to higher levels of management remains to be seen.


I don't think you can justify your position "these young women were better prepared and organised than their male counterpart in their 20's".

You say that women in their 20s are better at something than men in their 20s. I believe you know this is indefensible and if you would say the reverse you would get kicked out of your job.


>You say that women in their 20s are better at something than men in their 20s

I don't know what comment you read, but the comment I read said nothing remotely close to this. If you want to paraphrase what they said, it'd be more like "the very small sample of women I was exposed to in a small amount of time at one single professional workplace were better prepared for the job than the very small sample of men I was exposed to in a small amount of time at one single professional workplace".

That says absolutely nothing about men and women in general, no matter how much baseless controversy you want to drum up.


Not trying to drum up any controversy and I fully admit it is a small sample size. As someone who falls in the demographic "Under 30 and Living in a Metropolitan City" I feel comfortable sharing some of my own personal and my friends experiences in their particular office as well.

The dominant news story has always been the story women earn 80 percent less than men, but that was difficult to reconcile compared to what I was seeing in my work life. This article backed up some of those points.

If you are looking for hard data to back up what I experienced, the article posted here is a perfect source.


I wasn't accusing you of trying to drum up controversy, I was accusing PunchTornado of doing that. They were the one trying to force you to extrapolate your limited experience to the entire population and then use that strawman for target practice.


Well, way say it then if you don't want to generalise it and give an explanation for the findings in the article. However you put it, your comment says that it may be that women in their 20s are more organized because in my company I observed this. If this statement is ok with you then fine, but it wouldn't be ok to say it loudly in some companies.


Don't worry your intent was clear - some people simply read what they want/expect to read, but some of us are still able to recognise a personal observation.

Funny: reading HN comments I increasingly get the feeling a lot of folks aren't correctly reading or comprehending what's been written. Whether it's deliberate to support a strawman or a result of reading too quickly or something else I don't know but I often read a response and notice "hang on, that's really NOT what OP was saying...".


Thank you for this. I couldn't agree more with this in regards to some comments here.

Especially when people share personal observations on a study that includes data, yet people cry "small sample size!".

Of course its a small sample size, it's a personal experience of one.


the very small sample of men I was exposed to in a small amount of time at one single professional workplace were better programmers than the very small sample of women I was exposed to in a small amount of time at one single professional workplace


If it is true, it implies we need help programs for the young men who are being systematically discrminated against or otherwise oppressed by society. That includes new assistance programs to boost the rate of college graduation, since young men are so badly falling behind there (with projections for it to get much worse yet).

Victim blaming would be a common response, to proclaim that it's the fault of these young men. The real question we must ask is: what is society doing to these young men to leave them so unprepared and falling behind, and how can society correct that injustice?


Peg Tyre wrote the classic book on this 10 years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Boys-Surprising-Problems-Educ...

It hasn't gotten a huge amount of follow-up traction in schools though.

Also The New Jim Crow for a racial perspective that hits black men's employment prospects pretty hard.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblind...

BTW for folks who are concerned that feminist or women don't care about boys and men, these two leasing books are books written by women about the abuse boys and men face.


Always appreciate different news sources and ways to further educate myself.

>It depends on the job. What you say applies mainly to Twitter-empowered employees at consumer-facing tech companies.

It may depend on the job, one of them falls into the consumer facing tech company bucket (marketing).

However my other job was an analyst role at a Financial Services company which you typically expect to be male dominated and where you might expect this sex discrimination to occur.

It could have been the specific company I worked for (small sample size), but I found it to be a fair and equal opportunity hiring/promoting process at least for those early on in their career.


You worked as a financial analyst but yet don't seem to grasp the monumental difference between "women earn 80 percent less than men", which you cited above as the common narrative, and "women earn 80 percent of what men earn" or "women earn 20 percent less than men", which are two accurate descriptions of the common narrative.


I have to laugh at this because I definitely noticed my error after I posted this. I was waiting for someone to comment on the mathematical error.

Thank you, yes I understand how percentages work. Tip of the hat to you.


An alternative explanation, given the difference in numbers here, is that discrimination against women means that the only women remaining in the field are those who are the most competent and well prepared for the job, whereas less competent men are given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed into the same positions.


Nope, the number of women and men in the workplace is almost the same in countries like Iceland, while the wage difference between males and females in their 20s is still there.


The fact remains that there are more women going to college and getting a degree than men. So I don't understand why you say we don't need to balance that...


Yes, what a clever, politically convenient explanation.


It depends on the job. What you say applies mainly to Twitter-empowered employees at consumer-facing tech companies.


Previous studies like these have generally shown that young attractive females make considerably more than male employees with a similar level of education and experience, but as you go up in age the trend reverses with older or less attractive female employees making less. Basically there is a bias, but it isn't so much gender in general as it is being attractive sexually (or not as the case may be). I'm not aware of any study that has tested if that applies to both genders (from the data it very clearly applies to females, but there may be a lesser effect applied to males as well), but that would be something interesting to look at. I suspect it would show there is a similar bias applied to males, but with a significantly smaller effect that's mostly lost in the noise.


> I suspect it would show there is a similar bias applied to males, but with a significantly smaller effect that's mostly lost in the noise.

In that case height is a factor and the taller the male, the more he earns.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx


There's no perceptible gap in wages between almost any pair of social groups, provided we compare only similar roles. This has been solved by the market years ago.

We still need more wage transparency. Companies should be required to publicly list all wages, because lack of transparency is detrimental to the workers.


  There's no perceptible gap in wages between
  almost any pair of social groups,
For some people, that won't be enough for them to say things are fair.

After all, if women are more represented among junior positions and less among senior positions, some people might blame childbirth - but other people will blame systematic biases like family-unfriendly policies and unconscious biases.


I assume you meant to include "provided we compare only similar roles"?

Well in itself, I don't think that's enough to say that things are fair.

For example, that wouldn't take into account hiring biases. If women have a real hard time getting jobs in those roles, what does it matter if people in those roles get paid the same, regardless of gender?

I feel the main issue with the gender gap discrimination discussion is that people try to simplify it to show that there is or isn't a bias, and it's really easy to simplify it in a way that would support either side of the discussion. The discussion is a really complex one and there are so many aspects to it that can't be accounted for (confidence in negotiating salary, aversion to risk or working longer hours, likelihood to want to take time off for family, differences in natural abilities, etc).


Did you forget to mention discrimination as a possible source that can't be accounted for?


In the UK, that is already in progress - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/06/gender-pay-g...


This is still an incorrect approach looking at incorrect metrics. According to the government document:

>The gender pay gap is the difference between the average earnings of men and women, expressed relative to men’s earnings. For example, ‘women earn 15% less than men per hour’.

But this is not what should be measured. If there's a mining company that employs 90% men working down in the mine and 10% women doing accountancy, then of course the average wages of men are going to be different than those of women, but that tells us nothing about equal and fair treatment of men and women at this company.


> But this is not what should be measured

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to measure as long as it's not being used as a proxy for equal pay (which it explicitly isn't in this case).

What it can show is systemic bias. Now, unlike unequal pay, it's not necessarily blatantly unfair bias. It might not be unfair at all depending on the detail.

But knowing that there's a gap and understanding the reasons for the gap can be beneficial.


Of course it does tell us that (or at least give us an indication). We see that they don't believe that men and women deserve equal pay for their work.


let's take the average wage of 100 women working in the care industry and compare them to 100 men working on oil rigs.

Lies and statistics.


I agree this is definitely a move in the right direction but sadly the press has already jumped to conclusions that the data doesn't show.


I can't seem to find the study itself, but there's another article about this study from 2014 which goes into a little more detail: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/...


Real life stubbornly resists all attempts to make it more fair.

An 8% difference in either direction is acceptable to me. It's good enough to tolerate until it's worth revisiting for further improvements. So now that we have the gender pay gap (almost) sorted out, perhaps we should tackle a problem more likely to cause societal problems: the increasing measures of wealth inequality.


Would you be able to explain why wealth inequality is a societal problem and not actually a feature? I've long heard this but never was convinced


Wealth inequality is not a problem. The change in the amount of wealth inequality is a problem, in that it seems to be moving further away from the optimal amount of wealth inequality, which is not zero.

In other words, the proportion of rich to poor is skewing further away from optimal, which could be measured by a curve showing the wealth one has as a proportion of the next-wealthiest person, or by a graph showing the percentage of global wealth owned by a given equal-sized fraction of all people (i.e. the top 1% owns X%, the next 1% owns Y%). A perfectly flat graph indicates perfect communism. A sharply inflected curve indicates oligarchic plutocracy. An unspecified (and likely undiscovered) shape would be optimal economic conditions for civilization as a whole. My concern is that we are moving further away from that presumed optimum in the direction of oligarchic plutocracy, which historically has resulted in violent rebellion, every time it has been observed.


Because at our heart we are monkeys and we're trained to feel 'that's not fair!!' when someone else is doing better than us.

But I agree with you that, for the most part, the rising tide of wealth has raised all ships. Inequality is a natural outgrowth of the massive influx of wealth.


Why is wealth inequality a problem? People should be free to pursue maximum compensation for their skills and abilities, not be limited because they are better at somethings than other people.


When people talk about wealth inequality as a bad thing they're normally talking about self-perpetuating wealth inequality, or wealth inequality that is caused by things that are seen as inherently unfair, like the family you are born into.

A lot of people who have comparative wealth and have worked hard for it feel they have earned their wealth, disregarding the fact that a lot of other people work equally hard and do not have the same amount of wealth. This sort of thing muddies the issue.

Also muddying the issue is the fact that some people think that if X amount of money could lift Y poor people out of poverty, vs making rich person Z marginally richer, it is self-evidently the case that it is better and therefore right for X to be spent on the Y rather than person Z. I.e. as long as some people are below a minimum acceptable level of wealth, all wealth inequality is, in this view, bad.


People who think wealth inequality is a problem are being short sighted.

>wealth inequality that is caused by things that are seen as inherently unfair, like the family you are born into.

I, like my father before me, am making sacrifices to benefit my future generations. It's not unfair, it's called being responsible and thinking about the future.

edit: changed delusional to short sighted.


So rather than downmods, I'd be really interested to hear why people disagree with this - apart from the argumentative "delusional" comment.

Is it wrong to work hard to improve your children's future prospects?


> Is it wrong to work hard to improve your children's future prospects?

Nothing is wrong it.

> I'd be really interested to hear why people disagree with this

It's a blatant strawman.

If you provide for your child 1000x what they need (during childhood and/or via inheritance) that is not bad (in the scope of this discussion, no other details implied). What is bad is if you have 1000000x what your children need and you built this on the backs of people who will squaler in poverty until the day they die and the only thing you use the wealth for is to acquire more wealth. That is bad. The strawman makes it sound like you are defending an average middle class engineer saving up for their children's college as if they were in the wrong, as if they were on the winning side of increasing income inequality.

Nobody here is arguing against a middle class person saving up for their kids college. They're against people who actually have ridiculous amounts of wealth and the rapid growth of that inequality.


It is not, in itself, a problem.

A certain amount of inequality encourages economic growth and innovation. Zero wealth inequality would be perfect communism. A lot of people--myself included--presume that would retard growth due to a lack of incentives.

The maximum amount of wealth inequality would be for one person to own the entire world, and for everyone else to have nothing. This is practically impossible, of course. We can only approximate it, such as by 1% of Earth's population owning 99% of its wealth. This generally encourages the other 99% of the people to take some of that wealth by force, without regard to any increased productivity the current owner may be able to squeeze out via economies of scale or capital investment, or whatever.

A medium amount of inequality encourages people with less wealth to do neat and interesting things in order to become more wealthy (economic mobility), and for those with more to make capital investments that increase productivity, purchase luxury goods, and finance megaprojects (concentration of capital).

So the problem is when the amount of wealth inequality moves away from the optimal profile, which remains undiscovered. My perception is that we are moving away from the optimum, rather than toward it.


>A lot of people--myself included--presume that would retard growth due to a lack of incentives

No need to presume anything, we have a number of examples to look at throughout history. Actually, stunted economic growth is the best case scenario for socialist systems. Most of them achieve no more than mass starvation and death of millions of citizens.


I was trying to be diplomatic, as this is a matter heavily influenced by one's political beliefs, and somewhat resistant to the application of historical facts--such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Killing Fields, Gulag Archipelago, Great Leap Forward, and Juche.

A certain number of socialist believers must be retained to keep a system of unequal property from running away into oligarchic plutocracy. It's like putting a harmonic damper on a pendulum, to keep it from swinging too far, while still retaining the same amount of energy in the system.


It's not like the other side of the political spectrum takes their crimes seriously: the trail of tears, Churchill's starving of 2 million Indians, the Holocaust (which somehow gets misplaced onto socialism even though Hitler purged the socialists in his party years before it started), the African slave trade, Belgian Kongo, 1973 CIA funded coup of Allende in Chile, Contras in Nicaragua, CIA funding of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Conflict Minerals, Irish Potato Famine, Private Prison Industry, Drug Cartels, etc..


A certain number of selfish and ambitious property-believers must be retained in a system of equal distribution, in order to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in that direction.

Ideological purity is murder. Don't waste your intellect arguing over the various types of extremism.

If there were no socialists, capitalists would be living in a hellish dystopia. If there were no capitalists, socialists would be living in a hellish dystopia. So just stick the chocolate in the peanut butter (or put the peanut butter in the chocolate) and enjoy your mixed economic system.


Wealth inequality is a problem because it is an inefficient distribution of society's resources. When we divert productive capacity to build someone a yacht instead of feeding the homeless, we allow many to suffer in exchange for the marginal improvement in happiness for one person.

It can be argued that inequality leads to more utility being created overall, but I feel this justification is rarely scrutinised in much detail. Instead it is elevated to a moral premise that those who are able to earn more "deserve" their excess share of society's resources, regardless of how many suffer for their consequently smaller share.

Personally, it seems to me we have the resources to feed and shelter everyone in our society, and I'm highly sceptical that doing so would create less utility overall than whatever it is we're doing with those resources instead. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if this argument extends to the world as a whole.


Why should people be free to pursue maximum compensation? Why can't they be free to pursue any unprofitable work that benefits society as a whole instead of chunking out more candy crush/Farmville/clash of clans clones or other making pointless artificial rents (e.g. something you use to own, but now only available as an electron-SaaS) or other economic/socialogical waste?


I think there is academic work done on this: when there is a lot of inequality, it can lead to social incohesion and instability.

I could be mistaken though.


Don't forget about dumb luck, one of the greatest predictors of wealth.


Dumb luck? What is dumb luck? So the wealth differences between a high school drop out and a college grad can largely be attributed to this "dumb luck"?


It's "dumb luck" that my parents were middle class instead of drug addicts, it's "dumb luck" that I was born and raised in the USA instead of a place without electricity and running water. It's "dumb luck" that I was raised somewhere where the walls weren't poisoning me with lead during my child-hood. It's "dumb luck" that I wasn't raised in a ghetto where the only kind of success anyone knew about was in joining a gang or leaving forever.

Dumb luck is also being born into a family where you'll inherit millions of dollars, but tell everyone you worked hard for it.


Probably yes. The factors that align to support someone to have access to and finish college vs. drop out have a lot to do with "luck".

Also, maybe I was lucky to have been able to come across stuff like this in my life to better shape my view of reality:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol...


This would not be any better than women being payed less. The entire premise of "equal pay" is that both genders paid roughly the same for the same job.


Should have (2010) in the title.


As other commenters have pointed out, these comparisons are confusing, especially when reported as headline figures.

There is clear envidence for a “gender pay gap” - in that women get paid on average less than men. Whether that is a bad thing which we need to do something about is a different question, which heavily depends on your overall gender role opinions.


Point me to the multiple variable analysis and the full report that demonstrates the clear evidence you mention. I have yet to find one and I have tried damn hard.


You’re only comparing one variable, pay, so I’m not sure why you want a multivariate analysis. If you’re asking whether there’s a gender pay gap amoung similarly qualified people, then you’re asking a different question.


That is an academically dishonest approach to this or any perceived issue. Anyone who would even begin to approach any issue in a manor as to prove a hypothesis true or untrue would follow the basic scientific method. There are many variables that account for differences in pay. Ignoring them is dishonest and will only be accepted by idiots. Sorry for the harsh words but it is true.


>There is clear envidence for a “gender pay gap” - in that women get paid on average less than men.

If you control for education, years of experience, and skills there is no such gap.


Do you have a source for that claim? From what I’ve understood the gap shrinks to somehing like 4-8%, not that it goes away entirely. I would like studies if it goes away entirely (because I haven’t seen such a study).


The trick here is how to match men with women in order to make the comparison.

Do we group by job position, skill level, education, experience? And what is "same experience"? In tech, it is usually counted in years, regardless on how many hours you work during the year. Compare to airline pilots where the metric is flight hours. The same kind questions can be asked for all other points. Even the wage can be tweaked. Is it by year? working day? hour? What about pauses, overtime, work at home, commute time, ...

By carefully choosing the metrics, we can say whatever we want.


Indeed if you control for these there’s no gap in the outcome variable (pay) but there is a huge gap in the n variable (number of women).

The question to ask then is why does that happen? Are the reasons for that valid? Are equal opportunities available? Do we even want equal opportunities as a society or an individual?


>The question to ask then is why does that happen?

Because women, more typically than men, raise children as their full time job.


Are women not better equipped to raise children than men? Clearly yes.


How so?


Women are naturally equipped with the anatomy to feed offspring...


Like bottles, formula and money?


Bummer Time hasn't figured out how to include link preview metadata.


Careful. This doesn’t fit The Narrative, and could cost you your job.


[flagged]


You didn't actually read the article did you? It doesn't really support your "point". If you're problem with other studies about the pay gap is that "this doesn't compare individuals across the same field and isolate solely for gender" then this study doesn't really help your point.

If your point is just that you're a dude and you're being reverse discriminated against, why not cite an 8 year old article as your best evidence! About as sound as anything else you're gonna pull out.


Not sure if you're referring to me or the comment above, but the article does support my personal experience that female colleagues seemed better prepared for corporate life right out college.

I never said I was being reverse discriminated, and in each case I personally observed, the coworker fully deserved their raise/promotion.

Again, as the article also suggests, it remains to be seen whether or not these trends will continue as the population ages and higher-level management jobs become available to both sexes.

"This generation [of women] has adapted to the fundamental restructuring of the American economy better than their older predecessors or male peers," says Chung. While the economic advantage of women sometimes evaporates as they age and have families, Chung believes that women now may have enough leverage that their financial gains may not be completely erased as they get older.


This is not actually an answer to his comment, but to your projection of the politics behind that comment


Sadly this same article would be unlikely to be published by Time in 2018.


Nice, an assertion that can neither be proved nor disproved. A perfect idea faraday cage.

Also, as we can all see, it is still being published by time.com in 2018.


The person did say "unlikely" (which is more a statement of opinion than of a definitive claim), and given the cultural climate of 2018 we can draw reasonable conclusions about what the response to such an article, if first published in 2018, would be, and thus the likelihood that a publication like Time would publish it for the first time now.


>Wednesday, Sept. 01, 2010


If we could solve the gender pay gap for working mothers, computer programmers, machine-shop workers, and other jobs where men still earn more, we might finally be able to celebrate equality between the sexes.


The adjusted gender pay gap is only a couple of percent. Maybe that can simply be explained by different behavior between men and women and is not evidence for discrimination. For example male Uber drivers earn 7% more than female drivers even though the algorithm doesn't distinguish by sex [1]. Should we force Uber to pay women 7% more to adjust for this fact?

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf


> The adjusted gender pay gap is only a couple of percent.

This suggests where the best opportunities for improvement lie: equalizing parental leave (so that the parental career penalty is distributed more equitably), decoupling health insurance from employment (to lower costs on business for parental leave), and so on.


>equalizing parental leave (so that the parental career penalty is distributed more equitably)

If you mean giving the same amount of leave to both fathers and mothers, isn't that already the norm?

Also, offering this is one thing, but getting parents to use it is quite another. Many fathers probably avoid taking so much leave precisely because it does harm their career. How would you fix that?

>decoupling health insurance from employment (to lower costs on business for parental leave)

This decoupling is a good idea for many reasons, but I don't see how it would decrease costs on businesses for parental leave. Health insurance doesn't compensate businesses for having to pay people for time that they spend away from work, it just covers their medical bills. Most of that paid time is just parents staying at home with their new kid.


If you mean giving the same amount of leave to both fathers and mothers, isn't that already the norm?

In the US it's nowhere close.

"The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of newborn or newly adopted children... "California is the first state to offer paid paternity leave weeks (six weeks, partial payment). In the rest of the US, paternity pay weeks are not offered (therefore neither paternity paid leave weeks)." [1]

Of course companies can offer what they want above the requirements, but even when it's offered it's very common for the paternity leave to lag far behind maternity leave. For instance, even for a company like Apple, which is generally pretty progressive,

"U.S. employees will now have a few more weeks of paid parental leave: Young Smith says expectant mothers can take up to four weeks before a delivery and upwards of 14 weeks after and expectant fathers (and other non-birth parents) can take six-week parental leaves." [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_...

[2] http://fortune.com/2014/10/02/apple-employee-perks/


>>If you mean giving the same amount of leave to both fathers and mothers, isn't that already the norm?

>In the US it's nowhere close.

I think that wikipedia page has misleading or outdated information in the summary. FMLA leave covers both mothers and fathers equally.

From the Department of Labor: "Both mother and father are entitled to FMLA leave for the birth of their child, or placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care."

Bringing up California further confuses the issues, since that is about paid leave whereas FMLA is unpaid. I think the 6 weeks of paid leave in CA comes from the employer-paid disability insurance.

https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/fmla/10a1.aspx


Thanks, this is interesting and I'd like to learn more.

FWIW I did some web searching for the policies at big tech companies (which of course offer more than the minimums. The following article is a bit dated (2015) but seems to give a nice summary of maternity- and paternity-leave policies.

http://time.com/money/4098469/paid-parental-leave-google-ama...

The TLDR: some (e.g., Facebook, Netflix) have parity between mothers and fathers but most of them (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Google, MS, Twitter) give at least some extra weeks for moms and/or birth moms.


> If you mean giving the same amount of leave to both fathers and mothers, isn't that already the norm?

The Clinton-era FMLA grants 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave. 25 states expand on that, and 25 do not.

> Many fathers probably avoid taking so much leave precisely because it does harm their career.

Some will take it. If utilization rates are not equal, that's not a reason to withhold the opportunity.

> I don't see how it would decrease costs on businesses for parental leave. Health insurance doesn't compensate businesses for having to pay people for time that they spend away from work

The FMLA only provides for unpaid leave. However, businesses continue to pay for health insurance during the leave period.


>Some will take it. If utilization rates are not equal, that's not a reason to withhold the opportunity.

I never said it was. However, if it's unpaid leave, it's pretty obvious why many would refuse to take it, or not take as much as is available: they can't afford the lack of pay. How are parents supposed to pay their bills if they're both taking a 12-week unpaid vacation? Health insurance doesn't pay your rent. So it seems pretty obvious that for many couples, the woman (who generally earns less, and also usually breastfeeds) will take all/more leave and stay home, while the man will get back to work so their finances don't take too much of a hit.

Of course, for couples where their employers offer equal and paid parental leave, we might see different results.


> So it seems pretty obvious that for many couples, the woman (who generally earns less, and also usually breastfeeds) will take all/more leave and stay home, while the man will get back to work so their finances don't take too much of a hit.

Why should that be our expectation? The career penalty is a tax on mothers and a subsidy for fathers. That such inequity is normalized is why "adjusting" the gender gap does not solve it.


When did I say that should be our expectation? I'm only talking about things as they are now, and why current phenomena might be caused by current policies.

I'll also do an aside here and point out that generous (paid) and equal family leave ends up being a subsidy for parents and a tax on childless people, and also in a way a tax on single parents.


Even so, there will be few women relative to men taking the programmer career, it's a matter of personal choice. Women have many attractive choices that compete with this one.


Exactly. If a woman is smart enough to be a programmer, she's smart enough for other lucrative professions that are more social and have better advancement potential and job security, such as medicine (doctors, surgeoons), law, finance, etc. A lot of women go into programming because it's been hyped up so much, and then either going into management quickly or leaving the industry because they hate the work and how asocial it frequently is, and also because they feel like they're not really doing anything to help the world (and in the vast majority of programming jobs, it's true, you aren't).


> If a woman is smart enough to be a programmer, she's smart enough for other lucrative professions

Women get rejected from law and med school too. That doesn't explain why they don't go into software.

> better advancement potential

Plenty of women go into fields without much advancement potential. If your argument is that in programming often the only way to advance is management, then that's also true of the vast majority of jobs, including accountancy which attracts a lot of women.

> job security

Programmers have very good job security compared to a lot of people these days. In particular, doing a law degree is a massive risk given how hard it is to land a traineeship, yet plenty of women still do law degrees.

> that are more social

What makes you assume that all women want jobs where they can be social? And what makes you say programming isn't a social job? It requires working with other people as part of a team. There's not much interaction with customers, but that's also true of a lot of accountancy/other office jobs that have an even gender ratio.

> A lot of women go into programming because it's been hyped up so much, and then either going into management quickly or leaving the industry because they hate the work

That's true of both men and women in teaching.

> and also because they feel like they're not really doing anything to help the world (and in the vast majority of programming jobs, it's true, you aren't).

How many lawyers, accountants, personal assistants or managers are directly doing something to help the world?


You're talking about different groups of women. The women who want to help the world don't usually go into accounting or law (except maybe environmental law or criminal defense), they go into teaching, social work, etc., which generally pay poorly, or they go into medicine, where they can make very good money (probably better than programming) and directly save peoples' lives too. The women who want to make money go into law, accounting, and medicine (some overlap here with the help-the-world group obviously).

>What makes you assume that all women want jobs where they can be social?

This has been shown by research. Women are trained from an early age to be more social than men.

>And what makes you say programming isn't a social job? It requires working with other people as part of a team.

I don't think I need to justify myself here. Most programming involves sitting at a computer and typing, and not in a group in real-time. It also certainly has a reputation for being asocial, though that's changed more recently with the "brogrammer" trend, but not for the better as far as women are concerned. It sure as hell isn't social the way medicine is, where the work is all about meeting one-on-one with patients all day long and working hands-on (usually literally) with them.

>Women get rejected from law and med school too. That doesn't explain why they don't go into software.

Well, for the med school rejects, I can't imagine what programming would offer them. They obviously want 1) a high-paying career, 2) to help people hands-on, 3) a social job. Programming might offer 1, and that's it. Women like this will probably fall back to nursing school, or maybe some other career that's more social and less technical than programming.

Really, the only good point you bring up here is that a lot of women go into accounting, since that does indeed seem to have a lot of overlap in career traits with programming.


If a woman is smart enough to be a programmer, she's smart enough for other lucrative professions that are more social and have better advancement potential and job security, such as medicine (doctors, surgeoons), law, finance, etc.

Why isn't this true of men?


What he is saying is that, generally, given the choice, women will prefer social work to asocial work.


[flagged]


Why is it sexist to suggest that women might prefer different careers from men?


Because suggestion that men and women in general are different is criminally sexist. It's what got us here in the first place.

People(republicans) need to get it through their heads that there are NO differences between men and women, period.


Do you have any evidence for this?


I didn't present it as my attitude, which any careful reader would note. The person I was responding to seemed confused based on the question they asked.

I don't post on Reddit and you should keep your asinine suggestions to yourself. Either you got to this website an hour ago or are you are too much of a coward to stand by your convictions and accusations.


It is true of many of them, and they do go into those other fields. IMO, however, there's a lot more "nerdy" personality types among men who are interested in the traits that the programming career offers, and that's why there's so many more men in the field. It is changing, however (see the "brogrammer" trend in the last decade or two), but that, if anything, is pushing women out of the field even more.


There are many issues contributing to different pay. These videos of Warren Farrell address many of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb89YALUzL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxtu5ZyA048

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzEOXePU_Uo


Do you have actual documentation proving that men in these fields earn more than their female peers in same job function working the same hours?


Even if she did, it means nothing. The only way to assess equality is to undertake a complete multiple variable analysis of the topic. Isn't it funny how quickly we throw out the basics of the scientific method when the results are inconvenient or do not conform to the world view we are trying to subscribe to? I am not saying you are doing that just making the observation that it is clearly what is going on when this topic is "researched".

It is intellectually dishonest to cherry pick the variables that suit the answer the researcher already prescribed before the analysis even began. The entire premise of these studies is laughable until they are done and published correctly. It is not and should not be acceptable to be dishonest in this way though science has began to allow it more and more in order to not be called names...




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: