It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
Are you trying to say that we should compare performance and quality of work in order to determine if salaries were given out fairly? Are you insane? What's next? Grades in schools and grade based system in universities? Valuing athletes based on how fast they run and how far they jump? What a ridiculous system! /s
Read carefully and pay attention. Do notmake up philosophy by extension. Amalysis is inaccurate and it does not account for fair comparison on the same job level. If one group is under represented in some role then you will have average biased in some direction obviously.
The Left told me that the analysis is always accurate, as long as you just compare an average man and woman, so it must be true!
I am amazed that nobody has mentioned the work of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson on the myths surrounding the difference between men and women regarding salaries, etc. Start here:
Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
Wow. Great but scary interview. That poor woman reminds me of when i was brainwashed with progressivism. She seems intelligent but, as always, Intersectionality removed her ability yo think! She's using Alinsky tactics thinking shes being clever.
I had to pause a few times. That was very hard to watch!
You should follow up on this guy. He has 500 hours of university lectures on YouTube and hundreds of interviews. Many Canadians want him as the next Prime Minister.
Instead of comparing two gender's earnings, also compare overtime put by counterpart males to achieve more. Moreover, male don't have ongoing emotional as well monthly mood,hormone issues that effects individual productivity. We respect and care for both male and female gender and also want both to succeed equally in there profession but biological differences dictates to complain to God who in fact created two genders like that. I like to have 5% increment in earnings being a female employee for the same kind of work. So, if you are male,sorry suck it up.
This survey was all about the equivalent rate per hour not total earnings so overtime does not come into it. Generally, Apple comes out pretty well when compared to the likes of Barclays Bank.
In the UK (which is the place where this survey was done) there are ZERO women at the coal face or even underground. It was made illegal decades ago. Circa 1948 if my memory serves me right. Anyway, there are only a few open cast coal mines working in the UK now[1]. The last coal fired power station will be gone in a few years and with it, the last of the mines.
[1]There are some very, very small mines in operation in a few places but these are often two men and a dog outfits and often use drift mining rather than sinking shafts.
I am amazed that nobody has mentioned the work of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson on the myths surrounding the difference between men and women regarding salaries, etc. Start here:
Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
Wow. Great but scary interview. That poor woman reminds me of when i was brainwashed with progressivism. She seems intelligent but, as always, Intersectionality removed her ability yo think! She's using Alinsky tactics thinking shes being clever.
I had to pause a few times. That was very hard to watch!
This is how you construct and conduct a conversation about a controversial topic. This guy is spot on, right down the list. And the interviewer is typical in her inability to understand the simple truths he’s speaking. Not unlike many ‘professional’ analysts who cover Apple. Deliberate in their obtuseness.
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
But not if women are being overlooked for the engineering positions.
More lefty-snowflake bs being imposed upon us. If you are underpaid compared to your colleague in the same job - complain to your boss, if you're genuinely as good as they are, they will up your salary, if not then suck it up, realise you need to improve and move on. Gender/race/age shouldn't have any correlation to wage. Ability, skills, suitability, knowledge and competence do - and these things are different from "person" to "person".
More lefty-snowflake bs being imposed upon us. If you are underpaid compared to your colleague in the same job - complain to your boss,
How would you know? Salaries are not public information. It takes measures like this, requiring large companies to disclose gaps, to provoke the conversation.
So, I guess we can all agree that Apple disclosing this information is a good thing then? And then I read the comments...
Since employers base compensation partially on experience, time in position, and time with the company there will almost certainly be a gender pay gap. Women are far more likely than men to take extended periods away from the workforce to raise children. Those who advocate strict "equal pay for equal work" need to wake up and understand that their paradigm means that employers would have to pay the same for an 18 year old new hire as a person that has been with the company for 25 years if they doing the same work. Bye bye pay raises for longevity.
...something tells me they will run more totalitarian societies than men did.
Given that human history is the story of men fighting and dying by the billions for less government control and women getting suffrage to vote in more government control, I’d say you’re right on the money.
Your statements are predicated upon a worldview of unimpeachable egalitarianism. This is not something reflected in reality, and is thus not of much use.
EDIT: Let me clarify. Not only is it not reflected in reality, it is not the nature of reality to be egalitarian, and by that metric it is not of much use to envision such a system.
Ahh yes! Stretching the topic to its maximum in order to slide in the required right wing propaganda....
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
Are you trying to say that we should compare performance and quality of work in order to determine if salaries were given out fairly? Are you insane? What's next? Grades in schools and grade based system in universities? Valuing athletes based on how fast they run and how far they jump? What a ridiculous system! /s
Read carefully and pay attention. Do notmake up philosophy by extension. Amalysis is inaccurate and it does not account for fair comparison on the same job level. If one group is under represented in some role then you will have average biased in some direction obviously.
The Left told me that the analysis is always accurate, as long as you just compare an average man and woman, so it must be true!
Yeh! Good idea! Let's politicize every ai discussion!
The tech field has been targeted for inclusion by women. But, in my experience: 1) The tech field is probably the most black and white of fields in terms of separating those with superior vs mediocre technical abilities. And, the abilities have far less to do with knowledge than they do with innate thinking charateriustics - such as the ability to think through and solve complex technical problems. 2) While I've known some excellent women in the field, the average female simply can't compete with the average male in tech. It's not that one is "smarter" than the other. It's that males and females tend to think differently -- and the male thought pattern tends to fit with tech requirements better.
Or alternatively, perhaps one of most appropriate distinctions was made in the tech organization that I first worked in: They made separate but equal career paths for tech's versus managers -- realizing that each required a different skill set. Maybe that is what is required here -- because one is not smarter than the other and one is not better than the other. But they are different (at least on average).
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
This is true, everything I have read, if you break the data down to jobs, positions and years of experience doing the same skill set there is no gap, they actually fond in some cases women were actually making more. They also show Women CEO's were compensated 20% higher than their male counter parts for a similar size company.
We keep seeing this over an over again, they lump all the data together and divide it down male verse women and always find a gap. The largest area of the gap is high risk jobs, Men traditionally take on high risk jobs like fire fighting/ police/ steel worker/ oil drilling these jobs pay higher than traditional lower risk jobs which women tend to migrate to.
I just read that the UK want to pass a law which requires company to wage balancing on a yearly bases to ensure women's wages stay parallel to men's wages independent of time on the job. They recognize that women and their husband choose to have the wife stay home when have kids and women should not be penalize for this decision.
My wife decide to work will our kids were young, then at some point decide it was not worth it any more and quick working and stay home for 3 yrs until they were in school. She then went back part time, took a huge wage cut but gave this up in exchange to time flexibility. The 3 yrs she took off also cost her experience she was behind the learning curve and it took her a few years to get back to where she should have been. Only today 10 yrs later is she making more than when she left full time. Guess what, she is okay with it, why because she got other things that money can not buy which is time with her kids when she want to spend time with them.
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
Are you trying to say that we should compare performance and quality of work in order to determine if salaries were given out fairly? Are you insane? What's next? Grades in schools and grade based system in universities? Valuing athletes based on how fast they run and how far they jump? What a ridiculous system! /s
Read carefully and pay attention. Do notmake up philosophy by extension. Amalysis is inaccurate and it does not account for fair comparison on the same job level. If one group is under represented in some role then you will have average biased in some direction obviously.
The Left told me that the analysis is always accurate, as long as you just compare an average man and woman, so it must be true!
Yeh! Good idea! Let's politicize every ai discussion!
Isn't a discussion about wage gap - a political one?
The tech field has been targeted for inclusion by women. But, in my experience: 1) The tech field is probably the most black and white of fields in terms of separating those with superior vs mediocre technical abilities. And, the abilities have far less to do with knowledge than they do with innate thinking charateriustics - such as the ability to think through and solve complex technical problems. 2) While I've known some excellent women in the field, the average female simply can't compete with the average male in tech. It's not that one is "smarter" than the other. It's that males and females tend to think differently -- and the male thought pattern tends to fit with tech requirements better.
Or alternatively, perhaps one of most appropriate distinctions was made in the tech organization that I first worked in: They made separate but equal career paths for tech's versus managers -- realizing that each required a different skill set. Maybe that is what is required here -- because one is not smarter than the other and one is not better than the other. But they are different (at least on average).
Just my thoughts from my experience....
In my experience I'd take an average female in tech over an average male every time. Why? Because while the gender gap in technical skills is basically non-existent at the average level, the level of arrogance and inability to follow instructions definitely swerves well off in the male direction. I don't know if that's that gender innate or cultural, but it's definitely my experience. When hand-in-hand with skill a touch of arrogance and rebelliousness may (not always) be a boon, but for mid-level work it's a right royal pain in the neck.
The prevailing compensation systems that pit employees against each other based on several factors, some generally known and others entrenched in hidden biases, are regressive, medieval, and a cancer on productivity. This is no more apparent than in organizations that are committed to discovery and innovation, like Apple. Employees in companies like Apple generally aren’t motivated by money but rather by opportunity and a desire to contribute in a meaningful and purposeful way. Discord related to compensation is always a negative drain and is cruel and destructive when HR practices like forced ranking are institutionalized.
The best thing that can be done to remedy this situation and return the total focus of an organization to maximum productivity with happy employees is to make the compensation system a non-issue. I don’t know of a “perfect” system but there are some long established examples that have done a reasonable job of making compensation a non-issue so that the total focus of the organization on fulfilling the organization’s mission, e.g., the US military. Compensation for military members is based on concrete and established factors like rank, time-in-service, time-in-rank, and in some cases mission related adders. Gender and other bias driven factors aren’t in the equation. The salient point is that the entire compensation system is public knowledge within the organization and everyone basically knows what everyone else in the organization is making. This makes compensation a non-issue and totally transparent so everyone stays focused on the mission. It’s pretty obvious why this is vital to an organization that literally lives or dies based on mission effectiveness and productivity. Why would non-military related organizations with billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of employees not attempt to implement some sort of compensation model, whatever it may be, that suppresses all the negative influences of current medieval based models and puts total focus back on productivity?
The metrics identified in the above report deserve a closer analysis by Apple HR staff and senior management, but this is just one icicle on the visible part of an iceberg that is killing motivation, throttling productivity, and making employees miserable. C’mon Apple, break the mold.
That’s because the military exists somewhat outside the competitive job market offered by businesses. Volunteers become locked in to four year, and sometimes six year, contracts, and the scope of military jobs are defined to fit with that length of service, including necessary periods of training.
In the far more cutthroat competition among businesses in the civilian sector each business wants to use salary as one competitive tool to acquire and retain the best employees in an at-will employment structure. A company that makes all salaries equal within each job and makes that information public to all employees, and therefore to its competitors, had better be paying better than its competitors, or it will find itself at a disadvantage to those other businesses who do not make this information public and can therefore pay any individual they see as higher value to their mission a higher salary and compensation package versus its other employees in that same job. And they can expand or narrow an individual’s job description to match, or take advantage of, the individual’s unique capabilities and knowledge.
Only if all businesses standardize salaries and make that public would your suggestion work. That’s the reason it can work for the military; each branch might be in competition with the others for recruits, but they all pay the same by rank, time in service and job classification/hazardous duty, etc.
Thank you for adding an additional perspective to this topic. I agree, the military pay system doesn't translate directly to the open market. But the transparency and formulation aspects may have merit internally within an organization. The impact from a motivation and productivity perspective are interesting to consider for a large group of affected employees when the "formula" for compensation is transparent, not secretive, and measurable. I've spent quite a bit of time in both systems, military and open market, and I definitely felt that compensation was a non-issue in one (military) and a distraction in the other (open market). Perhaps employment contracts in the open market are something to consider as well. If nothing else they may time-box the distraction to periodic intervals to periods when the contract is being renegotiated. As far as competition for employees between businesses is concerned things like Glassdoor may help provide some transparency between organizations. The problem I have with Glassdoor is the squeaky wheel factor tends to skew the data.
I'm sure that there are some folks who have taken a position at one company over another based purely on compensation. I've never done such a thing. Other factors like job location, the position/role, opportunity/growth potential, the type of work, work environment, company reputation, etc., played a significantly larger role in choosing one company over another. Many people are not singularly motivated by financial compensation but outsider analyses of companies cannot measure non-financial aspects of a compensation package. Competition between companies should come down to more than just dollars and cents.
My main point is that the highly secretive, opaque, and non-formlaic nature of how compensation works within a company for regular line employees (not the executives in public companies whose compensation package is public) creates an inherent level of turmoil and speculation. A side effect of this lack of transparency is the formulation of metrics that paint an incomplete and sometimes misleading evaluation of compensation between different classifications of employees because the underlying rationale and formulation is unknown. Whether this is a contributing factor in the Apple story above is unclear, but I suspect that it is a contributor.
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
Are you trying to say that we should compare performance and quality of work in order to determine if salaries were given out fairly? Are you insane? What's next? Grades in schools and grade based system in universities? Valuing athletes based on how fast they run and how far they jump? What a ridiculous system! /s
Read carefully and pay attention. Do notmake up philosophy by extension. Amalysis is inaccurate and it does not account for fair comparison on the same job level. If one group is under represented in some role then you will have average biased in some direction obviously.
The Left told me that the analysis is always accurate, as long as you just compare an average man and woman, so it must be true!
Yeh! Good idea! Let's politicize every ai discussion!
Isn't a discussion about wage gap - a political one?
ANY issue can be political -- if you make it so. That's why we have so many unresolved issues... Every discussion seems to devolve into "my team is the best team" instead of actually working through difficult issues (like this one) with honest discussion of the issue.
The tech field has been targeted for inclusion by women. But, in my experience: 1) The tech field is probably the most black and white of fields in terms of separating those with superior vs mediocre technical abilities. And, the abilities have far less to do with knowledge than they do with innate thinking charateriustics - such as the ability to think through and solve complex technical problems. 2) While I've known some excellent women in the field, the average female simply can't compete with the average male in tech. It's not that one is "smarter" than the other. It's that males and females tend to think differently -- and the male thought pattern tends to fit with tech requirements better.
Or alternatively, perhaps one of most appropriate distinctions was made in the tech organization that I first worked in: They made separate but equal career paths for tech's versus managers -- realizing that each required a different skill set. Maybe that is what is required here -- because one is not smarter than the other and one is not better than the other. But they are different (at least on average).
Just my thoughts from my experience....
In my experience I'd take an average female in tech over an average male every time. Why? Because while the gender gap in technical skills is basically non-existent at the average level, the level of arrogance and inability to follow instructions definitely swerves well off in the male direction. I don't know if that's that gender innate or cultural, but it's definitely my experience. When hand-in-hand with skill a touch of arrogance and rebelliousness may (not always) be a boon, but for mid-level work it's a right royal pain in the neck.
You just identified one of the the basic differences between an exceptional tech and a mediocre one: The mediocre one needs to be told what to do...
It is MEANINGLESS to attempt to compare salaries in this way. If you want to know if there is truly any sort of wage gap, compare by job function. How much does the average male Software Engineer 2 (for instance) make? How much does the average female Software Engineer 2 make? I'd be willing to bet that the comparison is very close.
The so-called gender wage gap is really just a justification for hiring more women in senior roles.
Are you trying to say that we should compare performance and quality of work in order to determine if salaries were given out fairly? Are you insane? What's next? Grades in schools and grade based system in universities? Valuing athletes based on how fast they run and how far they jump? What a ridiculous system! /s
Read carefully and pay attention. Do notmake up philosophy by extension. Amalysis is inaccurate and it does not account for fair comparison on the same job level. If one group is under represented in some role then you will have average biased in some direction obviously.
The Left told me that the analysis is always accurate, as long as you just compare an average man and woman, so it must be true!
Yeh! Good idea! Let's politicize every ai discussion!
Isn't a discussion about wage gap - a political one?
ANY issue can be political -- if you make it so. That's why we have so many unresolved issues... Every discussion seems to devolve into "my team is the best team" instead of actually working through difficult issues (like this one) with honest discussion of the issue.
I did not make it so. It was MADE to be so without my will or intervention. It would be very dishonest of you to state that I made it into a political issue. And no, wage gap is not an "unresolved issue" if you look at the numbers without a bias and compare against the same base. It has been proven to be that so called false narrative about 1-2 years ago.
Comments
Generally, Apple comes out pretty well when compared to the likes of Barclays Bank.
Anyway, there are only a few open cast coal mines working in the UK now[1]. The last coal fired power station will be gone in a few years and with it, the last of the mines.
[1]There are some very, very small mines in operation in a few places but these are often two men and a dog outfits and often use drift mining rather than sinking shafts.
So, I guess we can all agree that Apple disclosing this information is a good thing then? And then I read the comments...
1) The tech field is probably the most black and white of fields in terms of separating those with superior vs mediocre technical abilities. And, the abilities have far less to do with knowledge than they do with innate thinking charateriustics - such as the ability to think through and solve complex technical problems.
2) While I've known some excellent women in the field, the average female simply can't compete with the average male in tech. It's not that one is "smarter" than the other. It's that males and females tend to think differently -- and the male thought pattern tends to fit with tech requirements better.
Or alternatively, perhaps one of most appropriate distinctions was made in the tech organization that I first worked in:
They made separate but equal career paths for tech's versus managers -- realizing that each required a different skill set. Maybe that is what is required here -- because one is not smarter than the other and one is not better than the other. But they are different (at least on average).
Just my thoughts from my experience....
This is true, everything I have read, if you break the data down to jobs, positions and years of experience doing the same skill set there is no gap, they actually fond in some cases women were actually making more. They also show Women CEO's were compensated 20% higher than their male counter parts for a similar size company.
We keep seeing this over an over again, they lump all the data together and divide it down male verse women and always find a gap. The largest area of the gap is high risk jobs, Men traditionally take on high risk jobs like fire fighting/ police/ steel worker/ oil drilling these jobs pay higher than traditional lower risk jobs which women tend to migrate to.
I just read that the UK want to pass a law which requires company to wage balancing on a yearly bases to ensure women's wages stay parallel to men's wages independent of time on the job. They recognize that women and their husband choose to have the wife stay home when have kids and women should not be penalize for this decision.
My wife decide to work will our kids were young, then at some point decide it was not worth it any more and quick working and stay home for 3 yrs until they were in school. She then went back part time, took a huge wage cut but gave this up in exchange to time flexibility. The 3 yrs she took off also cost her experience she was behind the learning curve and it took her a few years to get back to where she should have been. Only today 10 yrs later is she making more than when she left full time. Guess what, she is okay with it, why because she got other things that money can not buy which is time with her kids when she want to spend time with them.
I'm sure that there are some folks who have taken a position at one company over another based purely on compensation. I've never done such a thing. Other factors like job location, the position/role, opportunity/growth potential, the type of work, work environment, company reputation, etc., played a significantly larger role in choosing one company over another. Many people are not singularly motivated by financial compensation but outsider analyses of companies cannot measure non-financial aspects of a compensation package. Competition between companies should come down to more than just dollars and cents.
My main point is that the highly secretive, opaque, and non-formlaic nature of how compensation works within a company for regular line employees (not the executives in public companies whose compensation package is public) creates an inherent level of turmoil and speculation. A side effect of this lack of transparency is the formulation of metrics that paint an incomplete and sometimes misleading evaluation of compensation between different classifications of employees because the underlying rationale and formulation is unknown. Whether this is a contributing factor in the Apple story above is unclear, but I suspect that it is a contributor.