Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Female Staff in CG Industry Discuss Gender Gap at SIGGRAPH Asia 2018

The gender pay gap IS real.

[Yan Fan] said, "Why am I the only female CTO in Japan?" referring to the lack of female business leaders in tech.

The idea is that women make choices in their life or possess a certain life style that leads them to have jobs that either lack opportunity of advancement or lack the opportunity to be given extremely important positions.

青白 wrote:

The idea is that women make choices in their life or possess a certain life style that leads them to have jobs that either lack opportunity of advancement or lack the opportunity to be given extremely important positions.

This article from last year says, among other things, "One-in-four employed women said they have earned less than a man who was doing the same job; just 5% of men said they have earned less than a woman doing the same job." Doesn't sound like the gap is perfectly accounted for by personal choices.

The gender pay gap issue is complicated, and doesn't boil down to just "sometimes women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same thing," but the complicating factors mainly just unveil further problems. As that article says, one reason women end up paid less is because they take more time off work, or don't work at all, to care for children or other family members. Child-rearing and housework gets done mostly by women, and it's hard to claim that work isn't important, but if it's your own kids and your own house, you don't get paid for doing it. (And professional childcare workers and maids, also mostly women, don't get paid very much.)

We have this collective belief that how much money you make correlates exactly to how much value you provide to society; clearly, even from the one example above, that isn't true, but that belief is a convenient way to convince ourselves that, y'know, "this is fine."

It is not real dude. There are evidence debunking that entire myth.

The gender pay gap IS real.

kinghumanity wrote:

The gender pay gap IS real.

Yeah, it is. Against men. Google literally just did an audit that found they pay women more than men.

You were saying?

Since Google’s analysis caught the discrepancy before changes were implemented, the Level 4 male engineers were not paid less than women. The company’s annual analysis only compares employees in the same job category, so the results do not reflect race or gender differences in hiring and promotion.

At Google, employees are paid in salary, equity, and bonuses. Compensation is determined by an employee’s position, performance, and location. But managers also have access to a pool of discretionary funds, which they can allocate to individual employees. After the recent analysis identified the gender difference in compensation among Level 4 engineers, a deeper company analysis found the discrepancy stemmed from managers planning to allocate more discretionary funds to women than men in 2019.

...

Google said it shared the male pay gap in this instance because the results were counterintuitive. But the analysis arrives as Google faces an investigation by the US Department of Labor and a lawsuit by current and former female employees, both of which allege that Google discriminates systematically against women in pay and promotion. Kelly Ellis, a former Google software engineer and plaintiff in the lawsuit, claims she was hired in at Level 3, the category for recent college grads, despite having four years of professional experience. The lawsuit alleges that weeks after Ellis joined the company, Google hired a male engineer with the same experience at Level 4, which translated into a higher salary and potential access to bigger bonuses and more stock.

Our pay equity analysis ensures that compensation is fair for employees in the same job, at the same level, location and performance. But we know that’s only part of the story. Because leveling, performance ratings, and promotion impact pay, this year, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of these processes to make sure the outcomes are fair and equitable for all employees.

Our first step is a leveling equity analysis to assess how employees are leveled when they are hired, and whether we can improve how we level.

kinghumanity wrote:

That's not true, and you're belittling women's legitimate complaints again. When a job is being done by women, it becomes less valued and is seen as less skilled. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html

Have you actually read these articles? Because they're pretty misleading. They're comparing male janitors who work for big companies to self-employed women who run their own housekeeping service and saying they're the same job in the cleaning industry. Then they compare menial secretarial work from the 1950s to mid 2000s Silicon Valley software coding as both being 'computer programming'. A far cry from the call of 'equal pay for equal work'.

IPUMS reconciled the occupational classification of all available census years from
1950 through 2000. Because the main change was that occupations became more
detailed over time, backward-collapsing is the preferred strategy of harmonizing
the categories. IPUMS assigned each individual to the OCC1950 code to which
they would have been assigned in 1950. The result is a common disaggregate
classification scheme containing 287 occupations into which all respondents in
any 1950-2000 decennial census sample can be classified. Because 105 of these
287 OCC1950 occupations had no incumbents for some of the decades, we
combined them with the occupations to which they are functionally closest. We
also excluded occupations that were designated as “Not Elsewhere Classified.” This
leaves us with 164 occupations for analysis.

OCC1950 is not perfect. The collapsed categories were constructed by recoding
occupations in each sample based on where a plurality of persons would have been
assigned in each census had the coding system of the previous census still been
in effect.