There is both the possible cause of women being socially conditioned (or biologically wired, or whatever causes this) to be less confrontational, and the possible cause of women finding it riskier / being in worse negotiating positions for structural-inequality reasons.
Maybe men are socially conditioned to seek higher salaries (to support their family).
I suppose working for more than $100k might be a rational decision, but research shows it's probably more trouble than it's worth (if you're only thinking of yourself, and don't have an addiction or a boat).
I think this can be read as a different way of saying the same thing. If men are socially conditioned to do something and women are not, then you can see that as women being socially conditioned to not do that thing.
Because if I had some leftover I could start my own business for example.
Good enough salary for living is bullshit and it's driving the middle class to the ground instead upward, since everyone is living well enough but nobody has the saving to switch to entrepreneurship.
And thus we're now reliant as a society to the startup lottery to create new things, where the smartest mind create business just to be screwed over by investors.
The good enough salary negotiation driven by sense of guilt for making more than enough is a fallacy and just lead to exploitation of the middle class. In my first six month of work I managed trough automation to save my employer well more than my salary in yearly maintenance costs, and got a nice pat on the back. that's the kind of bullshit we engineers have to live with.
Screw the good enough salary. They want to pay as cheaply as possible and the only recourse is to grab as much cash as you can because your work is worth money and a lot of it and you deserve a fair share of it.
Why do you assume that most people want (external) power in their lives? Note that it's one thing to talk about getting more money and actually being serious about it. This is where I can see lots of people not wanting all that money, after all. They would want it if it was somehow free but they're only willing to work for much lesser amounts, so they don't really want it.
A reasonable amount of (relative) wealth is accessible to most people if only they're willing to do focused work to gain that sort of income and accumulate that wealth. But the majority of people are willing to buy a lotto ticket they say for fun or a basic 9-to-5 job, and leave it at that.
I've seen this argument. Reddit banned salary negotiations because of it.
When I saw that I wondered whether employers could use such reasoning to hire men over women in positions like sales and acquisitions that require negotiation.
I don't think people appreciate what a two-edged sword that research is. Either we admit sex-differences can factor into performance, or we don't.
Research showing that men on average are better at negotiation may mean that making skill at that a factor in hiring or pay has a disparate impact unrelated to business function for jobs where that is not part of the duties, but it doesn't mean that substituting sex discrimination for more direct skill assessment for jobs where that skill is required is either appropriate, efficient, or legal.
Skills not being perfectly evenly distributed by race or sex doesn't justify race or sex discrimination in place of assessment of individual skill. There's second edge you try to portray does not exist.
Here's what you're missing. If there is a sex-based difference in negotiation skill then there's no way that we will have the same outcomes in hiring and compensation between the sexes even in a system where there is no bias.
Up until now, whenever there are different outcomes between men and women the assumption has been that they perform the same. Take a look at the gender pay gap arguments.
That's not what you said before, you suggested that the research could be used to hire men preferentially.
As for your"up until now ", that's not true. Some people assume bias in absence of clear evidence, others assume differences in ability, interest, etc. The research doesn't really provide a clear basis for any particular quantified level of unequal impact, so the people who start off with one or the other assumption in the absence of clear evidence of the source of a particular level of unequal results in a particular form or industry are likely to stay with that assumption even with this research. Neither the justification for deliberate bias you suggested in your first party note the soft on assumptions you now suggest is a result from the research we have.
On average, men tend to take more risks than women (a testosterone thing, hence the "having balls" expression).
In anonymous settings, when there's no risk of physical harm (video games) woman are as agressive as men. If the gender is revealed/emphasized, a difference appears. The same goes for math tests.
Remember that even women discriminate against other women, e.g.:
In a randomized double-blind study, science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student — who was randomly assigned either a male or female name — for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student.
I never said these were the only reasons, and I didn't mention race at all.
@geofft was wondering whether the "intrinsic" differences were due to biology or social conditioning. The answer is: both.
Of course there are extrinsic factors as well.
"Politics" implies a deliberate, concerted behavior, which may exist, but this kind of bias is often subconscious, and present regardless of the gender/race of the evaluator.
A minor point but maybe an important one: I wasn't actually wondering, because it doesn't matter, I think. There's enough reason to believe that this phenomenon exists, in aggregate, between most men and most women. There's been no explanation for it offered that holds that the effects are just (e.g., something that claims that men's work output is correspondingly greater, or their need for income is). So whether it is nature or nurture, unless we think Google can fix the root cause, the right thing for Google to do is accept that the phenomenon exists and work around it. They don't need to track the phenomenon down.
It's like how Google focuses heavily on technical interviews over college GPA or even college degree. They've found that having a degree and a good GPA is not well-correlated with what they're hiring people to do. They could put a bunch of work into fixing the college system, but instead they design their hiring process to take it into account as little as possible.
Racism, sexism and politics play a far smaller role than you might imagine. It's a matter of skills, for example, in 2001 there were more than 16,000 Asian Americans who scored more than 700 on the math SAT. While there was less than 700 black Americans who scored more than 700 on the math SAT.
So sure, in aggregate black males earn less than asian American males and white Americans (asian Americans also earn more on average than white Americans, are whites being discriminated against?), but if you compare apples to apples (similar education, experience, test scores, etc) then there is virtually no gap.
The dogma is that statistical disparities demonstrate some form of discrimination, this assumes that there is an equality of performance which is virtually impossible to find in the real world.
> (asian Americans also earn more on average than white Americans, are whites being discriminated against?)
Really? Seems like an unnecessary thing to say.
If you take a closer look at the numbers, this isn't really the case. Asian households are larger, so median incomes are larger, and Asian-Americans tend to live in about 5 states, which have on average higher costs of living (and as a result higher median incomes).
If we're looking at SAT scores: in 2013, about 50,000 white students scored 700 or above in the math SAT, as did about 49,000 Asian students. Google's statistics at http://www.google.com/diversity/ indicate they have about twice as many white employees as Asian employees overall, and about three times as many in leadership. What gives?
You can say that 650+ math SAT score is more realistica assesment of average Google talent. There are 78400 Asians with 650+ score and 133440 whites with 650+ score in math. There are only 4200 blacks with 650+ score. Numbers pretty much align with Google diversity report.
> but if you compare apples to apples (similar education, experience, test scores, etc) then there is virtually no gap
Wasn't there literally a recent study that sent the same resume to employers and only changed the name and the white names got significantly more attention than stereotypically black names?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Women_Don't_Ask
http://geekfeminism.org/2011/06/17/quick-hit-one-reason-wome...
http://fdiv.net/2012/01/20/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-feminis...
There is both the possible cause of women being socially conditioned (or biologically wired, or whatever causes this) to be less confrontational, and the possible cause of women finding it riskier / being in worse negotiating positions for structural-inequality reasons.