I don't know the situation of South Korea to comment on this topic. But, with the corporate industries talking too much about transparency it seems no one has come to identifying the cause of wage gap. Why not make the salary transparent across the board and the employee performance in public (internal to company) as well? People or Management say it is complicated, but is it really?
> it seems no one has come to identifying the cause of wage gap.
That's because there is no discernible wage gap. There is an earnings differential that has been pretty much fully explained.
For example here, fairly comprehensively: "both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect women's and men's incomes -- including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact -- and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay."
But there are many other sources. One example was a study of wages at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which has completely codified/rigid pay structure and still managed to "discriminate" against women, pretty much at the same rate as the national "gender pay gap". How? The men did more overtime, more shifts at inconvenient times etc.
In fact, given all the evidence, as far as I can tell it is overexplained.
Haha. Well I agree with the reasons for difference in pay gap. My suggestion is why not make those metrics public as well, people can see for themselves if it related to working hours, output, level of risk etc.
I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that.
But I really have no idea.
Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..."
Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected").
For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol.
Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.)
Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter.
You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results.
> women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol
On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact.
This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender.
Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination.
> emphasized the physical differences between men and women,
I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs.
So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means, but I think you have a rather narrow (and largely useless) interpretation of "completely gender neutral", whereby something can be deemed completely gender neutral regardless of whether it generates a huge difference in outcome by gender. After all, there are always individual differences among members of each gender, so if we have to ignore the averages, then what's left? According to your interpretation, it seems that the only issues that are not completely gender neutral are specifically where men are required to do X and women not-X, which as I said is largely useless for practical discussion (one of the few examples is the US Selective Service, which does discriminate by both gender and age).
The main question to me is not just whether an outcome is actually unequal, the question is whether an outcome is predictably unequal. When someone applies an input, allegedly gender neutral, that they know in advance will produce important gender differences in output, how can they honestly claim that it's completely gender neutral? That's not fooling me, at any rate; it seems more like self-deception.
Let me put it this way: if you wanted to discriminate against a certain class of people, but you needed plausible deniability, then what would you do? You would select arbitrary criteria, allegedly neutral, that play the averages and tend to filter out the undesirables. It's not perfect discrimination, some false positives and negatives, but "better" than nothing, right?
> Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination.
This seems like a rather minor issue. It's a special case. I don't think it carries much weight overall, pardon the pun. The economy doesn't seem to be littered with disappointed firefighter wannabes. "I want to be a firefighter" is what children say, not generally what adult women are saying about gender inequality.
Regardless, I don't think it makes much sense to compare physical fitness standards for firefighters and late-night drinking "fitness" for business. Nobody is going to die if you don't drink, though somebody could die if you do drink! Drinking is not even a plausibly reasonable requirement for work.
> I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them.
Well, I've known you for years, and I've observed that you constantly go out of your way to argue with strangers on the internet about gender. Of course I'm doing it in this submission, but I can't even begin to match your prolificness, nor do I aspire to. ;-)
Anyway, quibbling aside, the larger issue is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations, explanations that have nothing to do with "gender preferences", unless you would claim that "not wanting to get sexually harassed or assaulted" is just a preference.
> I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means
Yet that is exactly what you are doing, and the definition you argue for is almost entirely useless. Your claim is that any activity that can or does produce even statistic differences in outcomes for different genders is discrimination.
This is not true.
Discrimination is when you discriminate, and do so based on gender.
I am not going to rebut what you wrote in detail, it's just wrong.
> perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations
Exactly. And they have nothing to do with "discrimination", but with different people having different preferences, and different societal pressures. For men, having a good job, climbing the top of whatever hierarchy is available is essential if they want to partner up, for example, because that is what women require of their partners.
So men, statistically, do the dangerous and dirty jobs that women would never put up with. And thus account for >90% of workplace casualties. And die earlier in general. And make more money, statistically. And they put up with stupid things like having to go out drinking for work after working hours, after also working more hours in general, more overtime and more inconvenient shifts.
And of course having to go out on drinking contests after work is a, how did I put it, "shitty business practice" that needs to be weeded out. But not because it is discriminatory, which it is not, but because it is a shitty business practice.
And no, I am also not going to rebut crazy conspiracy theories about men banding together to come up with ultra clever and devious business practices that are designed to shut out women while appearing to be gender neutral.
And yes, I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic, because it is not just comically wrong, but also divisive and harmful. It does nothing but breed resentment and since its analysis is so wrong ensures that things cannot get better.
But things are improving, the number of people who blindly buy into the narrative seems to be declining. Yay!
> Your claim is that any activity that can or does produce even statistic differences in outcomes for different genders is discrimination.
No, it's not.
> Good chat.
No, it wasn't.
Every "chat" you have seems to end up with some variation of the sarcastic "have a nice one". Don't you ever tire of that outcome?
> I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic
It does feel like you're talking to an abstraction (maybe talking to yourself?) rather than talking to me. That would actually explain a lot about how these chats go.
I am not the Dominant Narrative. Neither are you the Lord-selected savior from the Dominant Narrative. We're just two guys talking on the internet. Do you want to have a real discussion, or just pound keys and chests like monkeys?
> It's obviously not possible to have a constructive, non-ad-hom discussion here
It is possible, but you'd have to radically change your typical approach to these discussions and treat me like an equal human being rather than as a "narrative" to fight.
> so I am bowing out.
I thought you already did.
> Have a good one.
Good chat. Have a nice one. Have a good one. Why did you even need to add the superfluous line to your comment that I've already highlighted as sarcastic?
We do this in Norway, everyone’s salary was totally open (the last couple of years people can see if you have looked at their salary, so not totally open).
A new government now, that want to make it totally open again.
It’s the ‘Norwegian tax administration’ that give out the information.
Media always have full access and can write articles based on it for individuals or groups of people, as long as they don’t publish the whole dataset.
Wow, that is impressive. Norway is surely advanced in humanities.
So, why not publicise the performance metrics of the employees as well? Not public at least accessible like what you mentioned on salary. I'm not questioning why Norway isn't doing it but in general why not?
Such access to performance can also serve as a driver in the employment industry. Along with the engineering blogs, one can display links to the portal with company attested achievements and stats, it will at least reduce false claims in LinkedIn.
Salary is an objective number. Performance is a subjective assessment by someone who may favor or disdain you. "Accomplishments" tends to leave out the effort put in by those around you.
I don't think I know of a single manager I've worked with who would have been as honest in performance reviews if they knew their feedback wasn't going to be confidential.
All of that is to say I wouldn't put much, if any, stock in such information.
I didn't like dark mode since the beginning, it was too much effort on my eyes. During the day, the room is well lit, why do we need a dark mode at all. And when it is night, we probably shouldn't be working. Or at least switch on the lights, we wouldn't want a dark mode then.
I agree, I'm assuming their engineering teams are the biggest in size like my company which is of a very comparable size with legal, hr, ops and business counterparts.
But coming to Twitter engineering teams, what are they doing actually? their primary technical product is tweet timelines and trends, their mobile apps are kind of okay, the user experience hasn't changed much except getting slower and slower. If all they do is rewrites, they are simply wasting the talent.
There could be SRE, Security, Datacenter admins running 24x7 but other than that, I see no useful idea out of them in a long long while. See instagram, snapchat and others for example, they've explored the unknown and brought us some quite good and plenty bad social media. Twitter at least should've been masters in content moderation by now, but they're far from it.
For an outsider they seem to have lost their way and are being a couch potato munching on the junk food.
I love Volvo cars. I hope they have enough investment in support and engineering, because Rust isn't an easy language to pick up. I wouldn't want to escalate minor software problems through the management that needs engineering team's response and I'm waiting because there is not enough people to support across continents.
I welcome new Rust jobs, I myself have attempted to learn (and fail). But having it in a customer facing and a software embedded in customer's car is not what I expected.
Maybe starting in a backend service that they can monitor and deploy changes in events of outage would be an easy start. For something a scale of customer owned cars, I hope they are prepared.
If you pick a new tech that is interesting to potential employees, it can really help hiring. You can get a lot of experienced applicants wanting to sink their teeth into the new tech. Lots of places found this when they went with Go. Unless you need to produce vast amounts of mediocre code, you generally want to hire the people interested and able to pick up a language even though it isn't easy.
Marvel has become worse these days, it peaked at Infinity War, then a slow decline since then. I'm looking forward to a franchise or a movie that's entertaining as the first Star Wars trilogy.
That being said, if you like the story you'd really appreciate the movie RRR. I was pleasantly surprised when I went there without any expectation.
I agree only on the point that she doesn't inherit the wrong deeds, nothing on her personally.
But the place she sits, is from the blood of millions who were enslaved, robbed and were dealt with a rather inhuman treatment to say the least. In the process empire also justified what they did was in the past and cautiously moved away from that without an inch of guilt. It is sad to see people in India/Pakistan/SriLanka mourn for her death, a pity case of Stockholm syndrome.
If as you say, she has done good in her life, she should have relinquished the power, disowned the wealth which was directly a result of the horrific colonialism and imperialism. Or at least have some decency and apologise, give back the stolen wealth as a good gesture. Now I wonder, if she would have given up imperialism out of her own volition if she was in power during that period. I am inclining towards No.. it was convenient she didn't have to oversee those horrors.
It has been more than 70 years and even now, they hold their crown so precious adorned with the Diamonds taken away forcefully from our lands. What an absolute shame!
There are unheard horrors from the colonial countries, which will ache even the stone hearted. Bringing all this in perspective, we don't think she's Kim, but we have the same respect or the lack of it for anyone in their legacy.
> she should have relinquished the power, disowned the wealth which was directly a result of the horrific colonialism and imperialism. Or at least have some decency and apologise, give back the stolen wealth as a good gesture.
Totally fair criticism. But that's not what I've been seeing from any of the criticism until your post.
What I've been seeing has been collective filial guilt assignment. The same psychological process underlying racism and other forms of collective guilt assignment. Hatred directed to the Queen little to do with what she did or didn't do, but because of what British Imperialism did in past before she got the job. The post above ours exemplifies this.
I can see that, it is not what I wish. I don't advocate or recommend any of that to my fellow men. Late Queen and the current British monarchy aren't worthy and I believe they need little of our time spent in empathy.
The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt, which the modern British era is trying hard to forget and won't be easy until they take some sensible directions towards reparations and an honest apology at least from whomever even got to witness, including the late Queen. She had a chance to resolve or ease it in our memories. We'll remember her as someone who lived their life in power, saw the horrors their parents designed upon others and didn't even have courtesy to apologise.
So much for the British decency..
Edit: Sorry for the rant. My Grandpa and his kin suffered a lot and was in freedom struggle, it is that lasting impact. I've put it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775488
If you're a brit, please know that I am not against you or anybody for that matter. Just the monarchy's horrific past.
> Late Queen and the current British monarchy aren't worthy and I believe they need little of our time spent in empathy. > She had a chance to resolve or ease it in our memories. > Just the monarchy's horrific past. > won't be easy until they take some sensible directions towards reparations and an honest apology
All totally reasonable things to say.
> The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt
Yeah, that's the explanation, but we shouldn't confuse that with justification.
What puts me off about the reaction I'm seeing is more abstract than the details of this particular case. It's the same feeling I have when I see casual anti-White racism, justified as legitimate only because of the existence and history of white supremacy. It's filial guilt and collective guilt put on one individual who didn't perpetrate the crimes that are the actual source of the anger. And it's the cultural normalization and even promotion of such perverse group-based moral systems that I am speaking out against.
I totally agree on your point, it is an explanation and not a justification.
And I am against putting the blame on someone to feed our emotions, the hatred isn't going to serve any. This is unhealthy and what I am seeing at anti-white racism is absolutely narrow minded full of obtuse morals. I will support you and several others against such foolishness.
On a side note, this particular case is just one among many, many such happenings for over two centuries of british rule. The worst of the Black Racism and its horror history has mostly ended, and same is the case of colonial countries. But the scars run deep in both the camps, any person who has the decency and courage to come up say sorry and treat as equals would be welcomed with open arms.
It should have happened in the 70s, the 80s or 90s, 2000 or 2010s. I don't think they have any plans for it, and honestly won't care about what others say like we should about them.
My blood boils everytime I remember how the brits cut off thumbs of my people, the silk weavers.
People underestimate the atrocities done by British empire, one tiny example is when they chopped off thumbs of handloom weavers to stop the Indian business spread within India in order to sell their goods from Manchester produced from the stolen cotton from India again, my clan of people were the silk weavers since more than a millennium and were wiped out of existence. Even now I sometimes hear the horror stories from my Grandpa who lost a lot of kin and daily bread due to the greedy pigs and jealous barbarians that the empire was.
The words imperialism and colonialism don't do justice for the horrors they brought upon us.
I generally have empathy towards the dead, but for this incident, I hardly care.
Do you also hold that against Liz Truss? She and Queen Elizabeth played equal parts in those atrocities; ie none, even though they are part of the same institutions that did have a part in that history.
Edit: With all those things in perspective I ask the same question, would the late Queen of England have given up imperialism and colonialism and gave the nations to themselves if she lived during that era? Or was it convenient that she or anyone in power now didn't have to oversee the imperialism.
Do you really think her abdicating the throne would have done anything at all to solve these perceived wrongs?
To answer your first question, yes, and she did. During her reign, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other Commonwealth nations were all granted full state sovereignty. Prior to that, they had some independence, but were ultimately under the control of the UK. Some of these countries still retain her/King Charles as a head of state, but he holds no power over them, and he has an independent representative (in Canada, this is the governor-general, who theoretically holds more power than the prime minister).
That's not entirely accurate. A number of the Dominions were both de jure and de facto independent sovereign states by the mid-1930s as a result of the 1931 Statute of Westminster and enabling local laws. Some of the Commonwealth realms, notably Australia and New Zealand which only removed the right of appeal to the UK's Privy Council in 1986, only partially implemented the Statute and retained some aspect of UK involvement in their judicial, civil, and parliamentary systems for years longer.
The Statute of Westminster removed the ability of the British parliament to legislate for the Dominions unless at their request and with their consent. It also turned the Dominions into Commonwealth Realms where the monarch served as head of state separately in each, with their consent, and constrained by laws and rules unique to each.
That is, King George V ceased being the King of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas', and became separately the King of the United Kingdom, King of South Africa, King of Australia, King of New Zealand, etc. The Governor-General became the King's representative, but was constrained by local legislation and was usually someone appointed by each country.
It was still a bit messy in some cases, and Australia and New Zealand weren't sure right up until they adopted new legislation just after WWII whether they were truly independent in foreign policy. But some of the countries, like the Union of South Africa, became fully sovereign the moment the 1931 Statute was passed, and only needed to implement additional legislation in 1934 to clarify and localise it.
South Africa of course became a republic in 1961, but all that did was change the head of state from being the Queen to being a State President. It didn't change anything about the country's legal relationship to the United Kingdom.
So it's wrong to say Charles has no power in Commonwealth realms today, as he has as much power as each country assigns him (and by extension his representative Governor-General) in its own laws and he exercises it separately and distinctly from his powers as King of the UK.
> With all those things in perspective I ask the same question, would the late Queen of England have given up imperialism and colonialism and gave the nations to themselves if she lived during that era?
Are you ignoring the fact that many British colonies did gain independence during Elizabeths reign?
This company Buffer appeared in HN for their transparency some while ago [https://buffer.com/salary-calculator/]
We can surely determine if the wage gap is because of sexual discrimination or just a little relaxed performance.