Submitted by AP24inMumbai t3_ygk94s in technology
Comments
morpipls t1_iub1y2z wrote
They actually looked at both. From the article:
>Microsoft is at pay parity when comparing women and people of color doing equal work with men or white workers, the data released Thursday also shows.
>
>But the median pay figures — which measure compensation across the entire workforce regardless of title — show employees of color overall make less, indicating disparities between who is in higher-paying positions.
Reporting only whether there was unequal pay for people with equivalent role/title/etc. could also give an incomplete picture, as it's quite possible that a company pays everyone equitably for the job they're in, but still does a better job attracting, retaining, and promoting workers in some demographic groups than others.
In any case, I think a company reporting a mix of numbers is better than just reporting one, which could easily be cherry-picked to make them look good.
[deleted] t1_iuabv0g wrote
[removed]
KSRandom195 t1_iuarg9b wrote
In theory if you are hiring, promoting, compensating, etc. in a uniform way then the medians will all be the same.
So if the medians are not all the same then that suggests some aspect of your compensation formula is biased.
phdoofus t1_iuasq9a wrote
THis assumes that that all groups have been included in your hiring process for equal amounts of time. If there's a lag between all the white guys, say, that have been there much longer and have been in grade longer and the newer people at the company or at that grade who've not been there that long. This kind of result does nothing but raise a million questions about the conclusions being asserted. Also, there's literally no mention of statistical significance. Again, working for equity is a good thing, but data needs to looked at carefully beforehand. It might be that there's something amiss at MS, but I'd not rely on this article as conclusive evidence.
KSRandom195 t1_iuau3sg wrote
Yes.
Because if the hiring process is biased then the compensation outcome will reflect that bias. It’s not like people of color or women didn’t exist or weren’t required to be treated equally under the law 5 years ago when most of their current employees were hired.
So if the compensation outcomes are not about equal then somewhere along the line they had a bias. It could have been in hiring, in promotions, in raises, in what opportunities were offered to who. But the bias is there if the outcomes are not the same.
somerandomii t1_iuaw6xn wrote
This doesn’t take into account demographics. Does it include international hires? Because US hires are obviously going to be paid more than international hires, on average. And they will be predominantly white.
Eg. Tech support centres based in India would massively skew the stats.
KSRandom195 t1_iuaxtxg wrote
> Because US hires are obviously going to be paid more than international hires, on average.
Sounds like bias to me. I guess you’re just okay with that kind of bias though?
sayer_of_bullshit t1_iub0kdq wrote
I'm white and I'd get payed based on my standard of living in a poorer country. There's no racism here.
KSRandom195 t1_iub1u4e wrote
Nationality is also a protected class. It’d be hard to claim how country of employment is not a strong proxy for nationality.
I get that this law doesn’t protect international workers, but if we claim equality it’s not clear to me why international people are not equal too.
somerandomii t1_iuc2tic wrote
I live in Australia and we get paid less because our dollar is weaker. Are you suggesting companies should constantly adjust salaries to account for currency fluctuations?
I’d also get paid less if I move to a city with less demand for my skill set. If I want to maximise my pay I need to go where the demand is, regardless of which company I work for.
KSRandom195 t1_iud5mnr wrote
> I live in Australia and we get paid less because our dollar is weaker. Are you suggesting companies should constantly adjust salaries to account for currency fluctuations?
What is the value of your labor to the company? That’s what you should be getting compensated for, and that doesn’t care about currency exchange rates or cost of living.
> I’d also get paid less if I move to a city with less demand for my skill set. If I want to maximise my pay I need to go where the demand is, regardless of which company I work for.
Industries like software don’t have a “local” demand. A software engineer in Sydney can do a job as well as a software engineer in San Francisco. So there isn’t “less demand” in Sydney vs San Francisco, there is a global demand for software engineers.
Yes some jobs have local demand, a factory can’t have workers around the world from it. But Microsoft is a software company with a few hardware exceptions.
somerandomii t1_iufj97f wrote
Even if it were reasonable, most employment contracts don’t support a floating wage. You get a salary and the compensation is tied to a currency. To do it any other way would be impractical unless we overhauled the global economic systems. An equivalent of a global EU or something.
As for “software employees can work from home” that’s just not true. A lot can a lot of the time, but security-sensitive material is almost impossible to control remotely. And having people in the same space does increase collaboration and cross-pollination of skills and ideas. Despite the narrative, companies aren’t pushing for return to the office just to stroke the egos of middle managers.
KSRandom195 t1_iufpqr7 wrote
Sure you’re not a middle manager with that last paragraph?
somerandomii t1_iuk8de7 wrote
I’m definitely not and I’m pushing for more WFH at my office. But there’s a difference between 2 days a week and being in a different country.
somerandomii t1_iuk8ei5 wrote
I’m definitely not and I’m pushing for more WFH at my office. But there’s a difference between 2 days a week and being in a different time zone.
LeastDescription4 t1_iubyykn wrote
Just cutting in here to point out that cost of living can vary a lot even within the same country and wages can often reflect that. For example Sydney and Newcastle can have different pay rates for the same job, as Sydney is more expensive to live in. This is despite them being in the same state, having very similar demographics, and being just 2 hours drive apart.
Wage rates and bands will fluctuate a lot between locations and this is a good thing as it means that the take home pay can be comparable in buying power after taking COL into account.
Time-Opportunity-436 t1_iu95jt6 wrote
wonder how this is related to technology.... what race Microsoft management has impacts their products?
morpipls t1_iub3s8m wrote
Well, the sub is r/technology, not "tech products"... I'd argue news about any of the large tech companies is on-topic.
For observers of the industry, this can tell you something about their hiring practices, corporate culture, etc. One could also speculate about what kind of PR considerations go into the decision to release these numbers.
But for what it's worth, sometimes diversity does make a difference in product quality. Sometimes in subtle ways, and sometimes not at all subtle ones:https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-apologizes-for-algorithm-mistakenly-calling-black-people-gorillas/
Time-Opportunity-436 t1_iu95nwj wrote
also literally the CEO is Satya nadella (great guy btw)
[deleted] t1_iu9can3 wrote
[deleted]
AREssshhhk t1_iubmf75 wrote
White liberals getting angry for us again
Better_Internet_9465 t1_iubrqmy wrote
This does not consider the age of employees with respect to demographic differences (by race). Generation X is about 60% non-Hispanic White and generation Z is only 51%. So this group will skew older and more highly paid in part due to higher median age. For the Hispanic population, the opposite is true. These employees will skew younger. I’m curious if their are age adjusted number to contextualize this information.
Correct_Training1694 t1_iucv26g wrote
Working in tech it’s such a waste hiring diversity. We hire one diversity hire and usually have to hire someone 6 months later to do the job. Just does t work, merit is the way forward
[deleted] t1_iu95ssz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu9c1uv wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu9kfwc wrote
[removed]
joeblo987123 t1_iuc91uy wrote
If one wants to examine pay disparities at top jobs, one should look at the age distribution amongst those top jobs and adjust for racial makeup in said age categories as parts of population over time. I would imagine most of the people in top roles at MS are 45+ and realistically likely 55+.
Based on that, in the 1960s, according the census the US was 88% white, 10.5% black, and <2% any other ethnicity. Of the 88% white, 2% were hispanic. One would anticipate that high earners at MS would be disproportionately white compared to overall US demographics today as high income earners are not entry level workers (although black has stayed fairly steady over time (at ~12% today) so there is a point in that specific demographic).
ThetaMan420 t1_iucv5ko wrote
Weird cuz like they got a Indian ceo and a lot of the top tech guys are Indian people of color and not just white
mixedpatch85 t1_iuahstj wrote
Cue then tokenism hires
Whthpnd t1_iu9khcu wrote
Take away the opportunities.
ElectronicShredder t1_iu9k9v5 wrote
Steve Jobs > Top Jobs
/$
sex_is_immutabl t1_iu9ygdy wrote
This is the company that once upon a time basically invented hiring loads of H1B visas from India to the point where few workers were actually white and entire streets near their office were purely Indian immigrants. Of course senior leadership didn't have such diversity levels. You have to thank Reddit's crush Bill Gates for that.
sex_is_immutabl t1_iu9xqgj wrote
It will always be something though. If it isn't race, it's gender, if it isn't gender its race.
In the UK we have to publish by gender. So the females are paid less, because none of them are in the executive board, and the CEO appoints them, yet its socialised as an issue we all have to fix.
Despite us being in tech where the Pareto principle applies, and very few women actually put in the hours the top males do.
MyPacman t1_iuakjn1 wrote
> and very few women actually put in the hours the top males do.
I would imagine this would be a problem for parents who want to spend more time with their kids too. Did you consider the environment is unsuitable, and that forcing people to work long hours is actually a problem for everybody (except the workaholics who put everything else to one side and live/breath their job)
[deleted] t1_iuanavr wrote
[removed]
AREssshhhk t1_iubml8h wrote
He’s probably top in his field and just speaking honestly. Lefties hate the truth more than anything
aaabigwyattmann3 t1_iu985n2 wrote
>Microsoft’s Black U.S. workers earned about 77 cents on the dollar, Hispanic workers were at about 82 cents, and Asian workers were at about 95 cents for every dollar earned by white workers, the company’s data showed.
Suppose a White person makes $200k. Then Black makes $154k, Hispanic makes $164k, Asian makes $190k
Sounds like in this situation, the quick solution would be to give everyone raises to 200k, but they wont, because they would prefer to lower everyones salary. So the problem, as usual, is greedy executives.
anon_tobin t1_iu9gsav wrote
It's a little weird because the $154k salary is tied to a role. So there are white guys and black guys who work the same job and both make $154k. However, there are more white guys working the $200k job.
Raising the salaries of the $154k roles would be nice but wouldn't solve the problem of representation at what are likely more influential levels of the company. I haven't thought about this all enough to know whether the money at this one company is the important thing, or whether we're using it as a proxy for discrimination and equity and stuff.
yoortyyo t1_iu98l9p wrote
Unions. Unions solve this.
Secret individual negotiation for salary only favors the employer.
BarrySix t1_iu9n6pu wrote
I agree with unions in principle, but not so much in practice.
Unions give bad staff protection and a better deal. Look at the madness of police unions.
dungone t1_iua0msy wrote
Police unions are not real Unions. They are more like gangs.
nowutz t1_iuag84p wrote
##Police unions are gangs.
BarrySix t1_iucjcpr wrote
That has nothing to do with unions. Police are gangs or mobsters with or without unions.
BarrySix t1_iucj47p wrote
Fair point.
Ok take teacher unions. They should be a wonderful thing and exactly what the world needs. In practice they make false claims about representing students to get the public on side while working against student interests. They support teachers who should be fired and do little or nothing for teachers who perform well.
I'm not anti-union at all. But I've seen they just don't help in the way they should.
Theyna t1_iu9m6e2 wrote
"Microsoft is at pay parity when comparing women and people of color doing equal work with men or white workers"
Are you dumb? They need to increase the # of minorities in higher ranking positions, not pay lower level positions more.
dudeedud4 t1_iu9rfjz wrote
So put them there because they are minority? LOP No. You get put if yku are a good fit for that role. Sure you can say i'm ignorant, but that doesn't excuse that news agencies are increasingly putting this type of non-issue in headlines to drum up race baiting.
BarrySix t1_iu9ned6 wrote
You are proposing equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The difference is pretty significant.
MyPacman t1_iuakywh wrote
Being on the rung below is not equality of opportunity.
When the outcome regularly has the guy who works 80+ Hours, goes golfing with the boss, or has some other 'in' to socialising with him, then that is not equality of opportunity.
BarrySix t1_iucjx75 wrote
Sadly it's not simple to measure equality of opportunity. You can't say "there are fewer male nurses therefore there isn't equality of opportunity".
It's very easy to measure equality of outcome, which is why it's so common to use it as some kind of proxy for equality of opportunity.
sirbruce t1_iu9s120 wrote
> They need to increase the # of minorities in higher ranking positions.
Do they? Even minorities are being paid the same as majorities at every level, then the only reason for the overall pay disparity is that there are more majorities employed than minorities. Which is going to be true for as long as they are minorities. Why should they be represented disproportionally relative to overall population?
Theyna t1_iu9u5um wrote
"In 2020, Black men and women accounted for 5.6 percent of executives we identified. But despite finding 56 Black executives in 2021 vs 38 in 2020, the percentage dropped to 4.5 percent. The overall U.S. population is 13.4 percent Black, according to the Census Bureau.
We also identified more executives who were either Hispanic or Asian. They accounted for 6 percent of executives in 2020 and that number rose to 7.1 percent this year. U.S. Census Bureau identified 5.9 percent of the U.S. population as Asian and 18.5 percent as Hispanic or Latino"
https://washingtontechnology.com/2021/06/top-100-diversity-shows-little-improvement/359301/
They are NOT represented proportionally relative to the overall population. 4.5% Black executives to 13.4% of the population. 7.1% Asian/Latino executives relative to 24.4% of the population. 26.7% Women executives to 50.8% of the population. Would you like me to go on?
sirbruce t1_iua20yu wrote
Yes, I'd like you to go on. Even if Blacks were 13.4% of each level of pay, there would still be an overall pay disparity. So I'd like you to explain what you would suggest doing at that point.
[deleted] t1_iu9hnpe wrote
[deleted]
BarrySix t1_iu9mu8e wrote
Are they really comparing like for like jobs though?
It's more sensible to move everyone's party to the average, rather than moving a bunch of overpaid people to more extremely overpaid.
phdoofus t1_iu9srqk wrote
I'm all for equity but is kind of a crap article because it measures only median pay grade across their entire work force. You can't make any intelligent conclusions based on that. Oh, let's not correct for job title, or grade, or years in service or anything. Nope. Just median values.