- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Except that, if you happen to be, as the person you were responding to is, a single parent providing for four children, and the company knows it, and the company is being run by a sociopath (which many companies are - it's a great trait to have if you're running a major company), the responce is likely to be laughter. You're going to throw out a job that pays enough to support your kids, in exchange for hopefully finding a better one later? Yeah frelling right you are.
There are a lot of companies that are happy to take full advantage of peoples' desperation. After all, the entire purpose of a company is to make money, right? Anything that makes more money, and isn't at a high risk of losing more later, they should do it. Cook the books? Just don't get caught. Steal from your grandmother? Just don't get caught. Kill people that snitch on you? Just don't get caught. Right?
Admin
For example: Are you a convicted monopolist? Slap on the wrist. You get to keep the billions in ill-gotten gains.
Example 2: Complicated financial schemes that divert profits down path one and risks down path two until the whole economy collapses? No worries. Here's a trillion or so in bailout money. Plus 40 billion a month, just for additional jollies.
Admin
In my experience as a software developer and IT consultant, I'd say there is some pay differences anytime there is a minority in the population. However, from my own experience, men as well as women get shafted on pay because employers can get away with it.
I've noticed in situations where I advanced and a fellow female employee did not, the difference was I was more aggressive. I demanded the promotion. I made myself important to the project AND made sure everyone knew it. Not all, but a lot of the women I've worked with assume promotions will come due to merit. I thought the same thing when I was younger. That's all BS! The same thing happens to men. I was told to work hard and I would be noticed. That's all BS. Don't believe it. That something they tell everyone to get more out of you!
Guess what, employers don't want you comparing salaries for this exact reason! I've been a manager in a couple of software dev groups and I didn't care if people compared because my salaries were due to real performance differences. You want more, do more.
Lastly, the tried and true way to get a raise is get another job. It's just a fact. I've only had one employer in 20 years realize that giving me the raise was warranted AND cheaper than hiring a new employee! The rest, they will always be numb to the reality.
Once, I got a 31% raise by changing jobs. I was offered a "raise" by my current employer. I declined. I told them they could no longer afford me. The HR group was telling me I was crazy when I asked about the salary ranges before I found the new job. Guess what? They will always do that to you.
I've found it takes about 4 years for any employment situation to turn to crap. Do your 4, find another gig. It's easy and gives you a lot of varied experiences. :)
Admin
Well said. If this forum had a "Like" button, I'd click it.
Admin
Average percentage provides possible evidence of gender discrimination. It does not however prove it happens (correlation does not imply causation). If a male does create more value for the company he should be paid more, and inversely if a female creates more value for the company she should be paid more. This is called being gender-blind.
Honestly at some big companies that have a good portion of women in IT and engineering, there is a lot of discrimination against males. People should get paid what they DESERVE, and what they deserve is based on the job they personally do, not what other people in the company make. When women work as hard, as long, and as well as a male counterpart there is anecdotal evidence that they tend to make more.
This suggests statistically for whatever reasons males create more value for companies as employees (whether that be less time off, more extra hours, or whatever).
Admin
That's not even remotely similar to what the article suggests.
Strawman arguments are lies.
Admin
I tried to get a job, but they told me I would be paid a lot less because I was old, fat, bald and male. So I decided not to work at that strip club.
Admin
THAT JOB SUCKS!
Second, the wait list to get a driver job is about 5 YEARS. In other words, you have to do strenous physical labor loading boxes into trucks for 5 years before you can even think about getting the next job opening.
Third: Ups drivers work from sunup to sun down. 70+ hours a week is EXPECTED. You are EXPECTED to either deliver all your packages OR have a slip that explains why not for each package before you aim your truck back to the hub.
So no, for the work and effort those people have to go through to earn their 80k a year, I do NOT envy them 1 bit. What good is a good paycheck and good perks if you spend every waking minute earning it. All a ups driver has to look forward to is a cake and the icing of "WTF did i do with my life" regret at the end of that term.
Felons have a very hard time getting hired because packages cross state lines and as such they have to adhere to a shitton of federal regulations.
Admin
Assume that the male IT stereotype is true (We all know it is to an extent). Most male IT enthusiasts went to school and uni in there own group of other (Mostly male) IT enthusiasts. In University, I had a choice on which group I could to my main (Final Year) IT project with. A group of guys, or a mixed group. I was more comfortable choosing the group of guys, even though I knew everyone in both groups to some extent. I wouldn't say I'm shy, but I certainly have more experience socially with a group of other guys, then I do with a mixed group (The balance was 50/50 in the other group). The choice had nothing to do with who I'd rather work with.
The first job out of uni I took had an extreme approach: No girls. No girls on the sales team, no girls on the development team. One girl in the office of 30, and she was the Human Resources officer to boot. And the owner's wife. The reason? "They couldn't handle the pressure".
That is shit that needs to be fixed. Even one occurrence of that is too much, IMO.
Admin
You should sue them.
And then sue every patron who doesn't tip you as generously as the other entertainers.
Admin
Admin
Well... you could always go find another job without leaving or saying anything at the one you are at. If you think they're a bunch of bastigages then don't show your hand till you have a good one. Get the an offer letter, then negotiate at your current employer if you would rather stay. If they won't pony up the cash you know you have an option. Mind you, this is IT I'm talking about, we're not in the nation wide job market, there is a labor shortage, you just pick another job off the job tree.
Not to sound like a jerk but, folks get screwed when they show loyalty to companies, even good companies run by good people. I've worked at small companies with good people in charge, but they would have fired me in a heartbeat if that's what it took to maintain their standard of living. I like these people. That's just business. As employees we should be business savvy too. That means it's okay to look for another job. It's okay to get negotiate all the way to an offer letter on a job you don't want to take. And, liking the people you work with is no reason to stay if you are not respected, ie paid well.
There are lots of jobs, go get a good one.
Admin
At one job, when I selected whom would be hired among all of the male and female applicants, guess who the biggest complainer was when I selected a female.
[spoiler space]
[spoiler space]
My girlfriend.
Among those applicants who still wanted the job after being interviewed, I hired the ones who appeared most qualified. My girlfriend's complaint didn't stop me. My girlfriend worked in a different industry. She had no thought of applying for a job that she wasn't suited for, so that's not what she was jealous about. Just what kind of pr*ck would hire another female.
Admin
The penetration rate of sociopaths holding a CEO title is around four percent (4%). This low percentage cannot represent the majority that you speak of.
Admin
This is one aspect affecting the average, but there is empirical evidence that women are made lower offers for the same job: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf+html
Also, I don't have the study for this one on hand, but women are significantly less likely to receive a pay rise when they ask than men.
People who dismiss the entire effect as 'it's all because women leave work to have babies' also need to stay away from statistics, economics, and finance, all of which are complex systems with many factors. And sneaking in that 'almost' doesn't save you.
Admin
Derp, that response was to this:
Admin
I don't know about the situation in the US, but in Germany, there is a very good study run every year the the "C't" magazine where they poll thousands of IT professionals for their income and qualifications and publish the results.
It certainly helps to see if you're under- or overpaid. Unfortunately, I always seem to fall into the first category :-/
ag.
Admin
I'm an elderly female computer geek in a young man's world, so I am very much aware of discriminatory treatment. My boss is currently starting the procedure to "assess" me - meaning downgrade me or even get rid of me. I only need to stall the process for a few months and I'll be too close to retirement to make it worth their while.
I'm not going to go away and raise a family or anything like that - not at my age.
I do have a rather good view on the male/female aspects of being a software engineer as I was male when I joined this company.
Admin
The big problem I find with any job is that they are a business, your pay is just another bill they'd rather keep to a minimum and they know there is no such thing as market forces involved in deciding how much it is going to be (as mentioned in the article, golf can often be a bigger earner than professional aptitude).
I only look for a job for two reasons, because I want more money or because I don't have a job at all. From the employer's point of view, why should they pay me that extra money when they can hire someone who is desperate for a job at all on a lower rate, thus I have never succeeded in getting a new job whilst currently employed, I've had offers but been expected to take a deal that is effectively more for less so I've always turned them down.
Recently however I did find a way out of the trap, its something I learnt from my boss at my previous job and its horrid, I've always hated it, I feel dirty doing it myself but its a pure simple fact of; if you can't beat them, join them.
The answer is playground games, nothing to do with anything practical or intellectual, its all a game of who is the biggest neanderthal. This might explain why some women get stuck with lower salaries in general so take my tip, fake it. Act like you are a stupid, testosterone driven, bullish ignorant man.
Strange as it seems, that's how it works, being a considerate, professional, knowledgeable employee with a good scientific approach to your field balanced against the realities of business... is not going to get you a pay rise.
I realised this in my previous job where I found myself doing more and more advanced work for the same pay, every time I reasoned with the boss for more I was of course given excuses and you can see his point. Why should he pay more for my services if he doesn't have to?
So I started working to my job description and not doing the more advanced work, they found they had come to rely on it and pushed me for more, I refused. They took to harassment and bullying to try and force it out of me, I took to raising that matter officially with the higher management and so on... Obviously by this point I had ruined my political standing and lost any chance of ever climbing the monkey pecking order.
In the end as much as they wanted and tried to get rid of me they couldn't, in a bang per buck sense although I never got a pay rise I was doing better, I had been filed away in a corner and left to my own devices, they couldn't fire me but they didn't want to deal with me so I did less work for the same money. Obviously this is not real a win, but it did teach me something.
I had personal reasons for wanting to leave and I was sick of the dead end, so I moved on.
Cue putting it into practice.
I'm working at a new job and I come up with a bit of software that doubles their production throughput by removing a bottleneck, so I show it to them but hold it back, I'm not giving it away and hoping for a kind reward, its just not going to happen. They want to offer me a better fulltime position so I start negotiating pay, we decide on a figure but I never get a formal offer.
My contract comes to an end, about ten minutes before the end of the last day I'm saying my goodbyes and the boss realises now is the time. He hands me an offer, for HALF the money we agreed on.
I can see his thinking "This guy will be so desperate for another job, he will take whatever he is given."
I laugh, I walk out. I make out I couldn't take his offer even if I wanted to because he didn't give me ample notice, I pretend I have other work lined up for the next two weeks. I also make it clear I will ensure everyone else knows that he went back on the agreement we made. I can get away with all this because I still have his production doubling software and no-one else at his company knows how it works, otherwise they would have already done it.
In the end I get taken on at the rate we agreed with an agreement in writing that I will get an extra 25% added to that after the first six months. I also make sure I get a written job description showing exactly what is and isn't my job so that when the inevitable extras do come along, I can bargain for more leave, more pay or whatever I happen to fancy at the time.
You might look at the story and think they took me on because I had skills they really wanted but if I hadn't been manipulative, bullish, stubborn and confident to the point of arrogance I would have been doing it for half the salary I'm on now.
I got the pay I felt I deserved because I wouldn't settle for less, if I had budged so much as a micron they would have leapt on that sign of weakness and tried to take a lightyear. So not only did I not step back, I drove forward and showed them "If you think you can push me into a corner, be prepared for me to push back."
So the two things we can take away from this are A. If you aren't happy with the money in your current job, there is nothing you can do about it. You've been doing this job for that money already and any attempt to change that isn't going to work. So have the guts to go elsewhere.
B. Always remember when you are in with a chance of a new job that you do have something they want otherwise they wouldn't be considering you for a job in the first place, they just want to try and get it on the cheap. They will make out that they can hire someone else for less money and its true, they can! However they didn't choose that person, they chose you because they know you are better. Let them hire the cheaper version, if they are prepared to accept lesser quality. Hold your ground and don't make the same mistake you did in your last job, prove you can do more yes, but don't do it until they pay you.
Admin
What is hilarious is the (featured) comments saying that there's no pay gap. Especially after one quoting the oft-cited PNAS paper showing that (in science, which should be more meritocratic than other jobs) there is a very real, very measurable gap.
But the problem with comparing wages is that by definition, half your peers make less than the average (median) pay, so they demand a payrise, so the average increases, so now some others are below-average even though they are doing exactly the same job at the same pay as yesterday. That's how executive salaries have gotten hopelessly out of hand, to many multiples of their underlings' salaries --- e.g., civil servants' collective bargaining strongly curbs salary growth.
Admin
That's the law of supply and demand. If you are unemployed and really NEED income, it is better having a 45k job than not having a 60k job. The first produces 45k income and the latter 0k income. Of course, you could push the ante and say "I will work only for 60k and no less" but if there are many, or enough candidates, willing to work for less than 60k, you are screwed up and jobless. Salaries don't reflect actual objective productivity, but the metting point of supply and demand. This is economy 101.
Admin
[quote user="DB"][quote user="neminem"]
The penetration rate of sociopaths holding a CEO title is around four percent (4%). This low percentage cannot represent the majority that you speak of.[/quote]
I'd love to see the research this figure came from... Links, pls. Maybe you mean that 4% of the sociopaths make it to CEO postions, and cosindering how scarce they are, the we have quite a big bunch of sociopaths running business? ;-)
Admin
Admin
Many people say: -You deserve what you are worth. -You should be paid a living wage. -Race and gender should not factor into pay. These are all great statements in an ideal world. The truth is you get paid what the business you work for can afford. They budget a certain amount when interviewing for a position. They will pay you any salary below their budgeted amount that you negotiate. Your skills, race, and gender determine if you get the interview and the position. Although it is common practice to pay people of a certain race or gender less, it is more often the case that these individuals will not be hired in the first place.
Admin
Something that no-one talks about:
In order to equalise salaries between men and women, employers have frozen increases, or pegged superannuation at below inflation and using part of the savings to increase womens' pay to the (reduced) level of mens' pay.
The effect of this?
Employers save money by paying a lower average salary, and real household income has fallen despite most households now having two wage-earners, leading to parents' having to spend more on childcare and a generation of children who've grown up with absent parents.
Still, you know...at least it's fair.
Admin
This has been my experience as well, except I'm not complaining. After two back-to-back maternity leaves, followed by immigration, I had to start over at an entry level. However I was very driven, had a very supportive family, put in the extra time and effort, learned new skills on my own, and tripled my initial salary in three years. But at that point, I came to a place where I had to choose between, on one hand, risky jobs with no benefits, no flex time, at startups that could go belly up any minute, but where I'd have a better chance of growing professionally, and, on the other hand, stable jobs at Fortune 500 corporations, with amazing medical insurance for my kids, flex time that I could use whenever a kid would be sick or in the ER, job security, good pay, good bonuses, but they would be dead-end jobs that would erode my skillset and make me less marketable in the future.
I chose the fortune 500 companies. And I'm still wondering if my choice was right.
I am absolutely positive that, if I hadn't taken time off with the kids, and if I hadn't opted for family-friendly jobs later on, I would now be making more by a large margin. But what could I do? I had a family that needed to be taken care of. I still missed the school talent shows, movies with kids, camping trips with kids and such (due to being on call 24x7 for most of their preteen years), but at least, when they were in surgery or ER, I was there, and I never had to worry about how I'd pay their medical bills. I like to think of it as, I invested in my kids, and, since I am happy with the way they turned out, I got good payoff on my investment. May their careers be better than mine.
FTR, I know a few men that made the same choice, with similar results. But you're right that it is mostly mothers who choose to go that route. Also, I haven't really met anyone, man or woman, who'd "devote their life to the company" (yikes -- I can understand devoting your life to doing something you love, but to a company -- unless you're the owner? I don't get it), but that's probably because I've mainly worked for the Fortune 500s.
Admin
One source of the 4% number comes from the book: The Psychopath Test http://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594488010
I've also seen the 4% number refer to the total population in the book The Sociopath Next Door http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
For entertainment: http://www.sociopathworld.com/
Admin
Why does this remind me of the first two minutes of this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyE0IE6EA1s
Admin
How a group can calculate the average salary, without anyone revealing his or her salary to anyone else:
http://www.cartalk.com/content/coney-island-crab-cake-company?answer
Admin
One common trait I have seen among women: they are too faithful to their employers and like to remain in a failed relationship longer than their male counterparts would. And guess what? They do the same with their private relationships. Women seem to like stability a lot more than men and are less likely to look around.
Agree, disagree, call me a macho or a sexist, I don't care, that's the way I see it.
I have seen a lot more turnover among my male than my female counterparts. At my previous job, where I stayed three years, only two of the female employees left the company while half of the males did, with equal size gender contingents.
I advise you to upgrade your resume and to "go get it". If you have an established job, highball the salary request. Of course you need to show up professionally dressed, something gender neutral, like a female dress suit. And you need to ace the interview.
My personal experience is that, when you ask for a high salary, you usually get it, or get something slightly lower, because having the intestinal fortitude (see how I avoid the gender-specific imagery) to ask for it often means you have the skills to request it.
A manager wants a few reliable key players and often can afford it. Someone who is gutsy, sure of herself and knows how much she is worth is likely to be a key player who will be reliable and stay a long time with the company. And that's where the faithfulness of female employees towards their employers will play to your advantage. Many dudes would leave 1-2-3 for a $5K pay raise, few women would.
Finally there is no issue with contacting a head hunter and telling him (or her): "Find me my $85,000 job". Or even "Find me my 6-digit job".
Admin
Nice one with "intestinal fortitude", by the way!
Admin
So if someone thinks that the very idea of a union is fundamentally flawed, like, say, he believes that people should negotiate with their employer individually, or he thinks the government should protect workers' interests through labor laws, or he believes that unions inevitably become corrupt and some radically different organization is needed, or whatever, that the only appropriate response is ... to work within the system that he believes is fundamentally flawed.
Again, you are starting from the assumption that everyone MUST agree with you, and if they say they don't, they are either lying or have some minor technical objection.
If the Ku Klux Klan comes by recruiting, I do not join and pay dues and work from within to make it less racist. I refuse to join.
I was not using the example of the Republican Party as the opposite of a union, but simply as an organization that, like a union and like many other organizations, collects money from people in order to pursue its goals. And just as I would object to the Republicans, Democrats, or any other political party having the power to force me to pay dues to further goals that I may or may not share, so I object to the idea of a union being able to force me to pay money to further goals that I may or may not share, or to support a hierarchy that I may or may not approve of. I would have the same objection to being forced to join an environmentalist group, a civil liberties group, a gun-rights group, a religious group, an atheist group, etc etc. My objection is not to unions per se, but to the idea of being forced to support an organization whether I agree with that group's goals or not.
First of all, we are back to this same issue: In YOUR opinion, a union is a good thing because it evens the playing field between employee and employer. Fine. Maybe so. I am not saying that you should not be allowed to form a union or to join a union. Go right ahead. More power to you. I am saying that I object to ME being forced to financially and politically support an organization regardless of MY opinion about its goals and methods, just because YOU think that it's a good organization.
On the specifics: As an employee I have one very effective bargaining chip to use against an employer who does not pay me an adequate salary, provide decent working conditions, etc: I can quit. Unless someone is literally a slave, he has that option. I make pretty good money and have a nice job, and I am not a member of a union. Even if the worker has few special skills, the employer still needs SOMEBODY to do this job, and if his pay or working conditions are bad enough, no one will want to do it. But let's suppose you find this logic unconvincing. Fine. Join a union. But don't try to force ME to join one.
We could debate whether the improvement in conditions for workers is due to unions or to other factors, like increasing technology and capital investment. There are plenty of people in the US who live quite well who are not members of unions.
But again, we are discussing two very different questions. (1) Are unions a good thing? And (2) Should people be forced to join a union?
Let's say that I concede to you on question #1 100%. The only reason why software developers, lawyers, doctors, and engineers make good money and have good working conditions is because they have such strong unions. Fine.
I still strongly disagree on #2, and that is the point I started out objecting to. I don't care how obviously wonderful an organization is. I don't think I should be forced to join it if I do not agree with its goals and methods. That is what we call "freedom". The fact that you think an organization is good is not sufficient reason to override my freedom.
Admin
I assume that migrant farm workers take these unpleasant jobs for the money. Sure, it's not much compared to what you and I make. But it's pretty good compared to what they could make back in their home countries. Do you really suppose that migrant farm workers had the option to get jobs as college professors but turned it down because they prefer working in the hot sun for 12 hours a day?
The average American or European garbage collector can demand a higher salary because he has lots of other options. Probably not as an engineer or a lawyer or some other high-paying field, or he'd be doing that. But there are other unskilled or low-skilled jobs he could take that are more pleasant and otherwise more desirable. And that don't pay as much money, because they are more pleasant and otherwise more desirable.
Admin
If there's any place you DON'T want to go on a shooting spree, it's in a gun shop. I saw a story in the news recently about a guy who tried to rob a gun shop with a knife. Guess what happenned to him?
If I ever decide that I want to become a mass murderer and shoot as many random people as I can before they get me, I'll do it at a place that has a sign on the door saying "No guns allowed".
Admin
The original study that everyone cites about 75% is flawed. It grouped all workers in a profession together regardless of specialty.
Should a GP make as much as a heart surgeon whose immediate actions mean that people live or die?
A GP makes on ave about 150k/yr. A cardiac surgeon makes 500k easily. GP's are about 50% women. Cardiac surgeons are about 16% women. Lumping them together skews the difference in pay.
Admin
Just because you're one of those "it's all about the journey" people doesn't mean that those of us who prefer the destination are wrong.
Admin
Your entire post is effectively just the above; indeed that seems to be the entirety of your complaint with unionization as an institution. And you would tear down the entire institution based on this single point. We can disagree about the value of required membership. Unless I'm mistaken however the implementation of unions is largely more flexible than that. In short, I believe organizations are not legally obligated to put themselves in a position where they are required to hire union. That's part of the check on union power. Perhaps my understanding is mistaken.
Unless I'm wrong, then, what this boils down to is you would do away with unions entirely simply because some companies signed a contract with their union(s) that might not be good for them (and I know I've heard of businesses that are very happy with their unions, in these very comments in fact as well as other places). And you accuse me of trying to impose my vision of the world on other people? Fie on thee, troll.
Admin
Ah, I'd love to have a garbage collector teaching my children. Not.
The job requirements are low, consisting only of heavy lifting, and one presumes that many if not all migrant farm workers would be capable of filling that position. Why then are they not if it can't be because they are unqualified?
Conversely if the nearly equally skilled position of migrant worker (glossing over for a moment the skill requirements of harvesting for which a garbage collector has no analog) is so much better than that of garbage collection (as judged by the lower pay comparable to the anecdotal number you blithely put forth as a reference point for the salaries of all garbage collectors) why are not all garbage collectors standing at the fields clamouring for a place? I heard this morning that the apple orchards in Washington, as a single example, would love the help.
My point is that you've boiled it down to two numbers and a couple of assumptions about the relative difficulties of the task. I could as easily have argued from that direction as well. I personally know a couple of teachers that would happily trade their jobs for garbage collection if they didn't like children so much, and I wager most garbage collectors if put in front an average grade school classroom would ask where the truck was parked after the second day; regardless of the pay involved. They are completely different skill sets requiring very different resiliences simply to survive the workday. Attempting to compare them is futile and attempting to reduce the discussion to some kind of objectivist minimalism is ludicrous.
Nevermind that all salaries are set by the related budget requirements not the relative job requirements.
Admin
So here's the proof there is no gender wage gap, or if there is, it's because women are less productive, on average, by an equal amount as the pay gap...
Hypothesis: women get paid less for equal work. Logical effect of this hypothesis being true: Zero percent unemployment for women, high unemployment for men. Why? Well DUH! If you can get equal work for less pay from a women WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER HIRE A MAN?
So the fact that there is no gender unemployment gap proves there is no wage gap.
Admin
Agreement between the buyer and seller, or
Force. Someone who is willing and able to hurt you demands you will do this at this price or you will not do that at that price. (Example: if you have sex with someone and the price is greater than zero, men with guns will kidnap you.)
Admin
Brad is simply wrong here. Social scientists have now realized that the "human capital model" that was once thought to explain the differences between the salaries of men and women is in fact insufficient to do so. (It's called the "human capital model" because it relies on the notion of different amounts of "investment" by an individual in a career, i.e. working overtime = good, taking time off to rear children = bad.) See, for instance the recent journal article by Lips: "The Gender Pay Gap: Challenging the Rationalizations. Perceived Equity, Discrimination, and the Limits of Human Capital Models." Sex Roles, 10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
But that's OK. No one expects men to worry their pretty little heads about the systematic (mis)treatment of their co-workers, even if finding out about it would only require walking over to a neighbor's cubicle and asking. Oh, there isn't a woman in the next cube? Well, then don't you think that that should be a clue that something is deeply wrong with the treatment of women in tech?
Admin
And I'm not even completely happy! At least not about my salary. But I'm willing to put up with a salary that is not amazing (but entirely respectable and which gives me the ability to do pretty much anything I want to do short of buying crazy property), because I'm happy with basically everything else about my job, and don't feel like looking for higher pay at the probable expense of having a job I actually like (being that you can't always tell that before you've actually been hired and started working there, at which point it's kinda too late to go back.)
But anyway, my main point is, The Game.
Admin
There is a woman in the cube next to me. Her boss is a woman. Her boss is also a woman. My boss (someone else) is a woman. We all work in I.T.
At the best paid job I ever had in my life, my boss was a woman, her boss was a woman, and the vice president (next level up) was a woman. I imagine they all made more than me, since my compensation was visible to them.
But your cube-next-door test is not scientific, merely anecdotal and suffers from small sample.
So did the scientists who researched this topic explain why an employer would knowingly and willingly pay more for a less qualified, less productive male, when they could have had that more qualified harder working female?
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
The only time you get "what you're worth" is when you change jobs. The longer you stay in one job the more underpaid you will become. Sad but true.
Your manager's job is to retain you at the minimum cost; it's nothing personal. The longer you stay, the less likely you are to leave, the less cost required to keep you.
There may be good reason to stay put; interesting work, the people, the flexibility, etc, but "market rate salary" will not be one of them.
So dust off the resume, apply for another job, get offer, allow current job to make counter offer (or not). That is the only way to get market rate for both boys and girls. Unpleasant but true.
Admin
This is a wonderful talk that shows how Alex hits it right on the head and why it's not what you make compared to other that matters, but what you make compared to your needs: Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation The fact is, anyone has a reason to worry whether they're not paid enough because of discrimination or something else unfair: female, too old, too young, too brown, not close enough to the boss, whatever. It's pointless. Figure out how much money you want for your own life style (including pension, health care, family needs, etc.) and if you can't get that, then you're not paid enough.
Admin
A lot of people have given good advice, but I haven't seen this one yet: lie about your salary. The fact is that you're going to need to get a new job to make more money. It's never made a lot of sense to me, but that's how it is.
So, start looking. Often times, companies won't advertise what they're looking to pay new employees. Instead, they ask what you're making, which is considered rude by anyone in any other situation. For whatever reason, recruiters are able to call people up all day, every day, ask them what they're making, and get honest answers. Then, they go back to their clients, send a list of resumes and the corresponding prices at which they can be bought. I'm almost always asked in interviews, too. If you're certain that you're being underpaid, there's no reason not to inflate. They'll never ask your former employers, who are almost certainly forbidden to tell, anyway.
Of course, you'll also need to be good at what you do, so if you aren't, you should get on that. Assuming you're there, the reason that you aren't getting paid as much is almost certainly because you haven't demanded as much, rather than because you have a vagina. It happens to a lot of boys, too.
Admin
Nope, because there are NUMEROUS studies showing that women are perceived as less competent when their sex is known, but that effect goes away when their sex is hidden or they are said to be male (both men AND women do this, btw). For example, identical CVs with male names get more 'offers' than female names. Female musicians playing behind a curtain are rated as more technically proficient when the listeners are told the performer is male. Jokes written by women are rated as funnier when the author is listed as a man.
Your 'proof' only works if everyone assumes that a woman would do the job as well as a man, which isn't true.