Anyone see any significant gender disparity here?

It was self-reported by 1,200 US staff – 2 per cent of the global workforce – meaning it is not a comprehensive analysis.
But the disparities are startling and at five of the six job levels women are paid less than men.
At level one, the lowest, women earned $40,300 (£30,500) compared to $55,900 (£42,300) for men, a difference of $15,600 (£11,800), the biggest out of all employees.
At level two women earned more than men, $76,600 (£58,000) compared to $71,200 (£53,900) for men.
At level three, the entry level for technical positions, women earned $106,700 (£80,800) compared to $112,400 (£85,100) for men.
At level four women earned $125,000 (£94,600) versus $136,600 (£103,400) and at level five the numbers were $153,500 (£116,200) for women compared to $162,200 (£122,800) for men.
At level six, executive level, women were paid $193,200 (£146,300) versus $197,600 (£149,600) for their male counterparts.
For bonuses women were awarded less than men at three of the six levels.
The biggest disparity was at level six where women earned $40,700 (£30,800) in bonuses compared to $47,800 (£36,200) for men, a difference of $7,100 (£5,400).

Note my emphasis on “significant“.

19 thoughts on “Anyone see any significant gender disparity here?”

  1. I was about to say it was statistically significant, though that probably wasn’t what you meant.
    But then I noticed that it was self-reported. So it probably isn’t even statistically significant.

  2. The raw numbers may be hiding the possibility that women are given marginally higher status (grade) on average in order to massage the statistics without paying more.

  3. Ndr, how do you determine statistical significance without knowing the variance or number of samples in each pool?

  4. Well, 70k employees overall, so all 6 levels and two genders will be 1400, (2% so they say) so, in one manner maybe 100 people in each group? Or given pyramid/hierarchy we might have 10 or 20 in Level 6.

    Not a great deal of significance I would have thought.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    My hunch is that women like filling in surveys, men do it to boast. So the average woman but the top end of the men filled in the survey, or even the lower paid women as women don’t like boasting.

  6. Funny how when it comes to pay there are still only two genders. It must be the only area of modern life where this is still true.

  7. Tim, we have N responses overall (1200), but not by group. We still need to know the variance to have a hunch (ideally you have the dataset). Given it isn’t controlled for the usual confounders (experience being the most legitimate one), and we’ve no idea if it’s corrected for hours worked either, it’s interesting there is even one subgroup where women earn quite a bit more than the men.

  8. “For bonuses women were awarded less than men at three of the six levels.”
    Which, being interpreted, means women were paid more in bonuses than men in three out of six levels.
    As BiG says, it is meaningless if it is not adjusted for hours worked.

  9. @John77 – i thought the same but it may be that they earn the same, not more… That said there are way too many variables that are not known – did any lie about their bonus / income to sound more important, how did they find the respondents, flexible working arrangements, holidays taken, experience, industry qualifications, etc, etc, etc…

  10. @ Bloke
    The probability that in any of the three categories the bonuses were identical is vanishingly small. You’ve got 100 or so people each getting an individual bonus.

  11. BiG : “We still need to know the variance to have a hunch ”
    Can’t we be fairly sure that the standard deviation is not greater than the mean? Especially since the jobs are divided by levels with pay ranges much lower than the pay itself. Then divide by the square root of the sample size to get the standard error.
    If only the sampling method had been sensible the results would have been statistically significant, if not truly meaningful.

  12. @NDreader, I’d be pretty sure about that but the difference between men and women is much, much smaller than the mean in every category.

    Without knowing what the levels signify, I’m surprised at how low they seem.

  13. Notice how they start by talking about pay differences, then segue straight into earnings differences. If you’re earning differently it’s because you’re doing differently.

  14. While I won’t dignify that website by viewing your source, I have one question: What about hours worked? IE: Hours Worked * Hourly Rate = Earning.

  15. Nobody cares about levels 1 and 2, least of all the SJWs. Those are non-technical positions. They’re the cleaning staff and the security guards, the receptionists and the handymen. Yes, it makes sense that more of the cleaning staff are women whereas more of the handymen and security guards are men. And yes, the latter make more than the former.

    Among the technical people, the differences are small. They could be explained by there being more foreigners among the women than among the men, and foreigners getting lower salaries on average. Very few non-Asian American women are studying CS and this trend has been going on for years.

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    I wonder if those level 6 bonuses are anything to do with men being more likely to be at the front end of sales?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *