I experienced this first hand and as a result I departed for greener pastures. Isn't diversity a great thing when it suppresses wages, no wonder all the big boys are pushing for it.
This is happening at my place right now. Leadership has dictated that priority is now to even out gender imbalances rather than giving raises. Since the women in our company are heavily skewed towards lower-paying roles (QA, customer support), this means the company will avoid giving raises to the roles that actually are in demand and have strong salary growth elsewhere. Needless to say, those of us with options have started looking.
Of course, everyone who gets a competitive offer elsewhere will get a counteroffer, so this policy only applies where it’s convenient.
I don't get this kind of destructive attitude. Surely the sensible thing to do when you want more equality and women are skewed towards lower paying jobs, is to hire more women in higher paying jobs?
I'm all for paying people in lower-end jobs better, mind you, but using this as an excuse to hurt salary growth seems like it's intended to discredit the whole idea of gender equality. Well, unless the people involved are provably overpaid, like CEOs tend to be. But somehow I suspect the CEO is still getting his excessive raises.
The article cites a 2.5% reduction in overall wages, and a 2.5% reduction in productivity. (Or one was 2.8, but close enough). Which sounds exactly like what you suggest: the most productive employees used to get other offers, and use them to ask for raises, and now they leave, or just slack off.
If you know any employees of the big boys, you'll know that management is not supportive of diversity until they face worker revolts.
Your model makes no sense. If powerful forces wanted diversity out of self interest all along, we wouldn't even have a diversity movement, because the environment would be diverse already due to natural locally optimizing market forces, so there'd be nothing to advocate for.
marvin|7 years ago
Of course, everyone who gets a competitive offer elsewhere will get a counteroffer, so this policy only applies where it’s convenient.
mcv|7 years ago
I'm all for paying people in lower-end jobs better, mind you, but using this as an excuse to hurt salary growth seems like it's intended to discredit the whole idea of gender equality. Well, unless the people involved are provably overpaid, like CEOs tend to be. But somehow I suspect the CEO is still getting his excessive raises.
iguy|7 years ago
hopler|7 years ago
Your model makes no sense. If powerful forces wanted diversity out of self interest all along, we wouldn't even have a diversity movement, because the environment would be diverse already due to natural locally optimizing market forces, so there'd be nothing to advocate for.
doesnt_know|7 years ago