←back to thread

Chinese Workers Abandon Silicon Valley for Riches Back Home

(www.bloomberg.com)
219 points thisisit | 2 comments | 11 Jan 18 16:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.579s | source
Show context
lostmsu ◴[11 Jan 18 18:56 UTC] No.16126641[source]▶
There's one important datapoint in this article: "The Bamboo Ceiling".

When the whole fuzz about gender discrimination started, Microsoft and Google published numbers, claiming women got the same pay at the same positions as men. Knowing there's discrimination from personal experience/feeling, I theorized, that women are discriminated in a different way: they don't receive promotions.

Under otherwise similar circumstances having children does not feel to be enough to explain why of 100 women hired in tech on professional roles less are promoted to higher positions, than of 100 men. That trend is (at least anecdotally for me) observable even before people become parents.

This "Bamboo Ceiling" shows the same effect for another potentially discriminated group of people.

replies(5): >>16126781 #>>16126794 #>>16127061 #>>16127979 #>>16138507 #
dominotw ◴[11 Jan 18 19:10 UTC] No.16126781[source]▶
I have the opposite observation, women do tend to get promoted to managerial roles fairly quickly.
replies(1): >>16126838 #
toomuchtodo ◴[11 Jan 18 19:16 UTC] No.16126838[source]▶
Good managers have empathy. Women are traditionally more empathetic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19476221/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110041/

replies(4): >>16126933 #>>16126945 #>>16126955 #>>16127181 #
pacala ◴[11 Jan 18 19:26 UTC] No.16126945[source]▶
Consider treading more carefully. Your statement, with gender role reversed, caused people to get publicly fired as recent as 2017.
replies(3): >>16127057 #>>16127458 #>>16127907 #
lurr ◴[11 Jan 18 21:12 UTC] No.16127907[source]▶
Yeah, amazing what can happen when you make an argument poorly and without thought to how your audience will react.

Oh but citations. Good for you, that's a good bit of research. Sure the facts seem cherry picked and don't necessarily support your conclusions. You also presented them in an entirely tone deaf manner, you seem to imply a number of negative things, you perpetuated stereotypes, and you didn't explore any possible alternative explanations, but you definitely cited some research papers. B+ for effort, F for execution.

F as in fired with cause.

replies(2): >>16128146 #>>16131292 #
dang ◴[12 Jan 18 08:11 UTC] No.16131292[source]▶
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Would you please not create accounts to do this with?
replies(1): >>16131404 #
1. lurr ◴[12 Jan 18 08:39 UTC] No.16131404[source]▶
I didn't. I created an account for discussion.
replies(1): >>16134609 #
2. dang ◴[12 Jan 18 17:34 UTC] No.16134609[source]▶
That's fine. But you need to use the site as intended. That means remaining scrupulously respectful of others, not using the site for flamewar or ideological battle, and the other things at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.