And again my question: Do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”? Simple yes or no question.
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
Last, how do you think McKinsey would respond to the observation that 85% of its senior New York employees are men?
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed and whether the management of those companies tries to implement program to raise the amount of female employees in those companies.
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
Umm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? Are you saying it’s somehow implied that a firm will save money if it hires women?
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
So McKinsey would say that it’s too difficult for it to reap the wonderful benefits of increasing its female representation?
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed
Ok, so assuming there isn’t some mysterious unknown at work, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid. Agreed?
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
How hard would it be to simply reduce wages and watch the profits and the girls come pouring in?
I would like to propose a bet:
I will draft a job advertisement on Craigslist for a dirty job such as pest control, scrubbing excrement out of a tank, or whatever. You can select whatever pay scale between 50% and 200% of the typical wage for the job which you think will maximize the number of female applicants. I predict that whatever pay scale you choose, there will be very few female applicants relative to male applicants. If my prediction is correct, you will pay for the ad. Otherwise I will pay.
Interested?
Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
Do you have any concrete evidence for this besides your imagination? i.e. that businesses all across America are leaving billions of dollars on the table because they are unable to resist the urge to discriminate against female applicants?
Oh, and please answer my question from before;
According to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed and whether the management of those companies tries to implement program to raise the amount of female employees in those companies.
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
Umm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? Are you saying it’s somehow implied that a firm will save money if it hires women?
So McKinsey would say that it’s too difficult for it to reap the wonderful benefits of increasing its female representation?
Ok, so assuming there isn’t some mysterious unknown at work, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid. Agreed?
How hard would it be to simply reduce wages and watch the profits and the girls come pouring in?
I would like to propose a bet:
I will draft a job advertisement on Craigslist for a dirty job such as pest control, scrubbing excrement out of a tank, or whatever. You can select whatever pay scale between 50% and 200% of the typical wage for the job which you think will maximize the number of female applicants. I predict that whatever pay scale you choose, there will be very few female applicants relative to male applicants. If my prediction is correct, you will pay for the ad. Otherwise I will pay.
Interested?
Do you have any concrete evidence for this besides your imagination? i.e. that businesses all across America are leaving billions of dollars on the table because they are unable to resist the urge to discriminate against female applicants?
Oh, and please answer my question from before;
According to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?