4 ms·

This may be very simplistic, and this cave-man doesn't have much knowledge in this arena, but part of me believes that discrimination can only exist in an anti-

by webXL 11y ago

This may be very simplistic, and this cave-man doesn't have much knowledge in this arena, but part of me believes that discrimination can only exist in an anti-competitive environment. In competitive markets, the company with misogynist hiring mangers will end up with a less productive (can only pay so much per hour) and/or overpaid male-dominated staff. Competitors who don't discriminate will drive them out of business. So either misogyny is so widespread that market participants agree to engage in it (collude), or there's some other explanation: risk of maternity leave, etc.. Anything else? Have there been any studies that show how well women do salary-wise once they're beyond child bearing years? Any studies on married vs. non-married men perhaps to see if married men negotiate more in order to support wives while on maternity leave/stay-at-home?

jballanc 11y ago
You have it exactly backwards. In a competitive market, hiring managers have every incentive to negotiate workers to take lower salaries. As it turns out, for various reasons, when forced to negotiate for salary women end up taking less than men. (More info here -- http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-women-dont-ask-for-more-money http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-w... -- and plenty more a Google away.)
- webXL 11y ago
  So the theory is that women are concerned about their reputations, so they ask for less than their male counterparts. But with the people that a female candidate would be working with, only the hiring manager would (should) know. I think this has more to do with the rather recent changes of women in the workplace than women managing their reputation, but what do I know? > You have it exactly backwards. In a competitive market, hiring managers have every incentive to negotiate workers to take lower salaries I never stated anything to the contrary. You're talking about profit-maximizing behavior that we all engage in everyday. What I said had to do with deliberate discrimination, which can only be profitable if the market participants all agree to it.

by webXL 11y ago

jballanc 11y ago

You have it exactly backwards. In a competitive market, hiring managers have every incentive to negotiate workers to take lower salaries. As it turns out, for various reasons, when forced to negotiate for salary women end up taking less than men. (More info here -- http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-women-dont-ask-for-more-money http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-w... -- and plenty more a Google away.)

webXL 11y ago
So the theory is that women are concerned about their reputations, so they ask for less than their male counterparts. But with the people that a female candidate would be working with, only the hiring manager would (should) know. I think this has more to do with the rather recent changes of women in the workplace than women managing their reputation, but what do I know? > You have it exactly backwards. In a competitive market, hiring managers have every incentive to negotiate workers to take lower salaries I never stated anything to the contrary. You're talking about profit-maximizing behavior that we all engage in everyday. What I said had to do with deliberate discrimination, which can only be profitable if the market participants all agree to it.