4 ms·
Your logic involves quite a few jumps to conclusions that aren't remotely proven by the contents of the paper.
by x1024 11y ago
Your logic involves quite a few jumps to conclusions that aren't remotely proven by the contents of the paper.
- zo1 11y agoSorry, down-voted you by accident. Just so you know.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- wutbrodo 11y ago> How else can you explain the higher attrition rate Um, the very next sentences in the paragraph you just excerpted from? Not all of those are about discrimination.
- roymurdock 11y agoIt is most implausible to suggest that giving birth and caring for young children is the predominant reason why female executive managers, who average 50 years old in our sample, quit. Other unobserved factors leading managers to attrit could include more un-pleasantness, indignities, and tougher unrewarding assignments at work, examples of factors that reduce the attraction of work without necessarily affecting productivity or human capital acquisition. Although this does not support the "more qualified" argument, the study was specifically tailored to control for attrition from pregnancy, and the authors conclude that they are not entirely sure why older female executives quit at a higher rate than comparable male executives. It's not unreasonable to assume that it could be due to "discrimination" in the form of indignities and unfair assignment of tough/menial work, as the authors suggest.