9 ms·

If they make less than men, why don't companies hire women alone? Don't they want to save money on salaries?

hexane360 10y ago
Because women are subconsciously undervalued as workers. This discussion is complex and it's not entirely obvious how much of the pay gap is caused by discrimination, but this is one stupid argument.
- dongslol 10y ago
  Dismissing this argument with "because women are undervalued" amounts to saying that every company thus far has been too obtuse to manage their biases and collect 23% in discounts. Say people do have widespread, subconscious biases against women. 23% in savings is enormous. If it really exists, someone out there is going to try super, super hard to exploit it while all the other suckers are stupidly paying 100/77 times more than they have to. Are you saying that despite this opportunity, no one has succeeded, because we're all too stupid to view women equally—every last one of us? If not, where is that clever company? A more likely explanation is that the people already tried doing this, and found that the opportunity they were trying to exploit didn't exist.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  What do you mean by "subconsciously undervalued"? Do you have studies that show it? What about participation in opensource? Side projects? StackOverflow profiles? - none of these can be affected by "subconscious undervaluation". And how to value, let's say, a developer? How do you, personally, differentiate good and bad programmers?
- gspetr 10y ago
  There are software companies composed of all men (or 95% men if we want to be a bit more relaxed). Successful ones - as in making profit. Where are all-women (or 95% women) companies? If you can get away with paying them less, where are all the capitalists exploiting the market inefficiency and getting rich in the process? Hell, nowadays companies like Starbucks[0] routinely put social causes first, profits second. So where are these companies? [0] https://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz-ceo-of-starbucks-coffee-company/1268 https://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-sc...
  - fatbird 10y ago
    If women are underpaid because they're (consciously or not) undervalued as workers by entrepreneurs, then those same entrepreneurs are unlikely to visualize a net salary savings. You're basically saying: if women are as good as men but you can pay them less, why not hire women? And the answer is that the same factors that lead to women being underpaid lead to not seeing them as interchangeable hire with males.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - brighteyes 10y ago
      I could be wrong, but I think the point that the poster was making was this: Sure, maybe women are undervalued on average, but that's just on average. Assuming women are both paid less, and undervalued, then together that creates a double opportunity for an employer that can see through the undervaluing, and rationally hires mostly women because they are just as good but cost less. And the point is that we don't seem to see such companies. All the major tech companies have similar percentages of women, despite all of them trying very hard to increase those numbers.
      - fatbird 10y ago
        I think your characterization of the op's point is correct. My point remains: The same sexism leading to underpaying women or directing them into less compensated roles, should also tend to obscure, for decision makers, the "rational" idea that there's a double opportunity there. Evidence? First, "pricing is information". Second, Uber et al, and the continuing follies of the tech industry demonstrating systemic sexism. Third, continued use of the word "meritocracy" despite repeated demonstrations that tech firms practice a particularly narrow form of geek clubhousing. Bottom line: no one's actually rational enough to exploit what's really a fairly transparent, backhanded attempt to say that women are paid less because they're worth less. We just tell ourselves that we are.
        10y ago
parennoob 10y ago
This is an argument that I have yet to see being addressed to my satisfaction. If recent raises / salaries in the tech industry outside of Silicon Valley are any guide, companies love to save money on salaries. So I honestly have no idea why all the men I work with haven't been replaced by women being paid 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is. And remember, this is in the US, where you can legally be let go because your boss doesn't like the color of your shoes.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  > 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is According to wikipedia, "the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as being 78% of the average male salary", so you can save a lot.
- fatbird 10y ago
  Because paying women less goes hand in hand with seeing them as not being comparable to male hires?
- Tossrock 10y ago
  Because there aren't enough women applying. At my previous job, I interviewed 50+ people, and fewer than 10% were women. For the record, I advocated strongly for most of them, and contributed to several being hired, including one of the best engineers I've met. Companies have a hard time hiring enough software people in general, and there are many more men applying for software jobs than women. If there were some untapped pool of female engineers all looking for jobs, believe me, that pool would get tapped. It just doesn't exist.
  - dongslol 10y ago
    So is the argument that while companies can expect to save money on the whole whenever they hire women, not enough women apply? If so, women should have a much easier time finding work than men but get paid less. Is that what's happening?
jeremiahwv 10y ago
Precisely the question. Why indeed? Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? Take the harvard implicit gender bias test for one answer: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
- dongslol 10y ago
  The suggestion here is that even though companies can save a bunch of money by flooding their workforces with women, they are all too obtuse to do so. 77 cents on the dollar is a huge discount. Any company that exploited this would gain an enormous advantage. So even if nearly everyone is somehow blinded by their biases, surely at least one company somewhere is smart enough to discount their biases and collect 23% in savings. Where are they? Is it possible that some company out there with unscrupulous management has already tried moneyballing the job market this way, and found it didn't work?
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  > Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? If they are equally good, there's a good chance I'll choose the cheaper one.
  - jeremiahwv 10y ago
    Indeed, that's what we like to tell ourselves. But is that actually what's happening? Did you take the test?
    - ar15saveslives 10y ago
      Happening what? 100% equal candidates that differ only by gender? No, it's never happening.
- Smaug123 10y ago
  Implicit association tests probably don't work. Sources may be found at https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychol...

Because women are subconsciously undervalued as workers. This discussion is complex and it's not entirely obvious how much of the pay gap is caused by discrimination, but this is one stupid argument.

dongslol 10y ago
Dismissing this argument with "because women are undervalued" amounts to saying that every company thus far has been too obtuse to manage their biases and collect 23% in discounts. Say people do have widespread, subconscious biases against women. 23% in savings is enormous. If it really exists, someone out there is going to try super, super hard to exploit it while all the other suckers are stupidly paying 100/77 times more than they have to. Are you saying that despite this opportunity, no one has succeeded, because we're all too stupid to view women equally—every last one of us? If not, where is that clever company? A more likely explanation is that the people already tried doing this, and found that the opportunity they were trying to exploit didn't exist.
ar15saveslives 10y ago
What do you mean by "subconsciously undervalued"? Do you have studies that show it? What about participation in opensource? Side projects? StackOverflow profiles? - none of these can be affected by "subconscious undervaluation". And how to value, let's say, a developer? How do you, personally, differentiate good and bad programmers?
gspetr 10y ago
There are software companies composed of all men (or 95% men if we want to be a bit more relaxed). Successful ones - as in making profit. Where are all-women (or 95% women) companies? If you can get away with paying them less, where are all the capitalists exploiting the market inefficiency and getting rich in the process? Hell, nowadays companies like Starbucks[0] routinely put social causes first, profits second. So where are these companies? [0] https://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz-ceo-of-starbucks-coffee-company/1268 https://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-sc...
- fatbird 10y ago
  If women are underpaid because they're (consciously or not) undervalued as workers by entrepreneurs, then those same entrepreneurs are unlikely to visualize a net salary savings. You're basically saying: if women are as good as men but you can pay them less, why not hire women? And the answer is that the same factors that lead to women being underpaid lead to not seeing them as interchangeable hire with males.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - brighteyes 10y ago
    I could be wrong, but I think the point that the poster was making was this: Sure, maybe women are undervalued on average, but that's just on average. Assuming women are both paid less, and undervalued, then together that creates a double opportunity for an employer that can see through the undervaluing, and rationally hires mostly women because they are just as good but cost less. And the point is that we don't seem to see such companies. All the major tech companies have similar percentages of women, despite all of them trying very hard to increase those numbers.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      I think your characterization of the op's point is correct. My point remains: The same sexism leading to underpaying women or directing them into less compensated roles, should also tend to obscure, for decision makers, the "rational" idea that there's a double opportunity there. Evidence? First, "pricing is information". Second, Uber et al, and the continuing follies of the tech industry demonstrating systemic sexism. Third, continued use of the word "meritocracy" despite repeated demonstrations that tech firms practice a particularly narrow form of geek clubhousing. Bottom line: no one's actually rational enough to exploit what's really a fairly transparent, backhanded attempt to say that women are paid less because they're worth less. We just tell ourselves that we are.
      - 10y ago

parennoob 10y ago

This is an argument that I have yet to see being addressed to my satisfaction. If recent raises / salaries in the tech industry outside of Silicon Valley are any guide, companies love to save money on salaries. So I honestly have no idea why all the men I work with haven't been replaced by women being paid 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is. And remember, this is in the US, where you can legally be let go because your boss doesn't like the color of your shoes.

ar15saveslives 10y ago
> 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is According to wikipedia, "the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as being 78% of the average male salary", so you can save a lot.
fatbird 10y ago
Because paying women less goes hand in hand with seeing them as not being comparable to male hires?
Tossrock 10y ago
Because there aren't enough women applying. At my previous job, I interviewed 50+ people, and fewer than 10% were women. For the record, I advocated strongly for most of them, and contributed to several being hired, including one of the best engineers I've met. Companies have a hard time hiring enough software people in general, and there are many more men applying for software jobs than women. If there were some untapped pool of female engineers all looking for jobs, believe me, that pool would get tapped. It just doesn't exist.
- dongslol 10y ago
  So is the argument that while companies can expect to save money on the whole whenever they hire women, not enough women apply? If so, women should have a much easier time finding work than men but get paid less. Is that what's happening?

jeremiahwv 10y ago

Precisely the question. Why indeed? Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? Take the harvard implicit gender bias test for one answer: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

dongslol 10y ago
The suggestion here is that even though companies can save a bunch of money by flooding their workforces with women, they are all too obtuse to do so. 77 cents on the dollar is a huge discount. Any company that exploited this would gain an enormous advantage. So even if nearly everyone is somehow blinded by their biases, surely at least one company somewhere is smart enough to discount their biases and collect 23% in savings. Where are they? Is it possible that some company out there with unscrupulous management has already tried moneyballing the job market this way, and found it didn't work?
ar15saveslives 10y ago
> Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? If they are equally good, there's a good chance I'll choose the cheaper one.
- jeremiahwv 10y ago
  Indeed, that's what we like to tell ourselves. But is that actually what's happening? Did you take the test?
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago
    Happening what? 100% equal candidates that differ only by gender? No, it's never happening.
Smaug123 10y ago
Implicit association tests probably don't work. Sources may be found at https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychol...