4 ms·

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 discrimi

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

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