23 ms·

> employers benefit because they have a wider pool of talent to choose from The OP was arguing that women have a lower expected work output over their career a

> employers benefit because they have a wider pool of talent to choose from The OP was arguing that women have a lower expected work output over their career at a company, which is why "economically rational" was used. So the employers would technically be better off hiring a male over a female with the same skills.

state_less 10y ago
Value investors might happily pay ~10-20% higher labor costs to have an inclusive culture that lasts rather than an on edge precarious culture. Being a churn-and-burn testosterone fest is starting to look like it might have some negative long term consequences.
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> The OP was arguing that women have a lower expected work output over their career at a company, which is why "economically rational" was used. I was disagreeing with that on the basis that only looking at your bottom line when trying to decide what is "economically rational" is short-termist and self-defeating, because everyone benefits from living in a society where women have the opportunity to be as productive as men- and that includes employers who don't have to look at the gender of candidates to make a decision. The benefits may be harder to measure, but that's why rationality is required, rather than rationalisation of unjustifiable bias ("women have lower expected work output"). The genuinely rational thing to do is to try and ensure that both women and men are equally productive, as workers.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  "Economically rational" refers to the benefits and drawbacks that apply to whoever is making the decision, not to the benefits and drawback that apply to society as a whole. If you want law firms to make their hiring decisions differently, then you have to change the incentives and rules that apply to them, not make false claims that they're being irrational.

state_less 10y ago

Value investors might happily pay ~10-20% higher labor costs to have an inclusive culture that lasts rather than an on edge precarious culture. Being a churn-and-burn testosterone fest is starting to look like it might have some negative long term consequences.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> The OP was arguing that women have a lower expected work output over their career at a company, which is why "economically rational" was used. I was disagreeing with that on the basis that only looking at your bottom line when trying to decide what is "economically rational" is short-termist and self-defeating, because everyone benefits from living in a society where women have the opportunity to be as productive as men- and that includes employers who don't have to look at the gender of candidates to make a decision. The benefits may be harder to measure, but that's why rationality is required, rather than rationalisation of unjustifiable bias ("women have lower expected work output"). The genuinely rational thing to do is to try and ensure that both women and men are equally productive, as workers.

PeterisP 10y ago
"Economically rational" refers to the benefits and drawbacks that apply to whoever is making the decision, not to the benefits and drawback that apply to society as a whole. If you want law firms to make their hiring decisions differently, then you have to change the incentives and rules that apply to them, not make false claims that they're being irrational.