5 ms·

Assuming labor markets are liquid, if the pay gap is true it means either: 1. Women really want to work for Google and take less pay than working at other empl

Assuming labor markets are liquid, if the pay gap is true it means either: 1. Women really want to work for Google and take less pay than working at other employers or 2. Women at almost all employers are receiving less money. There were times not too long ago when there were Jewish quotas. Nobelist Physicist Richard Feynman was denied entry into Columbia and he went to MIT instead. Nobelist Medicine & Physiology Author Kornberg was one of 3 of 200 Jewish applicants to get into medical school from his university. Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. If they women are only getting paid less at Google and not other firms then they should change firms. If other firms are paying less, then Feds should go after them as well and not single out Google. Any firm that pays women as much as men should be able to hire the competent women from Google. In another part of the WSJ article, there is a complaint that most of the employees are male and asian or white. They should examine the portion of people attending top engineering schools: male and asian or white.

kgwgk 10y ago
> Any firm that pays women as much as men should be able to hire the competent women from Google. Only if that firm pays men and women more than Google pays (competent) women.
- davidf18 10y ago
  Does Google pay more than Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, ....?
Klinky 10y ago
Markets don't solve everything, especially institutionalized racism or gender inequality. It is a lazy solution to a very harmful problem.
- davidf18 10y ago
  Well, many would hire programmers /engineers/ lawyers/ doctors/ professors for competence regardless of race.
  - Klinky 10y ago
    In an era of slavery, many would not. In an era of Jim Crow and segregation, many would not. In the era of the 60s civil rights movement, many would not. In fact during those times a minority would hire for competence regardless of race. Simply telling the discriminated to "go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, and is a lazy solution to a complex problem.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      > '"go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, ...' I once heard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who at age 28 was the youngest full professor in Harvard law history, say that he didn't get one job offer from 40 different white shoe law firms. His lawyer son when interviewing did far better. Today's marketplace is way too competitive to discriminate. Those who discriminate simply allow the competition to get better talent. Nobody should work in a workplace where they are not wanted when there are workplaces that would want them.
      - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
        Discriminators might get punished by the market, but that's no reason that they shouldn't also get punished by the law too. They shouldn't get away with illegally discriminating just because they are also making themselves less competitive.
sitkack 10y ago
> Assuming labor markets are liquid Is like assuming a spherical cow.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. Counterpoint: a recent study suggested that corporate boards with gender quotas worked better, because it meant they didn't overlook competent female executives in favour of mediocre male ones.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Doesn't that counterpoint still fall prey to the same problem of isolating only a correlated variable? I.e., having qualified female board members could confer a competitive gender advantage, but putting women on the board regardless of their hiring prowess doesn't guarantee similar results.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    The thing with quotas like this is that they're not being put on the board “regardless of their hiring prowess”. You hire the best people you can find of both genders. Sometimes that will mean a less qualified person will be put there who otherwise wouldn't, but that's by no means a guarantee. And it cuts both ways: if sexism meant that previously, better candidates who happened to be women were not getting hired, now they will be; on the other hand, the quota may mean that better candidates who happen to be men won't be hired.
marchenko 10y ago
>Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. I'm sympathetic to this point, but this particular example assumes that the discriminating entity is focusing solely on performance. Harvard and Yale maintained and increased their social cachet over non-discriminating entities like MIT and Cornell by instituting Jewish quotas. Future donors from the majority demographic were willing to pay for "culture fit". This supposedly irrational strategy worked so well that it has been reprised and copied by other institutions against other demos. Inefficiency can be remarkably persistent if it enjoys the status of a social norm and satisfies other values.

kgwgk 10y ago

> Any firm that pays women as much as men should be able to hire the competent women from Google. Only if that firm pays men and women more than Google pays (competent) women.

davidf18 10y ago
Does Google pay more than Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, ....?

Klinky 10y ago

Markets don't solve everything, especially institutionalized racism or gender inequality. It is a lazy solution to a very harmful problem.

davidf18 10y ago
Well, many would hire programmers /engineers/ lawyers/ doctors/ professors for competence regardless of race.
- Klinky 10y ago
  In an era of slavery, many would not. In an era of Jim Crow and segregation, many would not. In the era of the 60s civil rights movement, many would not. In fact during those times a minority would hire for competence regardless of race. Simply telling the discriminated to "go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, and is a lazy solution to a complex problem.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    > '"go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, ...' I once heard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who at age 28 was the youngest full professor in Harvard law history, say that he didn't get one job offer from 40 different white shoe law firms. His lawyer son when interviewing did far better. Today's marketplace is way too competitive to discriminate. Those who discriminate simply allow the competition to get better talent. Nobody should work in a workplace where they are not wanted when there are workplaces that would want them.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      Discriminators might get punished by the market, but that's no reason that they shouldn't also get punished by the law too. They shouldn't get away with illegally discriminating just because they are also making themselves less competitive.

sitkack 10y ago

> Assuming labor markets are liquid Is like assuming a spherical cow.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

> Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. Counterpoint: a recent study suggested that corporate boards with gender quotas worked better, because it meant they didn't overlook competent female executives in favour of mediocre male ones.

lr4444lr 10y ago
Doesn't that counterpoint still fall prey to the same problem of isolating only a correlated variable? I.e., having qualified female board members could confer a competitive gender advantage, but putting women on the board regardless of their hiring prowess doesn't guarantee similar results.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  The thing with quotas like this is that they're not being put on the board “regardless of their hiring prowess”. You hire the best people you can find of both genders. Sometimes that will mean a less qualified person will be put there who otherwise wouldn't, but that's by no means a guarantee. And it cuts both ways: if sexism meant that previously, better candidates who happened to be women were not getting hired, now they will be; on the other hand, the quota may mean that better candidates who happen to be men won't be hired.

marchenko 10y ago

>Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination. I'm sympathetic to this point, but this particular example assumes that the discriminating entity is focusing solely on performance. Harvard and Yale maintained and increased their social cachet over non-discriminating entities like MIT and Cornell by instituting Jewish quotas. Future donors from the majority demographic were willing to pay for "culture fit". This supposedly irrational strategy worked so well that it has been reprised and copied by other institutions against other demos. Inefficiency can be remarkably persistent if it enjoys the status of a social norm and satisfies other values.