3 ms·
> Another one: women are paid less than men for the same work. If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for les
by danharaj 7y ago
> Another one: women are paid less than men for the same work. If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for less money - simply hire all women workforces which due to their lower wage bill would outcompete and destroy companies that employed men. Yet - again somewhat inconveniently! - the real world refuses to match the theory.
I think you could figure out the sophistry in this reasoning if you thought about it.
- viklove 7y agoI think if you had figured out the sophistry in this reasoning you would've explained it instead of dismissing it without making any real point.
- bsder 7y agoLike so many things which are considered "soft" criteria for hiring, the problem is that those who argue that such things are a "plus" have a whole body of no evidence. Nobody has taken one of these "soft" criteria to an extreme and blown everybody's doors off in business. As such, that tells everyone that "soft" criteria are simply far less important than many, many other things.