4 ms·
> I valued men and women equally, and found that because other employers did not, good women economists were less expensive than men. Is this a very nice way o
by bjarneh 5y ago
> I valued men and women equally, and found that because other employers did not, good women economists were less expensive than men.
Is this a very nice way of saying that you can hire women economists and underpay them in order to make money?
- resonious 5y agoSeems like it, yes. I've seen similar arguments made regarding foreign labor. "I value people of all countries the same - it's just that only <some nationality> seem to be willing to work for that value".
- Double_a_92 5y agoNot because they are women though, but because they had trouble finding work somewhere else. So the company had a bigger negotiation power. That's just capitalism, supply and demand...
- bjarneh 5y ago> Not because they are women though, but because they had trouble finding work somewhere else Because they were women?
- Double_a_92 5y agoOriginally yes, of course. But that's not the fault of the person that actually hires them. If you are the only company that hires everyone without any discrimination, you just have a bigger supply of people.
- ksec 5y agoThis argument is not going to end well on HN.
- Tenoke 5y agoYou can paint it negatively but hiring them when others don't also improves their salaries - if everyone else followed their lead there'll be no inefficiency and they won't be underpaid.