Bahbah has demonstrated this already for us. He has no idea about how to actually evaluate the expected amount of time a candidate will take off, but he still feels confident in using it to make a decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/employer...inkId=36999797
Obviously this is problematic since there is no way to know if past salaries were discriminatory or not.

This is really stupid. They are just basing salary on other people's subjective determinations--and they have no idea how bad those determinations might have been.

Hopefully this will be appealed and reversed.

Making salaries as public as NFL salaries would go a long way in preventing discrimination.

There is no doubt in my mind that some people would prefer to hire men. However, this alone would not cause a gender pay gap unless there was a huge percentage of employers took this stance because

I don't think it would prevent or decrease discrimination, but it would likely decrease the gender pay gap.

In addition the reasoning may sometimes be correct because the system is structurally flawed.

A more subtle and I suspect bigger problem is cognitive bias when it comes to evaluating performance of existing employees. Those who are expected to do worse because of prejudice, will be incorrectly judged to have performed worse even if the people doing the evaluating are unaware they are doing it.

You continually surprise me with new and fun ways you show you don't understand basic economic concepts.

Take one simple example just posted by 13ball. You have an employer basing wage decisions off of wage decisions made by a previous employer. So even if the 2nd employer isn't sexist, its still paying women less.

so if this is correct....

-how do you measure the size of this bias problem?
-what would be the consequences of ignoring this problem?
-what would you propose to do about this?

im not saying this to be mean and inflammatory but my guess is that you haven't really thought this through far enough to answer the obvious questions i just asked. if true, its kind of an important point to think about. its important for two reasons that i think would be highlighted if you tried to answer the obvious questions

Fair questions.

Measuring is very interesting from an SMP pov but from a political view all I really care about is whether it's significant or not. I've no doubt it is.

The consequences of ignoring it is that groups of people are discriminated against - I don't like that at all.

I propose exposure of the pay gap (as per this thread), positive discrimination and various equality laws. I'm also a huge fan of avoiding language that reinforces the cognitive bias and even using language that reduces the cognitive bias.

Lol. Juan is correct, the rest of the arguments here were not thought out at all.

Lets give a good example of why the leftist idiocy actually hurts women. You run a company. You hire men and women. Due to natural causes men tend to be paid more than women in your company. Suddenly, it is required to publicly disclose your salaries. Due to fear of looking sexist, you quickly pay people of all levels equally due to their sexual organs instead of their output at work.

Your company will either suffer due to the lack of incentive for your workers, or you hire less women to gain an edge over your competitors.

Complete idiocy at every level and yet another example of why government intervention in so many cases causes more harm than good.

Wil, give your counterpoints if you want to but don't think your offering some new insight there that is coming as some revelation to people who have never thought about it. The pay gap is not to be considered in isolation and the unrepresented of women will be addressed as well - companies wont just get away with quietly employing less women.

The companies will suffer argument is one we have to just disagree about but if we imagine you are right and equality means companies are less efficient then I'll choose equality over efficiency in a heartbeat.

It's an idiotic argument. People should be paid and promoted based on merit and not due to their genitalia. You are looking for equality of result instead of equality of opportunity, which is laughably stupid.

Well firstly I don't believe that sexism is about merit at all. Secondly, yes I think the idea of equality of opportunity is woefully insufficient.

Your idea is that people will be rewarded based on merit but in reality they are rewarded on perceived merit which is a very different thing. Perception is heavily distorted by cognitive biases such as sexism.

Which is why Americans dominate in everything. Taking the best is light years more important in terms of results than trying to equal things out between groups. Let the people sort it out themselves. If women want to be successful at work they should put in the work to be successful.

What you are suggesting is lowering the standards in order to make other groups feel better about themselves. If I was accepted into Harvard when I was applying to colleges because they felt that they needed more Asians it wouldn't be doing me any favors.

Everything about your view here is the opposite of progress and achievement, which leads to mediocrity and failure. Promote and incentivise the best of your people or we might as well be Canadians.

Maybe we should fire 50% of all oil rig workers and hire 50% females. Maybe we should fire half of all kindergarten teachers and replace them with male kindergarten teachers, you know, to even things out? Female bartenders should now have to split their tips equally with their male counterparts since they make more money. Sound good?


Lol at your arguments. It's completely laughable, and I'm dissapointed that you could ever possibly believe it, much less defend it.

Nope firing 50% of oil workers etc is nothing to do with anything I said. Sounds like a very silly idea to me.

I don't think the wealth producing parts of 'Merica is lagging in liberal values compared to the rest of the world.

They aren't. If we implemented your ideas they would. Imagine what would happen to a company like Goldman Sachs if they paid all their females exactly the same as all their male counterparts simply due to their genitalia. It would be laughable how quickly they would lose ground to their competition. Their goal is to be profitable, not to make people feel good.

Your ideas here are indefensible. It's simply amazing what leftists ideas will do to sane, reasonable people. Its truly horrifying what you are suggesting.

If statements like this were true we would never see young black males be drafted by professional sports organizations.

Everything you are spewing right now is comically bad. They are just bad arguments. People are selected and promoted and compensated based on their PERFORMANCE, which is exactly how it SHOULD BE. There are no female kickers in the NFL but it's not due to sexism. Show me a female who can consistently make 70 yard field goals and I gaurantee she gets a job immediately in the NFL as a starting kicker and be the highest paid one at that.

Jesus Christ.

They are defensible. I'm defending them.

Profits cannot come first all the time. Exploitation can be very good for profits.

That's not remotely true. Biases distort, they aren't some binary good/bad switch. Plus although it's always about perceived merit, in sport that's generally closer to actual merit then in most fields - I dare say that's part of what we find so appealing about sports in the first place.

Sure it's true. Blacks weren't even allowed to play in sports at one time due to bias and perception. Once teams started letting them play and simply taking the best instead of being racist about it they became better as a team. In order to stay competitive other teams did the same. You think it's because they just felt bad for black people and wanted to even out that whole salary thing that they started drafting them?

Lol

My boy Milton Friedman has something to say on topic.

He suggests that if you impose equal pay for the sexes then one can hire all men without punishment where before if you hire all men then you are paying more to be sexist.

In the scenario where a man is a better hire than a woman (took time off out of the workforce, etc) equal pay for equal work would take away the leverage (willing to work for less) women have to get the job.

https://youtu.be/hsIpQ7YguGE

That's more straight discrimination but sure biases can be that strong. The fact that biases can be that strong doesn't mean that they have to be or that in fact they are.

You seem to be claiming that if the bias isn't strong enough to preclude all of a group then that means there's no bias - if so then that's simply a mistake on your part.

pro sports teams absolutely did not exclude blacks players bc they perceived them as less able. study up on your history man.

This is only true if the expectation is that when people are payed based on their "output" that women will be losing out. Because, of course, the company is absolutely able to put out the info as any difference between hours worked etc.

So why not just get to the point where you tell us women don't work as well as men?

if you can't measure where the bias exists how can you possibly create laws to adjust for it? you cant just say sexism exists, im going to fix it. you need to actually identify it and measure it. you cant even (along with well named) even attempt to embarrass yourself by going through the process of trying to do the impossible and falling flat on your face

that is absolutely absurd. you cant even come within a light year to describe all the factors involved in determining someones worth to an organization specifically, or the workforce in general. its absolutely ******ed to look at women as a group. women make up half the population and they vary wildly on an individual basis. lumping them together as a group and comparing them to men is idiotic. men and women are not the same. expecting the same outcomes to men is idiotic. hiring someone or prejudging a women based on their gender is also idiotic. giving a women a raise based on the fact they are a women is idiotic. giving a man a raise or paycut based on their gender is idiotic

i asked you the consequence of this bias (that you cant measure) and in your sea of bias you failed to even attempt to discover what will happen. if women are under valued or under paid by one organization then the rest of the job market has an opportunity to exploit that.
equal outcomes is absolutely ******ed. do you really think everyone is equal? companies employ people to be productive, thats what they care about. if a company is providing something people don't want or they are providing something people do want in an inefficient manner, it dies. it really is that simple. how can you possibly demand equality if you cant even come within a light year of calculating it?
here is the truth about bias. it exists in far more ways than you seem to even comprehend and it can never be fixed. a more accurate statement would be biases exist everywhere and you are a perfect example of someone who is badly biased. in a world of infinite bias, you are focused on gender. and in the job market, you are biased towards think about companies that penalize women through bias vs the fact they are penalizing themselves through bias. the fact that biases exist in a free market means you can actually exploit them equally to being oppressed by them in many ways. to help you understand how completely stupid the concept of "equality" is and then filtering out men vs women i will make a few of almost infinite number of issues that create "inequality" within the context of just being a women

-IQ probably the greatest injustice we have in the west. best predictor of "success". you cant fix this, its just unfair
-beauty. i'll go ahead and speak for 99% of heterosexual men who aren't morally infallible here. men are biased towards beautiful women. they have advantages every step of the way in life, including the hiring process. im not sure how we equalize beauty but beautiful women enjoy those benefits far more than men. im sure women in tv enjoy those benefits more than women on the radio. should female strippers give a portion of their paycheck to underpaid male strippers? the advantages of beauty alone are far too complex to be able to regulate the market and equalize it for just beauty alone
-the extrovert inequality. social people do better in interviews. they also build bonds with people around them more easily which tilts promotion in their favor over strictly focusing on performance. how are we going to equalize the unfair advantages of being an extrovert? obviously being an extrovert is far more advantageous in some fields than others. how are we going to weight which fields and jobs within that field favor extroversion?
-how about negotiation ability? it turns out that negotiation ability is strongly linked to trait agreeableness. women are also high in trait agreeableness. so obviously they get penalized by their natural inclination to avoid conflict in negotiating their wage. but wait, theres plenty of men high in agreeableness and even more agreeable than women. so how do we filter by gender when trying to equalize the negotiation inequality when its not actually the best measure. but wait, theres more. being low in agreeableness gives you an advantage in negotiation but it also penalizes you in that you have difficulty working with others. right, just like calculating all the advantages you now need to factor in that there usually is also a disadvantage associated with it

a few posts ago i challenged well named to go through the mental exercise of calculating the value of a used honda civic with no market data. its impossible. you could spend the rest of your life doing this and still come up with a feeble answer. the value of a used car could be based on the distance to where you work, public transit options, the cost of gas, disposable income, etc etc etc. then you would need to calculate all the options of other cars and how and why you value them vs a honda civic. then you need to calculate the each individual person in the car market has a different value system for the car they want and how much they will pay for each car. it is impossibly complicated. so what do we do? we outsource it to a collective intelligence. we look at transaction prices and we can tell the ball park value immediately. we can then look at mileage differences or different option upgrades etc and adjust the price accordingly. is it perfect? no. it cant be. but its certainly going to get you a better answer to the infinite calculation involved in avoiding market data and its certainly going to be more efficient. the same goes for workers in a job market. their value is impossibly complicated. inequality is impossibly complicated. trying to equalize based on filter the population 50/50 is impossibly stupid

this is just the tip of the iceberg. i hope you can begin to the see world is not fair. calculating what is fair based on a generalization of half the population is neither fair or accurate. implementing any sort of affirmative action based on such a ******ed and inaccurate categorization of the workforce is an absolute disaster. the inclination to implement affirmative action based on gender is absolutely idiotic. idiotic theories based on equality where equality doesn't even exist and the fact that it is impossible, results in genocide. wanting a diet version of a genocidal philosophy doesn't make you genocidal, it just makes you a dangerous moron if you have any power or start accumulating like-minded morons in a democracy

i havent watched this but milton is a genius

also, a large contributing factor to stagnant wages is women joining the workforce. i hope the chezlaw theory of inequality compensates men for the fact that women are driving down wages

i might actually have to see an optometrist from the level of eye roll this thread has produced