Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
Can you explain why it matters what the odds are?
Because you want me to believe they're meaningful and something that employers should care about. You literally can't even tell me the ballpark on what the number is. And yet, this is somehow something that you feel strongly that employers should think about???
Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
Even if women are 1% more likely to take extra time off than a guy don't we have a reason for employers (rightly or wrongly) to lean towards males all else equal?
This is now a different thing. We should be clear that the odds of having a baby are not the same as the odds of taking extra time off. Do you know what the actual odds are for women to take extra time off? Or, more appropriately phrased, do you know what the expected difference in person-hours is between a women and a man?
Even putting that aside, "all else equal" isn't a thing in this case. If you're trying to say it's reasonable to consider the odds of a woman having a child, why wouldn't you care about everything else? Smoking? Length of commute? Number of children (the majority of my non-vacaction time-off is related to my kids and not to me)? Physical fitness? Age? Family history? Ethnicity? All of the factors that can influence time off in non-trivial ways make it impossible to ever have two candidates exactly the same except for their gender.
You're taking one possible factor, that you have absolutely no idea how meaningful it is, and trying to say its reasonable for employers to care about it.