In McKinsey you do see a top management consulting companies coaching companies to take advantage of the opportunity.
Would you mind quoting McKinsey where they urge companies to do this? Also, what percentage of entry level McKinsey consultants are female? If McKinsey practices what you seem to claim that it preaches, I would expect it to be at least 80 or 90%.
They might think that they are accurately assessing the skills of woman but are blinded by their own sexism.
I doubt that’s true, but assuming it is, it only supports my position—it’s for social/political reasons that people adhere to the belief that women are underpaid; when they make decisions which have a big impact on their own interests, they are sexist (by hypothesis).
A law firm might hire based on the advantages the get because their clients prefer to be represented by males.
Anything is possible, but you see balanced hiring even in low end insurance defense law firms which just crank out billable hours. In any event, when you look at industries where status isn’t very important, for example messenger services where people just want the package delivered, you still see male domination.
By the way, do you agree with me that it’s pretty obvious just from simple observation that female workers are less willing than men to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and more likely to absent themselves from work or even quit over child care issues? And do you agree that people who complain about pay gaps tend to manifest little attention to this very important fact? If so, what do you think is going on in their heads?
Also, what percentage of entry level McKinsey consultants are female? If McKinsey practices what you seem to claim that it preaches, I would expect it to be at least 80 or 90%.
Selling status is a huge part of the consulting business, especially for a company like McKinsey. I find it quite likely that women are less effective (in most modern-day business social environments) at producing the sort of status signals that McKinsey sells, even if they are equally effective at less status-driven tasks, such as writing software or delivering packages.
Based on my knowledge of the industry, I would guess that 60-70% of entry-level consultants and 80-90% of partners at McKinsey are male.
Selling status is a huge part of the consulting business, especially for a company like McKinsey. I find it quite likely that women are less effective (in most modern-day business social environments) at producing the sort of status signals that McKinsey sells
I agree with this, particularly if “effective” includes “interested.” But the interesting question is what McKinsey thinks about all this.
Based on my knowledge of the industry, I would guess that 60-70% of entry-level consultants and 80-90% of partners at McKinsey are male.
I would probably agree with this too. And that a lot of the women in these numbers receive special incentives like less demanding schedules. But again, the interesting question is what McKinsey thinks about this. What would they say if they were accused of discrimination?
Edit: For kicks I looked at the McKinsey web site for the city where I am located (New York). The site lists some 25 senior managers. Based on the photographs, 4 of the 25 are female. So it looks like your estimate was right on the money.
McKinsey, Women Matter 2013: Since 2007, our Women Matter research has been making the business case for increasing the number of women in senior managment roles. [...] The truth is, putting initiatives in place does not guarantee they will be well executed.
Deciding that your hiring manager suffer under a bias that makes them discount the expertise of women alone isn’t enough to hire more capable women.
By the way, do you agree with me that it’s pretty obvious just from simple observation that female workers are less willing than men to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and more likely to absent themselves from work or even quit over child care issues?
You confuse two issues: (1) Do people really believe that women are underpaid. (2) Are women underpaid.
In this discussion I argue for (1) and in general I’m agnostic about (2).
McKinsey, Women Matter 2013: Since 2007, our Women Matter research has been making the business case for increasing the number of women in senior managment roles.
[...]
The truth is, putting initiatives in place does not guarantee they will be well executed.
I don’t see anything in that quote which makes the “save money by hiring women” argument. Indeed, if that were the argument, it would not be limited to “senior management roles.” So it seems that the McKinsey study does not contradict my position.
Incidentally, if you had to bet, would you guess that McKinsey entry level consultants are primarily female? I would guess that they are not. What do you think?
Also, do you agree that, at a minimum, non-status-oriented businesses seem like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
You confuse two issues: (1) Do people really believe that women are underpaid. (2) Are women underpaid.
No, you did not read my argument carefully. My point is that that those who argue that women are underpaid have a tendency to ignore clear, simple, common sense evidence against their position. That’s a red flag that they are adhering to their beliefs for social/political reasons.
Last, do you agree that if people make personal economic decisions act out of sexism of which they are unaware, then regardless of whether that sexism is economically rational, one could say that probably they do not believe women are underpaid in the second sense I described?
Also, do you agree that, at a minimum, non-status-oriented businesses seem like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
I can believe that most humans are victims to the hindsight bias and still fail to correct against the bias.
The mental bias literature frequently demonstrates that knowing about a mental bias isn’t enough to avoid it.
one could say that probably they do not believe women are underpaid in the second sense I described?
I would say that a person can believe that most people suffer from hindsight bias in the second sense you described and still fail to correct for hindsight bias.
I can believe that most humans are victims to the hindsight bias and still fail to correct against the bias. The mental bias literature frequently demonstrates that knowing about a mental bias isn’t enough to avoid it.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Also, why do you keep ignoring my question about entry-level McKinsey consultants? I’m willing to bet a modest sum that McKinsey is NOT choosing to reap the supposed cost savings from hiring primarily women.
Also, do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”?
I would say that a person can believe that most people suffer from hindsight bias in the second sense you described and still fail to correct for hindsight bias.
I’m willing to bet a modest sum that McKinsey is NOT choosing to reap the supposed cost savings from hiring primarily women.
A big company can’t simply have a stated policy: “We hire primarily women or we hire primarily men.”
A CEO can tell the HR department. There’s a bias that makes you undervalue women, please correct for that bias.
A would consider a CEO who does such a thing to be honestly holding the belief that women are generally underpaid. On the other hand that doesn’t mean that you see the company having 90% women as entry-level positions.
While I don’t think McKinsey hires primarily women I do think that they have processes in place to increase the number of women they are hiring.
A big company can’t simply have a stated policy: “We hire primarily women or we hire primarily men.”
Of course not, but as I noted above, such a policy is not necessary. Just reduce entry level salaries and watch the profits (and the girls) roll in.
Also, do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”?
Also, do you agree that, at a minimum, non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
It’s a very simple yes or no question. Why won’t you concede this obvious point?
Of course not, but as I noted above, such a policy is not necessary. Just reduce entry level salaries and watch the profits (and the girls) roll in.
No, that might simply result in less qualified male candidates. Having low starting salaries might also send bad signals to the clients of McKinsey as management consulting is a premium service.
It’s a very simple yes or no question.
I don’t think non-human entities have beliefs so “no”. Firms don’t believe anything in the sense that humans hold beliefs.
No, that might simply result in less qualified male candidates
But according to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?
And again my question: Do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”? Simple yes or no question.
I don’t think non-human entities have beliefs so “no”.
Lol, nice dodge. But I am feeling charitable so I will rephrase the question:
Do you agree that, at a minimum, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
Last, how do you think McKinsey would respond to the observation that 85% of its senior New York employees are men?
And again my question: Do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”? Simple yes or no question.
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
Last, how do you think McKinsey would respond to the observation that 85% of its senior New York employees are men?
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed and whether the management of those companies tries to implement program to raise the amount of female employees in those companies.
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
Umm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? Are you saying it’s somehow implied that a firm will save money if it hires women?
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
So McKinsey would say that it’s too difficult for it to reap the wonderful benefits of increasing its female representation?
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed
Ok, so assuming there isn’t some mysterious unknown at work, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid. Agreed?
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
How hard would it be to simply reduce wages and watch the profits and the girls come pouring in?
I would like to propose a bet:
I will draft a job advertisement on Craigslist for a dirty job such as pest control, scrubbing excrement out of a tank, or whatever. You can select whatever pay scale between 50% and 200% of the typical wage for the job which you think will maximize the number of female applicants. I predict that whatever pay scale you choose, there will be very few female applicants relative to male applicants. If my prediction is correct, you will pay for the ad. Otherwise I will pay.
Interested?
Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
Do you have any concrete evidence for this besides your imagination? i.e. that businesses all across America are leaving billions of dollars on the table because they are unable to resist the urge to discriminate against female applicants?
Oh, and please answer my question from before;
According to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?
female workers are less willing than men to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding
And Moldbug::Optimates are less willing than Moldbug::Helots to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and yet the latter are usually paid less.
And Moldbug::Optimates are less willing than Moldbug::Helots to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and yet the latter are usually paid less.
Can you point to a definition of “Moldbug::Optimates” and “Moldbug::Helots”?
“Castes of the United States” on Unqualified Reservations (unlike most posts on that blog, this one isn’t very long).
(There are similar groups here in Western Europe too, but most Helots here come from North Africa and Eastern Europe; also, Brahmins tend to be unwilling to do dirty, dangerous, etc. work too.)
“Castes of the United States” on Unqualified Reservations (unlike most posts on that blog, this one isn’t very long).
Thank you. From reading your definitions, I gather that “optimates” tend to be born into money and status and tend to be very well connected. I agree that these people, regardless of gender, tend to shy away from jobs which are dirty, demanding or dangerous but due to their wealth and connections tend to be very well compensated anyway.
(Actually that’s not totally true, I would guess that a non-insignificant percentage end up in demanding jobs and that group is predominantly men.)
But does any of this contradict anything I have said?
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald), so maybe I’m committing the Muhammad Wang fallacy as a result of the outgroup homogeneity bias.
(BTW, in my country, people whining that immigrants are stealing their children’s jobs when there’s no way their children would be willing to do the kind of jobs immigrants tend to do for the kind of pay immigrants tend to accept are so common that Poe’s law applies to them. And here in Europe, thanks to (among other things) cheap tuitions, you don’t need to be an Optimate for your children to be a tenured student.)
I’m not sure what you mean by “Dark Enlightenment types,” but I doubt anyone disputes that there are lots of recent immigrants doing Real Work. The main “boo immigrants” argument on this point is that without these immigrants, the same Real Work would be done by domestic workers for significantly higher wages.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
No, at least not denotationally.
By the way, I find it deliciously ironic that you have used innuendo to accuse me of using innuendo.
No, I’m not. I do think it it would probably be a good thing, but my point was that there isn’t a contradiction between (1) valuing the sort of dirty work which is typically done by men; and (2) opposing the bringing in of foreign labor en masse to do this sort of work.
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald)
Um, the main argument against immigration is not based on the work they do but on what else they do, e.g., commit violent crimes or vote against the policies that created the economic prosperity that enticed them to immigrate in the first place.
FWIW males also commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. And in plenty of places immigrants aren’t allowed to vote, unless they get citizenship first (which usually requires many years and a civics exam).
EDIT: Also, you seem to be implying that voters have non-negligible actual power to affect economic policy, which is preposterous these days.
I doubt that’s true, but assuming it is, it only supports my position—it’s for social/political reasons that people adhere to the belief that women are underpaid; when they make decisions which have a big impact on their own interests, they are sexist (by hypothesis).
Would you mind quoting McKinsey where they urge companies to do this? Also, what percentage of entry level McKinsey consultants are female? If McKinsey practices what you seem to claim that it preaches, I would expect it to be at least 80 or 90%.
I doubt that’s true, but assuming it is, it only supports my position—it’s for social/political reasons that people adhere to the belief that women are underpaid; when they make decisions which have a big impact on their own interests, they are sexist (by hypothesis).
Anything is possible, but you see balanced hiring even in low end insurance defense law firms which just crank out billable hours. In any event, when you look at industries where status isn’t very important, for example messenger services where people just want the package delivered, you still see male domination.
By the way, do you agree with me that it’s pretty obvious just from simple observation that female workers are less willing than men to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and more likely to absent themselves from work or even quit over child care issues? And do you agree that people who complain about pay gaps tend to manifest little attention to this very important fact? If so, what do you think is going on in their heads?
Selling status is a huge part of the consulting business, especially for a company like McKinsey. I find it quite likely that women are less effective (in most modern-day business social environments) at producing the sort of status signals that McKinsey sells, even if they are equally effective at less status-driven tasks, such as writing software or delivering packages.
Based on my knowledge of the industry, I would guess that 60-70% of entry-level consultants and 80-90% of partners at McKinsey are male.
I agree with this, particularly if “effective” includes “interested.” But the interesting question is what McKinsey thinks about all this.
I would probably agree with this too. And that a lot of the women in these numbers receive special incentives like less demanding schedules. But again, the interesting question is what McKinsey thinks about this. What would they say if they were accused of discrimination?
Edit: For kicks I looked at the McKinsey web site for the city where I am located (New York). The site lists some 25 senior managers. Based on the photographs, 4 of the 25 are female. So it looks like your estimate was right on the money.
http://www.mckinsey.com/global_locations/north_america/northeast/en/our_people
Again the question: How would McKinsey respond to the observation that 84% of its senior management in New York is male?
Deciding that your hiring manager suffer under a bias that makes them discount the expertise of women alone isn’t enough to hire more capable women.
You confuse two issues: (1) Do people really believe that women are underpaid. (2) Are women underpaid.
In this discussion I argue for (1) and in general I’m agnostic about (2).
I don’t see anything in that quote which makes the “save money by hiring women” argument. Indeed, if that were the argument, it would not be limited to “senior management roles.” So it seems that the McKinsey study does not contradict my position.
Incidentally, if you had to bet, would you guess that McKinsey entry level consultants are primarily female? I would guess that they are not. What do you think?
Also, do you agree that, at a minimum, non-status-oriented businesses seem like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
No, you did not read my argument carefully. My point is that that those who argue that women are underpaid have a tendency to ignore clear, simple, common sense evidence against their position. That’s a red flag that they are adhering to their beliefs for social/political reasons.
Last, do you agree that if people make personal economic decisions act out of sexism of which they are unaware, then regardless of whether that sexism is economically rational, one could say that probably they do not believe women are underpaid in the second sense I described?
I can believe that most humans are victims to the hindsight bias and still fail to correct against the bias. The mental bias literature frequently demonstrates that knowing about a mental bias isn’t enough to avoid it.
I would say that a person can believe that most people suffer from hindsight bias in the second sense you described and still fail to correct for hindsight bias.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Also, why do you keep ignoring my question about entry-level McKinsey consultants? I’m willing to bet a modest sum that McKinsey is NOT choosing to reap the supposed cost savings from hiring primarily women.
Also, do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”?
Again, does this mean yes or no?
A big company can’t simply have a stated policy: “We hire primarily women or we hire primarily men.” A CEO can tell the HR department. There’s a bias that makes you undervalue women, please correct for that bias.
A would consider a CEO who does such a thing to be honestly holding the belief that women are generally underpaid. On the other hand that doesn’t mean that you see the company having 90% women as entry-level positions.
While I don’t think McKinsey hires primarily women I do think that they have processes in place to increase the number of women they are hiring.
Of course not, but as I noted above, such a policy is not necessary. Just reduce entry level salaries and watch the profits (and the girls) roll in.
Also, do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”?
Also, do you agree that, at a minimum, non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
It’s a very simple yes or no question. Why won’t you concede this obvious point?
No, that might simply result in less qualified male candidates. Having low starting salaries might also send bad signals to the clients of McKinsey as management consulting is a premium service.
I don’t think non-human entities have beliefs so “no”. Firms don’t believe anything in the sense that humans hold beliefs.
But according to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?
And again my question: Do you agree that your quote from the McKinsey study is NOT arguing to “save money by hiring women”? Simple yes or no question.
Lol, nice dodge. But I am feeling charitable so I will rephrase the question:
Do you agree that, at a minimum, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid?
Last, how do you think McKinsey would respond to the observation that 85% of its senior New York employees are men?
It doesn’t argue that point directly. It argues benefits of having more woman but doesn’t argue specifically that women are underpaid.
The part of the McKinsey report I quoted, says that it’s not trivial to run programs to increase the amount of female senior employees.
As far as the way auto garage companies are managed, I’m not sure at all how those companies are managed and whether the management of those companies tries to implement program to raise the amount of female employees in those companies.
You can’t conclude from the fact the a program to increase the amount of female personnel fails that no such program exists. Given how hard it is to correct for cognitive biases, it’s not hard to imagine that most programs fail.
Umm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? Are you saying it’s somehow implied that a firm will save money if it hires women?
So McKinsey would say that it’s too difficult for it to reap the wonderful benefits of increasing its female representation?
Ok, so assuming there isn’t some mysterious unknown at work, executive management at non-status-oriented businesses like messenger services, pest control companies, and auto garages don’t seem to act as if they believe that women are underpaid. Agreed?
How hard would it be to simply reduce wages and watch the profits and the girls come pouring in?
I would like to propose a bet:
I will draft a job advertisement on Craigslist for a dirty job such as pest control, scrubbing excrement out of a tank, or whatever. You can select whatever pay scale between 50% and 200% of the typical wage for the job which you think will maximize the number of female applicants. I predict that whatever pay scale you choose, there will be very few female applicants relative to male applicants. If my prediction is correct, you will pay for the ad. Otherwise I will pay.
Interested?
Do you have any concrete evidence for this besides your imagination? i.e. that businesses all across America are leaving billions of dollars on the table because they are unable to resist the urge to discriminate against female applicants?
Oh, and please answer my question from before;
According to McKinsey’s claimed beliefs, there exist qualified female candidates ready willing and able to work the same jobs for the reduced salary. Right?
And Moldbug::Optimates are less willing than Moldbug::Helots to take on work which is dirty, dangerous, risky or demanding, and yet the latter are usually paid less.
Can you point to a definition of “Moldbug::Optimates” and “Moldbug::Helots”?
“Castes of the United States” on Unqualified Reservations (unlike most posts on that blog, this one isn’t very long).
(There are similar groups here in Western Europe too, but most Helots here come from North Africa and Eastern Europe; also, Brahmins tend to be unwilling to do dirty, dangerous, etc. work too.)
Thank you. From reading your definitions, I gather that “optimates” tend to be born into money and status and tend to be very well connected. I agree that these people, regardless of gender, tend to shy away from jobs which are dirty, demanding or dangerous but due to their wealth and connections tend to be very well compensated anyway.
(Actually that’s not totally true, I would guess that a non-insignificant percentage end up in demanding jobs and that group is predominantly men.)
But does any of this contradict anything I have said?
The fact is, I sometimes see Dark Enlightenment types making the point that men do a disproportionate fraction of the Real®™© work whereas women mostly do bureaucratic busywork, and therefore yay men, boo feminism, without seeming to notice that the same thing applies to immigrants and therefore yay immigration, boo borders.
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald), so maybe I’m committing the Muhammad Wang fallacy as a result of the outgroup homogeneity bias.
(BTW, in my country, people whining that immigrants are stealing their children’s jobs when there’s no way their children would be willing to do the kind of jobs immigrants tend to do for the kind of pay immigrants tend to accept are so common that Poe’s law applies to them. And here in Europe, thanks to (among other things) cheap tuitions, you don’t need to be an Optimate for your children to be a tenured student.)
I’m not sure what you mean by “Dark Enlightenment types,” but I doubt anyone disputes that there are lots of recent immigrants doing Real Work. The main “boo immigrants” argument on this point is that without these immigrants, the same Real Work would be done by domestic workers for significantly higher wages.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
No, at least not denotationally.
By the way, I find it deliciously ironic that you have used innuendo to accuse me of using innuendo.
Well have I connoted or implied anything you disagree with? If so, what?
Are you implying that that would be a good thing? Said higher wages would still have to come from someone’s pockets.
No, I’m not. I do think it it would probably be a good thing, but my point was that there isn’t a contradiction between (1) valuing the sort of dirty work which is typically done by men; and (2) opposing the bringing in of foreign labor en masse to do this sort of work.
Um, the main argument against immigration is not based on the work they do but on what else they do, e.g., commit violent crimes or vote against the policies that created the economic prosperity that enticed them to immigrate in the first place.
FWIW males also commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. And in plenty of places immigrants aren’t allowed to vote, unless they get citizenship first (which usually requires many years and a civics exam).
EDIT: Also, you seem to be implying that voters have non-negligible actual power to affect economic policy, which is preposterous these days.
Well, these days a lot of the former aren’t paid at all and are living in their parents’ basement.
The alief vs. belief distinction might be useful here.