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?
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?