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 bel...
LW readers have unusual views on many subjects. Efficient Market Hypothesis notwithstanding, many of these are probably alien to most people in finance. So it's plausible they might have implications that are not yet fully integrated into current asset prices. And if you rightfully believe something that most people do not believe, you should be able to make money off that.
Here's an example for a different group. Feminists believe that women are paid less than men for no good economic reason. If this is the case, feminists should invest in companies that hire many women, and short those which hire few women, to take advantage of the cheaper labour costs. And I can think of examples for groups like Socialists, Neoreactionaries, etc. - cases where their positive beliefs have strong implications for economic predictions. But I struggle to think of such ones for LessWrong, which is why I am asking you. Can you think of any unusual LW-type beliefs that have strong economic implications (say over the next 1-3 years)?
Wei Dai has previously commented on a similar phenomena, but I'm interested in a wider class of phenomena.