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?
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.