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 ...
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.