SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Company Stock Prices Fall When Women Are Added To Boards Of Directors
Turns out that many companies who seek to embrace equality by any means could actually be doing their shareholders a disservice. But hey, we thought equality of outcome was a guaranteed fast track to utopia! What happened?
In fact, many companies experience stock price declines when women are added to the board of directors, Bloomberg points out.
An analysis of 14 years of market returns across almost 1,900 companies recently revealed that when companies appoint female directors, they experienced two years of stock declines. Companies saw their stock fall by an average of 2.3% just from adding one additional woman to their board.
Kaisa Snellman, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD business school and a co-author of the study said: "Shareholders penalize these companies, despite the fact that increased gender diversity doesn't have a material effect on a company's return on assets. Nothing happens to the actual value of the companies. It's just the perceptions that change."
The study suggests that investor biases are to blame. The study asked senior managers with MBAs to read fictional press releases announcing new board members. The statements were identical, but for the gender of the incoming director.Participants said that men were more likely to care about profits and less about social values, while women were deemed to be "softer".
Snellman continued: "If anyone is biased, it is the market. Investors should consider organizations that add women and other under-represented groups to their boards because there's a good chance that company is being undervalued."
Despite this study's findings, other non-academic reports over the years have suggested that diverse leadership results in corporate success. A McKinsey analysis concluded that board diversity correlates with positive financial performance and a 2019 Credit Suisse report noted a "performance premium for board diversity".
These findings have prompted investors like BlackRock to push for diversity on boards. Women now account for more than 25% of board members on the S&P 500 and 20% of boards globally.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:37PM (14 children)
Weird, female ceo's earn 75 cents on the dollar so should increase the company price at least by 25%
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:43PM
Only if the CEO is 100% of total wage bill - i.e. only if a one-person company. They are not usually listed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:16PM (9 children)
Citation needed. Seriously, citation needed. Some fly-by-night small business might be getting by with that nonsense today, and some relatively small corporations. Larger corporations listed on the exchanges are being scrutinized by half a zillion neb-noses. I don't think you'll find many credible citations for that claim that female CEO's only make 75% of what their equally qualified male counterparts are making.
I've mentioned a time or two that I work for an international corporation. There is zero bias in regards to gender, race, sexual preference, or anything else that I can think of. They are biased a little bit against assholes, but, alas, asocial assholes are not a protected class of people. Aside from that, equally qualified people make the same money, all around. (Maybe I should clarify that we're all equally underpaid.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by legont on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:33PM (6 children)
Last week I attended a course sponsored by my company (IT infrastructure related course; large international co). Typically it would cost $1000 per seat per day. It was free for us and yes, useful. There were 50 seats (yes, $50K for the event). Two of them were occupied by females. The promotion later this year will have the exactly opposite statistics.
P.S. The females were young girls - one Chinese and one Indian.
P.P.S. The majority of the males were in their 50s.
So no, there is no equality right now - not even close. One day we will pay for it; dearly.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @07:49PM (2 children)
Equality is an annoying word when used as a general descriptor, because it can mean two radically different things:
- Equality of results = you'd have equal genital distribution, equal skin color distribution, equal sexuality distribution, equal weight distribtuion, equal height distribution, equal name length [linkedin.com] distribution, equal weight distributions, so forth and so on with an ever expanding number of categories you need to shoehorn in, equally.
- Equality of opportunity = the 50 people most deserving of the seats would be there.
In my opinion the former is dystopic. The main reason is that it's based on a flawed assumption. It assumes that every imaginable group has a roughly comparable distribution of abilities, and so outcomes are driven primarily by environmental factors. Any difference thus must be because of some form of bias or discrimination. This is contradicted by extensive evidence. Key characteristics such as general intelligence are not only highly heritable but geneticists have now [nature.com] even pinned down certain sequences which can offer predictive expectations of a sizable chunk of the entire intelligence differences between individuals.
In other words, given a sample of two individual's saliva, we're already at the point that we can determine, well beyond randomness, whom will perform better on cognitive assessments of any sort. This makes people extremely uncomfortable for very obvious reasons - nobody wants to imagine they might have drawn the short straw, and nobody wants to inspire Hitler 2.0. Nonetheless, denying reality because it's uncomfortable is hardly a productive idea.
This does not mean that I would not support encouraging whatever group you happen to have a preference for to participate. But, what happens if, even after extensive encouragement, you're still not hitting the numbers you want? This doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem or that you're even doing anything wrong. It may simply indicate underlying differences and preferences. And at the point you simply start ignoring the numbers in pursuit of checkboxes, that is the point at which you will end up paying for your mistakes; dearly.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:41PM
Equal genital distribution? Sounds painful, unless you're exempt because you're already a hermaphrodite.
Though you could probably make money off it. They stream all sorts of shit nowadays.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday November 29 2019, @05:06AM
I agree - equality of opportunity is what we should strive for.
And intelligence is indeed heritable - but aside from the Ashkenazi Jews and a few other small populations, there hasn't been any credible correlation between intelligence and race, once you correct for differences in economic status and the associated developmental impairments. Which is to say that, on average, a white man and a black man who were equally well fed and educated as children, will show equal intelligence as adults. Same thing with women and men.
And without a genetic basis for racial biases, statistical distribution at population scales would ensure that your "equality of opportunity" would deliver something very close to your "equality of results". The fact that we *don't* see "equality of results" is thus a strong indicator that we don't actually have "equality of opportunity"
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:20PM (2 children)
A few months ago the corporate board came by for a visit. In a group of around 20 people, only one was a lady and who knew if she was actually serving her purpose. Being well-mannered, I told them all on their way out, "Good afternoon, gentlemen," while the lone woman added, "...And Lady!" as I apologized red-faced.
Speaking of such, the utopian state of California signed a bill [natlawreview.com] to encourage corporations to add more females to their ranks. Here's the details:
But will somebody think of the trannies? Just imagine if you were a bunch of totally hetero dudebros and didn't want any females on your board. You could hire a tranny identifying as female, or you could have one of your dudebro board members identify as female and "take one for the team" showing up to meetings in a padded bra, jacket-and-skirt, and wig with some lipstick to taste. Maybe even some nice panties, if they're the silk kind.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:09PM
Prop 47, decriminalization of HIV infection and public defecation have to be tolerated so the state can focus on serious crimes like not enacting Stalinesque diversity quotas. Commiefornia yes!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday November 29 2019, @07:40AM
You've also got to read the rest of the linked article, while the thought behind it is good, simply saying "50% (or whatever) of your board must have girly bits" is unworkable both in practice - what if you genuinely try to find female directors but just can't because there aren't many around in your industry - and legally, see the article. It's overbroad and leaves way too many details unspecified, again see the article. So it'll end up tied up in legal action for years to come.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:16PM
"They are biased a little bit against assholes, but, alas, asocial assholes are not a protected class of people."
So, they fired you, huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:16AM
In other news, adding a single Runaway1956 to a Board of Directors reduces stock valuation by nearly 110%. There is a very strong, 1:1 correlation on this one. All the data confirms it.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:18PM (1 child)
Perhaps, the pay simply reflects the stock performance as it is supposed to be by the current theory; right or wrong.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:09AM
"Perhaps, the pay simply reflects the stock performance as it is supposed to be by the current theory; right or wrong."
When have you ever noticed CEO pay correlate with stock performance? I'm not going to bother looking up a link for you but there is some evidence that CEO pay and performance are actually anti-correlated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:13PM
CEOs aren't necessarily board members. The board of directors hires the CEO. Start-ups and other companies where the founder(s) are still involved have better odds of a board member being the CEO, but it's not guaranteed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:47PM (5 children)
Clash of cultural paradigms is always fun.
Well, this kind of bias is quite usable for subtle market manipulation without risk of statutory backfire.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:01PM
Clash of cultural paradigms is always fun.
Well, yeah, women and invisible hands. The president's hands are almost invisible, you know, very small. I hope people don't think badly of me for bringing it up.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:53PM (3 children)
Well, funny how this study suggests that the invisible hand of the markets isn't rational, since the study specifically states that it doesn't affect a company's performance, only whether investors liked them. It's almost like the perfectly rational self-interested homo economicus is more fiction than reality.
Of course, it may also be an indication that a company's board has approximately zero effect on its productivity, profitability, etc.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 29 2019, @03:20AM (1 child)
Economics is based on three massive lies: that there are infinite resources, that growth can continue indefinitely, and that people are rational actors.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:11PM
*sigh*
No it is not, "based on three massive lies: that there are infinite resources, that growth can continue indefinitely, and that people are rational actors"
It is based on lies. But the lie is that anyone knows what the fuck they are talking about. They try to measure things that change from one moment to the next. You were close with the 'rational actors' bit. But it is not that. The thing is one giant system that is intermixed with crazy knock on side effects that no one can predict.
I can show you what I mean with an economic thought experiment. I will even use the goto example in most econ 150 classes (which is about how far most people go in their understanding). I will pull in some macro concepts to demonstrate it.
You are a pizza place owner.
Tada you are selling lots of pizza. You review the books. Hey if you raise the price a little bit you can sell a few less pizzas but make the exact same amount of money. That is marginal revenue equals marginal cost (MR=MC).
Tada! you can let one guy go because you are not making as many pizzas. But your costs are the same.
Womp Womp. Society is slightly worse off as someone is now unemployed. He gets a job somewhere else. So 'tada?'
Womp Womp. Your customers are getting less pizzas and have less money. But you have more money. So 'tada?'
Womp Womp. Your taxes went up slightly. That means society gets more money in taxes. So 'tada?'
Womp Womp. Your sales go down slightly as now you are now 'that expensive place'. Your MR=MC changed.
Tada you are selling less pizzas you hire that one guy back because MR=MC. Your price are back where you started. Everything is back 'to normal'.
But sales are still down remember you are now tagged with 'that expensive place' moniker.
All rational choices. But not necessarily good outcomes. You can not measure 'that expensive place' sentiment. There are hundreds of things that you can not measure. Economics is deluded to think it can measure them.
Socialists are even worse. They think they can measure everything too but know better than everyone else and pretend they can get all of those inputs right because they are smart. They are stuck with the same rules as capitalists. But want to pretend they are not.
Most economics formulas are little more than basic algebra. The quants are the ones who are closest they have at least an inkling that everything is a formula. The problem is they are measuring things that are more like random number generators. They work 'ok' in the steady state. But if someone changes a variable 18 levels removed from them it can wack them out. They will have no idea why because they did not even know they had an input. N dimensional tensor physics is more the type of math they need to be using and they are still playing with rulers and protractors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @08:42AM
You, as well as the study's authors, are failing to note individuals' experience. You say, "Company A did Y and they're doing xyz profit-wise. Would you invest?" and then you say "Company A did X and they're doing xyz profit-wise. Would you invest?" and expect based on varying input that you'll have equivalent output. Why would you ever expect that?
People put their own experiences into everything that they do. If they interpret this action to be worse for a company's future, they'll act accordingly, based on what they've seen in the past. This isn't "discrimination" -- this is evidence-based action.
If you want to push socialism, then push socialism. Stop trying to dress it up as anything-but-socialism.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:57PM (2 children)
A company that made Sandwiches?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:05PM
Sudo®.Inc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:32PM
Only sandwich companies abreast with women.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:10PM (31 children)
The """""market""""" values what its controllers tell it to value. This is why sexism is demonstrable from a systemic level and is systematically prevalent throughout societies. Women earn less than men because people in a capitalist society value capital more than human life. The reason for the gender pay gap is that money itself is used as a latent way to disparage and devalue implicitly from a societal standpoint; this also is why slaves aren't paid, because they have no societal value, and this is shown in a display of power by depriving them of capital, i.e., value-in-itself in a capitalist society. By forcing the bad actors and devaluers of life itself out of control, those who are "lower" on the societal totem pole can finally receive implicit recompense for the literal and figurative devaluation of their dignity as human beings in themselves. This is the reason for socialist policies and eventual communism; but first humans need to stop playing power games with dollars and cents, because it's incredibly petty to commoditize and then put a definite price on a person's life because of their race, gender, disability, etc.
Long story short, humans need to grow the f*ck up and stop thinking that money (capital) is how to value everything, when it in fact destroys everything, destroys life itself by giving bad actors a tool that forces the illusion that material worth is more valuable than certain, specific human lives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:30PM
>grow the f*ck up and stop thinking that money (capital) is how to value everything
this hasn't been the case until after the industrial revolution and its ideologies, red/black socialism. "Capital", redistribution, property. Opposed to the one dimensional society, or a mere component of it?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:33PM (13 children)
The beauty of markets is that they're not driven by what they're told, but by self interest. You see apples on the market selling for $10/piece. You know you can grow apples for cheaper. And so you do. You start producing tons of apples and selling them for $2 per piece. The price of apples plummets, you get rich, the market is closer to its "true" value. The "true" value being the cheapest value possible that an apple can be sold for while still providing a profit to its seller.
The price of an apple has nothing to do with what 'the market's controllers tell it to value' - it has everything to do with how cheap you can produce an apple and sell it! Same thing for wages and other aspects of the market. That's the exact reason slavery was so difficult to set aside. Company A is using slaves for labor. Company B isn't. Company A is going to have vastly higher profit margins and be able to grow faster, sell their product cheaper, and just generally crush Company B. Companies using slaves grow and prosper, companies not using slaves wither and die.
Imagine there was any meaningful wage gap. Take the above paragraph and simply replace "slave" with "women" and you get the exact same thing. This wouldn't be a matter of perception or opinion but economic performance. Girly Company A can produce their products for $1000 while Sausage Fest Company B has to charge $1100 for the exact same stuff. Girly company is going to grow, expand, and dominate the competition. Exactly as companies using slaves did. Except we don't see that, at all. And that's because the "wage gap" is a myth. Once you actually normalize for experience, ability, hours worked, etc it completely disappears. The original myth, popularized by Clinton, simply compared the median full-time earnings of women and men. That's where you get the '77 cents on the dollar' number from. It didn't even normalize for hours worked (men work more hours), or even the the same jobs. Calling it a myth is overly polite. It was a lie to drive social anger for the sake of political gain.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:10PM
Sure, go ahead and grow some apples, self publish your album or indie code your killer app.
There are reasons startups only exist to get bought out and every artist sells their soul. Whales exist and fuck with the market. The average citizen has a pitiful disposable capital, most of their wealth is goods they use personally such as their car, home (if they're lucky) and electronics.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:15PM (4 children)
True. Which is why when you start selling apples for $2, undercutting my $10 apple operation I am going to offer you $10 million to sell me your apple company so that I can continue to own the apple market.
Your point about slaves leaves out the part where you have the expense of feeding, clothing and housing your slaves, when I don't.
I did a quick search on the term "Was slavery economically efficient" and while there is some debate, it seems the general consensus is "no".
Your point about the wage gap is something I would largely agree with though. The company I work for would employ zero men if they could pay women 77 cents on the dollar and get away with it, but they don't.
(Score: 2) by Mer on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:28PM (2 children)
Wait, why wouldn't slavery be economically efficient? You have full time employees, you have to pay them a living wage, whether or not the standards of living their wage can afford is acceptable is another debate but they must afford rent, food and taxes. Without even considering the fact that you can squeeze more hours of a slave than you can out of an employee and that you don't need to spend extra on a slave for recreation after their living needs are fulfilled, you'd be saving because your slaves could be lodged near their place of work in communal housing and eat communal meals.
I'm pretty certain that if slavery is inefficient it's because of the application, not because slavery is inherently a bad idea from the point of view of pure economical efficiency.
And yes, as I write this I realise how much this sounds similar to "true communism has never been tried"
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:52PM
This is a place to start. [fee.org] The short answer is: It's complicated.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Friday November 29 2019, @03:44AM
You have to invest in slaves generally, there are exceptions such as during a war. when you can capture new slaves to replace the ones you worked to death. Generally though, you have to look after your slaves from birth to death, train them, guard them (both from thieves and the slaves running away), look after them when sick etc. With employees, the government or workers family is responsible for most of that, you hire them already trained, use them up and get rid of them.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:54AM
I completely agree with you, but I don't think slavery is an exception - but rather quite vivid evidence of this phenomena! There have been abolition movements for thousands of years. Aristotle reference such movements some 2,300 years ago. And throughout the centuries various cultures have banned slavery only for it to gradually eek back into society. What happened that finally made it take hold?
This [ourworldindata.org] graph explains it all and is one aspect most analysts fail to properly consider. For most of our species nearly everybody worked in agriculture. Then around 1800 there started to be a sharp change. That change was the industrial revolution which brought two critical changes: Skyrocketing efficiencies in production efficiency and rapid migration to cities. Cities became sources of cheap, temporary, disposable labor that was far more efficient than slaves. When your slave starts performing poorly? You are under an immense obligation to "fix" that, one way or the other. When your worker starts performing poorly? You could fire him and replace him before the day was out.
In the time of widespread agriculture this was not possible. Distances between plots were far, transportation was slow, population densities were low, and production was highly inefficient. Under these conditions slaves were extremely efficient because even if paid labor would have been more efficient - it simply did not exist on the scale and readiness needed. And this was, again, also happening at the same time that ever large plots could be maintained by ever smaller numbers of individuals due to productivity gains. These changes were happening at an exponential rate by the mid 1800s. Lincoln killed slavery because he could, and the reason he could is because of economics.
Getting back to Aristotle [mit.edu], it's somewhat interesting that his wisdom drove him to prediction of precisely what happened, though he no doubt felt he was engaging in little more than a rhetorical hypothetical:
(Score: 1, Troll) by Thexalon on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (1 child)
And that's why advertising and public relations don't exist.
Nonsense. For example, pay for engineers (a male-dominated profession) is substantially higher than the pay for teachers (a female-dominated profession), even though both professions generally require a master's degree and long hours (yes, even factoring in summer vacations for teachers). There are many top-quality teachers earning less than mediocre engineers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:16PM
Wow. You're probably just about the dumbest person on this site. Does _every_last_reason_ have to be listed? Did you not consider "need" or "desireability of profession"? You're comparing the earnings of engineers and TEACHERS and suggesting women are underpaid compared to men?!?
This is a prime example of a straw-person argument.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @02:15AM (4 children)
The "true" value being the cheapest value possible that an apple can be sold for while still providing a profit to its seller.
The price of an apple has nothing to do with what 'the market's controllers tell it to value' - it has everything to do with how cheap you can produce an apple and sell it!
"""
Why do I need to debunk this trope every time there's a story about 'markets'? The above is a pure fiction unsupportable by neither mathematical theory (read some Patero, you're a few hundred years behind the times), nor practice (not that a well-functioning market is easily found).
It is just as true (and equally, just as false) to say that in a well functioning market, the price of a good or service will be maximised, as there's no asymmetry between the resources being exchanged.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 29 2019, @07:29AM (3 children)
FTFY, no thanks necessary.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @12:07PM (2 children)
I did notice it after posting, but couldn't be arsed to follow up to myself as anyone whose only comeback is a typo snark has nothing of value to contribute, and I don't mind them outing themselves as such.
Expect typos in this too - this shitty PC keyboard has a habit of dropping 2 or 3 consecutive characters, and having unpredictable rollover behaviour.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 29 2019, @08:03PM (1 child)
Good, Phil! I was worried about you.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:41AM
Know any cures for insomnia?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by corey on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:36PM (5 children)
Well written.
These two sentences have a real sexist sarcastic tone to them. I don't know if it came from the submitter or article but it's not cool.
It could also be due to most investors being middle aged white blokes who inherently think women can't lead as well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:02PM (4 children)
Actually, the whole article shows what we've always known to be true - the stock market is irrational. In a rational market, if the performance doesn't change, the value shouldn't either.
The lesson is - buy stock in companies headed by women. The company is undervalued versus the underlying performance. She'll move on, a guy will take her place, the stock will jump, sell - PROFIT.
Exceptions: Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:32PM (3 children)
All companies large enough to have boards are all ridiculously overvalued, and don't forget that stock and other imaginary incantations that others think is money need a serious correction.
As much as I don't regret voting for Trump, everytime I hear "how well the economy's doing" I know it's complete bullshit because the stock market is all imaginary overvalued shit completely twisted and arbitrarily manipulated with voodoo-tier science (and this is not only a Trump lie, we got a lot of that from Obama and quite possibly every other damn president).
The economy is "doing well" when people (especially educated people) can live a middle-class lifestyle and own their own property and retire at age 65. That's when the economy is "doing well."
(Score: 3, Touché) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
The economy IS doing well. The 99% don't count, since the "new economy" means trading bits of data that represent pieces of paper that represent ownership in something that owns something else that owns something else.
We don't count.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NickM on Friday November 29 2019, @02:05AM
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @02:30AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Troll) by qzm on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:51PM (9 children)
The reason for the 'gender pay gap' is careful manipulation of statistics.
As soon as you normalize for obvious factors, you find that in the large majority of carriers women get paid on average more.
You must adjust for such things as experience and qualification in the job, hours worked, time spent in that role - all the NORMAL things you would expect to affect the income.
Of course that doesn't fit the required outcome, so they adjust for none of that, and since women on average work for less time in a given role (both in yearly hours, and in number of years), they tend to be paid less in total.
And there are two major factors that cause this.
One is that women tend to have children and by choice or pressure end up being primary care givers.
the other is that women HAVE MORE CHOICE. Men are looked down on if they are not working a lot and trying to grow a career. Women? not so much.
Its not hard of course to find anecdotal, or even industry areas where women are both under represented, and probably poorly treated.
Its also not hard to find such areas for men...
As to socialism and communism, those are simply a massive power grab by a small set of sociopaths who wish to impose their will on others.
This is clearly demonstrated by example.
Communisms primary social effect has been shown to be massive (usually intentional) deaths, and a terrible quality of life for 99% of the population.
As to communism and equality, only someone with zero experience of communist societies and history would do anything by laugh sadly at such a thought.
Oh, and lastly, you obviously have no idea of what money actually is. By definition money is used to 'value' (many) things, BECAUSE THATS ITS DAMN PURPOSE. It is a token of value, thats why it was created, thats why it is needed. Nothing about money forces any view of human lives value, or enabled your mystical bogeymen to do bad things. Lavrenity Beria didnt need money, nor did Pol Pot, money wasnt require for the Chinese 'Cultrual Revolution' purges. Stalin didnt need money to starve millions in the Holodomor.
I would suggest that you are the one who needs to grow the f*ck up, seriously.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:11PM (7 children)
Then how do you explain the pay gap for women who never have children? Same number of years of experience. Same career objectives as men, so your theory is just more patriarchal bs.
But that's okay. Men are becoming superfluous to the economy. For years, 3 women have graduated for every 2 men. Traditional male jobs are the ones in danger of disappearing (those 8 million driving jobs will be mostly gone in 15 years). Birthrate is declining, which means less need for new housing, so fewer construction jobs. The average half-life of a software developer continues to trend down, so you'd better have a second career lined up that will see you through your 40s and beyond, because there are not enough management jobs for old coders.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:49PM (6 children)
Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations.
You're going to need to provide some references if you want to make headway, because every explanation of the cause of the "gender pay gap" has pinned the turning point as "motherhood", and that, pre-motherhood, women are paid 1-2% more than men at the same level and for the same amount of work.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)
"every explanation" is just that - an explanation without providing any hard data, because "everyone knows."
Also, hours worked has nothing to do with productivity. Why not re-read the latest study that shows a 4-day work week with 5 days pay makes people more productive. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-tried-4-day-work-week-productivity-soared/. [cbsnews.com]
The problem women encounter is the "second shift", where even if the guy is unemployed, she's still expected to do the housework. It's called the "second shift", and that 2 hours of extra work every day adds up.
Women are fed up, and realizing that the cultural expectations of needing a man in our lives is bullshit [theguardian.com]
It's almost like men are emotional parasites who suck the health out of women for their own benefit - and there's some truth to that. Men still assume that they can retire from work, but women cannot retire from housework. This is part of the "second shift" problem, and one reason women are staying single.
It helps explain the continually falling birthrate in a previous story.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (3 children)
“Broke men are hurting women’s marriage prospects,”
...
"1- it's a million times better to be single than have a husband who is trash"
Because if a male isn't rich then he's trash?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @07:50PM (2 children)
People (of any combination of sexes) can live together without the legal complications marriage brings. But now that women are often earning more than men, they're just employing the same calculus men have been using for generations. "Why buy the bull when you can get the sex for free?"
There's a difference between earning their keep and being rich. But there's not much attractive today in families where you need two incomes to survive, in a broke guy whose best hope is to drive an Uber until that job disappears from automation.
Same as guys wanting women 20 years younger than them. Women can do the math - the guy will be needing to have his diapers changed while she's still got plenty of years ahead of her. It's a bad deal all around for the woman.
A guy is 30 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 50 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 70 - he still wants a "babe". There's something wrong here, and it's not the women.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:44AM (1 child)
There's nothing wrong here. You're projecting your ideal world onto the real one. That never works. Of course males are after the most capable females (best breeding) and females are after the most capable males (highly paid thus more secure in theory). Your double standard of it's okay for women to have their preferences but men's preferences are wrong is bullshit.
And where did you ladies ever get the idea that you won't be dying alone? Men don't live as long as women.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:36PM
Gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. Men are free to have their preferences, and now women are smartening up and setting criteria that suit us more. No more need to "date downward" to get a guy because more and more, marriage is obsolete. Dead. Not even pining for the fjords.
Each individual is free to act in their own best self-interest. If you have a problem with that, and that it doesn't meet the male goal of having a woman much younger than him, tough shit. Either start accepting that you'll have to consider older women as well, or stay single. Your call.
Never said women wouldn't be dying alone. Just that there's absolutely no point in observing the "man must be older than woman" convention. It harms women by leaving them alone for decades. Screw that.
Mathematically, for there to be an even chance of either party predeceasing the other, women should be 4 years older than men (YMMV depending on country). Are you going to say that's not fair?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:00AM
"Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations."
[citation needed]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:17PM
And it's wrong, because it's reductionist. You'll need more kind of money that are not interchangeable to quantify sustainability on long term - e.g. the market value of the minerals extracted in an area does not quantify the loss of soil/water/ecology on the mine site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:19PM (11 children)
learn from ancient wisdom, you bunch of barbarians donning statistical clubs:
"chi dice donna dice danno"
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:28PM (2 children)
Samma sak.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:44PM (1 child)
qui si tradisce per tradizione.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:58PM
¿Aquí se traiciona por tradición?
Vad fan säger du?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Thursday November 28 2019, @06:50PM (7 children)
Conversely. one of the advantages Western civilization has over Middle Eastern is that we approach twice the productive capacity per unit population.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Touché) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:13PM (6 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:34PM
It'd be stupid, particularly with all the overhead costs that such a society would add per job. Better to just let the employers find additional valuable stuff to do.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Friday November 29 2019, @04:16AM (4 children)
The economy is not a static pie. As you add producers and consumers it adjusts accordingly.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @07:34PM (3 children)
And as resources become more limited and unusable due to pollution and war, the economy contracts. Same with an aging population. The economy contracts. Same with bubbles collapsing. The economy collapses.
Just look at WeWork. Uber. Anything to do with the gig economy. It's designed to get a few people running a platform rich while impoverishing the many. The US sold off huge chunks of manufacturing to the Chinese (think steel as one example) to bet on the "New Economy." That led to the real estate bubble, which impoverished millions, and China's dominance in manufacturing.
And now everyone is looking to shed jobs via automation and AI. We already have robots servicing robots, so jobs servicing those robots aren't a viable long-term solution. Neither are jobs programming robots - it takes the same number of people to write the software for on robot as for a million doing the same job.
Even fruit-picking jobs are being automated. Same as driving the tractor on the farm. Milking cows? The cows are being trained to go through an automated milking machine several times a day, where they are also checked by AI for diseases.
We've already seen the first automated truck deliveries on public roads. We've had warehouses for decades where there are no lights during normal operations because there are no humans needed. We have fully automated mines - the minerals are dug up, loaded onto trains, and the trains drive away and are unloaded at their destination, and all automated. Even the trains.
We've had jobless recoveries in the past - but this time will be REALLY different.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:07AM (2 children)
There are positive and negative factors that affect the economy. But...all of that was just as true before women entered the workforce.
OK, China has been engaged in economic warfare, dumping, and currency manipulation and our manufacturing base has suffered greatly as a result - that makes the US economy weaker generally.
But...how does this relate to the fact that with a larger percentage of the population in the workforce we punch above our weight economically vs. economies where the culture excludes them?
I agree that jobs change over time and automation eliminates them. This seems equally applicable in either case.
If you keep half the population out of the economy, it will just shrink and you will still have automation, outsourcing, dumping, foreign investors, recessions, lost jobs, and recoveries.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Informative) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:28AM (1 child)
The United States engaged in economic warfare from its inception , including not respecting intellectual property rights. As for jobs, you have two choices - spread what work is left among those who want to work, or pay those who want to work to find other things to do.
As for dumping, the United States has been dumping agricultural products on international markets for ages. Farm subsidies, for example. And plenty of non-tariff barriers.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:07PM
That perplexed feeling you get when you restate someone's own assertion and they attack it.
- Doesn't actually refute your position that China is engaged in economic warfare.
- Overvalues the early US's position - the US was not that special on the world stage until a series of wars in the first half of the 20th century, that it did not start, served to jump it into a dramatically stronger position.
- Not related to discussion
Reminder - this is the premise under discussion:
This is an econo-cultural premise that assumes having women in the workforce provides advantages over economies that do not. I'm certainly interested in how this statement is incorrect. What you are providing are variations on political talking points 'USA bad', 'capitalism bad','socialism good','pollution bad', 'automation bad.' True or not, those don't matter since they don't actually support or contradict the premise.
If the premise is actually incorrect/weak/overstated/etc. somehow, I would be interested in hearing how and why.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:27PM (6 children)
1) if you are shuffling around board members, there is trouble behind it and your stock is likely in for a decline.
2) if your primary selection criteria are not the skill-set needed for a job, you will tend towards reduced performance due to selecting people less capable in the position.
A few hundred years from now, when humanity is one big unicolor mass, sex has been eliminated and children are grown in test tubes via Bokanovsky's process, all this will be behind us.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:15PM (4 children)
What skill set is needed to fill a chair on the board of directors? Directors do long term and general planning. Any details are handled by the C-suite, CEO, CFO, etc..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:35PM (2 children)
Well, there you go: long term and general business planning. Good of you to answer your own question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:14AM (1 child)
Except long term and general planning have more in common with crystal balls than any skill. Predicting the future doesn't really work well.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @04:29AM
The two aren't equivalent. And skill applies to both despite your assertion to the contrary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:25AM
Knowing someone from the Ivy League college you graduated from who's already on the board or another board. Being the CEO of company A helps get you on a board of company B, since then you can help the CEO of company B get onto the board of company A. Having a congresscritter or two in your pocket helps, as well as having turned the high mucky-mucks of whatever government agency 'regulates' you into your paid lackeys.
Don't overlook the power of mutually assured destruction. It's easier to get onto the board when you have proof that fellow director Bob beats his children and that fellow director Bill raped an intern, and they both trust you to keep quiet because they have pictures of you having carnal knowledge of a goat.
Business knowledge is nice, but rarely important.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @12:14AM
"if you are shuffling around board members"
That's a good point. It's almost like when you see those commercials, "customers save on average 15 percent by switching to ...".
That's probably true. But this creates a bias. People who will save money are more likely to switch to your service than people who will spend more money. Does this account for how much people save when they switch away from your service to your competitors? Because, chances are, people that switch to your competitors also save money since, in their specific circumstances, switching to your competitor saves them money and that's why they are switching.
Are companies that are changing board of directors doing so because they are in trouble already?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:34PM (3 children)
Also, did you know that US highway deaths decrease when more Mexican lemons are imported?
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ci700332k [acs.org]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:54PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday November 29 2019, @12:55AM (1 child)
Thanks, khallow. Hope you're having a happy thanksgiving.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:09AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:13PM
<sarcasm>And all the man-children of SN--including the gamer-gates and the MGTOW crowd--cried out in unison "Alleluia, amen!"</sarcasm> It figures that this one was submitted by that Runaway dude. Is anyone surprised?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pdfernhout on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:59PM (1 child)
If women were more likely than men to considered broader concerns and externalities, like employee health and happiness, corporate longevity, research innovation, environmental concerns, information security, or customer satisfaction, all of those might incur short-term costs that could potentially negatively affect short-term stock prices. I'm not saying women likely to be on corporate boards are more likely to do any of that than men in western culture (I don't know for sure) -- just suggesting an alternative interpretation. To explore that possibility, it would be interesting to have more metrics about the companies to see what else may have changed.
Something to reflect on: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/201410/if-women-ruled-the-world-0 [psychologytoday.com]
"Perhaps, you might think, it’s not coincidental that ancient Crete was apparently a peaceful, nature-worshipping culture, since women were in positions of power. You could see this as a good model for our societies: if more women were in high status positions, there would be less conflict and competition, and more empathy and equality. But this is probably rather simplistic. In fact, women who take on high status roles in our societies tend to take on typically ‘masculine’ characteristics of competitiveness and emotional hardness. They often don’t behave with the empathy which we often associate with the ‘feminine.’ Perhaps this isn’t their fault—if you want to succeed in a competitive society, then you obviously have to be competitive yourself. What cultures like ancient Crete show us (and there do appear to have been others) is not simply what happens when women take on positions of power, but what happens when everyone, both women and men, aren’t afflicted with what I call the ‘over-developed ego.’ This refers to our sense of being separate individuals, enclosed in our own mental space—the sense you have that you are a person ‘in here’ (inside you head), looking out at a world ‘out there.’ We have a strong sense of individuality, which can make us feel disconnected from other people, from nature, and even from our own bodies. I think that the main difference between the Minoans and later peoples like the Greeks and Romans (and indeed us in the modern world) is that the former didn’t possess this strong sense of ego, and so felt strongly connected to nature. They didn’t have the drive to accumulate power and wealth which comes from a separate and fragile ego’s need to feel more complete and significant. Perhaps for later cultures, the desire for control and power led men to oppress women, while a sense of ‘otherness’ produced negative feelings towards sexual desires and bodily processes. (I cover this in great deal in my book The Fall.) But for me, the wonderful thing about experiencing Minoan culture is the hope and optimism it has given me. It has made me realise that the world hasn’t always been such a discordant and destructive place, and that it’s not inevitable for societies to be ridden with conflict and oppression. It sounds utopian, but it’s at least conceivable that such cultures could come into existence again. And if they do, it won’t necessarily be because women are in power, but because the drive for power and the structures that support it are absent, replaced by an empathic connection with nature, other human beings and other living beings, and the whole cosmos."
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @11:20AM
FTFY
When management is acting as if money's growing on trees, the tree in question is liable to wilt come first drought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:10AM
AMDs stock price has been doing great and I think their CEO, Lisa Su, has done an excellent job managing the company so far. I guess CEO != Board of directors but still.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by esperto123 on Friday November 29 2019, @01:16AM (1 child)
2.3% over a period of 2 years is not that much, even with a pretty high number of companies, almost 2k, this could be well within the margin of error.
Now this makes me wonder who is more biased, if it is with the margin of error the result could be 2.3% in favor of more females and still mean the same thing (i.e. no actual difference) but the article would probably be shouting that more females at the board of directors brings great value to a company and that the faceless market is unbiased.
(Score: 2) by GDX on Friday November 29 2019, @03:13PM
Also they decided in anticipation that the drop reason was for them being women, and I'm sure that most of the time is that is emphasized that they are women and how good that it is that instead of their capabilty and suitability for the position. I have seen this in promotions in companies, when a woman is promoted if they dowmplay them being women and they center the reason in their capabilty it's much better accepted in the workforce that if they do the tipical pro woman crap.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 29 2019, @02:27AM (1 child)
... have the first clue who is on the board? Most buy stocks through a broker or a 401k and never pay any attention to who runs the company. I'd hazard most aren't aware at ALL if a female is or is not on the board, and couldn't name a single CEO or board member.
If stock prices fall when more women are present, I'd hazard it's due to policy shifts toward shorter-term thinking, like what happened when Carly Fiorina was in charge at HP. Short-term thinking tends to have short-term benefits but over the long haul, damages the company, and stock prices reflect that.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @05:55AM
"If stock prices fall when more women are present, I'd hazard it's due to policy shifts toward shorter-term thinking, like what happened when Carly Fiorina was in charge at HP. Short-term thinking tends to have short-term benefits but over the long haul, damages the company, and stock prices reflect that."
<sarcasm>Riiiight! Because most male company board members are much better forward-thinking visionaries than women!!!</sarcasm> If you truly believe that your typical male board member is looking further out into the future than the next quarterly earnings report then I have a really great deal on a bridge for you.