Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

hbswk.hbs.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#21

Post by [deleted] »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?

The United States is about 5% of the World's population, and produces about 25% of the World's economic output. This has been true for about the last 60 years. The USA and Western Europe have had the most expensive labor, focusing on high-quality products and services that require more education, but justify the higher labor cost.

[deleted]

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#22

Post by commanda »

mahmud wrote: post #11

This is well understood in the middle-east. Within a company or a government office, the bureaucratic wild goose-chase stops the moment you're sent to a woman's desk. They just get it done. It's even a signal nowadays. Companies with women in mid to upper management positions are signaling they're not corrupt, and they're all about efficiency and quality of work. At least in the Gulf, if you want it done, put an Arab…

This is awesome. When I was growing up, in Saudi Arabia, I never once saw a Saudi woman at a desk. I've read that King Abdul Aziz University actively recruits women professors and students, and that's such a wonderful thing to hear.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#23

Post by commanda »

Intuitively, this makes sense. If your company has walled itself off from hiring 1/2 of the population, of course you will be passing over some highly skilled applicants who are in the sector you've walled yourself off from. By broadening your search, you will get a larger pool of talented applicants.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#24

Post by jtbigwoo »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #8
jtbigwoo wrote: post #6

It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no option…

Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?

I think it's generally agreed that the U.S. was the world's foremost economy and the home of many of the major innovations of the 20th century. I'm contending that our public education system was a major enabler of that creativity and productivity.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#25

Post by xentronium »

jtbigwoo wrote: post #6

It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no option…

Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching.

All the best chefs are men, best professors I know are men too. And military requires more endurance that women normally have.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#26

Post by joe_the_user »

jerf wrote: post #18
billybob wrote: post #12

If I wanted to be sexist, I would say: that should work here. If there's a glass ceiling, then corporations that don't have it should out-compete those that do, because they'll be drawing from a bigger talent pool. So the conclusion would be that either 1) this isn't being tried, 2) it's still in the process of succeeding, such that discrimination hasn't been competed out of the market, or 3) there really is a gap in…

When you look at the situation in the United States, and try to take all the factors into account to figure out whether or not women are being discriminated against... ... you'll come away with your head spinning because there's just too damned many factors. Consider the factor of giving generous paid maternity leave. Obviously a benefit. Except that a company won't want to hire or pay someone that may disappear like…

Yes, men's versus women's opportunities are complex in the US. Whether they are exactly equal doesn't matter. They are close enough that the most competent, skill women have good opportunities - which means that there's less of a reserve of the cheap and competent women's labor out there.

This is might be a explanation for the decline of women in computing fields. What could be happening that there are now more other fields where the most competent can go and not get any hassle at all or even experience preferential treatment. Thus the only reserve of the cheap and competent labor in the field would be those who are drawn to computing from early age. For whatever cultural, biological or other reason, these are mostly men and so this would explain why programming field has become more and more male over the last twenty years.

I know that the proportion of blacks who teaching in inner city schools declined tremendously from, say 1965 to 1985 because the barriers to those black who attended college dropped down and many more went into industry instead of teaching.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#27

Post by yummyfajitas »

jtbigwoo wrote: post #24
yummyfajitas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?

I think it's generally agreed that the U.S. was the world's foremost economy and the home of many of the major innovations of the 20th century. I'm contending that our public education system was a major enabler of that creativity and productivity.

But many of the major and minor innovations were developed by people who didn't attend our public education system. This remains true even today.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#28

Post by yummyfajitas »

patio11 wrote: post #14
billybob wrote: post #12

If I wanted to be sexist, I would say: that should work here. If there's a glass ceiling, then corporations that don't have it should out-compete those that do, because they'll be drawing from a bigger talent pool. So the conclusion would be that either 1) this isn't being tried, 2) it's still in the process of succeeding, such that discrimination hasn't been competed out of the market, or 3) there really is a gap in…

I think there is a huge opportunity for exploiting the fact that the market clearing price of 1 hour from someone with a graduate school degree is currently zero if she is also a stay-at-home mother. I do it on small scale. Demand Media does it industrial scale. Both of us put together can't absorb even a sizable fraction of the woman-hours available for sale in a single Midwestern town.

Could you elaborate on this?

If this is indeed the case, I'd be very interested in tapping into it.

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#29

Post by potatolicious »

xentronium wrote: post #25
jtbigwoo wrote: post #6

It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no option…

Call me sexist, but I firmly believe there are three areas women should not generally be part of: military, cooking and teaching. All the best chefs are men, best professors I know are men too. And military requires more endurance that women normally have.

I know of many female chefs of great repute and talent - and I know some very good female professors.

I don't see the link between "most good chefs are men" and "women should not be chefs". It's a bit like "no Black people ride at the front of the bus" and "Black people should not ride at the front of the bus" - you've conveniently assumed a level playing field where there likely is none, and you've also erroneously linked the current state of things to the ideal state of things.

As for the military - not being a military man I'm not sure I am qualified to comment... but are there not many more roles in the military that do not require the massive amounts of brawn that "only men" can provide?

Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't

#30

Post by CapitalistCartr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27
jtbigwoo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's generally agreed that the U.S. was the world's foremost economy and the home of many of the major innovations of the 20th century. I'm contending that our public education system was a major enabler of that creativity and productivity.

But many of the major and minor innovations were developed by people who didn't attend our public education system. This remains true even today.

Simply because not everyone who innovated went to college doesn't negate the value of our public education system. Nearly everyone in the United States after World War Two went to public school for some time.
Post reply on HN