The economic cost of not being a white male

[Gustaf]

That's weird, Memphis told me that women have an easier time getting high-paid jobs.

[Gustaf]

Vivienne Ming  should also analyze compensation patterns  in the NBA to discern economic cost (both in opportunity and direct compensation costs) to derive the economic cost of not being a Black male.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at.  But, in so far as the recent two time league MVP was the  non Black Steve Nash, I think you're going to have to actually show some evidence that black players have an easier time of it in the NBA, if that's the point you are trying to get at.

However, whatever point you are trying to make, it is a distraction from the point brought up in the research that I've posted on.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that Vivienne Ming should really consider the fact that compensation are set by market forces which is determined the economic value of the labor produced.  If she believes that being of a certain race gender or sexual orientation leads to lower compensation then she is really saying is the the market is mis-pricing the labor value of these certain demographic categories, in this case in the IT field.  If so the best way Vivienne Ming should react is not to produce such a report but to form a company that will hire these programmers or would be programmers whose labor value are mis-priced in the market which would include women URM and LGBT developers or would be developers .  While such a IT firm would not be another google or yahoo it would be quite profitable given the much lower labor costs it will pay relative to its peers.  I do not know much about Vivienne Ming but she seems quite a capable person and should be able to pull this off.  In fact I think she is a fool for producing this report. If anyone found a certain asset be if financial, or in this case labor value, to be under priced, the first logical reaction should to be scoop up said asset as the below fair market value before anyone else find out about it.  It is quite foolish of her to publish such a survey alerting others to such a possible under-pricing of said labor value.  

Of course if we are talking about IT I do not know why Vivienne Ming is so focused on White Males.  Asian Males are even more over-represented than White Males in the IT industry.  Even if Asian Males are less over-represented in IT upper management roles which are even higher paying (I myself would be an exception here) they are still well over-represented in IT upper management roles relative to their share of the population.  So I do not know why she focus so much no the "cost" of not being a straight White Man and instead talk about the "cost" of not being a straight Asian Man.

I don't worship free markets as much as you obviously do.

Jaichind does have a point. It always strikes me as a little implausible that every ruthless capitalist in this world would be willing to walk away from that much free money just to satisfy their bigotry. I mean, there might be some such people but it would only take one or two evil capitalists prioritizing their own profits instead of their ideological committment to racism or sexism to fix the wage gap, if it was solely about that.

The existence of discrimination has been confirmed by multiple CV studies in many countries. But I would exercise caution in generalizing the impact of that on the macro level.

[Gustaf]

Vivienne Ming  should also analyze compensation patterns  in the NBA to discern economic cost (both in opportunity and direct compensation costs) to derive the economic cost of not being a Black male.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at.  But, in so far as the recent two time league MVP was the  non Black Steve Nash, I think you're going to have to actually show some evidence that black players have an easier time of it in the NBA, if that's the point you are trying to get at.

However, whatever point you are trying to make, it is a distraction from the point brought up in the research that I've posted on.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that Vivienne Ming should really consider the fact that compensation are set by market forces which is determined the economic value of the labor produced.  If she believes that being of a certain race gender or sexual orientation leads to lower compensation then she is really saying is the the market is mis-pricing the labor value of these certain demographic categories, in this case in the IT field.  If so the best way Vivienne Ming should react is not to produce such a report but to form a company that will hire these programmers or would be programmers whose labor value are mis-priced in the market which would include women URM and LGBT developers or would be developers .  While such a IT firm would not be another google or yahoo it would be quite profitable given the much lower labor costs it will pay relative to its peers.  I do not know much about Vivienne Ming but she seems quite a capable person and should be able to pull this off.  In fact I think she is a fool for producing this report. If anyone found a certain asset be if financial, or in this case labor value, to be under priced, the first logical reaction should to be scoop up said asset as the below fair market value before anyone else find out about it.  It is quite foolish of her to publish such a survey alerting others to such a possible under-pricing of said labor value.  

Of course if we are talking about IT I do not know why Vivienne Ming is so focused on White Males.  Asian Males are even more over-represented than White Males in the IT industry.  Even if Asian Males are less over-represented in IT upper management roles which are even higher paying (I myself would be an exception here) they are still well over-represented in IT upper management roles relative to their share of the population.  So I do not know why she focus so much no the "cost" of not being a straight White Man and instead talk about the "cost" of not being a straight Asian Man.

I don't worship free markets as much as you obviously do.

Jaichind does have a point. It always strikes me as a little implausible that every ruthless capitalist in this world would be willing to walk away from that much free money just to satisfy their bigotry. I mean, there might be some such people but it would only take one or two evil capitalists prioritizing their own profits instead of their ideological committment to racism or sexism to fix the wage gap, if it was solely about that.

The existence of discrimination has been confirmed by multiple CV studies in many countries. But I would exercise caution in generalizing the impact of that on the macro level.

Milton Friedman made the same argument that Jaichind did.  The problem is is that behavioral economics has largely overturned his ideas since then.

Although I have no doubt that Milton Friedman knew that racism was real, when it came to sexism his view was likely that of 'we know that irrational economic behavior exists, but these irrational acts cancel each other out.'  Since then though, behavioral economics has shown that in many cases where irrational economic behavior exists, most people behave irrationally in the same way.  So, the idea that some employers would discriminate against men, while others would discriminate against women (I'm sure Friedman would never have argued that the discrimination would have been even) and that it would more or less cancel out, has been disproven.

More importantly, the concept of subtle racism or subtle sexism is also now well established.  The idea that hiring managers may not be racist or sexist, but even if they aren't aware of it, they are more likely to hire the type of people like them or that they've grown up with, or gone to university with.

So, Friedman, and by extension Jaichind are simply wrong.

On the final point, a business can engage in racism and sexism for a long time if the costs aren't prohibitive or if nearly every other business they compete with does the same thing.  In a market with perfect competition they probably couldn't do it for long, but most industries aren't perfect competition.  I agree with you and Jaichind that in the long run markets will eliminate this sort of behavior due to competitive forces, but as Keynes said "in the long run, we're all dead."

I do a lot of behavioral economics but the question here is one of magnitude. I'm not saying there is no discrimination. The question is whether it can be a huge driving force. That would require a lot of market imperfection that seems implausible, especially in a field like IT startups.

To DeadFlag, sure, I think you have a point, but to me that isn't discrimination exactly. Or, rather, I don't think your point is a defense of the position being criticized here which does have to do with manager decisions rather than structural reasons some people perform worse, internalize other norms, etc.