[shasta]

> Letting the legacy of past discrimination stand in perpetuity because fixing it would require temporary discrimination in the opposite direction?

I'm skeptical of the explanation that pay inequality between genders is caused by irrational business-hurting discrimination when the vast majority of people I meet in tech don't seem to have any aversion to hiring women. Suppose 10% of companies won't hire you because of irrational reasons. What does that do to your market value? Under the simplest economic model, it does nothing. Because there is still competition between the 90%. For irrational discrimination to cause pay inequality, it has to be widespread. (Edit: Disclaimer -- the above argument may be flawed. Feel free to correct my reasoning.)

[rayiner]

> Suppose 10% of companies won't hire you because of irrational reasons. What does that do to your market value? Under the simplest economic model, it does nothing.

Under simple economic models, given fixed supply, small changes in demand can have large impacts on prices.

[shasta]

Depends. There obviously has to be a large change in the demand curve at the supply point if that point is fixed. But I agree that a small horizontal shift in a demand curve can have a big impact.

I don't think that's the right way of looking at it, though, because it treats the men and women supply-demand problems as independent. As long as the prefer-men employers are outnumbered by men, they won't affect equilibrium in this simplistic model.

[TeMPOraL]

Because there isn't irrational business-hurting discrimination among programmers!

>> to explain why women are vastly more represented amongst high SAT math scorers than among programmers and engineers.

Except they're not! Pretty much every source I've seen puts women as underrepresented on SAT math scores, and this trend apparently goes back down to secondary school or earlier.