[DelaneyM]

Because they can't.

Explicitly choosing to hire women and pay them less is not acceptable. Not hiring someone who happens to be a woman at the same rate as an equally qualified man is completely acceptable.

And I'm not alleging explicit widespread prejudice here; I'm giving a hypothesis to explain behavior caused by implicit biases.

[taneq]

Your first post:

> An alternative interpretation is that women are behaving entirely logically with the knowledge that their employability is maximized if they set their desired salaries lower than men with equivalent experience.

Me: Then why are companies not saving themselves $30k/year per senior dev by exclusively hiring women?

Your second post:

> Because they can't.

Which is it? If you can choose to hire a man over a woman who's just as good, you can choose to hire a woman over a man who's just as good and much more expensive.

[DelaneyM]

These aren't mutually exclusive, it's a perfectly logical situation in a game theoretic sense.

But I'm not arguing either, I'm pointing out that the data does not lead to the conclusion.