[randomdata]

That’s not underpaid. To be underpaid normally means one received less than was agreed upon. That scenario is offering a discount, maybe.

If it is true that women are likely to offer discounts, it questions why for-profit companies hire men at all? Meanwhile we worry about companies not being willing to hire women, not men.

[NeoTar]

Five minutes research":

Wiktionary - Underpaid: "Getting too little financial compensation for one's work." Meriam Webster - Underpay: "to pay less than what is normal or required" Cambridge Dictionary - underpay: "to pay (a person) too little" Dictionary.com - underpaid: "not paid enough"

Only the Cambridge version of those could imply (to me) only the definition of receiving less than what was agreed upon.

I personally like the Meriam Webster definition. If a software engineer is normally paid $ X, and you are paying $ 0.5*X, then that person is underpaid.

[randomdata]

> Wiktionary - Underpaid: "Getting too little financial compensation for one's work." Meriam Webster - Underpay: "to pay less than what is normal or required" Cambridge Dictionary - underpay: "to pay (a person) too little" Dictionary.com - underpaid: "not paid enough"

Exactly. There is nothing in there about agreeing to take less than you might have been able to get if you chose to charge more.

> If a software engineer is normally paid $ X, and you are paying $ 0.5X, then that person is underpaid.*

The general opinion is that people are not fungible. Why do you believe that they are?