Comment on dyk

• cockmushroom@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  If you’d fleshed yhat out into an actual argument you’d likely have realized that you’ve no leg to stand on.

  The only way that carries over for a conparison, regardless of your conclusion/evaluation is if the numerator (the total amount of income) is larger for men than it is for women such that the denominator (the number of people in the partition) cannot make up the difference. If you’ve got six pears and your parents have twelve, then you’re equal on pears. If you’ve 6 lemons and they’ve 20, they each have almost 2 lemons for every single one you have. Ratios are designed for meaningful relative comparisons given that the dimensions/units on both sides of the relation agree. Their rational components are not.

  source

  • jeffep@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The premise was that there is a preference to hire women over men. The fact is that 66% of the workforce is male. Where is the preference?

    We have no information about applicant ratios which would be helpful. So the conservative estimate is 50:50 until we know more. But in any case, the current data give us no indication for a preference for women that was claimed in this post.

    Get some sleep!

    source

    • Rooster326@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • jeffep@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        You’re implying here that the poor bosses have to hire men for some reason beyond their control, while they would really like to hire women instead.

        The one data point that would support that it’s applicant ratios as I already mentioned. We don’t have that afaict.

        Get some pizza

        source