I see it using the .co.uk, but not the .com.

Productivity is a measure of output per unit of labour - neither of those directly mean that increased productivity imply the worker not being compensated appropriately. Certainly one approach is to demand extra unpaid labour, but that clearly has limits. Other methods are to be more efficient or introduce machinery.

Oops. Forgot Slashdot and the 21st century don't mix so well.

GÄisÇ dà mÄiguà rén, cÃng xÄnqÃn gÅngzuà de rén tÅu de gÅngzuÃ

No. You missed the bit where in your self-righteousness moralistic hectoring you missed that not bailing out the banks would have meant financial Armageddon. Not bailing out Lehman nearly did for the entire system. If we'd saved it, we might well have avoided four years of stagnation. You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Gosh, it would be nice if people took responsibility for what they did. You're a fucking genius. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong, and people like you are a bloody menace.

You miss out the part where you describe what would have happened in 2007 had the banks not been bailed out.

No, because you don't have a sliver of evidence (I'm good at hiding bodies). On the other hand, there is a welter of statistical evidence that hiring practices are unfair.

Well clearly they aren't, as Google hire a lot less women. But I'm struggling to see legitimate difference in hiring criteria that would result in such a disparity.

So why is there such a disparity between Google & Yahoo's female proportions?

So much text and you couldn't answer this one question?

There's an even simpler test. Assuming that Google & Yahoo are broadly fishing in the same pool, they should have similar female/minority proportions. They don't.

Yeah, unfortunately the preceding fifty years where you kept hiring those possessing a penis and white skin meant you kind of lost the right to be trusted to just "hire the best candidate".

You're quite right. I was thinking of male/female, not man/woman.

I'm just asking the question. Do you actually keep records and check them? Or do you just assume you couldn't possibly be biased in any way, at any stage? No, employers are not the only weak link in the chain. Doesn't mean they are never a problem. I also work in a STEM-heavy industry - not IT - and diversity in hiring isn't an issue for us because we work extremely hard at it.

You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.