I'm a loss to know what that even means. Yes, sometimes women are hired instead of men. That is indisputable.
I didn't say sometimes women are hired instead of men. I said at least sometimes there should be a case where women are hired more than men.
Um by the time a company gets large enough to have a statistically significnt workforce
Statistically significance comes into play when you're doing an experiment and you're wondering if the combination of sample size and effect size is due to randomness.
I don't know what you mean by "statistically significant workforce" since we're not talking about an experiment.
it makes no sense to talk about "one" company since hiring decisions are made locally.
What? Of course it makes sense. It's proof by contradiction. If it's true that women do the exact same quality and quantity of work for significantly less money, then there should be a big success story by now of an all (or nearly all) female tech company that does the same quality and quantity of work as its competition, but either charges significantly less or has significantly higher profit margins.
You don't have an answer for this contradiction, that's clear. It's because there is none... the premise is false.
Besides, no one would be dumb enough to make that an official policiy because it's probably illegal and would invite the most awful PR.
What official policy? It's perfectly fine, and would be lauded, to start a tech company "for women, by women" or whatever. You're grasping for straws here.
Forget 100% women, why aren't there tech companies that are 80% women and 20% men? That obviously wouldn't be a big scandal since there are plenty of 80% men, 20% women tech companies. Saving 30% of salary on 80% of your labor force would be a huge advantage. You see that right? Do you understand what I'm talking about, and why it would make strong business sense to do... if it were possible?
The answer is, as I said, yes it would make great sense, and so the reason there isn't a single example of such a company is that... it's not possible. Women don't accept 30% less pay for the exact same work. If you're paying a woman 30% less than a man, it's because her work is not as good as the alternative.
OK, basically you're arguing that a measured pay gap doesn't exist because people are too clever even though there are plenty of stupid people.
You're joking right? The measured pay gap? If you actually read the reports that come up with things like "women make 70 cents on the dollar" you'll find that they are looking at aggregate income across the entire population. Once they start correcting for differences, the pay gap magically shrinks. Last I saw, when factoring into account education, experience, time commitment, and a bunch of other factors, it was like 92 cents on the dollar. As they add more control variables, the gap gets smaller and smaller. It's disingenuous at this point to even say an 8 cent pay gap exists.... what exists is an *unexplained* 8 cent pay gap.
And once again you're missing the fundamental idea of proof by contradiction. Yes there are plenty of stupid people. Good job. But there are at least some smart people right? So out of the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs just in the tech industry in this country, and the top 0.1% of those people who are smart, cunning, ruthless, and willing to do anything to make a buck... why haven't ANY of them stumbled on this rather obvious idea and used the gender pay disparity to mop the floor with the competition?
You have no answer for that.