I think there are quite large social and economic costs for trying to artificially increase women in senior posts just to satisfy statistic-obsessed people like Mr. Kristof and feminists. These are:
1. costs for the campaign to put more women in senior posts, such as campaign ads, time and energy that could have been used otherwise for other, more productive purpose.
2. costs for the company that was pressured to hire second-rate people (affirmative-actioned women) in senior posts, which is essentially a productivity decrease by bypassing the most qualified people for the job (sorry Mr. Kristof and other readers but they are most likely men) and hiring under-qualified women.
3. further costs for the company that was put in disadvantageous position against other companies that hire the most qualified person whom it had to pass simply because that person was a male.
4. costs associated with setting up and operating government agencies tasked with monitoring percentage of women in senior jobs.
Now, let's look at the benefits of having second-rate women as senior managers:
1. It will make Mr. Kristof and other feminists happy; nothing could give them more pleasure than sipping coffee and glancing at a pie chart showing more women are getting senior jobs.
2. It will make women who got unusually fast promotion happy - who doesn't like promotion, which means more power, more status and more money!?
Remember, if you know economics even a little bit, all the costs for the above 1-4 will eventually be passed on to general public in the long run. The only winner in this bizarre gender-equity game is Mr. Kristof and some women who would get undeserved promotion, who could not rise to senior posts otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment