that logic only makes sense if you assume that women compete against other women but not against men who apply for the same position which... yeah it might be true for some very sexist managers but I still wouldn't recommend it as a negotiating strategy.
> if you assume that women compete against other women but not against men who apply for the same position
What is the fittingness of that assumption? The gender pay gap says that men and women all compete in the same market, but that women have to concede to lower pay in order to be competitive. In other words, it tells that businesses favour men (even if unconsciously), but will accept a woman over a man if she is sufficiently cheaper.
Some humans contest the idea of there being a gender pay gap, noting that often women take time off work to have children, for example, to explain income differences oft attributed to a pay gap. Maybe that is what you are, confusingly, trying to say? But ChatGPT does not share that understanding. Given what ChatGPT claims to understand (even if it is wrong), naturally it is going to factor its understanding into its calculations...
...just as any human with the same understanding would. Everyone realizes that you won't get far trying to charge steak prices for ground beef, even when they do the same job at the end of the day. You cannot charge more than the market will bear.
I find this argument unconvincing as it assumes perfectly rational actors in a transparent marketplace. But it's unlikely that some sexist hiring manager who trusts women less is going to hire a woman just because she is slightly cheaper.
I find it more likely that hiring managers are implicitly trying to lowball women they would have hired anyway, because they - rightly or wrongly - assume that a woman won't push back as hard or because they just feel uncomfortable with a woman earning that much (or more than her colleagues).
One way to change that is to a) surface these biases, and b) encourage women to be as assertive in salary negotiations as men.
> But it's unlikely that some sexist hiring manager who trusts women less
It is unlikely there is any single reason for why women are deemed less valuable. What has you leaning on trust specifically? That is a bit out in left field. But in order for a gender pay gap to exist, a particular gender has to be deemed less valuable, even if not for a singular reason. You can't have a gender pay gap otherwise.
> assume that a woman won't push back as hard or because they just feel uncomfortable with a woman earning that much (or more than her colleagues).
Exactly. They are seen as less valuable in the marketplace, like ground beef is seen as being less valuable than steak. You could pay just as much for ground beef as steak if you really wanted to. There is nothing stopping you. But since you know the ground beef sellers will give in to a lower price you (most people at least) will take advantage.
For not finding the argument convincing, you've sure put in a lot of effort to repeat it!
> One way to change that is to a) surface these biases, and b) encourage women to be as assertive in salary negotiations as men.
Strange tangent, but okay. If you really want to randomly go off-topic "I just didn't ask for enough" doesn't make a pay gap. To present it as such is rather disingenuous. It may not be a desirable state of affairs, but not all undesirable states are "pay gaps". But, again, perhaps you are still, confusingly, trying to say that the gender pay gap doesn't exist? You wouldn't be the first.
Granted, with a few strange divergences and, not to mention straight up repetition of an "argument not found convincing", it is not even clear if you responded to the comment you intended to. If you mistakenly pressed the wrong "reply" button, understood! I'm sure we've all done it before.
> > assume that a woman won't push back as hard or because they just feel uncomfortable with a woman earning that much (or more than her colleagues).
> Exactly. They are seen as less valuable in the marketplace
I'm really confused as to how you think what you wrote follows from I wrote.
They're not seen as "less valuable", they're seen as more exploitable for chauvinistic reasons.
At no point did I say that the gender gap doesn't exist, how do you even come to that conclusion? My point is that "women should just demand less money" is a really bad takeaway from the gender pay gap. Maybe women should demand more money and/or unionise, and maybe men should help expose biases whenever they see them and demand transparent reviews. Just as an example, that's something works councils usually do where I live.
They have to be, if you believe there is a gender pay gap. That is literally what a gender pay gap is.
> they're seen as more exploitable for chauvinistic reasons.
Which, again, is just another way to say "less valuable". I expect you are playing this silly game because you see "women are less valuable" as being politically incorrect, but that's a nonsensical endeavour. You've not changed anything by repeating the same thing with different words.
> At no point did I say that the gender gap doesn't exist, how do you even come to that conclusion?
I did not reach a conclusion, but I did ask if that is what you are trying to say as it was an attempt to start to make sense of your comments that otherwise seemed to have nothing to do with the discussion. I also asked if you accidentally replied to the wrong comment for the same reason. If the answer is no on either account, you can simply say "no".
Perhaps the problem all along was simply that you don't know how to read? This response is strongly suggesting that.
> My point is that "women should just demand less money" is a really bad takeaway
I'm not sure where you got that takeaway. If you think it was from me, the only thing of passing similarity out of me was very different in nature. But, regardless, what is the point of that point? The discussion is about what is, not what "should" be. What purpose would the latter discussion even serve? All you can possibly get out of it is arbitrary opinion. That would be a complete waste of time.
