ECB: Men need not apply « Economics Job Market Rumors

1 year - 198 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 843 Goods vs 227 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Job Market » European Job Market

ECB: Men need not apply

Economist
9997

I'm not an author but I saw this paper that shows the positive effects of affirmative actions: TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A CASE STUDY IN FRANCE.
Abstract: We study chess, an activity where we have access to the universe of participants, a universal and quite accurate measure of performance ability, and where an affirmative action quota has been implemented on the elite level, the French club championship, several decades ago. We find that on the club championship level women perform better over time, to a degree that they outperform more and more men. Furthermore, the quota effects trickle-down on the national level with female players becoming more prevalent, especially at the non-youth level. Both, the increase in representation, as well as the performance gains of female players in France are not due to time trends, since they are not reflected in other EU15 countries. Finally, the gains of women do not appear to come at the cost of men. We end with a discussion on how the findings in chess can apply to other environments.

There is an interesting difference between the select group of female chess players, who are all motivated to succeed and got into the game voluntarily, and the female adult part of the general population, who is more heterogeneous in terms of how they want to secure their livelihoods. This heterogeneity is possibly causing the merit gap between male and female applicants as it translates into a smaller female than male pool of suitable candidates for any given job, which f3minists misinterpret as discrimination of women.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
f180

Italians are overrepresented because (1) italian universities produce more graduates than the Italian economy can absorb and (2) the relative salary is way more attractive for italians relative to germans, dutch, etc, who can find equally well paid job in the private sector in their countries.
You don't need to bring up your racist stereotypes.

The Italian mafia network is the most cliquey in the EU institutions. Once you get an Italian in, in a few years, half the department will be Italians. The Turkish cabal cannot come close.

Italians are overrepresented because (1) italian universities produce more graduates than the Italian economy can absorb and (2) the relative salary is way more attractive for italians relative to germans, dutch, etc, who can find equally well paid job in the private sector in their countries.
You don't need to bring up your racist stereotypes.

The underlying reasons hold true for other PIGS countries but Italians are still overrepresented compared to them.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4121

This makes no logical sense. Obviously you can be opposed to restricting hiring pools to women without thinking that women are inherently inferior.

You know it is sexist simply to assume that all women think alike.
Just as it is sexist to assume that hiring female candidates, or restricting the pool of candidates to females, for research and policy positions at the ECB somehow comes at the expense of merit. THAT can only happen if one believes that women are inherently inferior as economists, which is absurd.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
8c9a

For centuries, women have been excluded from prestigious jobs and degrees solely because they are the sex that makes babies. They have had to prove to be better than their male competitors in order to get the same position, only to be paid less than their male colleagues. This is in the data.
Now, finally, some women made it to top positions (most of them well beyond their baby-making age, god forbid) and decided gender should be taken into account when scanning applications (some of the smarter men agree on this too).
If you have a really good profile you have nothing to worry about, you'll be in the 50% of selected male candidates.
If not, maybe get used to the idea that you can't have it all, or that you just need to try harder (after all, we women have been told this since we were born, and yet we still manage to get a career AND a family AND do all the unpaid care work, so it can't be that hard, right?).

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 8 Vlad !
Economist
1a84

For centuries, women have been excluded from prestigious jobs and degrees solely because they are the sex that makes babies. They have had to prove to be better than their male competitors in order to get the same position, only to be paid less than their male colleagues. This is in the data.
Now, finally, some women made it to top positions (most of them well beyond their baby-making age, god forbid) and decided gender should be taken into account when scanning applications (some of the smarter men agree on this too).
If you have a really good profile you have nothing to worry about, you'll be in the 50% of selected male candidates.
If not, maybe get used to the idea that you can't have it all, or that you just need to try harder (after all, we women have been told this since we were born, and yet we still manage to get a career AND a family AND do all the unpaid care work, so it can't be that hard, right?).

Nah women need affirmative action b/c they have 4 billion fewer brain cells than men, 15% smaller brains, are more emotional and get tired more easily, and also look like children so people are afraid to be mean to them

didn't read the rest of your post see ya

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4121

What does this mean?

gender should be taken into account when scanning applications

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
8ac5

If you have a really good profile you have nothing to worry about, you'll be in the 50% of selected male candidates.
If not, maybe get used to the idea that you can't have it all, or that you just need to try harder

The truth is that, for many promotions, there is only one position so if you are not the first one you are out. Hence the disgusting inequality with less capable women being promoted only because of their gender.

You should fight against discrimination instead of supporting another one

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
710c

For centuries, women have been excluded from prestigious jobs and degrees solely because they are the sex that makes babies.

\

Neither you nor any other woman on the planet has experienced "centuries" of discrimination. There is no sense in which discriminating against men in the present somehow reverses that historical discrimination. It rather just means the injustice continues, mirrored.

Young women in 2022 graduating with PhDs in economics in particular have likely experienced substantial _positive_ discrimination in academia, and they did not somehow inherit the negative discrimination other human beings with two X chromosomes did in other times and places. That negative discrimination befalling women in other times and places is, then, no reason to give those PhD economist women preferential treatment.

If you have a really good profile you have nothing to worry about, you'll be in the 50% of selected male candidates.
If not, maybe get used to the idea that you can't have it all, or that you just need to try harder (after all, we women have been told this since we were born, and yet we still manage to get a career AND a family AND do all the unpaid care work, so it can't be that hard, right?).

What appalling reasoning. In those other times and places we discussed above in which women did face serious discrimination, do you think that the observation that the female candidates with "really good profiles" could get jobs despite the discrimination in some way rationalizes discrimination against women? If not, why do you think it does for men?

Lots of both men and women have families, and lots of both men and women are single: what does that have to do with anything? Is it ok to discriminate against married but not single men, or vice versa, or something?

It is obviously false that women "do all the unpaid care work." But even ignoring that fact, is it really your argument that if women do unpaid care work and men don't, that justifies rampant, explicit, institutional discrimination against men?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1278

The point is that believing that restricting the pool of applicants to females somehow reduces the quality of the research implies that women are, becuase they are women, inferior researchers. And that is the definition of sexism. Ergo, opposing quotas for women is sexism.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
93e4

I do believe that we need to foster diversity in the field, but not at the cost of discriminating against young scholars who are not responsible for how the field has treated minorities in the past.

You're part of the problem. Change your mindset and stand up for your people.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4121

This might be the most stunningly st*pid post in a thread full of stunningly st*pid posts

The point is that believing that restricting the pool of applicants to females somehow reduces the quality of the research implies that women are, becuase they are women, inferior researchers. And that is the definition of sexism. Ergo, opposing quotas for women is sexism.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
710c

The point is that believing that restricting the pool of applicants to females somehow reduces the quality of the research implies that women are, becuase they are women, inferior researchers.

"somehow"

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4121

Sometimes the best male candidate is better than the best female candidate, obviously

Sometimes the best female candidate is better than the best male candidate, obviously

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
0339

For centuries, women have been excluded from prestigious jobs and degrees solely because they are the sex that makes babies.

\
Neither you nor any other woman on the planet has experienced "centuries" of discrimination. There is no sense in which discriminating against men in the present somehow reverses that historical discrimination. It rather just means the injustice continues, mirrored.
Young women in 2022 graduating with PhDs in economics in particular have likely experienced substantial _positive_ discrimination in academia, and they did not somehow inherit the negative discrimination other human beings with two X chromosomes did in other times and places. That negative discrimination befalling women in other times and places is, then, no reason to give those PhD economist women preferential treatment.

If you have a really good profile you have nothing to worry about, you'll be in the 50% of selected male candidates.
If not, maybe get used to the idea that you can't have it all, or that you just need to try harder (after all, we women have been told this since we were born, and yet we still manage to get a career AND a family AND do all the unpaid care work, so it can't be that hard, right?).

What appalling reasoning. In those other times and places we discussed above in which women did face serious discrimination, do you think that the observation that the female candidates with "really good profiles" could get jobs despite the discrimination in some way rationalizes discrimination against women? If not, why do you think it does for men?
Lots of both men and women have families, and lots of both men and women are single: what does that have to do with anything? Is it ok to discriminate against married but not single men, or vice versa, or something?
It is obviously false that women "do all the unpaid care work." But even ignoring that fact, is it really your argument that if women do unpaid care work and men don't, that justifies rampant, explicit, institutional discrimination against men?

Perfectly said

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e65b

This thread just proves that Lagarde is right. I never read so many stpd arguments in so short a time. Data:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/pdf/orga/ECB_managers.pdf
In a brief review of the main DGs (Econ 3/14, MP 1/3, FS 1/3, Research 1/8), I count no more than 1 out of 3 being a woman in managing positions. Can't say that ratios look better on lower levels and I have no reason to expect that. Some other DGs come closer to 50-50 (haven't checked, please do).
Now, you (as in many of those who posted here) are so sure that for every of those few women somewhere there sit some crying men who were better. And how many qualified women do you think were left behind to get to those ratios in the first place? None? Dream on.
You claim to be economists. Tell me then, how do you get from one equilibrium to another? Policies, dear friend, since your beliefs are obviously not changing.
The only reason why we are having this conversation is that for the first time a group of people (MALES, most probably WHITE) is feeling (not saying that they are) discriminated who did not grow up with the expectation of having to confront such a situation. Cry, boys, cry.
Or take an example in how women and minorities handle this situation: Work harder. Be better. And stop complaining. It is shameful to watch.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
4121

I fucking love how its fine to displace a "better" man but a heinous crime not to hire or promote a "qualified" woman. I don't want "qualified" people. I want the best.

This thread just proves that Lagarde is right. I never read so many stpd arguments in so short a time. Data:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/pdf/orga/ECB_managers.pdf
In a brief review of the main DGs (Econ 3/14, MP 1/3, FS 1/3, Research 1/8), I count no more than 1 out of 3 being a woman in managing positions. Can't say that ratios look better on lower levels and I have no reason to expect that. Some other DGs come closer to 50-50 (haven't checked, please do).
Now, you (as in many of those who posted here) are so sure that for every of those few women somewhere there sit some crying men who were better. And how many qualified women do you think were left behind to get to those ratios in the first place? None? Dream on.
You claim to be economists. Tell me then, how do you get from one equilibrium to another? Policies, dear friend, since your beliefs are obviously not changing.
The only reason why we are having this conversation is that for the first time a group of people (MALES, most probably WHITE) is feeling (not saying that they are) discriminated who did not grow up with the expectation of having to confront such a situation. Cry, boys, cry.
Or take an example in how women and minorities handle this situation: Work harder. Be better. And stop complaining. It is shameful to watch.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
0a65

I'm not an author but I saw this paper that shows the positive effects of affirmative actions: TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A CASE STUDY IN FRANCE.
Abstract: We study chess, an activity where we have access to the universe of participants, a universal and quite accurate measure of performance ability, and where an affirmative action quota has been implemented on the elite level, the French club championship, several decades ago. We find that on the club championship level women perform better over time, to a degree that they outperform more and more men. Furthermore, the quota effects trickle-down on the national level with female players becoming more prevalent, especially at the non-youth level. Both, the increase in representation, as well as the performance gains of female players in France are not due to time trends, since they are not reflected in other EU15 countries. Finally, the gains of women do not appear to come at the cost of men. We end with a discussion on how the findings in chess can apply to other environments.

There is an interesting difference between the select group of female chess players, who are all motivated to succeed and got into the game voluntarily, and the female adult part of the general population, who is more heterogeneous in terms of how they want to secure their livelihoods. This heterogeneity is possibly causing the merit gap between male and female applicants as it translates into a smaller female than male pool of suitable candidates for any given job, which f3minists misinterpret as discrimination of women.

Yes, but women with a Ph.D. degree are not comparable to the general female adult population. Female scholars are also very motivated to succeed and got into "this academic arena" voluntarily while postponing childbearing. The point of this paper is that having this affirmative action policy, increased the pool of female players in the game and also improve the performance of female players. In the long-run reaching even higher performance when compared to male players.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1686

Some version of this argument is probably the best argument you can make for a hiring/promotion bias in favor of women, but good on the french chess league for actually calling this what it is: a quota. They dont go around wasting the male players' time running a sham selection process, and they dont go around pretending that the women who got in under this system earned it on the merits

I'm not an author but I saw this paper that shows the positive effects of affirmative actions: TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A CASE STUDY IN FRANCE.
Abstract: We study chess, an activity where we have access to the universe of participants, a universal and quite accurate measure of performance ability, and where an affirmative action quota has been implemented on the elite level, the French club championship, several decades ago. We find that on the club championship level women perform better over time, to a degree that they outperform more and more men. Furthermore, the quota effects trickle-down on the national level with female players becoming more prevalent, especially at the non-youth level. Both, the increase in representation, as well as the performance gains of female players in France are not due to time trends, since they are not reflected in other EU15 countries. Finally, the gains of women do not appear to come at the cost of men. We end with a discussion on how the findings in chess can apply to other environments.

There is an interesting difference between the select group of female chess players, who are all motivated to succeed and got into the game voluntarily, and the female adult part of the general population, who is more heterogeneous in terms of how they want to secure their livelihoods. This heterogeneity is possibly causing the merit gap between male and female applicants as it translates into a smaller female than male pool of suitable candidates for any given job, which f3minists misinterpret as discrimination of women.

Yes, but women with a Ph.D. degree are not comparable to the general female adult population. Female scholars are also very motivated to succeed and got into "this academic arena" voluntarily while postponing childbearing. The point of this paper is that having this affirmative action policy, increased the pool of female players in the game and also improve the performance of female players. In the long-run reaching even higher performance when compared to male players.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

« Previous 1…910

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Math

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

ECB: Men need not apply

Reply