You have a degree, yet, when asked for data and methodology, you link an article that show no data, neither has a link to the data and methodology so you can replicate the analysis if you want to.
This is the link to eurostat:
If you click it, you would go to the webpage that has links to data, tables and methodology. So if you have an advanced degree, you would be familiarized with the math and all that I have been saying.
Now try again. As we well know, perfect market is an idealized construct. The ten premises for perfect market doesn’t apply to job market. There are not infinite companies hiring, neither are all workers the same, not we have the skill to chance without cost career paths, not we know of all open job positions or even the wage for a posted position. I could go on. Neoclassical theory is based on premises that aren’t true in the real world. They didn’t apply. And someone with an advanced degree knows that.
I’ve also heard the part about “marketing creating demand”. But let’s be honest here, they do it by providing better information but the opposite.
My example about nurses and programmers shows why the “perfect market” doesn’t apply. Read again the basics, not the advanced, but the theory that clearly describes “equal workers” and workers changing jobs. Neoclassics doesn’t differentiate based on training. According them, if wages are higher as programmer, nurses would retrain. Is a way to make it clear that the “market explanation” is based on something that is not true. Do you understand it now?
As for the outsourcing of programmers, I’m well aware of that. Still, when headhunters have low budget for very technical positions, they usually go for people of color and woman, since they know they can get away offering lower wages. Not just because location, but also discrimination.
As someone with an advanced degree, you should be able to find an study that doesn’t have those flaws and link it, right? I mean, I have linked not just the study, but the data source and methodology. What is preventing you as someone qualified to do the same? You understand econometrics, right? Sorry, an Huffpost article is not data, not even an study. They didn’t even give names for those “serious economist”, so chances are that those “serious economist” don’t want their reputations in the line…
I’m giving you economic arguments, explaining HR selection processes, software and algorithms, you repeat talking points and try to use a degree to earn some kind of authority instead of using your knowledge to make actual arguments supported by data and methodology. We both know that many economist are hired by think-tanks to justify politics. That is why real economist ask for data and methodology. That is why I’m talking about the premises on your model (neoclassical) not being true.
Here, Adam Smith:
- that there are no personal preferences → You contradict this by saying that men and women make different choices.
- that there are no temporal preferences → People prefer not working weekends and not do nightshifts. so another one that doesn’t apply.
- that the products are homogenous → In this case workers are the product. A nurse is not a programmer. Another condition that doesn’t apply.
- that adaptation to new situations don’t requiere no costs, no effort, no time → No cost or time to retrain in a new career path? absurd. Doesn’t apply.
- that everybody is perfectly informed → Are you aware of all vacancies in your city? No? Do you know all the wages in your city? No? You don’t have perfect information. Doesn’t apply either.
At this point were we do know that not a single condition for perfect market apply, any rational people who is remotely familiarized with logic, would know that:
False premises and logical fallacies
A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that contains a flaw, either in its logical structure or in its premises.
Many logical fallacies rely on false premises.
So instead of repeating talking points from articles, show real data and studies. And make arguments that aren’t based on false premises. You won’t be the first person with an economic degree that forget about the premises needed for the perfect market to apply. Many “serious” economists tend to remember monopoly and oligopoly, but forget about oligopsonies and other inefficiencies in the market. Then they get surprised when their analysis and predictions fail.
You might not like the evidence pointing out that yes, not only wage gaps (not just gender) do exist, but that there are companies that already take advantage of them. But it is there. Sure, there are more advantages than wage to diverse teams, but wage is still an elephant in the room. I mean, contract workers in india for software companies are about lower wages and cost, not quality. For you seems a shore spot to point out that there is a gender (and race and many other demographic) gap, yet you haven’t even considered that when you offshore to india, you do have indian wages. That means that if in india there is a wage gap, the USA company would have a wage gap. Not just that, but wages in USA would be pushed down by india. Look at the evidence pointing out that the wage gap is closing not by women wages going up, but by men’s wages going down.
So please, data and methodology. Also, look at how the software applications algorithms affect at how the job market work. The talent shortage is coupled by unemployment. The time to adjust shows that your theory is not working (no time to adaptation, remember? XD). And companies are still trying to no rise wages. Sure, now they are being forced to do it, but they resist as much as they can.
And you hasn’t been able to deny that your next wage would be based on your current wage. Which means that if you go from micro, to macro, that old wage gaps would be reproducing and multiplying today. The higher the position, the bigger the gap. But more difficult to prove, since it might not be equivalent position at your company.
