Post: #1

A world sans men would be devoid of conflict. HA!

Post: #2

They say that the truth shall set you free. I'm sure the fems will find a way to hamster-alize this away.

Post: #3

"We are no longer accepting comments on this article"

I wonder why?

Post: #4

"When I read the other day that Sienna Miller had said there was no such thing as 'the Sisterhood', I knew what she meant."

This completely justifies my love for Sienna Miller...HA HA! It's funny how the author wanted so much for this concept to work, but she already knew the truth going in - whether there are just women, or some men around, women will find a way to be at each other's throats. The work will rarely come first - their feelings are all that matter. If you want shit to run right, and want to see the difficult decisions made, you need some men at least in part running things. The only thing that having no men in the office guarantees is that the sluttiest chicks can't sleep their way to the top.

Post: #5

If a company that is 100% women goes bankrupt rapidly, imagine how much more productive companies that are only 30% women would be if they just got rid of all the women. There has to be a tipping point in terms of % female where the unproductive female antics overwhelm the ability of the men to compensate by working harder. We should write a paper to determine if there is a statistical correlation between % women in a company and profitability. Some hard statistical data concerning how much a company loses in profitability on average per woman employed(including lawsuit payouts) would stick in many a feminists craw.

"Feminism: productivity killer. An analysis of the cost of female workers in the American economy" by n0000 etc al.

Don't worry guys, ill share credit.

Post: #6

(11-24-2012 03:37 PM)n0000 Wrote:  If a company that is 100% women goes bankrupt rapidly, imagine how much more productive companies that are only 30% women would be if they just got rid of all the women. There has to be a tipping point in terms of % female where the unproductive female antics overwhelm the ability of the men to compensate by working harder. We should write a paper to determine if there is a statistical correlation between % women in a company and profitability. Some hard statistical data concerning how much a company loses in profitability on average per woman employed(including lawsuit payouts) would stick in many a feminists craw.

"Feminism: productivity killer. An analysis of the cost of female workers in the American economy" by n0000, rooshv, etc al.

Don't worry guys, ill share credit.

Not a bad idea. I'd love a report on this.

Post: #7

There's actually data showing that some females in the board of a company will boost performance and profitability. You can of course question that, haven't looked into it myself. I can imagine diversity can be beneficial in some situations, but we all know every institution is built by men and then later women weasel themselves in or demand quotas.

The New Case for Women on Corporate Boards: New Perspectives, Increased Profits

Quote:The benefits of having women on boards are not just theoretical. Data analyzed by Catalyst reveals that between 2004 and 2008 the top quartile of companies with the highest percentage of women directors outperformed companies in the quartile with the lowest percentage by 26% (measured by return on invested capital). And that’s just in the United States. Just because the U.S. isn’t budging from 12% of women on boards doesn’t mean other countries are similarly stuck. Countries including Norway, Spain and France all have opted for quotas that require women to hold a certain percentage of corporate boards’ seats (usually 40%).

Disgusting that they want to (and can) force private companies to hire people they don't want to. Go start your own company.

Post: #8

Is it wrong that I was aroused by all of the discord in their office? All I could think of was how to divide, conquer, and make hoe's try to one up each other.

Post: #9

(11-24-2012 05:10 PM)sixsix Wrote:  There's actually data showing that some females in the board of a company will boost performance and profitability. You can of course question that, haven't looked into it myself. I can imagine diversity can be beneficial in some situations, but we all know every institution is built by men and then later women weasel themselves in or demand quotas.

The New Case for Women on Corporate Boards: New Perspectives, Increased Profits

Quote:The benefits of having women on boards are not just theoretical. Data analyzed by Catalyst reveals that between 2004 and 2008 the top quartile of companies with the highest percentage of women directors outperformed companies in the quartile with the lowest percentage by 26% (measured by return on invested capital). And that’s just in the United States. Just because the U.S. isn’t budging from 12% of women on boards doesn’t mean other countries are similarly stuck. Countries including Norway, Spain and France all have opted for quotas that require women to hold a certain percentage of corporate boards’ seats (usually 40%).

Disgusting that they want to (and can) force private companies to hire people they don't want to. Go start your own company.

Correlation does not mean causation.

Companies that have a lot of women employees are more likely going to be prestigious firms since women are super risk averse and will almost always go for the safe companies first. Even in "man industries", the top firms still have enough qualified women to fill their staff if they wanted.

As for the research, sounds like something fun to check out. I'll see if i can figure something out if its not too much work.

Post: #10

How could the woman that started this company be so naive?

Women demand high salaries, don't want to do any actual work and just want to bitch. And when they do actually get something done they act like they are the hardest working person on earth. Everyone knows that.

Also, she thinks TV is an easy business for men. I guess she thinks some dude rolls out of bed one morning, decides he wants to work in TV and boom has a high paying job with responsibility.

Post: #11

(11-24-2012 06:19 PM)cibo Wrote:  

(11-24-2012 05:10 PM)sixsix Wrote:  There's actually data showing that some females in the board of a company will boost performance and profitability. You can of course question that, haven't looked into it myself. I can imagine diversity can be beneficial in some situations, but we all know every institution is built by men and then later women weasel themselves in or demand quotas.

The New Case for Women on Corporate Boards: New Perspectives, Increased Profits

Quote:The benefits of having women on boards are not just theoretical. Data analyzed by Catalyst reveals that between 2004 and 2008 the top quartile of companies with the highest percentage of women directors outperformed companies in the quartile with the lowest percentage by 26% (measured by return on invested capital). And that’s just in the United States. Just because the U.S. isn’t budging from 12% of women on boards doesn’t mean other countries are similarly stuck. Countries including Norway, Spain and France all have opted for quotas that require women to hold a certain percentage of corporate boards’ seats (usually 40%).

Disgusting that they want to (and can) force private companies to hire people they don't want to. Go start your own company.

Correlation does not mean causation.

Companies that have a lot of women employees are more likely going to be prestigious firms since women are super risk averse and will almost always go for the safe companies first. Even in "man industries", the top firms still have enough qualified women to fill their staff if they wanted.

As for the research, sounds like something fun to check out. I'll see if i can figure something out if its not too much work.

Yeah, was gonna say this. It's sort of like how Harvard has more black students than any other peer university, or how MIT has the most women proportionally out of any engineering school (in addition to an aggressive affirmative action program for girls). Certain minorities (i.e., not Asians and Indians) and women are little status trophies that firms like to show off, and the prestige firms can suck up these groups more easily than no-name competitors.

I don't know, I haven't read those studies. Just know that academia is so biased, that any finding in favor of women or homosexuals must be scrutinized before being believed. There was a huge controversy when an academic (who seems to read Roissy) published a study finding homosexuals made for worse parents.

I know of the biggest female CEOs in tech: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Carol Bartz. None of them are exactly celebrated as model CEOs. Fiorina and Bartz were outright terrible, while Whitman may have been merely mediocre - eBay is not highly though of among those in tech. Marissa Mayer is the latest female CEO, and hopes are high for her.

(11-24-2012 03:37 PM)n0000 Wrote:  If a company that is 100% women goes bankrupt rapidly, imagine how much more productive companies that are only 30% women would be if they just got rid of all the women. There has to be a tipping point in terms of % female where the unproductive female antics overwhelm the ability of the men to compensate by working harder. We should write a paper to determine if there is a statistical correlation between % women in a company and profitability. Some hard statistical data concerning how much a company loses in profitability on average per woman employed(including lawsuit payouts) would stick in many a feminists craw.

I doubt the relationship is quite like that. I imagine that as long as the leadership is consistently masculine, the presence of some individual women won't pose harm to the company. If, however, feminine people prone to the behavior profiled start to acquire positions of leadership, then the company starts to suffer.

Also, it's not a matter of sex, strictly speaking. There are women who are able leaders. The danger is that the pressure to select more women will put women who are not able in high positions. A worker can be competent at his job, but woefully inadequate for the position above him, so one must be careful about putting whom where.

Post: #12

Alright done.

   

Source http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/b...012/women/

These are the best 100 companies to work for and have a range of women from 95% to 10%. We can assume that this is as good as it gets for revenue per an employee and should probably dip after this list. A few companies didn't have any info for revenue and/or % of women so i removed them. I would have preferred profitability per an employee since it would give an idea of costs; but you work with what you got and I don't want to go through nearly a 100 financial reports. So the measure i used was revenue per an employee. Revenue per an employee was used since if there are staff that aren't doing anything, it should reduce as you have more non-revenue generating employees.

I would say industry does explain a lot of the revenue per an employee. I do recognize that different industries have different cost structures hence why i wanted profit and because women flock to certain industries. Health was a big one in the sample. If I had more time, I would do an industry by industry comparison but the numbers are good enough to get the idea there is a trend even after removing industry from the model. An R^2 of 20% is about what your SAT is at for assessing your intelligence.

Anyway the main takeaway is for every absolute percentage point increase of women in the workforce, the revenue per an employee drops by 0.2% which means if you have a 100% female workforce you are making 18% less revenue per an employee than a full male workforce.


General Regression Analysis: log10_rev versus % women

Regression Equation

log10_rev = 6.16215 - 1.09753 % women


96 cases used


Coefficients

Term Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 6.16215 0.110912 55.5589 0.000002
% women -1.09753 0.217357 -5.0495 0.000002


Summary of Model

S = 0.398729 R-Sq = 21.34% R-Sq(adj) = 20.50%
PRESS = 15.5224 R-Sq(pred) = 18.30%

Post: #13

"And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees - because they have an easy ride in TV - if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men."

And the hamster is still in full vigor.

Post: #14

@cibo

Very nicely done. I take it you're in FS?

Post: #15

(11-24-2012 11:04 PM)Wool Suit Wrote:  @cibo

Very nicely done. I take it you're in FS?

Analytics consultant.

Post: #16

Would be great if you could respond to that Forbes article with that Cibo

Post: #17

(11-26-2012 08:34 AM)bojangles Wrote:  Would be great if you could respond to that Forbes article with that Cibo

I still haven't determined if companies with low revenue per an employee attract women or women cause low revenue per an employee. I think it's a little of both.

Btw, I need to make a correction since I did the analysis at 3AM on Sat after partying.

I noticed I didn't anti-log my data, that means the 18% drop in logbase10 goes from 6.16 to 5.064 to roughly $1,400,000 (10^6.16) to about $116,000 (10^5.064) and ends up being a 92% drop in revenue per an employee. Because every absolute percentage point increase of women equals 2.45% reduction in revenue per an employee.

Little things like that annoy the hell out of me when I'm doing analysis. That and commas in sql code.

Post: #18

Can you imagine an all-female nuclear submarine crew?

The world would be covered in ashes because a group of catty bitches shunned one girl because of her "trashy looking earrings" or something.

Women are incapable of working together in groups like men are, because women don't understand the idea of a hierarchy based on competence. Men naturally take orders from their superiors, and men can immediately recognize the superiority of another man due to his ability. The problem is that women are incapable of judging the superiority of other women without men present, because a woman's entire place in the hierarchy is determined by the quality of the man she can lock down. Absent men, no real female hierarchy is possible, so they all run around like chickens with their heads cut off, refusing to recognize any one woman's superiority over another, even if one woman's extra-normal ability is plainly obvious. Without a powerful man at her side, even the most competent woman has no place in the female hierarchy.