A new bill has been passed in the Senate and the assembly in California, and currently only needs to be signed by Governor Jerry Round to become law. This law would require companies to have a minimum amount of women on their board. The logic being companies with women on their board tend to do better in a lot of different ways and by having women on the board you will show, and within the company that there is an opportunity for growth, essentially at the glass ceiling has been broken, but there is criticism some investors, even women are saying this will turn women into quota hires. It will make people doubt their actual ability. Others say that by policing for outcome, you'll require companies to lower their standard and find people who are less qualified to simply fulfil their obligation under the law. But there are people who believe is the right move, because the only reason they think that women aren't on the board is because these companies have a boy's club that men are essentially

women out because it sexist what there is evidence to suggest. That is the case. There's some studies on the greater male variability hypothesis, which suggest that they are just more male geniuses. Then we can look at that, but some people say look it's already illegal to discriminate against women. So naturally these companies aren't keeping women are on purpose there, just finding the best candidates who happened to be men, but let's take a look at the story and break down what people are actually saying why they think this was a good idea and why people think this law is a bad idea from Rico to a new California law. If passed, could force companies like Facebook, Tesla and alphabet to add more women to their boards.

It's up to Governor Jerry Brown bill. S be eight to six, which passed California state Congress a few weeks ago and is now on Jerry. Browns desk would require all public companies with principle executive officers in the state to have a minimum number of women on their boards, proportionate to the total number of board members within the next few years. For some major tech companies, including alphabet Facebook, Intel Snap Apple, Tesla and help. This means that they'll have to at least one more female board. Member by twenty one to meet the bills quota, it requires boards with five members to have at least two women and boards with six or more members to include at least three. The mill comes amid growing criticism lack of gender diversity and tuck and other industries where at publicly trade companies in the past five years, the percentage of women on boards has only seen single digit growth. According to data from executive research, equal the glass ceiling in the seas we is notorious, and this bill calls upon companies to open up their boardrooms state Senator Hannah, Beth Jackson, a Democrat who co authored the bill,

Rico Jackson, sponsored a non binding resolution urging companies to add more women to their board. Second, twenty thirteen, but says companies, ignore the request and have really not move the needle at all on the issue. If companies are found breaking the role, they will be find one hundred thousand dollars initially and three hundred thousand dollars for subsequent violations. That's not enough to make a dent in the pocket book of a company like alphabet, but it is likely to make a statement. Record includes this chart showing the percentage of female board members, and it says that be highlighted. Companies would have to hire more women. We can see that Apple Yelp, Facebook, Snap, Tesla, Intel an alphabet would be required to hire more women according to legislature. Dots

of the bill passed in the assembly on the twenty ninth and in the Senate on the thirtieth, and they provide reasons as to why they want this law to be enforced. They say that more women director serving on boards of directors of publicly held corporations will boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace and protect California, taxpayers, shareholders and retirees, including retired California, state employees and teachers whose pensions are managed by Calpers and Kehl Sdrs. Yet studies predict that will take forty or fifty years to achieve parity. If something is not done proactively. The bill lists the results of several studies, a study and twenty. Seventeen. By my c, I a study in twenty forty, my credit sweets and a study from twenty twelve from the university of care Borneo at Berkeley and all of these showed that companies with women on their boards do better in a variety of ways. They say there has been a greater correlation between stock performance and the presence of women on a board since the financial crisis of two thousand eight companies

Women on their boards of directors, significantly outperformed others. When the recession occurred, of companies with women on their boards tend to be somewhat risk averse and carry less that on average net income growth for companies with women on their boards averaged fourteen percent over a six year period, compared with ten percent for companies with no women direct they actually list a ton of different results, showing why this will be a good idea, but there is still some criticism on the Rico story. Tech, investor and diversity advocate framework. A poor Klein said she worries that if the bill passes, women who are placed on boards might be considered diversity, hires or quota hires, and that their real contributions could be minimized. Like so many other initiatives, this bill is well intentioned, but it is going to have negative unintended consequences. You told me code. That being said, I think that if you have a critical mass of women, you actually do change culture. If I had to make a prediction. it is probably pass. I don't see why? Wouldn't but it might be short sighted alot of people probably look at these companies with women on their boards and assume that, because women are

Their boards, the women, are causing the positive changes, but that implies correlation in causation, which may not be the case. There might be something else at these companies that resulted in both improvement in how much money they make and the fact that they ve added women to their board. It may be that these companies are younger and be more proactive or just have younger staff members and, as we add, more women to the workforce, it is more likely that younger companies will have more women on the workforce. However, there is a more scientific reason that people have as to why this probably want work, and this is something the greater male variability hypothesis, an addendum to our post on the Google Another story is from Heterodox Academy and it talks about what happened with James, the more and it talks about how they are more male geniuses, but also more male idiots may say in this agenda. We focus on the greater male variability hypothesis, the idea, that men are more variable than women on a variety of abilities, interest and personality traits and the possibility that males are over represent.

In the upper and lower tales of such distributions, this, I thought this was first proposed by Ellis over one hundred years ago in eighteen. Ninety four is also the hypothesis that Laurent Summers was referring to into an five when, at the National Bureau Economic Research conference, he weighed in on the gender gap in stem professions liked more memo. Summers comments, spurred controversy. As we noted previously, we think the central empirical claim of divorce Mama was when addressing the gap in representation in the population. We need to look at population level, differences in distributions, the more than attempted to clarify his position. With this figure he said populations have significant overlap. reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap. This is bad and I dont endorse that. Yet research on the greater male variability hypothesis suggest that Timor figure does not correctly capture the state of affairs for some variable this because, on a variety of abilities, interest and personnel traits, there is no mean difference, but males are more valuable than females.

and they are more likely to be over represented in the tales of distribution de visually, demonstrate this. We represent figure one from hide and march two thousand nine, which displays theoretical distributions for males and females and takes a closer look at the upper right tale of this theoretical distribution, soulless you look at the start. The question becomes: why are there more men in positions of power within these large companies now before Thus, I want to make a point. This chart. We see from companies in California, these tech companies. There are very few of them. These companies don't have that many board members, which means we're looking at dozens, two hundred, not thousands, not tens of thousands. If not millions people running these companies represent the highest tier of the workforce, some of the highest paying jobs that require the greatest workload and the highest level of talent and agents. So when we look at this chart, what we can see is the males are the orange line and the females are the green line. The green line has a higher average. The means

there are more females of average intelligence than there are males. However, there are a lot more men who are below average, but also a lot more men who are above average. That means, if we're looking at companies hiring the greatest talent when you at the highest end of the spectrum. There will be more men than women according to this theory, and if that's the case, it is likely you will see more men hired to these boards to these positions of power than you I'll see women, but it would also explain why they are disproportionately more male and female. Let's say the number was something for every nine female genius? As you have ten male geniuses, you and me,

Jen that you would have almost equal parity at these companies. If that were the case when a reality that wouldn't be the case, because there are very few jobs at the highest level of talent and wealth and net means, if you have one hundred men who are overqualified and ninety women who are overqualified, the companies, if they're only hiring fifty people will pull from the top tier, which tend to be men. Many these men will out, compete the women for a variety of reasons. and thus you will see a disproportionate amount of men than you would see women they say. Thus, if males are over represented in the upper tale of the distribution for spatial abilities, mechanical reasoning and mathematics, it would be possible for Google to end

hiring more males and, at the same time, not be discriminatory in their hiring practice. This is because the pool of potentially qualified applicants may contain more males. If this is true forcing companies to hire women could be detrimental to these companies. If we need to be competitive with an international market, we want to make sure the best talent are the ones who are running these companies and forcing companies to lower their standard to hire. People who might be qualified isn't the right thing to do, but at the same time its also entirely possible that, yes, there absolutely are qualified women, but men also tend to be more aggressive and thus it might be easier for them to push their way and opposition, even if they aren't as qualified as the woman confidence cells. If you have a man who was super smart and he tells you he's the best man in the world for the job, you feel confident that you hide a person if, What is less likely to a certain herself, which tends to be the case whether or not it social or biological than she will be at a disadvantage.

So there is some reason to suggest this law could be a good thing, but I'm not one to typically advocate for equality of outcome. I think we should let people who are the most qualify for the job earned their position at the in time. I think we do need to recognise that discrimination does exist, whether nights intentional or just based on natural tendencies that people have, and there may be very many qualified women who aren't getting the positions they should have, because they could do some real good at these companies. But let me don't you think in the comments below how do you feel about a lot like this? Do you think company should be forced by law to hire people of a certain identity to fill a quota? Or do you think it's just equality of outcome? That's going to result, in a detriment to discuss these or maybe you think something else I dunno comic below- will keep a conversation going. You can follow me on Twitter to gas stay tuned. New videos, everyday four p m and more videos on my second channel Youtube com slashed him cast coming up at six p m. Thanks, rang out

I see your next time.