That is: if it were true that expected talent/dollars is greater in women than in men, and this is widely known public knowledge, then why do no tech companies select for women over men in their own self interest?
Possible answers could include:
1) They do, but you realize it.
2) They do, but you don't know about it.
3) They don't, because the premise is false, because women are not undervalued.
3) They don't, because the premise is true, because women are not selected over men despite having a higher talent/dollar value.
4) They don't, because organizations of people are not rational economic decision machines, or values like "talent / dollar" are too vague to be pre-test predictive of individual productivity, or "self interest" is not necessarily defined by maximizing economic exchanges, or that men already in tech simply know other men better and so tend to work with other men.
If 4) is true, it's not equally true for every company. Meritocracy varies from one organization to another. And the more meritocratic organizations will tend to be more successful. So choice four is just choices one through three, delayed.
Possible answers could include: 1) They do, but you realize it.
2) They do, but you don't know about it.
3) They don't, because the premise is false, because women are not undervalued.
3) They don't, because the premise is true, because women are not selected over men despite having a higher talent/dollar value.
4) They don't, because organizations of people are not rational economic decision machines, or values like "talent / dollar" are too vague to be pre-test predictive of individual productivity, or "self interest" is not necessarily defined by maximizing economic exchanges, or that men already in tech simply know other men better and so tend to work with other men.