h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On a more emotional note - aren't predominantly masculine working environments sorry-arsed places? Take it from me: I work in one. I don't like hanging out in all-male company, so why should I have to put up with it at work? I don't know why anyone would choose a monoculture over the stimulation provided by a diverse working culture.

It's not possible for some kinds of work, of course. I recall we've already established that women are shameless hussies unfit for the noble profession of Chemical Engineering.

A lot of women take the hit because it makes financial sense (oh how I wish we could make bold italics) _their partner earns more because men get paid more_

(in my case it was the other way round and my takes the hit... but that is an exception which is few and far between even here)

Another important factor is that taking the hit of wage inequality makes work less attractive and takes women, with their productive capacity and skills, out of the workplace. This is bad for GDP. We are unlikely to be able to run a successful economy on the lowest bidder model: some other country will always undercut us.

Jaysus...do we want to make money or not?

...monkey...

< It sounds a helluva lot better than structuring economies to satisfy the needs of lonely, single, male engineers. For example.>

You mean the ones whose taxes...the large percentage of...seem to go towards others and one never sees any of it coming back to them?

Tell you what let's up date the equality laws as follows...EVERYONE who works is allowed two periods of paid leave of 26 weeks to do whatever they WANT to do in that period.

If a woman wants a child then she can look afetr that child for months paid...if I want to spend 6months in the outer Hebrides on an archaeological dig then I should be able to do that...someone else voluntary work...someone else fly over france and Apain cross-country paragliding etc etc...

Then presumably there will be more parity in pay and conditions for everyone...how is that for equality.

I say TWO paid periods as that will allow a woman to have two children which seems to be the norm. If they want one kid they get 6months free to do something...if they want more than two kids..well they can sort those finances out themselves...you don't really *need* 3 kids..I am sure some will say you don't really need two kids but it seems that kids may grow up a bit better with a brother or sister.

Such engineers can always go and live and work in the US - a low tax economy...and one can even go and live in a gated community to keep out the scum and losers.

Plenty comes back personally there.

>If a woman wants a child then.. <

What if the man wants a child? He can always get some dumb female to marry/hitch up with and take advantage of her dumb acceptance that all the cultural pressure is on her to do her the main child care stuff.

Actually it was a flippant remark aimed at someone who consistently fails to see The Bigger Picture.

But I&#39;ll bite at:

>>and one never sees any of it coming back to them?

really? Are there people out there who imagine that they use no public services? Do they pay for their own private armies and police forces? Do they build their own roads? Do they set aside money to educate the people they employ to a level at which they are capable of generating revenue? Do they pay to keep them healthy? Who would they get to deal with things like a nuclear power plant blowing up next door? Etc. etc.

*Here&#39;s the big picture*: In a macroeconomy in which we are interdependent, people often benefit indirectly from expenditure on services they do not use directly. Taxes are useful. They&#39;re what we use to pay for a civilised society.

Alternately, we can have a low-tax, poor public services, unbridled economy and see where it takes us. Good luck competing on that playing field.

>Taxes are useful. They&#39;re what we use to pay for a civilised society.<

Exactly.

men don't want children

Stop playing hide the sausage then... a statement as rediculous as saying that men don't want children. It takes two to tango and all that.

There is a perfectly good reason why you can't equate 1 year (or whatever) parental leave (here both parents are entitled - although the woman generally has to give birth herself) with a 6 month sabbatical to the outer Hebrides (although gawd knows I love the gruesomes, I'd really like to take 6 months off to do something else)

And some companies do offer such things.

But let's get back to reality: it's not a piece of cake looking after the children and you don't get paid shedloads of cash to do it, no matter what anyone who hasn't actually done it thinks.

And on a personal level: I'm past childbearing age and came to work for my company more than a decade ago during which time I've taken 2 days (not together) to stay home to look after a sick child (we have an allowence - per child, which means either parent can take it). Some of the younger ones here have called in sick with a hangover more than that per year. (Just saying, like.) and yet I have actually been told that I'm really not elligible for promotion "because you have a family". Oh, so all the guys who are elligible for promotion don't have a family? (guess what the answer is...) and the women who don't have families are elligible for promotion? (ah - no they're not either)

>>Tell you what let&#39;s up date the equality laws as follows...EVERYONE who works is allowed two periods of paid leave of 26 weeks to do whatever they WANT to do in that period.

Economically speaking, this would be a very poor idea indeed.

Imagine someone wanted to spend the 26 weeks, say, kite surfing. This would amount to money pished away. (In economic terms! I&#39;m sure it would be good fun,)

But if the time is spend on childrearing, this would deliver three benefits:

- It would enable the parents to re-enter economic activity smoothly following the initial, high-dependency period.

- It would contribute to the production future revenue earnings and service providing units. Even lonely, single, male engineers will need someone to fund their pensions and wipe their arses in their dotage. (Who else is going to do it? Their kids?)

- Related to the previous, it will provide for the growth upon which our economic model depends. Childbearing women make a unique contribution to that growth, without which the whole economic model which sustains the rest of us, lonely male engineers included, would vanish into thin air.

As a Modest Proposal...even if we don&#39;t want to actually reward women&#39;s contribution to our economy, maybe we should try not to penalise it?

>>...men are also victims of monopsonic discrimination. <<

Once again NtM's creative use of the langwitch sends me
to the dictionary. Apparently the proper adjective
would be:

mo·nop·so·nis·tic, adjective

But I'm inclined to agree with NtM's formation.


~jwf~

As it happens, I did haver between the two. And I did say it&#39;s a new word for me - but one I shall be trying to drop into every conversation henceforth.

Ain&#39;t Generative Grammar a wonderful thing, though? The way we can manufacture all sorts of linguistic constructions from a given set of building blocks?

It was recently calculated that in the US
a woman's unpaid work as housekeeper and
child minder is worth $170,000 per annum.

So in fairness, a stay at home dad's efforts
should be worth $225,000.


~jwf~

<Ain&#39;t Generative Grammar a wonderful thing, though? The way we can manufacture all sorts of linguistic constructions from a given set of building blocks?>

Kind of like phonemenological L*GO

My spelchek let out a groan and a puff of smoke at that one.

>As it happens, I did haver between the two.<

It's a helluva time since I heard 'haver'. It brings back a long distant memory of listening to an election night broadcast on the radio, 'They're still havering in Havering' It's stayed with me down the centuries...

I thought Squiggles might appreciate it.

Teh interwebs says it means to talk nonsense. It&#39;s wrong. It means to be indecisive.

Techically it means both, but I've never heard it used in any other sense than blethering rubbish.

ie "Havers man!"

Clap yer hands ...This Posting is currently queued for moderation...I blame big society