The economics of women in the workforce

[publicduende]

Many of us innovate, thrive and even find love without women getting in the way. In general in the modern world, the only people capable of innovating in a commercially viable way are bored rich guys and guys who have had a truck load of government/corporate money spent on supporting them. There are a shrinking number of both of these opportunities available. Biotechnology, the field I should have gone into, has been dead in the water for a couple of decades. There is no doubt in my mind or the minds of most people who know me that I could have made a great contribution, but there was no opportunity to contribute and indeed nothing really to contribute to. That the few entry level positions available are given to women is a problem, although admittedly only part of the problem.

Why are you saying that? I don't bored rich guy are exactly the engine of innovation in any country in the world. Perhaps the bored rich guys are those who may place their chips on this or that startup. Startups are usually made by guys who have more smarts and brains than money, and optionally the resolve to get rich. Biotech is still a growing field, I guess, especially in the US. I guess many projects are stuck into bureaucracy and government regulations, but that doesn't make them any less groundbreaking or beneficial, especially when their commercial potential and sustainability are assessed properly. Not to be mean to you, but if you really had the potential to contribute on a biotech project, you wouldn't be regretting it on a forum like this, you would be locked into a lab doing it. Maybe you still do, and it's not too late...who knows...

I could agree with you on your friend who innovated himself out of his current job: so what have women got to do with this?

Nothing directly as the work is too hard to be done by women and so is now done by other men (Indian immigrants, to be specific). I was just pointing out that life and the system isn't necessarily fair and often people are exploited. However, there are instances where innovations like this would not even have happened in the first place because non-innovative women would be doing the job, whereas the men who could have innovated would be unemployed.

So you're blaming women because, in case a woman got the job instead of the Indian immigrant, she would have surely been unable to do it as well because she would have been less innovative. That's being dense.

In a healthy society that's what should happen to smart people: they learn on the job, they learn how a job could be improved on and, if they have the guts and the right entrepreneurial skills, they will try to set up shop on their own to leverage their skills.

Yes, in a healthy society the bankers would lend the guy about $100M to set up a factory to compete with their own existing clients based on his track record of innovation, but we both know we are not living in such a society, right?

Right. In a healthy society, bankers would not only lend to the most deserving projects, but also irrespective of whether the leading minds are men or women.

[Anthropolonerd]

lol this guy has probably the most self-defeatist attitude I have *ever* seen in a guy.

[Cornfed]

lol this guy has probably the most self-defeatist attitude I have *ever* seen in a guy.

How so exactly?

[Anthropolonerd]

lol this guy has probably the most self-defeatist attitude I have *ever* seen in a guy.

How so exactly?

If you can't see why, it is probably best that you at least seek some form of psychological counseling.

[Cornfed]

lol this guy has probably the most self-defeatist attitude I have *ever* seen in a guy.

How so exactly?

If you can't see why, it is probably best that you at least seek some form of psychological counseling.

Couldn't you just explain yourself?

[Cornfed]

Not to be mean to you, but if you really had the potential to contribute on a biotech project, you wouldn't be regretting it on a forum like this, you would be locked into a lab doing it. Maybe you still do, and it's not too late...who knows...

Do you understand how careers in the technical professions work? It is not something you can do in your basement, as may have been the case 200 years ago. It requires high tech capital equipment, expensive facilities, technical support, supervisory staff to train and assign you etc. Hence it takes the collaboration of hundreds of people and millions of dollars to produce a single real scientist. The deal is that the GovCorp spends millions of dollars employing and training you, you hopefully make them or society more millions of dollars and the break-even point is about 10 years. Much of this must necessarily be government funded, either directly or indirectly through tax breaks or whatever, since the financial payoffs for scientific discoveries are often 50 years or more down the track.

Now suppose this infrastructure needed to become a scientist doesn't exist. Suppose you have a situation like the present one where the government cuts essentially all funding for research to spend on the upkeep of solo mothers and such, and corporations either don't bother with research or outsource it to places like China. In that case a potential scientist is simply screwed, as the huge apparatus he needs to slot into in order to fulfill his potential simply isn’t there. But perhaps you think this is not the case. Do you perhaps you think that if some individual has potential there will be a thunderclap from the sky and all of the necessary facilities will magically appear in a puff of smoke? How do you think the process is supposed to work?

[Cornfed]

Right. In a healthy society, bankers would not only lend to the most deserving projects, but also irrespective of whether the leading minds are men or women.

Suppose you have a woman who is the one-in-a-million with the potential to be a great scientist. Which scenario is more beneficial to society?

Scenario 1: She is a working scientist all her life, which necessarily means she has no children (or less children than she otherwise would have raised by bimbos in daycare) since she can't spare the time. The man she is displacing from a career in science is either unemployed or in a lower status job and hence is regarded as a loser by the woman he otherwise would have raised a family with, so he remains childless while she breeds with dirtbags who make her gina twitch. Hence scientist genes are eliminated from the population over time.

Scenario 2: She gets married to a smart man and raises a bunch of sons whom she educates to become great scientists. They duly become great scientists and are therefore able to attract smart women as wives who in turn breed more great scientists and so on.

It seems to me that the desirability of scenario 2 is a no-brainer and those responsible for enacting scenario 1 are far greater criminals than, say, murderers or armed robbers or whatever.

[Halwick]

A long time ago on a talk radio show discussing this very topic, I recall the guest on the show stating that up until the time women entered the workforce, you had a stable economy and everything was affordable on a single income. But when women entered the workforce, the prices of everything increased significantly. Why? You now have two incomes in the workforce and can afford whatever the market bears.

Well, that was the crux of his theory. Don't know whether it has any merit.

[Taryn]

Who says a woman wants to be a wife, bear children or build a community? I think it's appropriate for anyone of any gender to do what they love to do, whether it's being a "homemaker" or running a Fortune 500 company. Personally, I don't mind being Suzie homemaker, but I definitely wouldn't want to be with a man who follows the "you're going to stay home, pop out a bunch of babies, raise them (on your own) and look pretty" motto. Yeah, that's not going to happen. I'll happily raise children, but if I desire doing something, you sure as hell aren't going to stop me from doing it.

And I thought feminazis were bad.

[Cornfed]

Who says a woman wants to be a wife, bear children or build a community? I think it's appropriate for anyone of any gender to do what they love to do, whether it's being a "homemaker" or running a Fortune 500 company. Personally, I don't mind being Suzie homemaker, but I definitely wouldn't want to be with a man who follows the "you're going to stay home, pop out a bunch of babies, raise them (on your own) and look pretty" motto. Yeah, that's not going to happen. I'll happily raise children, but if I desire doing something, you sure as hell aren't going to stop me from doing it.

And I thought feminazis were bad.

Women are grown children and as such don't know what they "want". They must be told what to do by responsible adults. Letting them try to make their own decisions is like sitting a drunken chimp in the cockpit of a 747 and waiting around to see what happens. In any case, letting females do what they think they want is often socially incompatible with females doing what they want. For example, letting them be degenerate sluts leads over time to a situation where they have effectively no choice but to be degenerate sluts, as I explain in this thread.
viewtopic.php?t=21086

Besides, we all have unchosen obligations we need to fulfill in order for society to function, and the manner in which human society functions is well understood. Placing mindless female whims above the proper functioning of society will simply mean that we go extinct as a civilization and are replaced with by functional societies that don't care about mindless female whims. Indeed it is only because you are supported by the wealth accumulated by men in a previously functional society that you have the have the luxury of believing you should be able to do what you want. At most times and places, doing things in the traditional way (the one that works) was a matter of day to day survival. Allowing a female to whimsically choose whether to, say, have children or not would be like allowing a pilot to whimsically choose whether to fly sober or falling-down-drunk. Some things just work better than others.

[Taryn]

Women are grown children and as such don't know what they "want". They must be told what to do by responsible adults. Letting them try to make their own decisions is like sitting a drunken chimp in the cockpit of a 747 and waiting around to see what happens. In any case, letting females do what they think they want is often socially incompatible with females doing what they want.

Wow, you must have really known some really horrible women for you to have such a negative and broad generalization of them.

I do what I want with my life - I don't spend my time concerning myself with someone's else idea of what they want me to do. Once women (well, people) grow up, they start to follow what they want to do as long as they have a backbone. I can agree that a lot of women don't but there are still some who do, myself included. I went to law school and dropped out because I wanted to be an artist and have not regretted it.

For example, letting them be degenerate sluts leads over time to a situation where they have effectively no choice but to be degenerate sluts, as I explain in this thread.
viewtopic.php?t=21086

Ahhh, this explains why you're a chauvinistic pig.

Besides, we all have unchosen obligations we need to fulfill in order for society to function, and the manner in which human society functions is well understood.

I do agree with this. No matter how much we want to move away from gender roles, they're still in place. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ultimately procreate.

Placing mindless female whims above the proper functioning of society will simply mean that we go extinct as a civilization and are replaced with by functional societies that don't care about mindless female whims.

Boy, I sure as hell hope you don't reproduce with that negative perception on women. The only women you probably attract are spineless.

Indeed it is only because you are supported by the wealth accumulated by men in a previously functional society that you have the have the luxury of believing you should be able to do what you want.

Or maybe it's perhaps that women fought for my right to be able to work if I want to? You must also be racist, if we're going by broad generalizations.

At most times and places, doing things in the traditional way (the one that works) was a matter of day to day survival. Allowing a female to whimsically choose whether to, say, have children or not would be like allowing a pilot to whimsically choose whether to fly sober or falling-down-drunk. Some things just work better than others.

Ahhh, so women are not allowed to have opinions.

[Cornfed]

Ah yes, the usual boring female shaming tactics as recently linked to on this forum.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

It would be easy to replace all AW posters with a computer script that mixed and matched these diatribes.

Ahhh, so women are not allowed to have opinions.

Females lack the grey matter to have opinions in to way that men can and simply recite whatever authority figures tell them, while in fact believing nothing at all. Of course it is fine for females to pretend they have opinions. It is just that in a rational society, no-one takes them seriously. It is a pity you did not have a responsible father to marry you off at puberty to a decent man who would respond to the expression of your ridiculous "opinions" with a savage whipping followed by hard sex. That would have been better for all concerned, especially you. Unfortunately it is almost certainly too late now, as you appear to be a worthless feminist slut.

[Taryn]

Ah yes, the usual boring female shaming tactics as recently linked to on this forum.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

It would be easy to replace all AW posters with a computer script that mixed and matched these diatribes.

Ahhh, so women are not allowed to have opinions.

Females lack the grey matter to have opinions in to way that men can and simply recite whatever authority figures tell them, while in fact believing nothing at all. Of course it is fine for females to pretend they have opinions. It is just that in a rational society, no-one takes them seriously. It is a pity you did not have a responsible father to marry you off at puberty to a decent man who would respond to the expression of your ridiculous "opinions" with a savage whipping followed by hard sex. That would have been better for all concerned, especially you. Unfortunately it is almost certainly too late now, as you appear to be a worthless feminist slut.

Really? Because you literally just attacked me mostly for being a woman, referring to some as degenerate sluts.

I do not have any women friends and I am glad to say that my male friends treat me as though I am an actual human being and respect my opinions rather than expect me to never open my mouth. I'm not a feminist or a feminazi, but I am going to fully speak my mind whether you like it or not. I do not apologize. You have a very skewed perception on women and think that all of them are man-haters, when that is absolutely not the case.

What kind of merit does your opinion have when you have to initially berate me simply because I'm a woman? Oh wait, I'll answer that for you.

ZERO.

[Cornfed]

I do not have any women friends and I am glad to say that my male friends treat me as though I am an actual human being and respect my opinions rather than expect me to never open my mouth.

LOL, stupid manginas. In their defense, I suppose it is possible that some of them don't really take you seriously, but are just pretending to as a pathetically misguided strategy to get into your pants. I bet you never put out for these nice-guy suckers but will automatically spread your legs for assholes who tread you like the trash you are. Do I have that about right?

[Taryn]

I do not have any women friends and I am glad to say that my male friends treat me as though I am an actual human being and respect my opinions rather than expect me to never open my mouth.

LOL, stupid manginas. In their defense, I suppose it is possible that some of them don't really take you seriously, but are just pretending to as a pathetically misguided strategy to get into your pants. I bet you never put out for these nice-guy suckers but will automatically spread your legs for assholes who tread you like the trash you are. Do I have that about right?

That's hilarious. Actually, I think promiscuity is disgusting, so nope.

Secondly, you're a hypocrite; crying about how I don't know how to debate with you without insulting you like the "feminist I am," yet you're over there insulting me whichever way possible simply because I'm a woman. Such a keyboard warrior, you!

Pot, it's time to meet Kettle.