Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Well, if they can't survive without stupid people, they weren't very intelligent in the first place, were they?

The question is clearly not one of survival, if you have 100 intelligent people and half of them focus their efforts not on research but on feeding the other half via subsistence farming, their intelligence is not fully utilized as their efforts are focused on physical labour

[Fniff]

Well, if they can't survive without stupid people, they weren't very intelligent in the first place, were they?

The question is clearly not one of survival, if you have 100 intelligent people and half of them focus their efforts not on research but on feeding the other half via subsistence farming, their intelligence is not fully utilized as their efforts are focused on physical labour

Spoiler: My Reply (click to show/hide)

Well, then what's the problem? As long as utility is being derived from them somehow I would consider that a success. After all, in your scenario, everyone gets what they want: the intelligent get time to contemplate while the stupid get food and shelter. Everyone is happy.

Perhaps we do need stupid people. Why are we constrained by this equality fad? We are creatures ruled by nothing but status. We must have something to look up to and something to look down on. Let the cream rise to the top and cement the positions; we cannot allow transition between statuses or else the system collapses in a haze of power-grabbing and backstabbing.

But we're cursed with ambition: how do you stop that? Redefine satisfaction. Let the top castes' dreams loose: that will push mankind ever upward. But for the lower castes, engineer education and media to gamify being a good citizen. The hollow joys of rebellion and exploration will be replaced with the satisfaction of 400 points for three hours overtime. One day, you will reach the top score list if you try hard enough.

I know what you're thinking: but what of those born in a lower caste deserving of a higher status? Obviously children will be in a grace period whilst we determine their destined caste via tests and analysis. A lot of this could be streamlined: on-topic, women are simply unfit (Not sexist - it's science) for manual labor and would be excluded. This way, we achieve something better then equality: a society where everyone is exactly where they're meant to be.

But if they can't be redeemed, if they are talentless, if they can't even provide an ounce of utility, then they must be cast out. Not killed; nothing so inefficient. Let them live out in the wilderness for a while. If they survive, we welcome them back with open arms. If they don't, good riddance.

Can you imagine it? A society with no need for gender quotas (We have drifted from the topic - into something better) or other such nonsense. Everyone in their place, maximizing efficiency. No welfare parasites, no unqualified idiots only placed there by a bureaucratic quota, no loose cogs. A society where all are content and none shall rebel. A society operating like a machine.

We just need to find a way to murder all the useless cretins. Give me a while, I'll think of something.

[Jimmy]

snip... Those who spend the time and resources to create opportunities for females, however, have an incentive to do so as the system pays for itself; and even becomes an additional source of wealth in the long term on top of the value added by including a female perspective. Snip...

This is a blind assumption for which there is no evidence, no factual backup, and no logical reason.

I'd say there's a pretty clear relationship between having an incentive for women to work more and creating value over the long term. In an ideal scenario, the woman in question benefits from utilizing their natural talents to their fullest capacity, creating as much wealth and growth of business in the process as she is able.

To simplify it, assume we're on a farm. To grow and harvest produce as efficiently as possible, the farm uses a special combination fertilizer/harvester machine. It takes years of training to master one, and constant time and effort to give it proper care and maintenance.

Let's assume that sales of this magic machine are licensed by existing owners, and they only sell them to other men. Without it, a woman could probably still grow produce, but not nearly as efficiently. There currently exists the perception that women don't make good farmers, so there's no point in giving them the machine when another man could do it just as well.

That's probably not wrong in the majority of cases where a woman has no interest in investing all their energy into learning to work the machine and maintain it. But there are certainly those out there that do have the right stuff to do it. Wouldn't it make more sense to let these highly motivated women have one of these machines too? Of course, the men say that if they do that, there won't be enough farmland for the other men who have their own machines. But with more skilled workers, more farms will get made, and more produce will be grown.

In this example, the farm is the business, the produce are profits from that business, and the machine represents the skills and responsibilities that come with higher levels of management within the business. There's no finite limit on farmland beyond the time and effort it takes to cultivate it from nothing. Surely it makes sense to increase the number of people who can create as much produce as possible.

You could just as easily substitute race into this example for the same effect. It would be unthinkable 100 years ago for a black man to sit on the board of directors. In fact, did you know the date marking the first black American CEO of a fortune 500 company? 1999, believe it or not, by Franklin Raines. By contrast, women beat that record by nearly three decades, care of Katharine Graham in 1972.

At the end of the day, people are just people. Some are smart, some are not. Some are hard working, some are not. If someone has the skill and motivation to strive for more, be they male, female, straight, gay, black or white, those factors shouldn't affect their chances of achieving it due to biased selection methods. I don't believe mandatory ratios are the answer, but I certainly support incentivizing a change to the status quo.

Finally, to address the point that there's little evidence or fact to support my statement, I'd say the massive growth of GDP that occurred as women entered the workforce compared to remaining at home would qualify, as would any number of studies that show the growth possible should gender inequality be improved. I'd suggest a quick Google search using the keywords GDP, female and workforce as your criteria should you wish to discover the benefits of improving employment access for women.

[Orange Wizard]

In your example, the magic machine sellers are sexist, the outcome is the result. You're trying to fix the result. Why are you trying to fix the result?
Also, that example doesn't really correlate to real life at all.

I'd suggest a quick Google search using the keywords GDP, female and workforce as your criteria should you wish to discover the benefits of improving employment access for women.

Counterargument: Japan

[Jimmy]

Counterargument: Japan? Do you mean the Japan with the Prime Minister asking his people to give more opportunities to women, potentially increasing their GDP by 12.5%?

In my example, the outcome is that the tools to increase production are currently available to only 50% of the population due to selective bias by the incumbent male powers. Studies show that women are equally as ambitious for advancement as men, but due to the structure of the workplace are inherently less likely to achieve that advancement. By specifically targeting this bias, studies show you can double the number of women suitable for management positions.

I'd think the reason to fix this is obvious. Increased female participation in the workforce creates wealth. Wealth creates a strong economy. A strong economy creates a strong nation. I believe my example does an adequate job of illustrating a complex issue in three paragraphs, but if there's specific points you'd like to make I'd be happy to hear them.

[Orange Wizard]

Women lose their chances for advancement because of the "structure of the workplace"? Lolwut does that even mean

...

In my example, the outcome is that the tools to increase production are currently available to only 50% of the population due to selective bias by the incumbent male powers.

Your example is ridiculously simplistic to the point of irrelevancy because it assumes that "man" and "woman" are the only categories people can fit in to and declares that women may never obtain [parallel to leadership position].

[LordBucket]

@Jimmy:

Going to second orange Wizard's comment that your scenario doesn't resemble real life very well. It's not like woman are being kept at home due to perception of lesser utility while employers are suffering from lack of workers while we're all suffering from lack of food because there's all this work that needs to be done. That's just not how things are. With some exceptions, but let's not focus on the exceptions...the general case is that it doesn't make very much difference whether a man or woman does any particular job. You're not "increasing production" by letting loose the housebound woman to do work also, you're simply switching an available job from a man to a woman. And in most cases that doesn't have any meaningful effect on production. You simply have an unemployed man now instead of an unemployed woman, and production is plenty high enough either way. In the specific example of food, we're already throwing away about 40% of what we produce. It's not like we really need to scrape out every last bit of possible work for additional benefit. Rather, we have roughly 50-65% labor participation rates and people are competing for what jobs there are, yet nevertheless we're overproducing a lot of things.

[nullBolt]

<snip>

I think you've impressively managed to mangle together both the equality and gender quotas debate. I do not even know where to begin to unravel this.

I don't think anyone is arguing against you though, really. I do not think anyone is making the arguments you're fighting against. Even Orange and LordBucket are just saying that what you're presenting does not hold to any reasonable standard of realism in the modern world.

To go to your magic machine example: What if a woman using the magic machine without twice as much training as a man awoke an eldritch beast that would swallow the earth? Should we train women to use it, then?

Think about everything it takes to get him to that point though! Do we really need a janitor to get 13+ years of schooling, access to modern medicine, etc? And then if you want him to work for you, he has to be compensated enough that he can afford high-tech luxuries like televisions and refrigerators. All those resources are effectively being poured down the drain for a janitor. It's best to throw him into the woods at a young age and just get it over with.

If the resources he consumes could be better used by a stronger or smarter person, it is a waste to give them to him.

If we kill everyone except the intelligent men, there will be enough.

Dude, if you want to be 2016's master trole, you need to present something at least approaching my viewpoint or anything approaching logic at all.

If not, try to present your own different solution.

[Jimmy]

@LordBucket:

I think you're acting under the false assumption that jobs are a finite resource. They're not. Jobs are created by supply and demand.

For a real world example, take a dog groomer. It's a job that is created by people who have the income to support a pet dog, and disposable income sufficient to pay someone else for the service of maintaining that pet. An unemployed person would likely wash their own damned dog. If that dog groomer is successful enough, he or she probably will need to employ the services of an accountant to manage their tax reports. They might also need a secretary to handle the bookings and phone calls when they're out at work. They might end up employing an assistant dog washer if there's more work than they can handle alone. If the business is especially successful, they might franchise the business and sell their brand to other people. There's an example of jobs created because someone else has more money from gainful employment.

Now extrapolate that example to every job an unemployed housewife would do. With your extra disposable income from your spouse working, you employ a cleaner to come tidy up your house. You employ a daycare worker to look after your kids during business hours. You eat out more often, employing more hospitality workers. You even indulge in an expensive holiday each year to unwind after the stress of work, increasing the demand for hotel workers, travel agents, rental car agencies, and a myriad of other places you end up spending your money. All these businesses do more trade, and so they employ more people and create more jobs.

I also think you're confusing the example with the comparison. The produce created by the farm is an example of the profits created by that business. The business might be a factory manufacturing widgets for sprocket assemblies, or a marketing firm selling paradigm shifting synergistic integrated solutions. What they're selling isn't important. The important part is the wealth created by that business, and how increasing female participation taps a workforce that isn't currently engaged in creating taxable income. More wealth equals more GDP and taxable income equals stronger economy.

In my example, a female denied the magic machine still creates wealth, but not as much as if given the opportunity to use the skilled tools required to maximize their individual potential. It's not a binary equation of none versus all, but a spectrum of possibilities. Arbitrarily restricting that potential through simple bias is a tragedy and quite nearly as wasteful as our food surplus. Let's give women the tools required to create opportunities for advancement, and we might just see them create their own opportunities with the tools they've mastered.

Finally, I guess we differ in philosophical positions on oversupply. I see overproduction as a good thing, where wastage is an essential part of capitalism. You overproduce your product to ensure that any and every customer that seeks it has instant gratification for their purchase. Your profit margin should account for the inherent wastage that occurs because of this. The product that you don't sell becomes someone else's opportunity, through employment opportunities for discount resellers, landfill disposal companies and piracy copyright lawsuits.

@nullBolt:

I think your comparison of women being employed in high level management positions to awakening an eldrich beast capable of swallowing the earth is quite telling of your personal bias. If a woman isn't capable of the position, she wouldn't apply for it. If for some reason she still did, it's likely she'd be beaten by a more qualified applicant, or quickly dismissed for failure to perform their job and a more suitable candidate selected in their stead.

[nullBolt]

I think your comparison of women being employed in high level management positions to awakening an eldrich beast capable of swallowing the earth is quite telling of your personal bias.

I was being facetious and giving you an example as unrealistic as the one you gave to us.

If a woman isn't capable of the position, she wouldn't apply for it. If for some reason she still did, it's likely she'd be beaten by a more qualified applicant, or quickly dismissed for failure to perform their job and a more suitable candidate selected in their stead.

I don't think you understand how either people or business works.

People apply for positions they're incapable of all the god damn time. Software studios have to have tests that first year software engineering students could solve within their first two weeks included in their standard interviews because there are so many people who don't even know what programming is that apply.

When a business hires someone, the likelihood of them firing them immediately is unlikely even if they're completely incompetent. That's just not how businesses operate, outside of the person committing gross misconduct.

[Orange Wizard]

I think you're acting under the false assumption that jobs are a finite resource. They're not. Jobs are created by supply and demand.

And, currently, supply exceeds demand. We have more than enough stuff for everyone who can afford it. You appear acting under the false assumption that demand will increase significantly when a few more people start earning more.

But you're putting the cart before the horse. As LB has said, those jobs don't exist, and they won't, because until more people have disposable income in the first place, you're just shuffling jobs around - one more unemployed man, one more employed woman.

[nullBolt]

I think you're acting under the false assumption that jobs are a finite resource. They're not. Jobs are created by supply and demand.

And, currently, supply exceeds demand. We have more than enough stuff for everyone who can afford it. You appear acting under the false assumption that demand isn't being met.

We literally exist in a post-labour society. Pretty much everything could be automated at this current point in time but we can't do it because it'd collapse all our presumptions of what an economy is.

[Jimmy]

Until we invent automated processes that require no maintenance or creative input by an intelligent creature we're hardly in a post-labour society (although I for one welcome our new automated overlords). Jobs have been rendered obsolete by technology, certainly. For example, take the 19th century ice trade. Prior to refrigeration, we had an entire global industry employing over 90,000 people devoted to transporting a short lasting product over vast distances for enormous profit ($660 million in today's dollars). Wham! Technology made their industry obsolete. But hey, somehow society continues to function and the economy doesn't crumble. New developments will be no different, save for those individuals who fail to adapt to the shift in consumption patterns.

[nullBolt]

Until we invent automated processes that require no maintenance or creative input by an intelligent creature we're hardly in a post-labour society (although I for one welcome our new automated overlords). Jobs have been rendered obsolete by technology, certainly. For example, take the 19th century ice trade. Prior to refrigeration, we had an entire global industry employing over 90,000 people devoted to transporting a short lasting product over vast distances for enormous profit ($660 million in today's dollars). Wham! Technology made their industry obsolete. But hey, somehow society continues to function and the economy doesn't crumble. New developments will be no different, save for those individuals who fail to adapt to the shift in consumption patterns.

At the moment, we could put literally 75% of people out of their jobs just by implementing automation (and not even particularly complex or detailed automation, either).

We are very much post-labour. Even in a post-labour society you need people maintaining the machines.

[sluissa]

Roughly 10% of the US job market is on the verge of being phased out (the logistics sector) due to the fact that moving stuff from point A to point B and storing it in a warehouse when it's not doing that is a dead simple job and easily automated.

A lot of other stuff is already perfectly able to be automated but simply isn't because human lives are cheap and expendable.

There will always be jobs for humans to do... but we are nearing a point where universal employment will not be a given. There will simply not be a job for everyone out there, and the more we try to force that to be the case, the more we end up with increased costs due to an inflated number of middlemen and other jobs which don't add any value to the system.

The government pays farmers to leave fields fallow when they're not needed. Why can't we get over the fact that we should be willing to do the same for people?