Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Capitalist theory? Historical precedent?Economies are not zero sum games.
Do organizations create special jobs for women? A few possibly but majority doesn't.
For example: A large bank creates vacancies for people, about 200. After the advertisement, 20,000 candidates apply (males and females). Now both males and females would be competing for these jobs/seats. Their is no fixed quota for men and women.
Therefore, the big picture is that men and women are (in general) competing with each other for jobs in a country.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
As I pointed out before:Do organizations create special jobs for women? A few possibly but majority doesn't.
For example: A large bank creates vacancies for people, about 200. After the advertisement, 20,000 candidates apply (males and females). Now both males and females would be competing for these jobs/seats. Their is no fixed quota for men and women.
Therefore, the big picture is that men and women are (in general) competing with each other for jobs in a country.
I'm fairly certain you have no concept of how market economies work.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm fairly certain you have no concept of how market economies work.
Vacancies are created when employed people retire or quit and when organizations expand. When these vacancies are announced, they are not gender restricted on average. Both males and females can apply therefore competition takes place.
Point is that economies are not dependent upon gender to flourish. Women do not bring extra productivity on the table which men cannot.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I am not interested in discussing economic theories with you or anybody else here. I am simply mentioning my personal observations.
re: I have no relevant knowledge of economics but still want to make absurd and baseless statements and demand people take me seriously, rabble!
Originally posted by Oliver North
re: I have no relevant knowledge of economics but still want to make absurd and baseless statements and demand people take me seriously, rabble!
So their is no competition between the sexes for jobs?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you should probably shouldn't have started talking about economics of gender, eh?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In this age of information and accessibility, it is not difficult to seek any kind of information. I am keeping my discussions simple.
this is unsurprising, given nuance does not support your position
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So their is no competition between the sexes for jobs?
I don't remember anyone challenging that assertion, no
Originally posted by Oliver North
this is unsurprising, given nuance does not support your position
Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't remember anyone challenging that assertion, no
Originally posted by Bardock42
I would like to bring up my point about jobs not being a zero sum game. More women working is good for the economy as they create more value and there can be more consumption. A woman having a job does not necessarily steal a job from another person, rather she may create her own job (and many others) indirectly.This is very similar to anti-immigration arguments, and it's just as wrong really.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What do you mean?
you want to oversimplify things so that it looks like your position is correct.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Here;
1) he isn't saying men and women wouldn't compete ffs
2) if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs. Does it equal out entirely, no, probably not, but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available. As a % of the people unemployed, yes, men will now be larger than previously, but there will be a far greater % of the population employed in general.
But wait, you didn't want to talk about economics, or, it seems, actually try to understand the arguments people are posing, so I'm not sure why I'm discussing it with you
Originally posted by Oliver North
you want to oversimplify things so that it looks like your position is correct.
Originally posted by Oliver North
1) he isn't saying men and women wouldn't compete ffs2) if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs. Does it equal out entirely, no, probably not, but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available. As a % of the people unemployed, yes, men will now be larger than previously, but there will be a far greater % of the population employed in general.
"if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs."
This makes sense. People can create jobs for others by starting their own businesses.
"but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available."
How exactly? My point of contention is that mixed-gender workforce doesn't guarantees economic prosperity. Several countries in Asia prove this. Decent economic policies actually guarantee "economic prosperity." For example: Empowering private sector. Once again, economic prosperity is not gender-dependent phenomenon.
A patriarchal society can also economically prosper. How is this possible? Because in such a society majority of men will be employed, earning a lot, capable of maintaining households and afford luxuries on their own, create new businesses and vice versa.
Originally posted by Oliver North
But wait, you didn't want to talk about economics, or, it seems, actually try to understand the arguments people are posing, so I'm not sure why I'm discussing it with you
Originally posted by Mindship
I think the real threat is that, today, more women than men are attending college,
Threat? How so? It's just changing times as I see it. Women now outnumber men in institutions of higher learning by a 2 to 1 ratio and there's now parity in fields that were once totally male such as engineering. If current trends continue then the US and Europe will become female dominated in the coming decades. But there will be other factors involved, especially in Europe such as the Islamic problem.
I'll add that men are still the dominant gender and will continue to be for some time. But to quote an old 60s song..."The times, they are a changing"
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
"if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs."This makes sense. People can create jobs for others by starting their own businesses.
"but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available."
How exactly?
Wait do you, like, literally not understand that women are people? Because those two quotes are saying exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm fairly certain you have no concept of how market economies work.
Originally posted by Oliver North
re: I have no relevant knowledge of economics but still want to make absurd and baseless statements and demand people take me seriously, rabble!
I found his question relevant to this thread and it did not violate some sort of economics discussion norm. 😬
Do either of you gag when reading your over-the-top smug posts?
Originally posted by Oliver North
1) he isn't saying men and women wouldn't compete ffs2) if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs. Does it equal out entirely, no, probably not, but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available. As a % of the people unemployed, yes, men will now be larger than previously, but there will be a far greater % of the population employed in general.
But wait, you didn't want to talk about economics, or, it seems, actually try to understand the arguments people are posing, so I'm not sure why I'm discussing it with you
You've made an assumption that is not necessarily true. You assumed that, while men may lose some of those jobs, the overall effect of this current education and gender-specific employment trend is going to be a net increase in jobs.
Why not just arbitrarily assume in the other direction and assume the following: the overall effect of this current education and gender-specific employment trend is going to be a net decrease in jobs.
Looking at the last 10 years, that's true. Obviously, this would probably be a conflation. But wait...maybe it isn't.
Have you heard of the mancession? lol Kreest All-meaty*, it's the funniest macro name to come about in the last decade.
Almost 75% of jobs lost in the recession were men (in the US).
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/20/opinion/la-oe-daum-bolick-20111020
So, wait, we can, now, discuss that there really is a net decrease in jobs over the last 10 years and the majority of those "net lost jobs" are male jobs.
We also lost Steve Jobs in that 10-year period. 🙁
*That's the redneck way of saying "Christ Almighty".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do either of you gag when reading your over-the-top smug posts?
no
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've made an assumption that is not necessarily true.
no i didn't
the claim is that having both genders in the work force increases the wealth in a nation. your point was that men were more impacted by the economic downturn. these are not related at all and not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Oliver North
no i didn'tthe claim is that having both genders in the work force increases the wealth in a nation. your point was that men were more impacted by the economic downturn. these are not related at all and not mutually exclusive.
Wrong: You specifically stated:
"As a % of the people unemployed, yes, men will now be larger than previously, but there will be a far greater % of the population employed in general."
That's not true and I pointed out why. In addition, the largest portion of unemployed is men, in the US. The largest portion that were impacted by the economic downturn were males and by a huge margin.
So while you can claim that doubling the work force is better in theory, it was not relevant to the topic, constitutes a tangent, and functions a red herring.
Let's go back to your post:
Originally posted by Oliver North
no i didn'tthe claim is that having both genders in the work force increases the wealth in a nation. your point was that men were more impacted by the economic downturn. these are not related at all and not mutually exclusive.
You quoted a very small portion of my post that literally took it out of context. What did you quote?
Originally posted by dadudemon
"You've made an assumption that is not necessarily true."
But what was the context?
You stated the following:
Originally posted by Oliver North
2) if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs. Does it equal out entirely, no, probably not, but in aggregate, women working makes the economy much, much stronger and makes more jobs available. As a % of the people unemployed, yes, men will now be larger than previously, but there will be a far greater % of the population employed in general.
My own emphasis added.
So I replied with the following:
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've made an assumption that is not necessarily true. You assumed that, while men may lose some of those jobs, the overall effect of this current education and gender-specific employment trend is going to be a net increase in jobs.Why not just arbitrarily assume in the other direction and assume the following: the overall effect of this current education and gender-specific employment trend is going to be a net decrease in jobs.
Looking at the last 10 years, that's true. Obviously, this would probably be a conflation. But wait...maybe it isn't.
Have you heard of the mancession?
Almost 75% of jobs lost in the recession were men (in the US).
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oc...bolick-20111020
So, wait, we can, now, discuss that there really is a net decrease in jobs over the last 10 years and the majority of those "net lost jobs" are male jobs.
You want to focus on one very specific portion of your post I quoted, namely, this: "if there are twice as many people with disposable income, that creates more wealth in the economy and more jobs."
That's not what was really pointed out nor contradicted by my post. In fact, that's not even being debated, directly.
However, if I wanted to be smug, like others in this thread have been, I would state that a comment like that is horribly naive: "twice as many people" is not even remotely possible. In order to state or even believe something like that, you'd have to have very little understanding of macroeconomics. But I'm not here to wank or lord my knowledge of economics over people nor point out how dumb I may or may not think others are: that's petty and lame.
I'm more interested in the actual discussion of gender inequality in America and how education and employment are going to be impacted by this topic. It seems there is a clear trend: men need to pull their heads out of their ass in America or they are going to continue to experience more unemployment.
Originally posted by Oliver North
no
No worries: I do on your behalf.