Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Pops wrote:today women still earn 16% less than men even though they are now better educated!

Just lost an AI engineer (a woman) to google. They offered her 400k/year. I couldn't match that.
Turns out that AI engineering is well paid. Turns out that a bachelor in engineering is worth more than a phd in studies of menstrual cycles in trans-genders, or studies of lesbian finger-painting's.

Doly wrote: Yes, real wages became stagnant around the seventies. That's the sort of growth that counts for the average person.

But it wasn't declining growth, growth continued. Wages fell as a result of a change in the relative scarcity of labor. There was no longer any negotiating, a vast new labor force was happy to work for pennies on the dollar. The owners were simply able to take an ever increasing share.

How come that some new machines are job-killers but not others, in spite that just about every new machine is built to reduce the need for human labor

The offshoring of manufacturing did increase jobs— somewhere else. Did you see the chart of male participation I posted?

When you increase automation and productivity, and the benefit is widely shared, society becomes richer and everyone can afford little luxuries they couldn't before. More luxuries, more jobs.

When you increase productivity and only the rich benefit, only the rich benefit. They only need so many yachts. But they do need somewhere to put their money, and financial chaos ensues with bubble after bubble.

Productivity growth isn't a useful metric for what we are discussing.

You're arguing growth is over, pretty sure continuing growth is relevant.

how come that companies don't always have the upper hand?

Labor is a commodity. Just another input. Like all commodities, scarcity equals value. In the 50's and 60s growth rates were high and so was labor demand because of a geographically limited labor force.

Modern globalization enabled by computers, containers & communication offered employers vast numbers of people with no job. Unlimited labor, so virtually free.

As well, the rise of "meritocracy" the ultimate anti-labor, anti-collective movement finished off any hope of common labor action in the US. It is all about what diploma you were able to get, screw everyone else. Laughingly, the single, educated city liberal thinks they are socialist: while the uneducated, church going, married family oriented "like-minded" republican thinks they are the individualist... it's pretty funny actually.

I'm saying that there was pressure for women to take on jobs and stay on them.

Yeah! Their husbands were laid off when jobs were offshored!

Women had long been the stay-at-home income insurance, if husband lost work the wife got a job until he got another. Didn't you ever watch Roseanne?

But once good, middle class jobs started being offshored, whether or not the husband was laid off, the family needed the extra income just to keep what they had. Seemed logical at the time, and besideds republicans promised trickle-down and democrats promised head-start. It all turned out to be a trap.

But employers weren't hiring women instead of men, they were hiring women as well as men.

Didn't you see the chart I posted showing men's declining participation?


I've laid out about all the evidence I've got. Pretty sure it's not going to change your belief so I'll quit here.
.

Turns out that a bachelor in engineering is worth more than a phd in studies of menstrual cycles in trans-genders, or studies of lesbian finger-painting's.

Actually, what studies indicate is that the main reason women earn less on average is because they're far more likely to take breaks in their careers in order to raise their children or care for other family members, not because of the type of education they choose. And every break in your career is likely to cause a pay drop, compared with no break.

In any case, the conversation is moving away from the main topic, which was EROEI and by extension limits to growth. The gender pay gap is an interesting topic but unrelated. If people want to discuss it, I suggest opening another thread.

Pops wrote:As well, the rise of "meritocracy" the ultimate anti-labor, anti-collective movement finished off any hope of common labor action in the US. It is all about what diploma you were able to get, screw everyone else. Laughingly, the single, educated city liberal thinks they are socialist: while the uneducated, church going, married family oriented "like-minded" republican thinks they are the individualist... it's pretty funny actually.

Yes, so ironic.

The people that 'don't like being told what to do' seem to be following in 'lock step.'

Yes, I'm a socialist enjoying the benefits of a rigged system.

However, I know better than to advocate that 'a rising tide lifts all boats' unless we're talking about global warming.

Doly wrote:In any case, the conversation is moving away from the main topic, which was EROEI and by extension limits to growth. The gender pay gap is an interesting topic but unrelated. If people want to discuss it, I suggest opening another thread.

There's something to admire about the societies where the women do all the work and the men just gossip. That's what a very low EROEI does.

jedrider wrote:
There's something to admire about the societies where the women do all the work and the men just gossip. That's what a very low EROEI does.

lol, is that a reference to this forum?

theluckycountry wrote:

jedrider wrote:
There's something to admire about the societies where the women do all the work and the men just gossip. That's what a very low EROEI does.

lol, is that a reference to this forum?

Sounds more like a description of banana benders.