What is Digg?82 Comments
- Bloodwine, on 05/06/2009, -4/+30Companies are probably quicker to layoff men than women out of fear of discrimination lawsuits.
- Barackalypse, on 05/06/2009, -6/+29Thank God, maybe daytime television will finally become watchable.
- frequentFlyer, on 05/06/2009, -2/+15The sooner the better. I'd love for the wife to be the bread winner. I'd work out all day and tweak my track bike.
- enderklein, on 05/06/2009, -0/+13why the hell does that graph read right to left???
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -2/+11a woman made it.
- Barackalypse, on 05/06/2009, -0/+9Wrong:
"The proportion of all women who were employed increased from 27.6 to 37 percent, and by 1945, they formed 36.1 percent of the civilian labor force."
http://www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/women5.h ... - JoeParanoid, on 05/06/2009, -0/+8Trouble is, most families need two incomes to survive. As for productivity, US productivity rates have steadily risen over the years, outdistancing other nations.
- nullcodes, on 05/06/2009, -3/+11I can't wait till the day when women go to work. Then, we men can sit at home all day, post crap on digg, watch movies, order pizza, and call the buddies over for poker and beer while the kids are at school.
- ConfirmedCynic, on 05/06/2009, -1/+8And complain about our women incessantly when we get together for coffee.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -5/+12Grats women!! You earned the right to vote and the right to work your whole life instead of doing the most important job which is raising kids not to be *****. Meanwhile you flooded the job market so a family can no longer live on one income.
- purewisdom, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6I would guess that men dominate middle management - well paid but not well positioned to keep their jobs.
It might also be tech people, engineers, etc. losing jobs (because companies will just make the rest of the programmers work harder to compensate) and also losing jobs overseas. And most of these tech jobs are dominated by men too. - yarcod, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6Pigs already flu.
- yoderizer, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5When women stop having children. So about 40 years before the end of the human race.
- nullcodes, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6didn't you hear? Swine flew.
- scamper22, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5women:
work for government / industries that get government money (healthcare) = safe jobs
men:
work for private sector for business, manufacturing... = no safety
Both sexes have their low paying jobs (retail, warehouse, food...), so we should expect reasonably equal layoffs there. - sulthernao, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5Uh... clearly you haven't taken an economics class.
1. Unemployment never equals "zero" (there is such a thing as full employment, though)
2. Productivity would decline far more (think about it, we have 8% unemployment but 50% of the workforce is women, therefore you'd have far more jobs available than workers).
3. That'd would jack up incomes (nominally, however, as it is all inflation; real incomes would probably decline as productivity decreases [because we are in a global market])
4. Massive, massive inflation. Look up the Phillips Curve.
5. Decreases our competitiveness with foreign countries.
So besides being totally sexist (Seriously? "women were FORBIDDEN to work outside the home" WTF??? Is this a freaking muslim country?), it is totally economically off base. Even still, how would you be able to enforce 1 parent work laws? Isn't this America: biggest advocate of Capitalism in the world? Basically you have wrongly assumed that having some unemployment is a bad thing. - plecostomus, on 05/06/2009, -7/+11I'm not sure we really need a reverse of the situation as far as the sexes go. Mostly male, mostly female-- it doesn't matter so much except for awareness and perception of that gender. Even if women do become a majority there may still be a disproportionate number of men in administrative positions (my humble opinion only).
What we do need is equal pay for equal work, revamped healthcare, paid paternal and maternal leave, and some way of dealing with those families who are supported by single parents working part-time (remember: part-time = no healthcare, no benefits, etc most of the time). Single mothers make up a large segment of the working poor, for example.
So basically once we elect Jesus (he's coming back sometime right?) we'll be a-okay. - DarkShroud, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4Women will always have to depend on someone at some point when they get knocked up and after child birth.
- nahsrocketeer75, on 05/06/2009, -3/+7Reason seems to be that massive layoffs are hitting a higher percentage of men than women, thus raising the percentage of women still employed. Maybe that's because men earn more? ... If so, this may be the best women can do for finding the silver lining in being historically underpaid.
- kinerry, on 05/06/2009, -2/+6We are already ***** in the classroom...***** us at our jobs and you'll have a men's rights movement going on
- k4zz4m, on 05/07/2009, -0/+4not to be sexist here but that will never happen.
a few of my employees always call in sick every month ... well you know, during their periods. ... and even though i will never experience their pain, it is not a valid excuse to call in sick but they all do. So in short. when women stop having periods. - barney74, on 05/06/2009, -3/+7What Golddigging isn't considered a job?
- Penetr8tr, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5And lets not forget about Affirmative Blacktion.... It's been making our workforce less qualified since 1965... /cheers!
- Yomoxu, on 05/07/2009, -0/+3Diggers are not sexist. We're just not tree-hugging self-emasculated hippies who view anything with a penis as inherently evil and in need of castration through every means possible.
- SpykerSpeed, on 05/06/2009, -7/+10"We"?
How about the government stops stealing half of everyone's income every year, and people interact on a voluntary basis? Is that so much to ask? - Barackalypse, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3That is because they made the poor decision to include total employment in their graph and placed it on the x-axis, which means that when employment shrinks the data points move left, which makes it fun when the data points correspond to time. The total employment numbers should have been left off the graph and time should have been on the x-axis.
- yarcod, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5While the concept of equal-pay-for-equal-work is all well and good... it's nearly impossible to draw that line without resorting to pay-grades and completely taking out salary negotiation and pay-for-performance.
I could make a case a few times in my life where women have been paid higher than me for the same work and similar qualifications... but I'd be laughed at if I brought up a sexual discrimination suit. - Ravatar, on 05/06/2009, -3/+6It has more to do with the industry than the position or its pay grade.
- chabs39, on 05/07/2009, -0/+3Yeah they had nice factory jobs while the men fought and died. Seems fair. If they want equality they should be drafted too.
- sgvprelude, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5Boobs beat my college education
- thejav, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2answer: when the majority of the work force involves making me a sandwich.
- vakeraj86, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2When will women become a workforce majority? When they stop getting pregnant.
- faskippy, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2I think it was pretty much women in the work force during WW2, making guns, machine aircraft, tanks, making bullets, building refineries (I worked in a refinery that was built completely by women during the war.) Damn nice one too. Remember Rosie the Riveter? So ***** off you big tiddy babies. It is what it is. Deal with it like a damn man. If you can find one to copy.
- Hillsfar, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2Equal pay for equal work will likely come when women work the same hours as men, and men take time off to take their kids to daycare or to care for the child when sick.
- SpeedStix, on 05/06/2009, -2/+4When the entire work force is dominated by female on female adult movies...
- Rethcir, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2Yes, exactly, ding ding ding. There's nothign sexist about saying that, all other things being equal, if 50% of the work population is female, there will always be a certain percentage of them on maternity at any given time.
Maybe this is in fact an argument for better maternity and paternity benefits? - bigplrbear, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2I got hired at a grocery store a few weeks ago. Out of ~30 employees, 24 of them are women.
- randumbusername, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2any day a male suffers is a great day in the eyes of the media.
- Georgy, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3Not to sound sexist but you know this is true
Women will be the larger workforce when it becomes unacceptable in society for a woman to depend on a man - pinchduck, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3Dumping a bunch of heavy-handed PC requirements on the economy during a deep recession is not a good idea. We have 50 different laboratories, why not try several different approaches? Some states could take a complete gonzo free-market approach, and others could mandate equality of outcomes for everyone down to shoe size and toothpaste flavor. In between you could have any number of mixed systems.
China's economy is booming right now because they got rid of the heavy, heavy hand of the State. I'm guessing that the free-market states would explode in productivity but have a low "social justice" score. People can live wherever they want in this country, so you pick whichever system you like and go there. - pixel34, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1I think it is an interesting milestone. The demographics of workers in an economy says something about the society.
- pathouston22, on 05/07/2009, -0/+1And you also pay higher health insurance costs for those employees vs. males. (if you offer it)
- faskippy, on 05/07/2009, -0/+1Ha ha ha! Kids.
- 8FoldPath, on 05/07/2009, -2/+3Wow. Many of you have some major issues about women. Seek help.
- inactive, on 05/08/2009, -0/+1Yeah, blame women for the need to have two wage earners. Go ahead, ignore changes in the economy caused by men who have always had more political and industrial power than women.
It would be nice to have only one wage-earner in the household. Women flooded the market because we had to. In the early 70's, we could live on one wage as long as we lived cheaply in a small apartment and with a used car. By the early 1980's, as rent prices kept rising, it was obvious I needed to work too if we ever wanted to get a down payment to buy a house and have some security.
It's too risky to have a one-income family. We need two wage earners to protect each other financially. Companies stopped being loyal to employees decades ago. Corporations have been more and more irresponsible over the years (borrowing billions to buy up each other and cutting jobs with each merger). Stockholders didn't use to expect 20% growth each year, and American workers used to be a valued commodity instead of something to replace with cheap labor overseas.
Too many retired people I've met seem totally out of touch with how much the economy has changed. They have their Medicare and Social Security. They don't have to pay $1,000 a month for health insurance with a lousy $5,000 deductible and 20% to 50% co-pays. Most seniors today didn't have to pay off tens of thousands in college loans before they could even think of starting to save for retirement. Many of them were able to buy houses for a fraction of what they cost now.
Don't blame working women for rising oil, house, college and food prices. It's mostly rich men who run greedy corporations, set the rules for Wall Street and who run expensive wars that cause inflation. - Hillsfar, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1I work in the software industry. In my post-college career I have had seven managers. One was gay, two were lesbian. The majority were women. They in turn reported to a female director who was replaced by another female director. The director reported to a long-time female VP (until she was replaced about a year ago). The company currently has a female CEO and our business unit currently has a female President who herself recently replaced another female President.
Honestly, affirmative action policies are outdated. The glass ceiling was shattered long ago. Women are climbing up the ranks as commensurate with their time and experience in the industry (post-80s). There are more female college students than there are male college students. There is no more need to give preference to women in hiring or promotion policies - but it will still continue for some time. - lacidar1, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Better yet, why not forbid married MEN from working outside the home? Unemployment would drop as some (physical) jobs would require two women to do the work one man use to do. I think most men know would go for this plan.
- Hillsfar, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1I work in the software industry. In my post-college career I have had seven managers. One was gay, two were lesbian. The majority were women. They in turn report to a female director who was replaced by another female director. The director reported to a long-time female VP (until she was replaced about a year ago). The company currently has a female CEO and our business unit currently has a female President who herself recently replaced another female President.
Honestly, affirmative action policies are outdated. The glass ceiling was shattered long ago. Women are climbing up the ranks as commensurate with their time and experience in the industry (post-80s). There are more female college students than there are male college students. There is no more need to give preference to women in hiring or promotion policies - but it will still continue for some time. -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is