99 Weeks Later, Jobless Have Only Desperation

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, as you note yourself (and then immediatley dismiss), it is most effective to both discourage some of the unemployed from working and ensure sufficient quantities of jobs for the remainder. We currently have an employment population ratio of 58.4%. Perhaps we should sincerely ask ourselves: Is this too high? Is the problem necessarily that there are too many people out of work, or that the wrong people are out of work?

The secular media has repeatedly lauded the fact that women now make up the majority of the workforce, and men make up the largest group of the unemployed. But as Christians, rather than feminists, should we not ask ourselves if this is not completely backward?

This is something that I’ve brought up repeatedly before, but which no one is willing to comment on. Too unpalatable, I presume. 😛
Hmm. I thought discouragement was a bad thing, liberals take it as the despondency/adversity of the unemployed, but conservatives interpret it as a lack of initiative for the unemployed.

I thought conservatives, in general, would not see discouragement as a good thing, and that’s why I did not recommend it as a sink for the unemployed. I agree that too many women (or any other group for that matter) drives down wages. It is better for a labor market to have fewer laborers to put upward pressure on wages. That’s why I am not to enthralled about “forcing” people back to work and having them clog/pollute the labor market with their presence.
 
Then the debate begins: what constitutes a level of acceptable “general welfare”? Three hots and a cot? Clothes and basic medical care? A home of one’s own? A nice car and a cell phone? Designer jeans and a new washing machine? Where does one stop? At what point have we moved pass “general welfare” and moved into “general prosperity”? At what point do we leave caritas and enter socialism?
What’s wrong with providing for the general prosperity, like Western European welfare states?
 
Hmm. I thought discouragement was a bad thing, liberals take it as the despondency/adversity of the unemployed, but conservatives interpret it as a lack of initiative for the unemployed.
That is because they are oblivious to nuance. But we are neither true conservatives nor liberals, but Catholics. We are obliged to take the long view on things, which is why Protestants find us so very annoying.

Let’s take myself for an example. My children are both entering school this year, I am no longer able to have any more children, and I have increasing amounts of free time (obviously). I also have various skills that are highly valued in the job market.

I first considered going back to my old engineering work, as I still regularly receive requests for interviews. But I decided against this, because I think putting my kids in full-time school and after-school care, would not benefit them. Also, it seems a bit selfish for me to take up a valuable engineering position when we don’t really need the money. Especially when there are so many men out looking for work, pounding the pavement, and knocking doors in desperation. So, I have accepted a part-time teaching position elsewhere, for which there are no male applicants (because the hours are erratic, the subject a bit obscure, and the pay quite low).

I think it is fair for other unemployed women to ask themselves the same questions. Should I even be working, in the first place? Or should I be home with my children, instead? Do I truly need this position? If not, am I taking this position away from someone who does need it? If so, would there be a more appropriate position for me to take, or should I perhaps eschew gainful employment altogether, until the economy has recovered a bit?

Isn’t that the female counterpart to chivalry?
 
What’s wrong with providing for the general prosperity, like Western European welfare states?
Because it depresses personal initiative, leading to a decline in surplus-generation. (Pope Leo XIII mentions that effect in his document, as well.) Spreading the wealth around tends to lead to an overall decrease in wealth. It also undermines the role of the family, by leading people to turn to the state for their financial security.

It is possible to spread the wealth around a bit (to prevent poverty), but once you go beyond that (to promote prosperity), you general reach a tipping point where people just decide to give up working and go on vacation to the Med instead. The tax burden of such a system is so onerous that procreation and production appear increasingly undesirable. Hence, the long vacations, short work weeks, and low birth rates.
 
That is because they are oblivious to nuance. But we are neither true conservatives nor liberals, but Catholics. We are obliged to take the long view on things, which is why Protestants find us so very annoying.

Let’s take myself for an example. My children are both entering school this year, I am no longer able to have any more children, and I have increasing amounts of free time (obviously). I also have various skills that are highly valued in the job market.

I first considered going back to my old engineering work, as I still regularly receive requests for interviews. But I decided against this, because I think putting my kids in full-time school and after-school care, would not benefit them. Also, it seems a bit selfish for me to take up a valuable engineering position when we don’t really need the money. Especially when there are so many men out looking for work. So, I have accepted a part-time teaching position elsewhere, for which there are no male applicants (because the hours are erratic, the subject a bit obscure, and the pay is quite low).

I think it is fair for other unemployed women to ask themselves the same questions. Do I truly need this position? If not, am I taking this position away from someone who does need it? If so, would there be a more appropriate position for me to take, or should I perhaps eschew gainful employment altogether, until the economy has recovered a bit?

Isn’t that the female counterpart to chivalry?
I do consider that behavior to be altruistic by definition since you considered the needs of other people in the labor market who would be able to have the income from such a high paying job.

But you do have to remember that some women do not have highly valued skills and compete with men in the low end of the labor market. These women need to be discouraged, but they may need to enter the labor market since they do not have an adequate alternative source of income such a spouse with a high paying job or investment income. Perhaps, the state can create demand for their labor by offering them jobs to do the state’s service.

I guess this is why I am not, like most conservatives like ishii, judgmental towards the unemployed and I am not quick to say that they are lazy.
 
It says nothing about human values, which effect the choices a person makes in a free market.
It starts with no preference for any values of consumers: they can buy porn or food, and the effect is the same. If the porn industry is growing, and food production slowing, we all need to adjust, and accept that the market is our master or starve. Capitalism requires the producer to follow the dictates of consumers, and take the course that is going to maintain competitiveness. Right now, Target is caught in a conundrum - it apparently has pro-gay employee policies, but donated to a defender of marriage. Target is obligated to resolve this, not by appeal to anyone’s moral sense, but by the path that will maximize profitability for the shareholders, and the shareholders aren’t in a position to say they don’t want profits. A drug company, discovering that its latest pill may be dangerous, weighs the cost of removing the product against the cost of bad publicity and lawsuits, because its duties run to the shareholders, most of whom don’t care about anything but the bottom line or even know anything about the dangerous drug. Corporations are driven and required to pursue immorality.

Taking out the corporate aspect, the foundation of capitalism is that self-interest furthers the common good. As an empirical observation, this may be mostly true. As a foundation for promoting communal or responsible behavior, it is horrible.
The opposite of capitalism is communism, with socialism falling in-between. There are no other options for market design.
I think there are hundreds of variations of economic systems. I don’t know what to call China or India. I wouldn’t know how to classify the system of government sponsored monopolies in South Korea. In Asia, particularly, there are a variedt of command market economies. We also have a world economy, which is governed by trade agreements and strange new instruments like WTO. I’d hesitate to call it worldwide capitalism, but I sure don’t know what it is, exactly.
 
Good News,

Communism → Socialism → Capitalism are on a spectrum. Most societies are either center-left (such as China), or center-right (such as America). True communism or capitalism are rarities, and generally self-destruct within a generation. I cannot name a single country that fits capitalism completely, nor do I think such a society would be particularly pleasant to live in. But that is not to say that I do not think capitalism is generally preferable to socialism.

Black Rose,

I think it would be adequate for women to leave the market through natural attrition (not returning after pregnancy, for instance), and for the state to remove specific props for female employment. Those women who truly needed the work could still work, and the rest of us would tend to be increasingly discouraged. Women will struggle to compete with men in most positions, in a truly free market. That is, after all, why most women work in the public sector, and why private employers are bribed to hire us.
 
Good News,

Communism → Socialism → Capitalism are on a spectrum. Most societies are either center-left (such as China), or center-right (such as America). True communism or capitalism are rarities, and generally self-destruct within a generation. I cannot name a single country that fits capitalism completely, nor do I think such a society would be particularly pleasant to live in. But that is not to say that I do not think capitalism is generally preferable to socialism.

Black Rose,

I think it would be adequate for women to leave the market through natural attrition (not returning after pregnancy, for instance), and for the state to remove specific props for female employment. Those women who truly needed the work could still work, and the rest of us would tend to be increasingly discouraged. Women will struggle to compete with men in most positions, in a truly free market. That is, after all, why most women work in the public sector, and why private employers are bribed to hire us.
I’m not sure I agree with all of this, but it certainly is interesting reading. At the risk of being irrelevant and/or incurring the wrath of some feminist or other, I might add that there is almost certainly some kind of relatively gender-specific reason why most teachers are still women and most nurses definitely are. (Most NPs too) It can’t just be the pay. Nurse anaesthetists, and NPs make far more than the national average salaries. Yet virtually all of them are women. True, they have to come through the nursing route to do either one, but that does not adequately explain (nor does salary) why virtually all nursing entrants are still women. Surely young men realize nurse anaesthetists make around $100,000/year as do a lot of NPs. But they still don’t do it.

Why?

Yes, yes, feminists might argue that men eschew “traditional female roles”. But for $100,000 salaries, I would think most men would find their way around that, mentally.

We all know most engineers are still male, as are most engineering graduates. Why is that? Larry Summers got fired for guessing, so perhaps that particular oddity can’t be discussed.

On the other hand, notwithstanding that most law students are now women, not many women enter the litigation field, which is not exclusively a “man’s world” but is pretty close to it. Most women lawyers enter into government service or “inside counsel” jobs. Almost none “hang out a shingle”; something male lawyers do all the time. There are lots of female assistant prosecutors, but the criminal defense bar is almost exclusively a male preserve.

Why is that?
 
Oh, don’t mind angering the feminists. They like to be angry. And it’s sort of our sacred duty, as Catholics, to give them something to complain about. 😃
 
Oh, don’t mind angering the feminists. They like to be angry. And it’s sort of our sacred duty, as Catholics, to give them something to complain about. 😃
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

But seriously. You’re a woman. Why are virtually all nurses still women? Why are there virtually no female criminal defense lawyers and few female litigators, for that matter?

You, I take it, are a female engineer. Why are you one of so few?

Wild guesses, even, will suffice.
 
Now, now Ridgerunner. You are treading in dangerous waters with this.

Are you meaning to suggest that there is some intrinsic differences to the sexes? Are you attempting to have an independent thought, and basing it on the heresy of Natural Law and simple observation? Are you believing your lying eyes when we have specifically taught you that women are just men without penises, and that breasts are purely for decoration?

How dare you! Have you no shame? You sound just like that other male chauvenist, Benedict Whats-His-Name! Next thing I know you’ll be quoting scripture and all of that other religious mumbo-jumbo, and I will be forced to bring out my best shaming language to put an end to all of this.

😃

Women are not engineers because most women aren’t particularly good at being engineers and do not particularly enjoy engineering. Women are nurses because women are particularly good at being nurses, and generally enjoy nursing. But… keep it to yourself. We wouldn’t want the word getting out to the general public. 😉
 
Now, now Ridgerunner. You are treading in dangerous waters with this.

Are you meaning to suggest that there is some intrinsic differences to the sexes? Are you attempting to have an independent thought, and basing it on the heresy of Natural Law and simple observation? Are you believing your lying eyes when we have specifically taught you that women are just men without penises, and that breasts are purely for decoration?

How dare you! Have you no shame? You sound just like that other male chauvenist, Benedict Whats-His-Name! Next thing I know you’ll be quoting scripture and all of that other religious mumbo-jumbo, and I will be forced to bring out my best shaming language to put an end to all of this.

😃

Women are not engineers because most women aren’t particularly good at being engineers and do not particularly enjoy engineering. Women are nurses because women are particularly good at being nurses, and generally enjoy nursing. But… keep it to yourself. We wouldn’t want the word getting out to the general public. 😉
Ridge,

You could not have gotten a better response. This is classic imo. 😃

Thank you CatholicGerman. 👍
 
I don’t.

You can’t opt out of the economic system. It is as much an immovable feature of our lives as the government.

The problem with capitalism is it is immoral at its foundations. It puts profits above human values, and benefits community only indirectly. A company cannot resist shipping jobs to China and Indonesia after the strategy has become successful and standard in the marketplace. Apple can’t take the high road on conflict minerals in Congo if other companies do not, because that path is market suicide. Capitalism exerts incredible pressure to make immoral choices, and punishes those who do not. Choices are nearly impossible: if you work in an industry that exploits third world workers, it is extremely difficult to leave, and if you do, you will find something else objectionable, like the company’s support of gay marriage. These pressures and dilemnas are real. At least the government is obligated to count my vote and let me carry a sign, unlike an employer…
And you can stop patronizing businesses that you disagree with. I don’t shop at Walmart, e.g.

When people say that the problem with capitalism is capitalists and the problem with socialism is socialism, what they’re saying is that capitalism doesn’t speak to what’s right or wrong - in that sense its an amoral system. A capitalist can be a good one (i.e. do things that are just and right) or a bad one - cheat and exploit people. Its his choice. In a free market society, people are free to patronize or not patronize businesses based on their values. Capitalism isn’t immoral. Capitalists are (sometimes). On the other hand, socialism is based on a lie about human nature - it denies what we are and then tries to force society to conform to that lie. Its indeed immoral at its foundations. As Pius XI said, “no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

Ishii
 
Thank you CatholicGerman.
You’re welcome.

As a female engineer, I am particularly aware of the dichotomy between the “You Go Girl!” rhetoric and the “But That’s So Hard!” reality.

Even in engineering departments, the women all gravitate to the “easier” and more “person-oriented” positions. So, although there might be 10 female software engineers in a department of 60, the women will tend toward things like systems analyst, quality control, auditing, testing, project management, etc. It’s rare for a woman to stay in the actual software development team for very long. They usually get out as fast as they can. We used to take bets on how long one would last as a coder. I got out in… 3… 2… 1… QC, here I come!

It’s like that in every industry. You can always find a few token women who actually like the jobs, but it’s a minority.

Look at the medical community. Most surgeons are men (it’s something like 95%!). Women tend toward easier things like family medicine, pediatrics, or psychology, and most female doctors work part-time and retire early. That’s one hidden reason why our health care costs are increasing: female doctors are increasing. They cost more and work less.

Telecoms is the same way. How many women are telecommunications electricians versus working in management or call centers? Out climbing towers, laying cables, programming cable boxes? We should create female quotas for the jobs women don’t like to do, and then sit back and watch the companies run around frantically, paying women $500k to work on power cables or dig canals, with a monthly turn-over of 80%.

That would be so… interesting. 😃

Another point is that when women flood into a job category, men tend to leave. That is not because women are “better” necessarily, but because having large numbers of women in your field tends to “feminize” it. Everything gets softer, slower, easier. Litigation increases, internal disputes and dating rises. The competitive spirit degrades, and it all becomes about “team work” and “soft skills”. Men like to work hard and measure themselves against other men. Once a field becomes an “estrogen fest”, the men escape to other fields, and the salaries decline (men tend to be worth more to employers, so having a lot of men around keeps salaries high).

Men are also more ingenuitive, so start-ups tend to be overwhelmingly male. Once they get more successful, they add more and more women, until they end up a corporation. I’ve worked at two engineering start-ups, so I’ve had the opportunity to observe this twice. In other words, women are associated with bloated growth and beauracracy. Things like accounting, human resources, internal auditing, secretaries. Those are all parasitic fields that feed off of the surplus of the *actual *producers.

There’s nothing wrong with that (such jobs are also necessary), but there are simply too many of these positions. The quantities are required by laws and regulations, and are part of a gigantic make-work scheme for women. Men know that somebody, somewhere, needs them to fill out some form. They know that they now have to hire a woman to help them fill those forms out. The fact that the form is useless, and that nobody is going to read it, is something they are just expected to deal with. What do you think all of that paperwork is for? Most tax preparers are women. Most paralegals are women. Most medical assistants are women. Soon most accountants will be women. Man up.

Teaching, secretarial, and public services also used to be a primarily male professions. But how many men would want to work there now? There used to be plenty of men who were interested, but now it’s a “girl thing”. Men are being chased out of fields they used to dominate. Even software development is becoming “girly”. This is leading to rising costs because men tend to be more productive when doing the same work, they take fewer breaks, and they work longer hours.

But you didn’t hear all that from me…
 
Thank you CatholicGerman.
You’re welcome.

As a female engineer, I am particularly aware of the dichotomy between the “You Go Girl!” rhetoric and the “But That’s So Hard!” reality.

Even in engineering departments, the women all gravitate to the “easier” and more “person-oriented” positions. So, although there might be 10 female software engineers in a department of 60, the women will tend toward things like systems analyst, quality control, auditing, testing, project management, etc. It’s rare for a woman to stay in the actual software development team for very long. They usually get out as fast as they can. We used to take bets on how long one would last as a coder. I got out in… 3… 2… 1… QC, here I come!

It’s like that in every industry. You can always find a few token women who actually like the jobs, but it’s a minority.

Look at the medical community. Most surgeons are men (it’s something like 95%!). Women tend toward easier things like family medicine, pediatrics, or psychology, and most female doctors work part-time and retire early. That’s one hidden reason why our health care costs are increasing: female doctors are increasing. They cost more and work less.

Telecoms is the same way. How many women are telecommunications electricians versus working in management or call centers? Out climbing towers, laying cables, programming cable boxes? We should create female quotas for the jobs women don’t like to do, and then sit back and watch the companies run around frantically, paying women $500k to work on power cables or dig canals, with a monthly turn-over of 80%.

That would be so… interesting. 😃

Another point is that when women flood into a job category, men tend to leave. That is not because women are “better” necessarily, but because having large numbers of women in your field tends to “feminize” it. Everything gets softer, slower, easier. Litigation increases, internal disputes and dating rises. The competitive spirit degrades, and it all becomes about “team work” and “soft skills”. Men like to work hard and measure themselves against other men. Once a field becomes an “estrogen fest”, the men escape to other fields, and the salaries decline (men tend to be worth more to employers, so having a lot of men around keeps salaries high).

Men are also more ingenuitive, so start-ups tend to be overwhelmingly male. Once they get more successful, they add more and more women, until they end up a corporation. I’ve worked at two engineering start-ups, so I’ve had the opportunity to observe this twice. In other words, women are associated with bloated growth and bureaucracy. Things like accounting, human resources, internal auditing, secretaries. Those are all parasitic fields that feed off of the surplus of the *actual *producers.

There’s nothing wrong with that (such jobs are also necessary), but there are simply too many of these positions. The quantities are required by laws and regulations, and are part of a gigantic make-work scheme for women. Men know that somebody, somewhere, needs them to fill out some form. They know that they now have to hire a woman to help them fill those forms out. The fact that the form is useless, and that nobody is going to read it, is something they are just expected to deal with. What do you think all of that paperwork is for? Most tax preparers are women. Most paralegals are women. Most medical assistants are women. Soon most accountants will be women. Man up.

Teaching, secretarial, and public services also used to be a primarily male professions. But how many men would want to work there now? There used to be plenty of men who were interested, but now it’s a “girl thing”. Men are being chased out of fields they used to dominate. Even software development is becoming “girly”. This is leading to rising costs because men tend to be more productive when doing the same work, they take fewer breaks, and they work longer hours.

The truth is, if more women stayed home, raised, and educated their own children, we’d probably all be a lot better off. Things would be cheaper, red tape could be cut, hospital waiting lists would shrink, men’s salaries would rise, and our kids wouldn’t be so anti-social and degenerate. It would be an act of mercy to us all.

But you didn’t hear all that from me…
 
You’re welcome.

As a female engineer, I am particularly aware of the dichotomy between the “You Go Girl!” rhetoric and the “But That’s So Hard!” reality.

Even in engineering departments, the women all gravitate to the “easier” and more “person-oriented” positions. So, although there might be 10 female software engineers in a department of 60, the women will tend toward things like systems analyst, quality control, auditing, testing, project management, etc. It’s rare for a woman to stay in the actual software development team for very long. They usually get out as fast as they can. We used to take bets on how long one would last as a coder. I got out in… 3… 2… 1… QC, here I come!

It’s like that in every industry. You can always find a few token women who actually like the jobs, but it’s a minority.

Look at the medical community. Most surgeons are men (it’s something like 95%!). Women tend toward easier things like family medicine, pediatrics, or psychology, and most female doctors work part-time and retire early. That’s one hidden reason why our health care costs are increasing: female doctors are increasing. They cost more and work less.

Telecoms is the same way. How many women are telecommunications electricians versus working in management or call centers? Out climbing towers, laying cables, programming cable boxes? We should create female quotas for the jobs women don’t like to do, and then sit back and watch the companies run around frantically, paying women $500k to work on power cables or dig canals, with a monthly turn-over of 80%.

That would be so… interesting. 😃

Another point is that when women flood into a job category, men tend to leave. That is not because women are “better” necessarily, but because having large numbers of women in your field tends to “feminize” it. Everything gets softer, slower, easier. Litigation increases, internal disputes and dating rises. The competitive spirit degrades, and it all becomes about “team work” and “soft skills”. Men like to work hard and measure themselves against other men. Once a field becomes an “estrogen fest”, the men escape to other fields, and the salaries decline (men tend to be worth more to employers, so having a lot of men around keeps salaries high).

Men are also more ingenuitive, so start-ups tend to be overwhelmingly male. Once they get more successful, they add more and more women, until they end up a corporation. I’ve worked at two engineering start-ups, so I’ve had the opportunity to observe this twice. In other words, women are associated with bloated growth and bureaucracy. Things like accounting, human resources, internal auditing, secretaries. Those are all parasitic fields that feed off of the surplus of the *actual *producers.

There’s nothing wrong with that (such jobs are also necessary), but there are simply too many of these positions. The quantities are required by laws and regulations, and are part of a gigantic make-work scheme for women. Men know that somebody, somewhere, needs them to fill out some form. They know that they now have to hire a woman to help them fill those forms out. The fact that the form is useless, and that nobody is going to read it, is something they are just expected to deal with. What do you think all of that paperwork is for? Most tax preparers are women. Most paralegals are women. Most medical assistants are women. Soon most accountants will be women. Man up.

Teaching, secretarial, and public services also used to be a primarily male professions. But how many men would want to work there now? There used to be plenty of men who were interested, but now it’s a “girl thing”. Men are being chased out of fields they used to dominate. Even software development is becoming “girly”. This is leading to rising costs because men tend to be more productive when doing the same work, they take fewer breaks, and they work longer hours.

The truth is, if more women stayed home, raised, and educated their own children, we’d probably all be a lot better off. Things would be cheaper, red tape could be cut, hospital waiting lists would shrink, men’s salaries would rise, and our kids wouldn’t be so anti-social and degenerate. It would be an act of mercy to us all.

But you didn’t hear all that from me…
Mum’s the word!
 
At any rate, I’d noticed all of that for years. It didn’t really bother me, though, because I figured that’s just the way of things. But last year was the final straw.

I was trying to enroll my daughter in speech therapy lessons at the local public elementary school (where not a single man is employed in a teaching position!). The first meeting was in November. Seven women administrators attended, we discussed stuff and filled out nonsensical forms with lots of repetitive questions. This meeting was repeated (with similar forms and the same people) about once a month until April, when I was informed that my daughter was eligible for therapy and could start immediately. Unfortunately, there were only 2 months left by then.

I was absolutely perplexed by all of this. It made no sense. These women were apparently paid above-average educator salaries to do these meetings all day, push paperwork around, and boss around the *actual *teachers. I was disgusted with the whole thing and informed them (when asked) that I would be homeschooling my children, beginning with the next school year.

But I still have to pay for their worthless work, even if my children don’t attend there. And I saw recently in the newspaper that 80 teaching positions are being cut, and our property taxes will be raised, but not a single administrator will go. Class sizes will increase, but the meetings will continue. Of course they will continue. It is the administrators who get to decide who gets cut!

That’s just the way of things, I suppose. Who am I to complain?
 
Another thing is that I had to stay overnight in hospitals, numerous times in my life. There wasn’t anything so terribly wrong with me that I couldn’t have gone home. No, I had to stay there because the other women in my life were all at work, and couldn’t care for me at home. In a full twist of irony, many of those female relatives are nurses!

This is what we women do: we cook each other’s food, we care for each other’s sick, we raise and teach each other’s children, we feed and diaper each other’s babies, we bake each other’s bread, we cut each other’s hair, etc. It’s insane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top