3 ms·

So the opportunities here are a) make house construction less labour-intensive, and b) bring more women into construction work. Part a) sounds like a call to m

So the opportunities here are a) make house construction less labour-intensive, and b) bring more women into construction work. Part a) sounds like a call to make building more modular, with larger and larger things made in factories rather than on-site. For part b), maybe training programs. Have them women-only so they're less intimidating to women looking to enter a very male profession, and make them cheap or free up front, with tution payable only by those who actually find relevant work.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
I'm all for diversity but specifically targeting people who are smaller on average for employment in a physical labor job seems just plain dumb. Construction labor isn't "lift a ~50lb 3U chassis by yourself from time to time" Several times per day you'll lift objects that are 50lb or heavier, unwieldy and might have to be in an odd/precarious position to do, plywood, packs of shingles, bags of concrete, bathroom fixtures, etc come to mind. Some days you won't do anything too strenuous, other days you'll spend 4hr unloading packs of laminate flooring. Not that individual women can't do that stuff but at a statistical level they're working harder to do so and it manifests itself as increased wear on equipment (workers). Sure you can carry a cord of wood in a Tacoma and it gets the job done but if you have a fleet of Tacomas and F150s carrying cords of wood day in and day out you'll eventually crunch the numbers and go with all F150s because for a given amount of work the bigger truck holds up better, people are no different except that it doesn't cost more up front to get the bigger truck when they self select for the job.