4 ms·
> Society needs both nurses and engineers. Yes. And if more people want to become engineers, and if becoming an engineer is easier, then engineers will end up
by jabot 9y ago
> Society needs both nurses and engineers.
Yes. And if more people want to become engineers, and if becoming an engineer is easier, then engineers will end up getting less money than nurses.
I mean... the more fun a job is, the more people will want to do it despite getting little money, right?
> In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for.
I recall reading some statistics that (in germany) 80% of domestic spending is done by women. Seems about right.
> Women should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.
Uh. That's outright discrimination there.
Either against men or against childless people.
- hackerman12345 9y agoA good manager is expected to give an easier schedule to someone who is caring for a sick family member, why would it be horrible to give an easier schedule to someone who has to spend a lot of time taking care of a new baby? Biology has already discriminated and made her life hard, should we make it worse? Should we make having children as difficult as possible for our fellow citizens? Paternal leave is important too.
- Mononokay 9y ago> Biology has already discriminated and made her life hard, should we make it worse? Her choices made her life hard. She could have not had the child. Biology did not discriminate against her, it gave her a choice. In modern society having children is absolutely a choice, for both parties involved. You can argue that the government should, which, while I don't at all agree with, is reasonable. It's not reasonable, however, to expect employers to subsidize the cost of having children.