4 ms·

Even without getting hung up on the "biological" qualifier, that's groundbreaking news to some people, you know. The people who insist that not having 50% femal

Even without getting hung up on the "biological" qualifier, that's groundbreaking news to some people, you know. The people who insist that not having 50% females in any occupation is them being underrepresented because they're repressed and discriminated against. (Never heard that female dominated occupations are discriminatory though, I wonder why) Then this translates into laws, policies and scholarships that effectively discriminate against men. Don't know what you mean by "individual level" policy but a lot of policy needs to change.

mcguire 5y ago
"Don't know what you mean by "individual level" policy but a lot of policy needs to change." The long-standing beliefs, policies, laws, and scholarships that assume a woman in a male-dominated profession is an abomination and represents a loss of a good job to a deserving man.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  These are either non-individual laws/policies, or personal beliefs/biases, but not both "individual level" and "policies" at the same time.
- ryan93 5y ago
  link to the law?
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Or the scholarship, for that matter?
john_moscow 5y ago
There's a very very very obvious dollar value attached to these policies. By discouraging the workforce from having families and kids (let alone single-income households) you effectively eliminate their main long-term expenses and reduce the pressure on the wages. You then start substituting the declining population with immigrants from countries with lower standard of living, and you've hit the jackpot. Your profits go up, your stock goes up, your salary expenses stay the same. This wouldn't fly 60 years ago when the economy was much more decentralized. There was no single large entity (or related group of entities) that would benefit from such policies. If you run a small business and personally know every employee, you wouldn't think of such a thing. This bodes well in the current model where every child-free worker is an extra $50K lifetime value for their employer, translating into 5 extra cents per share.

mcguire 5y ago

"Don't know what you mean by "individual level" policy but a lot of policy needs to change." The long-standing beliefs, policies, laws, and scholarships that assume a woman in a male-dominated profession is an abomination and represents a loss of a good job to a deserving man.

clusterfish 5y ago
These are either non-individual laws/policies, or personal beliefs/biases, but not both "individual level" and "policies" at the same time.
ryan93 5y ago
link to the law?
- kbelder 5y ago
  Or the scholarship, for that matter?

john_moscow 5y ago

There's a very very very obvious dollar value attached to these policies. By discouraging the workforce from having families and kids (let alone single-income households) you effectively eliminate their main long-term expenses and reduce the pressure on the wages. You then start substituting the declining population with immigrants from countries with lower standard of living, and you've hit the jackpot. Your profits go up, your stock goes up, your salary expenses stay the same. This wouldn't fly 60 years ago when the economy was much more decentralized. There was no single large entity (or related group of entities) that would benefit from such policies. If you run a small business and personally know every employee, you wouldn't think of such a thing. This bodes well in the current model where every child-free worker is an extra $50K lifetime value for their employer, translating into 5 extra cents per share.