Employers in 'Dark Ages' with 'antiquated' views on recruiting women

[Elegiac]

Probably. Robots don't get sick, after all.

Like I was telling my friend, this is like a cyberpunk future but with none of the fun technology.

[Deleted]

I'm just explaining perception, I don't think this is the way things should be... But as long as society is motivated by Capitalism, and pregnancy/children cause a burden on business, this is how it's going to stay.

- - - Updated - - -



lol what.

We could feed multiple countries of starving people based off of just the food Americans WASTE let alone on the amount extra we gorge ourselves.

Yes, that is possible, but then we would have to be ration certain food, make thing unavailable for paying costumers or ultimately not make money from it. So, no, in our current system it is not possible, because it is not our goal to have food for everyone, it is our goal to make money. Those two things do not go really good together.

[Antiganon]

The qualifier presented was risk assessment of productivity, which is pretty difficult to gauge considering the array of factors that go into productivity; factors like illness.

But hey, I'm sure in our late capitalist hellscape we won't be too far off requiring a personal health assessment before hire.

Coming soon to an unemployment line near you:

JOBS FOR EVERYONE! Must be in good health, with a post secondary degree, good credit, no children or likelihood of having children, young enough that we can pay you far below your worth without you making a fuss, old enough that you have some worthwhile experience, and must be willing to relocate without corporate assistance!

Positions available: Burger flipper, Drive-thru order taker, overnight janitor.

Nights and weekends a must. You must work on holidays. No PTO. No Vacation. Part time hours. No benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, that is possible, but then we would have to be ration certain food, make thing unavailable for paying costumers or ultimately not make money from it. So, no, in our current system it is not possible, because it is not our goal to have food for everyone, it is our goal to make money. Those two things do not go really good together.

[Dundebuns]

Easy way to fix this is to give men the same rights on pregnancy time as women. When a women gets pregnant, the father should have the same ability to go off on paternity leave for the same amount of time as the mother can take for maternity leave. Then it becomes a moot point for employing people who can bear children.

[Deleted]

You keep repeating this, but it does not make it remotely correct. It doesn't have to be our 'sole' priority.



You're not exactly contradicting me here.



Neither is presenting consistently incorrect information, oddly enough.

And how exactly would you do it without making it our sole priority? Have people ship food that they can sell here for 3 times the money to somewhere that he probably will not get paid at all? How exactly is this going to work within capitalism?

Then why do you insist that it is possible now?

Then stop presenting incorrect information, mine isn't incorrect, at least you have not made any argument against them other then "you are wrong". And that isn't an argument.

[Elegiac]

And how exactly would you do it without making it our sole priority? Have people ship food that they can sell here for 3 times the money to somewhere that he probably will not get paid at all? How exactly is this going to work within capitalism?

You're not seeming to grasp that the food issue is a proximate one; the main problems are political instability and lack of investment that would encourage wage growth and thus access to the globalised market.

Lack of willpower does not mean that the means do not exist, or that it would consume the entirety of human effort.

Then why do you insist that it is possible now?

Possible and probable are two different things.

Then stop presenting incorrect information, mine isn't incorrect, at least you have not made any argument against them other then "you are wrong". And that isn't an argument.

I've made plenty, you're just choosing not to address them.

[Antiganon]

Then why do you insist that it is possible now?

[Ethris]

Yeah, no, I hire older women or women who already have had their kids for exactly this reason. My employees run shifts and I cannot afford having multiple people missing for extended periods of time, hiring extras that I will then have to fire (and pay severance) when the original employee comes back, who I cannot fire afterwards even if her job performance becomes far worse. If the government wants to protect women's rights, it needs to do it out of its own pockets and stop penalizing industries that hire women.
My father once had THREE secretaries on his payroll because his secretary got pregnant and her replacement during her leave also got pregnant and had to take leave of her own.

Wow, like, um, I can't believe how sexist you are. I just can't. I can't even. I even can't. Wow. It's the current year.

[I Push Buttons]

Because "Janet's choice" is a choice that society has a compelling interest in encouraging people to choose; we have far greater interest in maintaining a replacement birthrate than we do in preventing some businesses having to eat a cut in profits because maternity leave is a thing. That's the simple fact of the matter.

If its in society's interest at the expense of the business, then what motivation does the business have to hire pregnant women if they can choose not to?

Conversely, if it was in society's interest at society's expense (ie: the full cost of maternity leave/training a replacement/etc., were shouldered by the state), then what motivation would a business have not to hire pregnant women?

Why exactly should any given business shoulder the responsibility of financing future generations?

[Deleted]

You're not seeming to grasp that the food issue is a proximate one; the main problems are political instability and lack of investment that would encourage wage growth and thus access to the globalised market.

Lack of willpower does not mean that the means do not exist, or that it would consume the entirety of human effort.

You do not seem to understand that everything that you saying here comes down to "because capitalism". Those lack of investments come because people will get a bigger payday from other things, so they put their money in those. Political instability is a byproduct of one of the countries/companies the rest uses to profit off, Nigeria isn't political unstable because all those people are unwilling. It is political unstable because it is good for the profits of companies like Shell oil. Wage growth again isn't something capitalism really value's, just have a look at the wages of even the western world from lets say the 1970's .

Possible and probable are two different things.

Right, its also possible that a nuke will drop tomorrow and aliens arrive to save us all, not very probable though. Still, it would be more probable then what you suggest.

I've made plenty, you're just choosing not to address them.

Nope, you have not, the last one consisted of "you are wrong", and everything you did bring up i have addressed, unlike you and your incomplete quotes.

[Kiri]

I don't think you take into account the automation that is soon upon us. Technology is advancing much faster than you think. Self driving cars, personal assistants, robot chefs/bartenders, you name it. We will witness in our lifetime things we can't even imagine

All predictors indicate a huge loss of jobs. Economy does not need millions of unemployed people. Thus, your statement is -ironically- short sighted and you don't even look inside your own life-span. Natural reduction of population should be the priority (thankfully in most advanced countries it is already happening, births are lower than deaths)

Oh, that is a whole other can of worms to open up. All of the stuff we are discussing here right now can be voided anyway by said automation. If it truly happens the way some people predict, we are looking at a massive societal and economical upheaval, the likes of which we have not seen since the industrial revolution. It might even re-define how we, as a society, look at the abstract concept of work.
Right now though, we do not really know how any of this will play out - not even if automation will be as thorough as we think. Humans are not always logical beings and they might end up rejecting it in certain sectors, especially those relying on human interaction right now. Or they might celebrate not having to deal with Joe Retail anymore.
That kind of short-sightedness is something that I am aware of though. Right now, even if we take massive automation happening as a fact, we cannot tell whether or not we will truly need more or less population growth, especially since economics itself would change drastically depending on adopted policies. How does our neat theory of supply and demand react, for example, to something like the UBI? What kinds of new jobs will arise from the ashes of the low-skill sector? After all, today we have billions of people employed in jobs that did not even exist a few generations ago. Maybe we will need to drastically reduce numbers to achieve a sustainable level. Maybe we will need even more.
In general, I would argue that, until we know the exact ramifications, going for natural reduction of population might be a dangerous path to take. We have the resources right now to sustain even millions of unemployed people, in terms of food and everything else. But natural reduction is much easier to facilitate when needed than natural addition.

As for the actual on-topic stuff, my argument would be that until we know for absolute sure that we need a drastic reduction, working with the old paradigm mitigates risk the best. Hindsight is 20-20, of course, and we will see where that leads, but due to my tendency for risk-aversion, that would be my preference. I do acknowledge that it is far from a guaranteed success, of course, though realistically, even maternity-leave pay is a drop in bucket, all things considered.

[Elegiac]

You do not seem to understand that everything that you saying here comes down to "because capitalism". Those lack of investments come because people will get a bigger payday from other things, so they put their money in those. Political instability is a byproduct of one of the countries/companies the rest uses to profit off, Nigeria isn't political unstable because all those people are unwilling. It is political unstable because it is good for the profits of companies like Shell oil. Wage growth again isn't something capitalism really value's, just have a look at the wages of even the western world from lets say the 1970's .

We are perfectly capable of sustaining a market capitalist system while ensuring the vast majority of people live in relative comfort, using current technology.

This just reeks of a political bias, lol.

Right, its also possible that a nuke will drop tomorrow and aliens arrive to save us all, not very probable though. Still, it would be more probable then what you suggest.

Your point being what?

[f3llyn]

You go in for like an hour or so and work and if they like you they'll offer and give you paper work to sign. For compensation, you get foooooood

I live in Oregon and I know people who work as waiters and food servers and I've never heard of anything like this.

Not only that but I'm pretty sure compensating people only with food and not actual wages is against the law (it would seriously fuck with taxes too) unless it's someone who is a volunteer which seems to be what you're describing.

[Elegiac]

If its in society's interest at the expense of the business, then what motivation does the business have to hire pregnant women if they can choose not to?

They have none, which is why regulation exists to force them to.

Conversely, if it was in society's interest at society's expense (ie: the full cost of maternity leave/training a replacement/etc., were shouldered by the state), then what motivation would a business have not to hire pregnant women?

How is this a converse question, exactly?

Why exactly should any given business shoulder the responsibility of financing future generations?

Do they want a healthy economy in which to operate? Then they should. They won't, of course, but as I said that's what regulation is for.

[Easo]

Is it understandable? Yes, of course.
Is it wrong? Yes, it is. And it is sexist, it is purely about one sex and their inability to work when they are pregnant.

The comments here are... Ah, well, they are the usual. There is no point to this thread, they all end the same.

[Video Games]

I live in Oregon and I know people who work as waiters and food servers and I've never heard of anything like this.

Not only that but I'm pretty sure compensating people only with food and not actual wages is against the law (it would seriously fuck with taxes too) unless it's someone who is a volunteer which seems to be what you're describing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_(cooking)

[f3llyn]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_(cooking)

That's something different and not the normal hiring process most people would go through though.

[Video Games]

That's something different and not the normal hiring process most people would go through though.

That's still what we call it and it's the process in which a lot of kitchens here hire people

[Mister Cheese]

Wow it's almost as if you're gonna tell me the wage gap is real too.

[Deleted]

We are perfectly capable of sustaining a market capitalist system while ensuring the vast majority of people live in relative comfort, using current technology.

This just reeks of a political bias, lol.



Your point being what?

Right, let me guess, we can do this because you've said so?! Yea no, we can't because it goes against capitalistic principles. You invest your money as best as possible, not to feed people. We have been over this but you keep ignoring everything i say while at the same time accusing me of doing that..

And it should be obvious what my point is.