The glass floor.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**lord_blackfang**

I thought the glass floor was the systemic sexism that keeps women out of the worst jobs.

**queen_annes_revenge**

lord_blackfang wrote:
I thought the glass floor was the systemic sexism that keeps women out of the worst jobs.

Oh snap.

Good point. But be careful...

**Orlanth**

Link in OP broken.

**cuda1179**

lord_blackfang wrote:
I thought the glass floor was the systemic sexism that keeps women out of the worst jobs.

Well, yeah, that is also a thing.

I get that it's a good thing to want women to get equal pay, and to introduce young women into STEM fields and other higher-paying areas. However, there is absolutely no push to get them into being garbage men, dangerous occupations, craptastic over-night jobs, ect. On the same token, there is no push to incentivize young men to go into nursing or elementary education.

**Polonius**

cuda1179 wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
I thought the glass floor was the systemic sexism that keeps women out of the worst jobs.

Well, yeah, that is also a thing.

I get that it's a good thing to want women to get equal pay, and to introduce young women into STEM fields and other higher-paying areas. However, there is absolutely no push to get them into being garbage men, dangerous occupations, craptastic over-night jobs, ect. On the same token, there is no push to incentivize young men to go into nursing or elementary education.

You know that virtually every dangerous field had their own fight to keep women out? At some point, why fight an industry over crappy jobs? And high profile movements tend to be dominated by white collar professionals, so they tend to focus on the areas they know. Enough books have been written about the tension between second wave, white collar, "Lean in" feminism which mostly advanced the agenda of upper middle class white women, and third wave intersectional feminism to fill a decent sized library.

A look at the lowest paying jobs is full of jobs is full of jobs that are tedious and low paying, and often mostly female.

**Easy E**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
The problem with trying to say that wage stagnation is the "real problem" rather than executive compensation is that the two things are really just facets of the same issue.

Yes, wages have been stagnating, because the wealthy have been hoovering up all the growth, and ludicrously excessive executive compensation is one of the ways they've done that. You can't solve the former without addressing - among many other things - the latter as well.

The problem is everyone keeps focusing with laser precision on CEO wages, as if that is the one and only thing that is making the poor miserable. So its actually unhelpful to talk about CEO wages at all. Don't say "They're part of the problem and need to be addressed". Focus on the greatest contributor to the problem if you can only talk about 1 thing. Don't talk about the least significant part of the problem.

Its like a doctor treating a patient who has been stabbed in the gut, receiver a broken bone, and several minor lacerations on his hands, and only treating the cuts on the hands. The patient will die if you only focus on the small cuts, which in and of themselves are not an issue and will heal on their own. Treat the stab wound first, ignore the small cuts until they are the only issue.

Thats a big problem with everything these days. The focus is only on issues that are glamorous or fit a particular agenda, not on actually fixing problems.

Looking at it as Wage Stagnation is also missing the point largely. You're looking at it from the point of view of worker pay, and not from the standpoint of the cost of consumer goods and services. We really should focus on the angle of cost of living expense, not wages or salaries. Focusing on keeping the cost of housing to a reasonable level alone would probably fix most of the issue.

But Grey, many people will simply point to the Cost of Living Index, and say that food, clothing, and electronics are cheaper than they have ever been? How can your argument be true?

However, they ignore the cost of health care, insurance, housing, education, daycare, etc. Actual cost of goods has been relatively stable or getting cheaper, while the cost of services is skyrocketing. The big exception of course is real estate.

**cuda1179**

Health Care, Education, and Day care costs definitely have sky rocketing costs. A lot of the reason for this is that Government touched them. Subsidizing something just boosts demand for that product, whatever it is. Higher demand without higher supply just means higher prices.

**Easy E**

cuda1179 wrote:
Health Care, Education, and Day care costs definitely have sky rocketing costs. A lot of the reason for this is that Government touched them. Subsidizing something just boosts demand for that product, whatever it is. Higher demand without higher supply just means higher prices.

Sweden says.... no......

Edit: Spoiler tagged graph as it is large, but simple to read!

Spoiler:

**Not Online!!!**

cuda1179 wrote:
Health Care, Education, and Day care costs definitely have sky rocketing costs. A lot of the reason for this is that Government touched them. Subsidizing something just boosts demand for that product, whatever it is. Higher demand without higher supply just means higher prices.

Well you could allways implement mandatory healthcare insurance.
This leads to basic insurance mass beeing overall healthy and still maintains the market, because effective manageing insureres get more earnings can lower prices and attract more basis insured.
Of course that would mean that the state would need to enforce that.

**NinthMusketeer**

cuda1179 wrote:
Health Care, Education, and Day care costs definitely have sky rocketing costs. A lot of the reason for this is that Government touched them. Subsidizing something just boosts demand for that product, whatever it is. Higher demand without higher supply just means higher prices.

Uhm... No.

**queen_annes_revenge**

nice input. you cant just say um no and not provide a counter point.

**Ouze**

Is that as poor manners as stating that all articles from a source are full of factual errors, and then ignoring requests to point out what specifically the factual errors were?

**NinthMusketeer**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nice input. you cant just say um no and not provide a counter point.

If someone says "the sky is green" or "2+2=5" how do you respond? There's a certain point where it is simply not how things work; it becomes nearly impossible to engage with the argument since it is nonsensical to begin with.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Is that as poor manners as stating that all articles from a source are full of factual errors, and then ignoring requests to point out what specifically the factual errors were?

I will admit this colored my response as well; he made a bold claim previously and provided no backing for it even when asked multiple times, which led me to believe he was not engaging in good-faith discussion.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Well, we'll have to see this the Dakka way. If there is one poster who does not discuss a topic in good faith, ban that topic. We must ban all discussion of economics, salaries, money, prices, or things that cost money.

**helgrenze**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Well, we'll have to see this the Dakka way. We must ban all discussion of economics, salaries, money, prices, or things that cost money.

That would pretty much kill every discussion, maybe even the site, wouldn't it? I mean some people use this site to talk about a specific game that costs money to play.

**BobtheInquisitor**

That's the joke.

**cuda1179**

Ouze wrote:
Is that as poor manners as stating that all articles from a source are full of factual errors, and then ignoring requests to point out what specifically the factual errors were?

I didn't say that, at all. I said their articles have a higher likelihood of errors, omissions, and bias. Not everything from Huffington Post is bad, it's just significantly worse than other news outlets.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nice input. you cant just say um no and not provide a counter point.
If someone says "the sky is green" how do you respond? .

**Da Boss**

On the "women don't do crap jobs" point, I see a lot of women doing pretty unpleasant cleaning jobs after hours, and I see a lot of women doing incredibly difficult and demanding work like taking care of elderly people with dementia and other complex needs.

**Not Online!!!**

Da Boss wrote:
On the "women don't do crap jobs" point, I see a lot of women doing pretty unpleasant cleaning jobs after hours, and I see a lot of women doing incredibly difficult and demanding work like taking care of elderly people with dementia and other complex needs.

Guess difference between crap and dangerous was meant.
Which probably has to do with risk Aversion.

However i am no psychologist

**AlmightyWalrus**

Personally I'd go with "some languages like Chinese do not differentiate between green and blue so in that context...".

That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. Everyone can see what you did, you're not fooling anyone. Stop it.

Likewise the claim that rising living costs in the US is somehow the government's fault is so mind-boggling obviously a silly argument, as has already been pointed out.

**Easy E**

I guess whatever it takes to distract us all from the elites hoovering up all the assets and make their off-spring fail proof, Amirite!

It is amazing to me how many people will carry the water and do the heavy llifting politically for the folks who would not piss on them if they were on fire.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
On the "women don't do crap jobs" point, I see a lot of women doing pretty unpleasant cleaning jobs after hours, and I see a lot of women doing incredibly difficult and demanding work like taking care of elderly people with dementia and other complex needs.

Guess difference between crap and dangerous was meant.
Which probably has to do with risk Aversion.

However i am no psychologist

Why has no one brought up prostitution?

**queen_annes_revenge**

Good point. Although (in the west at least) a lot of women have turned that type of work to their advantage. Girls can get paid for doing nothing more than posting photos of themselves in skimpy cosplay outfits, never mind getting naked. Although this has been touched on in previous threads.. Coul

**Nurglitch**

Again, risky if you get recognized out in public, also becoming a magnet for online abuse, etc. Even 'safe' avenues for prostitution are risky.

**Not Online!!!**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
On the "women don't do crap jobs" point, I see a lot of women doing pretty unpleasant cleaning jobs after hours, and I see a lot of women doing incredibly difficult and demanding work like taking care of elderly people with dementia and other complex needs.

Guess difference between crap and dangerous was meant.
Which probably has to do with risk Aversion.

However i am no psychologist

Why has no one brought up prostitution?

Because prostitution is not legal in all countries?
It's also not one sided either.

**Albino Squirrel**

Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Personally I'd go with "some languages like Chinese do not differentiate between green and blue so in that context...".

That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. Everyone can see what you did, you're not fooling anyone. Stop it.

Likewise the claim that rising living costs in the US is somehow the government's fault is so mind-boggling obviously a silly argument, as has already been pointed out.

But that's not a silly argument at all, just because you don't understand it or choose to ignore it.

**John Prins**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

**NinthMusketeer**

This went downhill and I apologise for my part in that.

**Not Online!!!**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
This went downhill and I apologise for my part in that.

You should know by now that talking about the sky is a rabit hole ticket on DakkaDakka