brain sizes: Einstein's and women's and miscegenation

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Mon Sep 2 14:50:50 EST 2002


<raugust at ptd.net> wrote:
>This is not to mention the untold cost to consumers which
>women cause due to maternity,

And the cost of maternity is due entirely to women, and not to the men
that got them pregnant?

>female problems, and general sick leave.

Whereas men get prostrate cancer and heart disease.

>Now
>that men have been back in the workforce for over 50 years, sexual
>harrassment is also an issue.  Let a man make a casual comment about a
>blouse a woman worker wears, or about her dress or shoes, and instantly, the
>man is at best called on the carpet and sent to counseling, and at worst
>fired.

Then he should have learned to keep his mouth shut.  If he said his
male boss's suit looked sexy, he might likewise be fired for being
gay.

>The NEGATIVE productivity, the REDUCTION in productivity, the lies, the
>deceit, the philandering, and the misappropriation of funds which women in
>the American workforce have caused, is INCALCULABLE.  As Mr. Knight and the
>US Department of Labor have proven and continually prove annually, it takes
>14 men to compensate for the lack of productivity of 1 (read: single person)
>working woman. 

The US Dept. of Labor proves no such thing.  That is a figment of the
nincompoop's imagination.

>These are 15 paychecks wasted for the lack of work of one
>single human being who ought to be home raising the kids.

Which should she, and not he, be home raising the kids?

>Add health,
>medical, dental, and insurance benefits to that, as well as 401 (k) programs
>and other retirement benefits, and you see the cost is staggering.

Presumably those costs are part of the employer's cost of a worker,
regardless of gender.

>Simply put, 40 years ago, women comprised less than 10% of the US Workforce.

What planet did you live on?  32% of married women in 1962 were in the
labor force, and even 54 years ago in 1948, 22% were.  The percentage
were higher once you removed those with kids under age 6.
Among all women, it was 38% in 1962.

Women were already 17% of the workforce back in 1890, and the
percentage has risen steadily since then.

>The Dollar was worth 4 times what it is worth today.

No it wasn't.  Inflation affected prices as much as it did the dollar
value.

>Men died leaving their
>widows with 4-5 times more buying power than their counterparts today, whose
>widows' benefits and Social Security checks can't feed a canary.

The reason Social Security survivors benefits were instituted were
because so many men were leaving their widows with NOTHING.

>Men and Women lived out their retirement years in relative comfort,

Only if they died young (the average lifespan used to be shorter than
it now is) or if their kids supported them.

>knowing their
>incomes were at least at parity with expenses because they were able to save
>money under disciplined investing in bank savings accounts which yielded 6%
>or better.

As I said, what world did you live on?  Up until 1980, the maximum
interest rate was 5.25%, 5.5% for savings and loans.  That had been
raised from lower levels.  In the early 60s, 3% or 4% was the most
that any bank offered.

>Their counterparts today don't dare invest in passbook savings,
>which only yield 2% interest.  Mutual Funds and 401(k) plans yield a little
>better.  And who has the $1,000 minimum to invest in a CD, except for the
>wealthiest of people?

Those who work for a living and save their money.  Anyone who saves
even 1% of their weekly salary, after 5 years has around 3 weeks
salary saved, which is more than $1,000 unless you are making close to
minimum wage.  If they save a more reasonable 10% of their salary,
they make it in less than a year.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list