Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering  (Read 13201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aandrew

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #125 on: September 06, 2017, 12:40:17 PM »
Quote
I believe it is well documented that female students in high school are treated differently (on average) when it comes to STEM subjects. They do not receive the same encouragement as male students, and career counselors do not propose an engineering vocation as readily as they do for male students. This means that disproportionately fewer women seek a career in engineering compared to the number who are able and qualified to do so.

I don't buy this, not for one damned minute.

You can't take two steps in any high school without coming across some technology programme specifically and only for girls. You can't sign your kids up for camps without wading through tons of female-only camps designed to encourage girls to participate in STEM related topics. There are dozens of websites dedicated to making STEM palatable for the girls. Investors can't throw enough money at STEM, so long as it focuses only on the fairer sex.

I don't mind trying to bring more women into tech, I truly don't. I have two daughters, neither of which have any interest in STEM (one started college today for paramedics and the other wants to be a surgeon). I also have four boys, two of which have some inclination toward my line of work.

What really upsets me is how the boys are being left far, far behind in this race to make sure the girls are looked after. Instead of encouraging everyone to look at technology, the schools and camps fawn over the girls and in one particular case, there were no STEM type clubs for the boys. The camps fill up for the boys, but the "for girls" camps can't accept applications for boys to help correct this overflow, and the boys aren't keen on it either, since instead of being about STEM, it's about "for girls".

We have seen this play out in the general operation of elementary classrooms for decades now. It seems that people can't aim for equality; the pendulum has to be at the extremes at all times.

My boys are safe: I can teach them STEM.  I'm not worried about my own kids. I'm worried about the 8 year old who's got some interest but is left to his own to struggle through it because all of the help is heavily gender-biased. What's so hard about a curriculum focused on cool tech that is able to accommodate both sexes? Surely this isn't a hard problem to solve, it just requires some thought rather than knee-jerk overreaction.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2486
  • Country: aq
  • [Personal Text]
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #126 on: September 06, 2017, 12:46:27 PM »
Alank2, you're wrong. Your value judgment that some jobs "should" be paid more because its specialized is not capitalism. Capitalism is based solely on the market and supply and demand. You could be doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world but in the final analysis your pay will break down to how many other people (or machines) can do that job too - and if they will, for less. Thats capitalism, buy low, sell high. What you describe below is "living wag ism" and its anathema to capitalism which is based on the market price for services. 

Also, the real equal pay issue isn't between the sexes, its between the countries. The argument goes that certain restrictions placed on companies on one side of international borders act as non tariff barriers to trade. Not that international borders impede commerce.


Neoliberalism seeks to create a world without walls for corporations. Why should somebody in one country have to artificially make 20 times more than an equally talented person somewhere else? This disparity is likely to be greatly reduced in the coming years by services liberalization. Its not, as they represent, a creation of equal playing fields globally for corporations. Its actually a form of affirmative action for them, with the intent of helping the poorest countries corporations more than the richest countries corporations.

Enter the push to cross license - globally by the Working Party on Domestic Regulation. Its fairly far along, but you wont read about it in the newspapers.

The trend under globalization is for people who do highly technical tasks to run into something called Taylorism (redux- many have thought it was gone but its being pushed more now than ever) which tries to turn workers, especially the most skilled workers like engineers, into standardized, interchangeable parts so that nobody depends on anybody's "irreplaceable" skills. These changes are being forced on countries.

Quote from: alank2 on Today at 11:33:51

Shouldn't a harder more specialized job like a technical one be paid more than a nurturing role that might be challenging, but more people can do it effectively? 



There is that capitalism again.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 12:54:19 PM by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7911
  • Country: us
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #127 on: September 06, 2017, 12:52:43 PM »
Here's some anecdotal evidence to provide additional confusion:

My sister did well in high school and got a full ride scholarship to do a Chemical Engineering degree at the state school. After 1 year she quit the program, much to the dismay of the Women in Engineering directors.
Not because she couldn't handle it, she is quite sharp and good at math (finished Calculus BC before even leaving high school), but she simply didn't care for the engineering mindset as a whole. With a future of all day working in a bleak office slaving away over numbers, while she wanted to work with people.

Forgoing the scholarship money, she graduated with a general degree and went off to become a housewife and run social programs. She was tested with 136 IQ when younger.

Confusion indeed. I graduated with a chemical engineering degree and have spent my career working as a chemical engineer. Now granted there are lots of numbers and calculations involved, but you would have to be very unlucky to end up "in a bleak office slaving away over numbers" (and if you did you would change jobs). Not only is engineering heavily about teamwork and communication skills, but I have had many opportunities for international travel and customer engagement (customers and projects can be anywhere in the world), furthermore chemical engineering gives many opportunities to put on a hard hat, leave the office and go outside into the plant.

Overall I have been very happy with my choice of vocation.
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Offline alank2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1708
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #128 on: September 06, 2017, 12:53:09 PM »
Alank2, you're wrong. Your value judgement that some jobs "should" be paid more because its specialized is not capitalism.

I'm not saying it should be paid more simply because it is specialized, I'm saying that:

Specialized --> not as many people available and/or capable to do it --> supply and demand --> capitalism.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2486
  • Country: aq
  • [Personal Text]
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #129 on: September 06, 2017, 01:02:19 PM »
There are very large numbers of engineers in countries like India and China. The argument goes (and there is some truth to it) that people in some countries demand more money than people in other countries, and wont do jobs that are offered them for perfectly good wages. meanwhile, lots of companies would like to do that job for a fraction of what it costs to be done now, but are prevented from doing so by protectionist quotas and various other rules.

Thats now a trade barrier or market access barrier, and its being framed as the root of all evil, almost.. in Washington, Geneva, Brussels, London, Canberra, etc.

Those barriers are not long for this world. They are under attack in a multiplicity of ways and from a multiplicity of different efforts.

Perhaps its good that more people don't know this, I have heard a few times from people.

I don't subscribe to that argument. We need to know because these deals end democracy, in all but name only, We also need to know because the shift will destroy the sciences and other professions in developed countries. It will destroy professionalism in a great many fields. It will leave people with nothing. They wont even be able to work, because their "rights" will price them out of a market dominated by a new form of modern day slavery. Its goal is to cheapen everything. And not in a good way.  Its an attempt to enslave the planet in debt during the coming years by stealing everything away from people and giving it, gratis, to corporations by stealth to sell back to them. Things that humanity already owns. The EARTH.

A "second enclosure".  This is all in preparation for the biggest job losses the planet has ever seen. Changes that will leave most people unemployed globally. People ask, what will be done then? Its clear that many people will die because they wont be able to survive.

These secretive deals are in a very real sense a preemptive strike against the entire body of humanity that is not in on it. An attempt to future-proof the future for the very wealthy. Which is impossible.

The people who are pushing it pretend to mean well but they don't. They are greedy, profoundly misguided people.

Engineers need to stop falling for their old trick. Time is running out.

People should be paid equally for equal work but that means that workers in developing countries should get more, not that people in developed countries should get less. Even if that upsets their agenda. Keep in mind that this phase is basically the second phase of colonialism. Except this time its turning on its own people too. Nobody wins under this scheme.

There is a big spin campaign whose goal is distracting all of us so we won't see this attack on working people everywhere.

I'm not kidding.  They are very well prepared and they have done extensive research on wedge issues and extensive simulation.

All of this divisive spin. Its there to hide the fact that we ALL have common values and none of us would agree with their agenda.

So think before you fall for it.

Its a trap.
 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 01:24:24 PM by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24564
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #130 on: September 06, 2017, 01:37:26 PM »
Most high schools in my area have FTC teams, and they are around 1:3 to 2:3. My club Is 1:30 because we lack the clout to even call ourselves a legitimate thing. We came in 24 out of 26th place!!! Having one girl in a team of 10 did not look good in front of the judges! With just $2000 a year we could be successful at tourtaments and focus on attracting more women

Well there's the trick.
Why should an all male robotics team have to focus on attracting more women?
Why can't a robotics team just focus on doing cool robotics, and those who are interested will join, those who aren't interested won't.

Where does it stop?
Should a robotics team of all asian kids focus on attracting more non-asian kids lest those people feel like they don't belong?
Should a robotics team of all skinny nerds focus on attracting huge overweight people lest those people feel like they don't belong?
Should a robotics team of all black people focus on attracting white people lest those people feel like they don't belong?
Should a robotics team of all algorithmic based math nerds focus on attracting creative mechanical types lest those people feel like they don't belong?
etc

People with similar interests will tend to naturally gravitate together, and by all means put up flags and try and attract people, but it shouldn't matter who those people end up being. The team will be what it will be.
 
The following users thanked this post: Karel, nugglix, sokoloff

Online vodka

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 428
  • Country: es
  • On memory of Marta (16/04/1988-12/12/2016)
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #131 on: September 06, 2017, 03:21:09 PM »
When i began the Bachiller(Highschool no mandatory) had three class(2 stems, 1 humanity) ,practically the proportional between  boys and girls on the STEM classrooms were  60% girls and 40% boys , these the half were repeater of 1 course. On humanity  was approximatly 50/50.  At finish the course, the great majority of girl had approved and pass the last course Bachiller.  At change the boys had failed approximatly the half.

 For accesing to  the university had a minium scoring for going to enter to determinate career. Practicaly all the Enginnerings Career were 5, less Electrical(5,5) and Mechanical(6) the ratio of the women 1 for each 30 men. On front to "Memoristic Career"  Medicine 8.92 ,physiotherapy 7.34 , Magistery 7.5 , engineering chemist 6.5 , all these dominatd by women.

Here, anybody can say that there are discrimination versus women.

Quote
Why should an all male robotics team have to focus on attracting more women?

Seeing the faces of the children(photo*) , it seems a poem. On compare with the teacher.

*The photgrapher had the bad milk for shooting and published this photo





 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #132 on: September 06, 2017, 05:24:24 PM »
We also need to know because the shift will destroy the sciences and other professions in developed countries. It will destroy professionalism in a great many fields. It will leave people with nothing. They wont even be able to work, because their "rights" will price them out of a market dominated by a new form of modern day slavery. Its goal is to cheapen everything. And not in a good way.

Perhaps. But if you were in a lower caste in India (let alone some untouchable castes) - your only hope of getting OUT of REAL Slavery - is some engineering or technical job (or even a Tata call center). Mumbai and other cities have 1000's of signs for engineering and technical education. 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 05:55:37 PM by Assafl »
 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #133 on: September 06, 2017, 05:52:07 PM »
Most high schools in my area have FTC teams, and they are around 1:3 to 2:3. My club Is 1:30 because we lack the clout to even call ourselves a legitimate thing. We came in 24 out of 26th place!!! Having one girl in a team of 10 did not look good in front of the judges! With just $2000 a year we could be successful at tourtaments and focus on attracting more women

Well there's the trick.
Why should an all male robotics team have to focus on attracting more women?
Why can't a robotics team just focus on doing cool robotics, and those who are interested will join, those who aren't interested won't.

Perhaps the fact that they have just 1 woman (out of 30) means there is an underlying issue? Maybe women in the school or women in the district are actively discouraged from participating (for any reason like religion, sexism, stereotyping etc.)? If they were from a boy's only school one can rationalize an all boy club - but for a heterogenic environment I am 100% certain they are losing out on great talent - not just girls - it may even be off-putting for talented boys (not just equality minded boys - quite a few boys seem to like hanging around girls in high school :-).

My Niece was in FRC competitions (they got quite a few prizes); quite a few girls there. My niece designed, built and tested a few iterations of the mechanical device. For whatever reason, the lathe and mill operations were guys, while the team management (handling funding, sponsor relationship, even handling the municipality relationship) was a 10th grade girl. An articulate but soft spoken laser focused go-getter that does not accept no for an answer she was able to get sponsors to donate machining time and help machine intricate mechanics for the team. It is a coed varsity that attracts the best in the school and ranks up there with the boys basketball and boys soccer teams .   
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3862
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #134 on: September 06, 2017, 07:53:04 PM »
I was a mentor on a student satellite project in Dubai a couple of years ago. Of the eight locally based engineering students on the project, five were female, and they were specialising in various fields including power electronics, control systems, and communications systems, as well as various mechanical engineering domains beyond my experience.
 

Offline sokoloff

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: us
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #135 on: September 06, 2017, 08:07:40 PM »
People should be paid equally for equal work but that means that workers in developing countries should get more, not that people in developed countries should get less.
You realize that the answer is both are going to happen. Demand will rise in developing countries for engineering and scientific talent (and prices will follow). Demand will fall in high-cost countries (and with it prices for that labor).

Nobody wins under this scheme.
People in developing/low-cost countries will win/are winning massively under this scheme.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24564
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #136 on: September 06, 2017, 08:26:46 PM »
Perhaps the fact that they have just 1 woman (out of 30) means there is an underlying issue?

Sure, insert a dozen reasons here, not all of which might actually be problems that need solving.
Perhaps it's as simple as a randomly small intake of female students that year, and very few of them (again randomly) happen to not be interested in robotics, nothing more sinister at play.
Perhaps next year they'll naturally have a much bigger ratio?
Perhaps it's just a group friendship dynamic thing. i.e. none of the leaders of the girl peer social groups happen to be interested in robotics, so their friends likely won't be interested either. Maybe all it takes is couple of girls to form a more nerdy social group that happen to find robotics interesting, and they could drag along their friends for the ride.

The exact same peer group dynamics could also be true for males. One year you might end with a huge robotics group, and the next year you might end up with so few numbers of people interested that they don't bother running it.

I go back to my channel (and every other electronics channel I am aware of stats of), why is it only a few percent female?
Surely with Youtube, every barrier has been stripped out of the equation, there is zero pressure from anyone, no religion, no stereotyping, no sexism, nothing, if they are free to search Youtube as they desire then why only a few percent viewership for electronics?
I'm willing to bet even electronic channels with female hosts would have the same figures (IIRC Jeri Ellsworth had a similar figure back in the day).

The problem with the whole debate is that people all too often think this is a major problem that needs solving, when in fact there could be no real issue at all.
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9735
  • Country: nz
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #137 on: September 06, 2017, 09:23:13 PM »
I chuckled when I got this in an email today........not saying it's right or wrong....just another POV.

Avid Rabid Hobbyist & NZ Siglent Distributor
 
The following users thanked this post: MarkS

Offline JoeO

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 461
  • Country: us
  • I admit to being deplorable
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #138 on: September 06, 2017, 09:43:23 PM »
The day Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears on Earth.
Today, only 26,000 remain.
 
The following users thanked this post: MarkS

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2703
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #139 on: September 06, 2017, 10:48:12 PM »
Yes. While we welcome girls to join us, we shouldn't force girls to do EE. We should also not lower the standard for females, because that on its own is discrimination.
Its worse than just discrimination. Its self defeating. In the 80s in the UK there were programmes to try to increase the number of women in engineering. These basically took women with high school results not good enough to get into any self respecting degree programme, and helped them to get through an engineering degree. If you REALLY want to reinforce the stereotype that women make bad engineers, attracting low talent candidates seems a fantastic solution.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 10:49:56 PM by coppice »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24564
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #140 on: September 06, 2017, 11:15:09 PM »
If you REALLY want to reinforce the stereotype that women make bad engineers

IME there is no such stereotype.
 

Offline Yansi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1243
  • Country: 00
  • STM32, STM8, AVR, 8051
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #141 on: September 06, 2017, 11:53:34 PM »
The solution is to ensure that women and minorities have a fair and accessible path forward into STEM.

How exactly is it currently "unfair"?

I know a local uni, that pays girls a stipendia, just for being girls.    :scared:
 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #142 on: September 07, 2017, 12:12:54 AM »
The exact same peer group dynamics could also be true for males. One year you might end with a huge robotics group, and the next year you might end up with so few numbers of people interested that they don't bother running it.

Actually - since it is a varsity club sort of things - it is unlikely to undulate too much. Just like high schools and colleges have football and soccer teams - they don't go away when too few jocks sign up...

Like sports varsity, robotics clubs (at least the competing kind) seem to be oversubscribed rather than undulating.... All the school gets behind the team. There is a history with anecdotes, a trophy cabinet and an entire wings of a building dedicated to the club. And they get use of the Gymnasium for robot practice (when the jocks are away).

1 in 30 isn't a problem you say. Surely finishing 26 of 28 teams isn't "optimal"? I think the two are likely to be related.

IMHO, the fact they have 1 gal is indicative of a problem. As you pointed out we don't know what the problem is (and if it is solvable). But 1 in 30? At the very least they are not a very attractive club for female talent. Maybe we should not expect 50% female (no dogma!) - but it can't be that there is nothing of interest in this varsity for all the smart gals (and it is highly likely that the smart guys are avoiding the club as well).
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2486
  • Country: aq
  • [Personal Text]
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #143 on: September 07, 2017, 12:32:28 AM »
The concern about women in some settings (ones where government funding is involved on some level) may be because there are job cuts on the horizon (few people seem to realize this, though) due to "services liberalization" and the fear is women will be impacted greatly and their replacements who might be likely to be from elsewhere may not be women. (The idea as its being pushed is to channel those jobs to developing country services export firms. There is a lot of concern that global "de-industrialization "will push the developing countries into a state of perpetual warfare or more likely encourage them to assert rights and develop more of a domestic employment capacity and charge more for raw materials - which the corporate world fears.

The real conflict they fear is not the one because of jobs vanishing in great numbers and not enough to eat. Its the one where the children fo the elite in those countries demand - and get reforms and reductions in corruption and nepotism, and build their own industries that compete with the rest of the world -

Instead these deals encourage patronage systems and corruption.

And especially,  the trickle down economics (help the rich and maybe they will help the poor someday, maybe not) which is a big part of that logic is utterly disproven.

We don't help poor people by helping the richest and most corrupt insiders in the poor countries who are arguably responsible for them being poor, We shouldn't help those people stay in power at all, actually, if we want the poor people to actually get helped.

So sacrificing the bird in the hand (precious, vanishing jobs) of our own (alleged to be "overpaid", which shows what the real motivators of the advocates for these schemes are) skilled workers' jobs to help the very few get even richer makes less than zero sense.

This scheme was always being pushed in one form or another going back to the 1970s, with teh argument that it would vastly increase profits.
Now they have changed how its marketedhowever adding in the assertion it will help poor countrie. The biggest advocate for this scheme internationally right now in that context is one of the most stratified and unequal countries, a country that has shared very little of its growing wealth with anybody other than its elite, India. (Contrast it with China where living standards for the vast middle and poor have steadily risen) You can read quite a bit about the services export agenda and the various issues - many focus on market access and visa obstacles - The best place really, the only place you can read about this dispute is in the Indian press. because its not covered at all in the US press, except in the very slightest of mentions. (Surprising for something that could literally change millions of peoples future lives overnight.)

One can see right off the bat that they are looking at this scheme as some kind of savior which is inappropriate given that it depends on millions of existing workers being replaced by their firms.

Even if the economics look compelling to them, the political aspects of it make it a nonstarter, unless some international organization can be enlisted to be the bad guy. Thats where the WTO comes in.

india sees huge growth opportunities if they can just get the WTO to force the developed countries to open up. And indeed, that may happen. Similar things have happened before but coverage of all news of this kind, has been conspicuously absent from the Western media.

Think of two basins filled with water with a hose thats plugged between then. Remove the plug and the levels equalize "somewhat". Well, technical people realize... they equalize.. its simple physics. Similarly with these schemes. I would be lying if I didn't say that the appeal of getting workforce for a third of what it costs today is substantial - and will become much more so if the global economy tanks as is expected, as a response to all these allegedly "long-promised", changes coming as they will, on top of automation. 

(which will also make the number of jobs actally traded much smaller than advocates anticipate, so why do it, if many of those jobs will vanish anyway, "naturally" soon?)

In other words, its a vicious circle of economic implosion that will self perpetuateonce it begins! So why trigger it in the first place?

Because the alternative is more equality, something they see as threatening their statuses as the rulers of all they survey. When you are on top, all movement is seen as a threat!  And technology makes everything exponentially less predictable. Thats whats causing this panic reaction. or so it seems. But its also I think simply an attempt to extract the worst possible outcome for working people out of the shift to automation, instead of the best.

because lets not forget, automation in theory means much more free time, and one would think, more time to spend with families and more time to become involved in governments, around the world, and less corruption. And maybe even new forms of direct democracy.  To the elite, all this translates as "mob rule".

Developing countries for the most part are fairly realistic about the chances for this scheme, with the exception it seems of India.

The Indian government is much more inward looking than many others, they also dont want to have the people realize that- in the case of the US and to a lesser extent probably also the UK to really support the healthy growth rates they enjoyed in the past they would have to overcome a great many obstacles and pretty much turn back the clock on US public awareness of these programs.

Which is still low but which is likely to expand substantially in the future, spoiling the still fairly good relationships that exist.  because most Americans still are living in sort of a pre-WTO dream world adn polticians do their best to keep it that way. therefore in the US mindset, it still is 1993 before the WTO and all the things these indian firms do are framed in the US press as likely to be illegal, even thoughthey arguably are not, under WTO law. Which is seen as superseding national laws.. See the work of the WTO Working Panel on Domestic Regulation for the process and timetable of when those changes must be incorporated into Members national laws.

Certainly currently, things like quotas DO currently limit the ability of Indian and other skilled services firms to supply the cut rate medium tech services they specialize in.

They complain quite a bit about requirements they hire workers locally. (Its SOOO expensive! Luckily, they only have to hire the less skilled ones. As it was previously pointed out, (Thank you!) they only have to hire cheaper, less skilled workers here, to make up some arbitrary percentage, 50%. imagine if they had to hire 50% of their engineers!)

Still, to expand they have to hire local workers who cost them several times more, and they have - in international neoliberal media, framed this as discrimination.

After all, if an American firm were to set up a factory in India, bringing Americans along, to work there, would they choose to hire only the lowest skilled Indians ? To save money? No, because wages there are much lower. but this selective myopia to the key economic issues is a hallmark of all the media coverage of these issues. And that should be a red flag to everybody about whats being planned and executed.

Up until now, they have successfully framed rules that make them pay workers prevailing wages or minimum wages as discriminatory. And its likely the various international bodies will rule their way, potentially disrupting a great many careers. there needs to be much more awareness of this and there needs to be a discussion about it. One which brings in all the various groups involved. that has not happened in even the slightest amount.

So, we move closer and closer to irreversible changes which may make a number of "tradable" professions - quite likely including portions of the engineering professions an even less attractive career choice for developed country young people.

Changes that could make some of the most difficult professions into low paid, precarious work on a large scale. as long as the workers are temporary.

 in the case of the US, typical trade deal based visas are for six years. For 'body shops' that supply tech workers to firms, this is a way of getting their high skill workers for less than US minimum wage.

They get a way of having high skill workers working for far less than what would be considered the norms. And they work very very hard. And cant get raises for six years.

I think that all workers in a country should be subject to the same rules. And get the same opportunities as much as possible. And should be able to negotiate raises.

Creating a new system thats often been compared to slavery (the WTO GATS Mode Four visa tied to corporate employer system) isn't working out in the Middle East and its not working out in the US.

 Its a bad bad thing.

Get rid of the low wage slavery and then the visas can be based on merit. Not cheap labor. THEN their numbers dont have to be limited to some arbitrary number. BUT only award those visas to people who are really good. NOT to people who are simply okay- and cheap.

But, then they HOWL that that gets rid of their chief "compatitive advantage" cheap labor. Under the"global value chains" system countries like the US and Australia produce high value products and ideas, countries like india produce labor. So "Global Value Chains" is a recipe for mass unemployment in developed countries on a scale its never been seen before, and those people will never get jobs again once it happens, because they will be priced out of their old proessions by competition that gains an irreversible right to stay. After all, this right "is the repayment of a debt" they are claiming. they "kept their part of the bargain" and privatized their education. If you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that there is a widespread perception that there was a tit for tat involved. A promise of jobs in exchange, in the form of market access.

 They got rid of their social programs, claiming they were promised jobs in return..

What it really is is a backroom deal between the rich in both countries that does away with democracy and is intended to make all of our problems impossible to fx by the means which make the most sense and are time proven. instead, globalization, more globalization and more deregulation becomes the proffered cure for everything. the very worst kind of cult-like, delusional logic.

Its real goals are not altruistic in any way. Quite the opposite. Its all to lock us in to bad policy and business models that are already old in the tooth, without any means of escaping them. To increase profits, and provoke a race to the bottom on wages,  and steal all the gifts of technology for a very few people who will use the situation to prevent the positive changes the entire planet deserves and substitute oppression.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 02:17:04 AM by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1830
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #144 on: September 07, 2017, 01:16:36 AM »
Actually, I'm not so sure about medicine. I think modern doctors are mainly trained to be technicians. Based on my experience of recent encounters with doctors they have a checklist of "if this, then this" to work through, and little ability to depart from the script based on root cause analysis. This is unfortunate because they will often fail to look at the individual circumstances of a particular patient and understand how a particular presentation requires different actions than the textbook says for the "general case".

I'd agree with you, with one proviso - it's been my experience that female doctors are more likely to do proper root cause analysis and less likely to take the 'tick box' approach. And note that I say 'more likely' not that 'men always do this and women always do that' and further note that this is purely anecdotal, i.e. based on just my experience.

Furthermore, it's not recent training, as I've seen the tick box approach taken by doctors trained a long time ago. I think it's a particularly recent British thing based on financial incentives being handed out for following practices decided at a policy level. i.e. NICE guidelines say that the 'gold standard' treatment for X is Y, and doctors get a payment of Z for following that guideline for x% of their patients. My other half worked on the admin side for a British GP practice and saw evidence of this first hand.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1830
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #145 on: September 07, 2017, 01:37:10 AM »
You say:

... Dare I say that capitalism doesn't care what sex you are - those in the most need will be paid the most.  Those who have the most to offer a company will be the best paid.  Everything else is just whining.  Honestly, I think equal pay is just some sort of social back door to socialism or communism. [my emphasis]

Quote from: Karl Marx
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So you seem to be saying that capitalism follows one of the principal aims of Marxism. As Private Eye's editor was want to say, "Shome mishtake shurely".

Anyway, the mantra is not "equal pay", it's always been "equal pay for equal work". Nobody, outside of a dyed-in-the-wool communist, sees a problem with the Tea lady getting paid less than the Chief Executive* but a lot of people see a problem if a man and woman do comparable work on an assembly line but the woman gets paid less than the man for the same level of skill and effort simply because she is a woman.

*Actually, if you knew how effective most Chief Executives really are, and how little they really contribute to the average business you'd probably opt for paying them less than the Tea Lady, but that's another argument.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline alank2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1708
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #146 on: September 07, 2017, 01:55:26 AM »
When I mentioned "most need" I am referring to it from the employers side/need, the quote you brought from Marx is probably talking about the employee's need which is irrelevant to an employer except for its bearing on the negotiation of pay that benefits the employer.

How do you quantify "same work".  We have that problem everywhere already.  We have good teachers that should be paid more and we have crap teachers who whine about about how they should be paid more and don't deserve what they are being paid now.  That is what "equal pay for equal work" gets us, "equal pay for any work".  If you had an administrator with the power to decide what the salaries were who could reward/negotiate the exceptional ones and not reward the ones who don't deserve it, then schools would be better.  The administrator of course has to have a stake in things and be accountable for whether the school performs well or poorly as well, if they don't manage their job well, then their boss will not reward them accordingly or they might be fired.  When all that is thrown out the window for "equal pay for equal work" then we have a system where mediocrity and laziness rules, much like the failures of communism where no one gives a crap because it won't make a different whether they excel or not.  It is also a system that breeds discontentment, malaise, whining, and pity party of all sorts which basically undermines the entire operation until it is swirling the drain in failure.  Take a look at any organization where unions get in the middle of it and try to govern it away from capitalism.  They always end up ruining the very thing they were supposed to protect by putting employers out of business quickly followed by employees who have no job.

"equal pay for equal work" is a pipe dream that completely undermines capitalism.  It is a socialist/communist idea being thrust onto capitalism like that is somehow going to work.  But hey, like a lot of things, let's just get people fired up over social media and make this thing happen without really thinking it through.  Or have they thought it through and that is exactly what they want.....hmmmm.....
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2486
  • Country: aq
  • [Personal Text]
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #147 on: September 07, 2017, 02:22:42 AM »
Social Injustice Warriors is more like it!

(note:satire in part)

if that was the title of this thread it would be more accurate. Because SIWs are trying to turn back the clock of progress!

Sure, the equal pay for equal work concept is totally anathema to market based capitalism which says that people should have the freedom to contract, even if that means sell oneself into slavery for food. 

It also says that all of you GUYS and women too. make too much, way too much!

How do you think they feel having to pay you humans more. Especially now as more and more we see a future coming where smarter and smarter machines can do almost any job!

See the problem?

In their ideal world, we ignore the fact that technology is producing ever improving almost free "workers" (computers) at a prodigious rate.

And that those workers are getting better doubling in value for any given price every 18 months (approximately)

Instead we assume that all workers who lose jobs just have to tweak their resumes to get new ones. Or maybe they "made bad life choices".

In their nonsensical world, all restrictions on multinational corporations, all global business rules and laws should be eliminated "deregulated" and replaced by "global economic governance" that reduces everything to price differentiation.

Want clean water, pay more for it, or quite possibly eventually, slowly die of pollution caused cancers.  "its natural for rich people to be able to buy better water than poor"   the same thing with health care and education too, OF COURSE..   Its the natural order of things! -

So what they are really selling is a return to the past and the law of the jungle.. But they are framing it as the way of the future.. by shameless lying and spin. After all, if there are no rules, except for "sound science" - (bought and paid for spin with a scientific looking cover) then logic goes out the window. (So does science. If it doesn't listen to logic in the form of cash*.)

Want clean air, pay more for it, or pay the consequences.

(*1 What you don't know cant hurt you.. right? heh heh..if the warning signs started being published about 30 years ago, then only 35 year old and older science is allowed on the panel.) 

In their ideal world, every person is alone against the market. All forms of bargaining should be allowed. Prostitution? Sure! Organ sales? Sure!

After all, history shows us that starving people will do almost anything for food, even cook and eat their own children.  Bon appetit!

They can serve as an example of what happens to countries that don't play the game.

This means huge profits are in the future, if the race to the bottom could only be made to happen FASTER.

Its only common sense logic that stands in their way.
That's why they are trying to divide you all.

US all-

 I am acutely aware of the growing wall thats being erected not just in engineering but really, everybody in the world who lacks some advanced credential of some kind is being silenced in the media. because what we're seeing is nothing less than a global coup. Against democracy and the very concept of merit for its own sake and science being a system of discovering facts and improving life FOR EVERYBODY.

The wedge politics is a calculated attempt at distraction.

As so many other things are these days.

They are pros. And so far its been terrifyingly easy for them to hijack the direction the world had been going without most people even realizing that it had been done, starting 20 years ago.

We should be waking up to this agenda.

Not fighting over things which are calculated to distract everybody from the big picture.

What they are pushing is not communism or capitalism, its basically a coup to put in place- under the radar-  a very ugly new kind of corporate fascism. Which I think most of us- even corporate officers I've met, would instinctively oppose.

Worth thinking about?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 08:51:11 AM by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2703
  • Country: gb
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #148 on: September 07, 2017, 03:08:40 AM »
If you REALLY want to reinforce the stereotype that women make bad engineers
IME there is no such stereotype.
Have you asked any women engineers about that? in the 70s, when I started my career, there was considerable bias against women by many male engineers. By the 80s that was fading a lot, but what hasn't faded is how women engineers are seen by non-engineers, especially non-engineering women. How many women engineers have experienced a female non-engineer in their company making the assumption that the engineer couldn't possibly by an engineer? I hear anecdotes of this nature so often from women engineers that I assume is an almost universal experience.
 

Offline Galenbo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1399
  • Country: be
Re: Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering
« Reply #149 on: September 07, 2017, 03:13:07 AM »
... but what hasn't faded is how women engineers are seen by non-engineers, especially non-engineering women...
So the libtards better blame ALL non-engineers and ALL women, and leave engineering alone.
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf