Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.

[Del165198]

Aged Care isn't a skilled job. Its a TAFE course and then give the job to migrants or VISA workers. And because of the nature of the actual work, no one actually wants to do it, thats why it ends up with migrants which is also why it ends up being low paid, not because its female dominated.

So yes, the job that has qualifications of a 6 month TAFE course is lower paid than the one that requires a 4 year University degree.

It should be a skilled job. **** ending up in one of those places.

 

[Doctor Feel]

To be fair, a lot of aged care executives are women and they are highly paid.
Low level workers will always get dogshit pay regardless of their gender, and I think for the most part we get salaries right. What we don't get right is the cost of living.

I was just as happy working at Dick Smith on 30k a year as I am now on much more than that. Low wage doesn't always mean low happiness, but there will always be jobs no one wants to do and those jobs are the bastion of the low skilled.

There is some complexity around the fact that lots of people on the dole would rather stay that way than say, go and work 38 hours a week cleaning up old peoples shit in an old folks home, clearly there is no easy solution to that outside of ensuring wages are at least in someway incentivizing over the dole...which isn't always the case with parenting payments.

I personally don't mind the idea of more control around how people spend the dole, though. Much more incentive for people to work if it provides them freedom to spend their money wherever they want to rather than specific allocations for various things. It's all a little Arbeit Macht Frei though.

 

[Del165198]

Forum of 99% blokes reckons gender pay gap which objectively exists either isn't real or doesn't matter. More news at 5.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Greens seem to be more about social issues than environmental policy now. I know a lot of environmentally conscious people who lean right that would vote greens but don't like all the 'other stuff'. Most green voters would be urban people, and the urban living environment is about the least environmentally conscious thing one can be.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

I think people would be shocked just how big environmentalism is in farming and agriculture now - many say farmers are the biggest environmentalists. Which makes sense because a) those who directly live from the land are going to be the first on the frontline's of the effects of global warming, and b) those who make land management decisions have the greatest ability (apart from governments perhaps) to generate carbon sequestration.

Edit: ok forestry but its a short list.

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

Well if that's the case surely it can be countered easily by visionaries such as Papa G, Dumbo, yourself, Strappytape and that g3tw0tyadese334v guy

NO DEAL X


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Probably right in regards to the first point. If it's equal, we've got the situation we have now. There is nothing stopping women from being in STEM and hasn't been for a long, long time. The issue now is incentivizing them to try and break the cycle of not considering STEM careers for whatever reason. So it's not equal, it's preferential in a sense.

My point was that it already is incentivised for females to get into STEM careers. That work is already actively being done, going back to equal accessability would be going back.

It should be a skilled job. fu** ending up in one of those places.

Why? What about aged care is highly skilled work? There are highly skilled activities in looking after the elderly, but those aren't done by Aged Care workers. They are done by doctors, nurses etc.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

The economic right is the social right.

Don't be fooled.

Its funny, I 100% agree with this, but for completely opposite reasons.

Social progressivism is true right-wing policy.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Forum of 99% blokes reckons gender pay gap which objectively exists either isn't real or doesn't matter. More news at 5.

You are confusing a pay gap with what careers women choose to pursue. It's a free world, there are no restrictions on women doing any jobs. Because so many work in unskilled jobs isn't really a pay gap, that's a role gap. Women are perfectly able to do almost any job a man can. They just don't, for whatever reason. Namely perceived societal norms.

A lot of work is being done to incentivize women to pursue more skilled jobs, lots of programs and support to try and bridge the role gap. Pregnancy is not really a barrier anymore either. There is a lot in place for that including backfilling etc. A natural handicap exists for women who do manual jobs and are pregnant, however. Not much we can do about that one.

 

[Astronema]

the distinction between skilled and unskilled jobs is a lie used to underpay people doing actually important work

if you believe it I can only assume you to be a man who has failed upwards with great success

 

[Schulzenfest]

Sacking Hinkley is left wing
Giving him a fat contract extension is right wing

Seize the coaches box and put Hinkley up against the wall

 

[Del165198]

You are confusing a pay gap with what careers women choose to pursue. It's a free world, there are no restrictions on women doing any jobs. Because so many work in unskilled jobs isn't really a pay gap, that's a role gap. Women are perfectly able to do almost any job a man can. They just don't, for whatever reason. Namely perceived societal norms.

A lot of work is being done to incentivize women to pursue more skilled jobs, lots of programs and support to try and bridge the role gap. Pregnancy is not really a barrier anymore either. There is a lot in place for that including backfilling etc. A natural handicap exists for women who do manual jobs and are pregnant, however. Not much we can do about that one.

I won't get any traction at all on this board (except maybe with Astro) but that's because what society values is whatever generates money. It's more of a philosophical discussion but I would say that quality child care/ aged care / teaching is more important and provides a better utility to society than say.. advertising. Yet one generates buckets of money so it's more highly paid. Pick and choose whatever industry suits. Nah stuff it this isn't the conversation for a sunny tuesdee afternoon.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

I won't get any traction at all on this board (except maybe with Astro) but that's because what society values is whatever generates money. It's more of a philosophical discussion but I would say that quality child care/ aged care / teaching is more important and provides a better utility to society than say.. advertising. Yet one generates buckets of money so it's more highly paid. Pick and choose whatever industry suits. Nah stuff it this isn't the conversation for a sunny tuesdee afternoon.

There are also market forces at work which value rarity though.

For example if you wanted a child care worker you may have 20 people to pick from who all appear similar in terms of what they can do, and all you are looking for in that role is the "pass mark", ie someone that is safe, fun and reliable with kids. As a result you can get away with offering a lower wage as there will certainly be at least one person in those 20 who will accept it.

For that advertising role there could be only 1 person with the research, industry knowledge, and experience you need. They could produce a marketing campaign that makes or breaks your entire company and with it all the lives of the people relying on that company. That candidate could have 3 offers on the table, so suddenly you can't get away with offering the lower wage - you must offer the highest you can, and you still might not get them if one of the other companies makes them a better offer.

I'm not really making a case that the above is right or wrong, but that's the capitalist system - it rewards specialisation and scarcity. (ftr I definitely think personally we should be rewarding teaching/child care/aged care, as kids are the future, but I do wonder if its a public issue rather than a private one).

 

[JimmyBC]

I won't get any traction at all on this board (except maybe with Astro) but that's because what society values is whatever generates money. It's more of a philosophical discussion but I would say that quality child care/ aged care / teaching is more important and provides a better utility to society than say.. advertising. Yet one generates buckets of money so it's more highly paid. Pick and choose whatever industry suits. Nah stuff it this isn't the conversation for a sunny tuesdee afternoon.

In a dollar is king society nothing will ever value up on merit to the plight of humanity, embrace whatever little bits of good you find in this world we are a failed species.

 

[Doctor Feel]

I won't get any traction at all on this board (except maybe with Astro) but that's because what society values is whatever generates money. It's more of a philosophical discussion but I would say that quality child care/ aged care / teaching is more important and provides a better utility to society than say.. advertising. Yet one generates buckets of money so it's more highly paid. Pick and choose whatever industry suits. Nah stuff it this isn't the conversation for a sunny tuesdee afternoon.

I agree with the sentiment, but there aren't any solutions that will ever gain traction. Enjoy your tuesday farken

 

[Harlott]

So are we saying the way the world has now been set up and mainly created by men over time, was done with equality of the sexes in mind?

 

[edgie]

I think people would be shocked just how big environmentalism is in farming and agriculture now - many say farmers are the biggest environmentalists. Which makes sense because a) those who directly live from the land are going to be the first on the frontline's of the effects of global warming, and b) those who make land management decisions have the greatest ability (apart from governments perhaps) to generate carbon sequestration.

Edit: ok forestry but its a short list.

Big agriculture doesn't give a shit about any of that, they just want the water and the land to clear.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Chopperdave]

Can we at least all agree that Real Estate agents are cooked and don't deserve any more money than the bloke selling DVDs at JB Hi Fi.

 

[edgie]

I won't get any traction at all on this board (except maybe with Astro) but that's because what society values is whatever generates money. It's more of a philosophical discussion but I would say that quality child care/ aged care / teaching is more important and provides a better utility to society than say.. advertising. Yet one generates buckets of money so it's more highly paid. Pick and choose whatever industry suits. Nah stuff it this isn't the conversation for a sunny tuesdee afternoon.

See, this I can agree with. I'm big on tangibility in all things in life, we can bang about skills and whatnot but I just don't know what some 'skills' and 'qualifications' truly bring to the table. So much of everything in the modern world is just bullshit, bullshit and propaganda to keep the same systems in place and even grow them, to keep the same people down and looked down on.

But because women can do it and LGBT can do it, apparently we've progressed and the world is unequivocally more progressive than decades. I ain't so sure.


Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

There are also market forces at work which value rarity though.

For example if you wanted a child care worker you may have 20 people to pick from who all appear similar in terms of what they can do, and all you are looking for in that role is the "pass mark", ie someone that is safe, fun and reliable with kids. As a result you can get away with offering a lower wage as there will certainly be at least one person in those 20 who will accept it.

For that advertising role there could be only 1 person with the research, industry knowledge, and experience you need. They could produce a marketing campaign that makes or breaks your entire company and with it all the lives of the people relying on that company. That candidate could have 3 offers on the table, so suddenly you can't get away with offering the lower wage - you must offer the highest you can, and you still might not get them if one of the other companies makes them a better offer.

I'm not really making a case that the above is right or wrong, but that's the capitalist system - it rewards specialisation and scarcity. (ftr I definitely think personally we should be rewarding teaching/child care/aged care, as kids are the future, but I do wonder if its a public issue rather than a private one).

Except it doesn't.

I've used this example before, but rivals Google and Apple literally made a joint effort to sink Microsoft's venture in to smartphones. I think those phones were good, I do, but the big players did their best to restrict access to so many of the platforms they control, yet these apparent rivals shared them with each other to keep the duopoly in play safe from another player.

That's capitalism.

A good product was not allowed an even playing field because those already at the top, did practises that were not particularly fair, to stay at the top.

How ****ed is it that Microsoft is the 'small guy' in this scenario?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Can we at least all agree that Real Estate agents are cooked and don't deserve any more money than the bloke selling DVDs at JB Hi Fi.

Not when they can't even take pictures of the ****ing shed, basement, cellar, or attic.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Del165198]

I think people would be shocked just how big environmentalism is in farming and agriculture now - many say farmers are the biggest environmentalists. Which makes sense because a) those who directly live from the land are going to be the first on the frontline's of the effects of global warming, and b) those who make land management decisions have the greatest ability (apart from governments perhaps) to generate carbon sequestration.

Edit: ok forestry but its a short list.

Disagree. I used to work in NRM and while yes there are definitely plenty of farmers using modern methods and good environmental practices in my opinion they were definitely the minority still. But it could vary region to region.

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

Harris Milstead = Bigfooty Visionary.

 

[Papa G]

Which part? It definitely exists..

It's not as simple as going bill and Stephanie are in the same job and get paid the same. It's a bigger issue of why are industries dominated by men more highly paid? Why aren't there equal pathways into sh*t like engineering?

Why can't hairdressers make 200k a year?

There is. To get into medicine or engineering you pretty much have to do the same science/maths types of subjects. Medical graduates are basically 50/50.

Engineering is different. Maybe women by and large don't want to be engineers? They simply chose not to be.

Girls are dominating year 12. They absolutely have opportunity. Nobody is telling them they can't do this or they can't do that. My daughters school consistently gets the highest ATAR results in the state. They definitely aren't told to be nurses or school teachers.

You are living in some imaginary construct of your own making.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Can we at least all agree that Real Estate agents are cooked and don't deserve any more money than the bloke selling DVDs at JB Hi Fi.

You might like this (make sure to watch to the end if you watch it):

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Except it doesn't.

I've used this example before, but rivals Google and Apple literally made a joint effort to sink Microsoft's venture in to smartphones. I think those phones were good, I do, but the big players did their best to restrict access to so many of the platforms they control, yet these apparent rivals shared them with each other to keep the duopoly in play safe from another player.

That's capitalism.

A good product was not allowed an even playing field because those already at the top, did practises that were not particularly fair, to stay at the top.

How f’ed is it that Microsoft is the 'small guy' in this scenario?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Sorry I'm not sure what relevance this has to my post about scarcity being rewarded with wages in the job market? I wasn't trying to make some bigger point about capitalism in its current form being a perfect system if that's what you took from my post?