If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   It's the government's fault that women don't put work and a career ahead of their families   (money.cnn.com) divider line 105
    More: Stupid, paid parental leave, European Law  
•       •       •

1759 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Aug 2013 at 2:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-13 01:40:40 PM
Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy. The economy SUCKS. I'd rather stay home and make 2 loaves of bread for 50 cents instead of paying Wal-Mart $2.50 a load. I'd rather make my own soap, shampoo, conditioner, and laundry soap so I don't have to worry about what new chemical they've decided to throw in because the last one got ruled too dangerous for public use.

No, I'm really not interested in earning a paycheck again. I'd rather be a SAHM and use my brain cells to save my family as much money as possible, then invest in the stock market. That's my "job." Not bowing to whatever management's latest gimmick in getting the most work out of the fewest workers.
 
2013-08-13 02:13:41 PM

Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy. The economy SUCKS. I'd rather stay home and make 2 loaves of bread for 50 cents instead of paying Wal-Mart $2.50 a load. I'd rather make my own soap, shampoo, conditioner, and laundry soap so I don't have to worry about what new chemical they've decided to throw in because the last one got ruled too dangerous for public use.

No, I'm really not interested in earning a paycheck again. I'd rather be a SAHM and use my brain cells to save my family as much money as possible, then invest in the stock market. That's my "job." Not bowing to whatever management's latest gimmick in getting the most work out of the fewest workers.


Now, now. Don't get all hysterical on us.
 
2013-08-13 02:16:34 PM

Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy.


I don't think anyone is trying to force you to get a job outside the home if you don't want one. This article is about whether the various labor policies discourage women who do want a job outside the home. You do believe that everyone should have the option to choose whether to be a SAHM(or D) or work outside the home, no?
 
2013-08-13 02:23:01 PM
"We want equality! But we want to be treated differently"

/fark off
 
2013-08-13 02:32:10 PM

abhorrent1: "We want equality! But we want to be treated differently"


Yeah, it's almost like people are different!
 
2013-08-13 02:34:35 PM

Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy. The economy SUCKS. I'd rather stay home and make 2 loaves of bread for 50 cents instead of paying Wal-Mart $2.50 a load. I'd rather make my own soap, shampoo, conditioner, and laundry soap so I don't have to worry about what new chemical they've decided to throw in because the last one got ruled too dangerous for public use.

No, I'm really not interested in earning a paycheck again. I'd rather be a SAHM and use my brain cells to save my family as much money as possible, then invest in the stock market. That's my "job." Not bowing to whatever management's latest gimmick in getting the most work out of the fewest workers.


You're more than welcome to do everything you said.  A lot of women are doing the same thing.  That's pretty much exactly what the article says.
 
2013-08-13 02:43:32 PM

abhorrent1: "We want equality! But we want to be treated differently"

/fark off


The ones wanting to be treated equally are also arguing for paternal time off, increased acceptance for stay at home dads, and removal of the presumption of mothers as primary caretakers, so fark off.
 
2013-08-13 02:53:48 PM
OMG we're falling behind!
Run those babies out to the government care centers where they can be raised by strangers so mommy can get back to her cubicle and computer! Ah yes, that's the good life.
 
2013-08-13 02:55:32 PM
Question:

Is there a "last hired, first fired" effect for women? Well, studies that I have read indicate that for black people, there is only a "first fired" issue, not a "last hired" issue, but I wondered if anyone knew if there were any studies on this sort of effect for women.
 
2013-08-13 02:58:57 PM
Today we have a new person at work and she announced to me and the boss she needs to wrok from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm when the shift we hired her for and she signed off on was from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. Have a feeling she wont last here long.
 
2013-08-13 03:00:16 PM
I can't stand the "career-woman" pant-suit wearing types. I mean, WTF... do they think they are a man or some shiat?
 
2013-08-13 03:02:17 PM

Theaetetus: Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy.

I don't think anyone is trying to force you to get a job outside the home if you don't want one. This article is about whether the various labor policies discourage women who do want a job outside the home. You do believe that everyone should have the option to choose whether to be a SAHM(or D) or work outside the home, no?


I read two things into the article. First, since there is no mention of women choosing to stay at home to raise their family, the author implied that every woman should want to work. Otherwise, how will the US benefit from their 'valuable skills'?
Second, considering that every example listed of better conditions was government provided or enforced, I felt there was certainly an undertone of 'Look at what other countries are doing. I want more...'

/First greenlight!
 
2013-08-13 03:02:24 PM
Career women think they are alphas. I'm the alpha, biatches.
 
2013-08-13 03:09:11 PM

Slives: Theaetetus: Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy.

I don't think anyone is trying to force you to get a job outside the home if you don't want one. This article is about whether the various labor policies discourage women who do want a job outside the home. You do believe that everyone should have the option to choose whether to be a SAHM(or D) or work outside the home, no?

I read two things into the article. First, since there is no mention of women choosing to stay at home to raise their family, the author implied that every woman should want to work. Otherwise, how will the US benefit from their 'valuable skills'?


I think you missed the part about the percentages of women who choose to stay at home to raise their families.

Second, considering that every example listed of better conditions was government provided or enforced, I felt there was certainly an undertone of 'Look at what other countries are doing. I want more...'

Yes, more for everyone. For example, the article points to Sweden, in which parental leave is available to the mother or the father.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or why we should attack the article for suggesting that the US is far behind other developed countries in family labor policies.
 
2013-08-13 03:13:41 PM
Sammich maker is a career.  Just ask Subway.
 
2013-08-13 03:21:35 PM

AngryDragon: Sammich maker artist is a career. Just ask Subway.

 
2013-08-13 03:26:40 PM
The reason that Sweden has all of these laws is because they are trying to encourage conception (or at least remove anything that might be preventing it), not because they are trying to push women into the workforce.
 
2013-08-13 03:27:58 PM
Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.
 
2013-08-13 03:31:27 PM
I dare you to tell my wife she doesn't work.

I double dog dare you.

On the plus side, you'll make a fine compost.
 
2013-08-13 03:31:45 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Career women think they are alphas. I'm the alpha, biatches.


You must be sad. Even the worst, and most obvious, of trolls get bites but here you are, all alone and afraid. Here, I'll validate you. I'd give you a hug, but I...well, let's just say I won't be giving you any hug.
 
2013-08-13 03:34:54 PM
My ex chooses not to work F/T, despite her Masters and ample employment opportunities, because it is much easier to siphon off a portion of my income every month for child support. Yay!

50/50 Residency and she still get the "difference" in our income, adjusted every time I get a raise.
Because you know, somehow despite the divergence in our lives she somehow has a right to a portion of my improved station in life after not being shackled to her anymore.

And please don't even bother to say, "But, the children." I am wholly invested in my kids. The extra money I will be making based on my new job should be MINE to put towards the kids lives. Not passing through some 3rd party, because, "Children".

Bitter Much? Yep.
 
2013-08-13 03:35:50 PM

Theaetetus: Yes, more for everyone. For example, the article points to Sweden, in which parental leave is available to the mother or the father.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or why we should attack the article for suggesting that the US is far behind other developed countries in family labor policies.


It's not.

I lucked out and had 2 weeks paid parental leave when I worked at Symantec.  It ruled.

I'd love it if we started treating people like they had value beyond generating profit, and not just another replaceable cog in a massive machine designed to extract as much money as possible out of the most people possible.
 
2013-08-13 03:37:42 PM

Theaetetus: Slives: Theaetetus: Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy.

I don't think anyone is trying to force you to get a job outside the home if you don't want one. This article is about whether the various labor policies discourage women who do want a job outside the home. You do believe that everyone should have the option to choose whether to be a SAHM(or D) or work outside the home, no?

I read two things into the article. First, since there is no mention of women choosing to stay at home to raise their family, the author implied that every woman should want to work. Otherwise, how will the US benefit from their 'valuable skills'?

I think you missed the part about the percentages of women who choose to stay at home to raise their families.

Second, considering that every example listed of better conditions was government provided or enforced, I felt there was certainly an undertone of 'Look at what other countries are doing. I want more...'

Yes, more for everyone. For example, the article points to Sweden, in which parental leave is available to the mother or the father.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or why we should attack the article for suggesting that the US is far behind other developed countries in family labor policies.


74% of women in workforce    80% of men in workforce.
  http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/19/news/economy/men-workforce/index.html

64.2M women received a paycheck  63.4M men received a paycheck
 http://www.20-first.com/1317-0-its-official-at-last-women-outnumber -me n-in-us-workforce.html

doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??
 
2013-08-13 03:53:13 PM

johnny_vegas: doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??


Your first article certainly presents it as a calamity. And yes, why is there a 6% differential there?
 
2013-08-13 03:56:01 PM

johnny_vegas: 74% of women in workforce    80% of men in workforce.
  http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/19/news/economy/men-workforce/index.html

64.2M women received a paycheck  63.4M men received a paycheck
 http://www.20-first.com/1317-0-its-official-at-last-women-outnumber -me n-in-us-workforce.html

doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??


It is if you're pushing an agenda.
 
2013-08-13 03:57:29 PM
I would like to say that this thread is going to be filled with mature adult, non sexist conversation.
 
2013-08-13 03:57:42 PM

Peki: Oh this article pissed me off this morning. No. I don't want to participate in the economy. The economy SUCKS. I'd rather stay home and make 2 loaves of bread for 50 cents instead of paying Wal-Mart $2.50 a load. I'd rather make my own soap, shampoo, conditioner, and laundry soap so I don't have to worry about what new chemical they've decided to throw in because the last one got ruled too dangerous for public use.

No, I'm really not interested in earning a paycheck again. I'd rather be a SAHM and use my brain cells to save my family as much money as possible, then invest in the stock market. That's my "job." Not bowing to whatever management's latest gimmick in getting the most work out of the fewest workers.


If you weren't already married . . . . .

/how YOU doin' ?
 
2013-08-13 04:03:02 PM

Theaetetus: johnny_vegas: doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??

Your first article certainly presents it as a calamity. And yes, why is there a 6% differential there?


I'd guess there are less women in the workforce because women can get away with not being in the workforce.  I would like to not be in the workforce, but as I don't want to live on a park bench, I have to work.
 
2013-08-13 04:11:11 PM
I'm confused with their numbers...something like less than half of working age Americans have a full time job:
http://www.businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011- 1
 
2013-08-13 04:11:28 PM

Peki: I'd rather make my own soap


The first rule of SAHM club is you do not talk about SAHM club.
 
2013-08-13 04:16:56 PM

Theaetetus: johnny_vegas: doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??

Your first article certainly presents it as a calamity. And yes, why is there a 6% differential there?


Lots of reasons, not the least of which is stay at home dad is less commonly viewed as an acceptable option for men.  Or homemaker, army husband, etc.
 
2013-08-13 04:18:35 PM

Theaetetus: johnny_vegas: doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??

Your first article certainly presents it as a calamity. And yes, why is there a 6% differential there?


My guess at two big drivers:

Personal choice would certainly account for a fair portion of SAHMs.
Economic choice would account for quite a few too - in a lot of places if you have two or more kids under 5 you have to earn around 50k before you break even after daycare costs. You're basically working 40 hours a week + commuting time to pay someone else to look after your kids.
 
2013-08-13 04:21:41 PM

2chris2: I'd guess there are less women in the workforce because women can get away with not being in the workforce.

Yes please: Lots of reasons, not the least of which is stay at home dad is less commonly viewed as an acceptable option for men. Or homemaker, army husband, etc.


Agreed. And that's something worth fixing.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: My guess at two big drivers:
Personal choice would certainly account for a fair portion of SAHMs.
Economic choice would account for quite a few too - in a lot of places if you have two or more kids under 5 you have to earn around 50k before you break even after daycare costs. You're basically working 40 hours a week + commuting time to pay someone else to look after your kids.


Personal and economic choices drive why some people of either gender may want to stay home and look after kids. The fact that there's a gender differential is independent, and has to do more with society saying "men have to bring home the bacon. Women have to take care of sprogs," and that's not fair to women who want careers outside of the home or men who want to be caretakers and homemakers.
 
2013-08-13 04:39:05 PM

TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.


Because money is awesome.
 
2013-08-13 04:42:32 PM
Yes please:

Lots of reasons, not the least of which is stay at home dad is less commonly viewed as an acceptable option for men.  Or homemaker, army husband, etc.

Really Fark???

The last time I made this point I got CRUCIFIED, raked over the coals, rung up as a sexiest, homophobic neanderthal.

/I guess that is the difference between the Business tab and the Politics tab.
//There is a tremendous amount of reverse sexism in this country and if you do not get that you get nothing.
 
2013-08-13 04:42:59 PM
AngryDragon:
64.2M women received a paycheck  63.4M men received a paycheck
 http://www.20-first.com/1317-0-its-official-at-last-women-outnumber -me n-in-us-workforce.html

doesn't seem quite like a calamity does it??

It is if you're pushing an agenda.


Yes, it's quite obvious the media has a favorable bias towards women for the past few years.
 
2013-08-13 04:44:19 PM

plcow: The reason that Sweden has all of these laws is because they are trying to encourage conception (or at least remove anything that might be preventing it), not because they are trying to push women into the workforce.


If our fertility rates keep falling off a cliff, we'll see the same thing here. My wife and I for example, have no idea how we'd afford kids even if we wanted them. We're making a decent income for the area, but the staggering costs of healthcare, education, and other expenses just destroyed any desire we have to reproduce. It just doesn't seem worth the huge cost to us.
 
2013-08-13 04:44:59 PM

TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.


It's a Puritan thing.  Work with a capital W cleanses the soul, or some such ridiculous thing.  Says it right in the Bible, Genesis 3:17 --- 3:19: Adam listened to his wife about eating from the tree of knowledge, and now Man must toil by the sweat of his brow to eat, and Woman gets to enjoy the punsihment of painful childbirth.

If you don't work or endure massive birthing pangs, you're going straight to Hell.
 
2013-08-13 04:44:59 PM
Just wait until we have the greatest economic depression ever. We'll see who's man and who's biatch.
 
2013-08-13 04:50:00 PM

TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.


This. I think the entire US needs to read "The Two-Income Trap."

/it's not that I can afford to stay at home. I stay at home so I can afford other things.
 
2013-08-13 04:55:17 PM

worlddan: Yes please:

Lots of reasons, not the least of which is stay at home dad is less commonly viewed as an acceptable option for men.  Or homemaker, army husband, etc.

Really Fark???

The last time I made this point I got CRUCIFIED, raked over the coals, rung up as a sexiest, homophobic neanderthal.

/I guess that is the difference between the Business tab and the Politics tab.
//There is a tremendous amount of reverse sexism in this country and if you do not get that you get nothing.


wat?
 
2013-08-13 05:21:40 PM
Oprah isn't going to watch itself, people.  Besides, the kids get home from school at 4 and I need to be there for that.
 
2013-08-13 05:22:36 PM
I would be content being a stay at home husband/dad.
 
2013-08-13 05:26:06 PM
Do women work because they have to, or because they want to? 
Most of the women I've polled in my unscientific study indicate that it's because they have to.

As far as the birthrate bullshiat, we don't need any more people clogging up the workforce.  Let's not increase the birthrate.  I'm perfectly goddamn cromulent with my one child
 
2013-08-13 05:32:31 PM
So another "The U.S. doesn't have paid maternity leave therefore it hates working women" column?

/clicks
//RTFA

Yep.
 
2013-08-13 05:59:59 PM

TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.


This.

I know one person with a stay at home spouse, and another with a stay at home fiance.  The spouse and fiance are viewed as the debbil by in laws for their lack of drive.  I don't get it.
 
2013-08-13 06:32:13 PM

TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.


Its become more and more necessary for a household to have 2 incomes since the war on the middle class that has been raging for decades.The reasons are numerous and complicated and I won't get into politics here.

/its because republicans
//just kidding
///kind of...
 
2013-08-13 06:40:16 PM

GBmanNC: TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.

Its become more and more necessary for a household to have 2 incomes since the war on the middle class that has been raging for decades.The reasons are numerous and complicated and I won't get into politics here.

/its because republicans
//just kidding
///kind of...


Financially, two incomes are often needed.  But if one person's bringing in a lot of cash, there's nothing inherently wrong with a stay at home spouse.
 
2013-08-13 07:03:58 PM

Dafatone: GBmanNC: TopoGigo: Can anybody explain to me why we think that two wage earners in a family is a good thing? I mean, I get that it shouldn't always be men in the workforce, and that women have every right to work. What I don't understand is why, for the love of christ, we think that it's a positive for society, or for the economy, for both adults in a household to work for a living.

Its become more and more necessary for a household to have 2 incomes since the war on the middle class that has been raging for decades.The reasons are numerous and complicated and I won't get into politics here.

/its because republicans
//just kidding
///kind of...

Financially, two incomes are often needed.  But if one person's bringing in a lot of cash, there's nothing inherently wrong with a stay at home spouse.


This is true. But I must admit, I would think less of someone who won the marriage lottery and decided to sit home and watch the Oprah channel all day (assuming no kids).
 
2013-08-13 07:06:41 PM
I love putting my career ahead of my family.  Well, not ahead of, but I love how work takes me out of the home so I'm not there 24 hrs a damn day with a toddler.  That's hell.  I'm glad my husband is genuinely fulfilled by wasting his advanced, lucrative degrees and being a stay at home father because I sure as shiat ain't gonna do it.

Yay for work for mommies!  I still get the stink eye because I'm still in that child bearing age.  The bosses are just waiting for me to get pregnant and take time off.   Which I probably will and they can just suck it.  FMLA, biatches. I will say though, if technology came out tomorrow that made it viable for my husband to carry a fetus to term, I'd knock him up and probably never take leave from work again, other than routine vacation time.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report