Women in the workplace

[Anonymous No.14232653]

Do they actually provide economic value? From what I've seen, almost all of them perform redundant tasks or try take credit of things their male coworkers do. The funniest thing is seeing females attempt to work in groups and the resulting bitching and fighting. Will future automation result in massive female lay offs?

[Anonymous No.14233084]

>like men, only cheaper
>evil corporations do everything for profit
>except buy cheap labour
>unless that labour is in china in which case it's evil
big think

>Do they actually provide economic value?
Laws & regulations ensure this. Yes, regardless - but negative cultural value.

>Will future automation result in massive female lay offs?
No, this will be outlawed. Layoffs will mostly affect men.

[Anonymous No.14233148]

>>14232653
automation is much more likely to negatively affect men than women. Already more women are getting degrees than men and doing "softer" jobs, that don't get replaced as easily.

Eventually, you are going to get an even stronger consolidation of wealth and power towards few men, lots of women with decent middle-class jobs and a massive underclass of unemployed/NEET men who don't have the right skills for the marketplace.

This is happening already, just in slow motion. It's heading more and more into a winner takes all market and it's going to fuck up women just as much as men.

And yes, women provide economic value, less than men but also provide more social value
>implying

[Anonymous No.14233221]

>>14232653
interesting point of view. i think you first need to define "economic value". i mean: it's easy to say for a salesman that sells 1k worth of products, his "economic value" for the company would be 1k. But lets say this salesman only sold those goods because he was motivated to do so. the motivation came from nice bonus system / team building laid out by the (all female) HR department. the economic value of the HR department may not be directly visible but we can assume it's there. i totally agree (most) women are (probably) suited for "softer" skills than men, but the economic value cannot be underestimated. it's common knowledge that productivity of labour goes up when we don't only focus on the output (the economic value as described in your argument). example: the ash studies. I'm aware that my opinion is not very popular on this board, idc.

[Anonymous No.14234066]

>>14233148
>softer jobs don't get easily replaced
Dude, those are the first to go.

To maximize job security, your best bet is to be indispensable to a financially stable corporation. Soft jobs are the exact opposite of indispensable. With soft jobs, you can fire someone, and have them replaced at $30,000 per year, in a few weeks. Nobody in Human Resources is irreplaceable. Many programmers, or technicians, are extremely difficult to replace. They can't find people to relocate to the area, or the specific knowledge to perform the job requires a year of special education.

>>14232653
Obviously, women provide economic value.

>Will future automation result in massive female lay offs?
Automation will mostly hurt unskilled workers. If your job can be performed by a robot, someone will develop that robot, and replace you with a robot. It will not bother office workers much.

However, it will harm unskilled manual laborers, unskilled factory workers, cashiers, janitors and so on. Of course, those jobs were mostly low-income anyway.

[Anonymous No.14234861]

>>14233084
Not allowing the market to provide the best good or service is pretty shitty. But who knows maybe some women will go back to preferring staying at home

[Anonymous No.14234871]

>women have less value than men
whoa, bit sexist

[Anonymous No.14234925]

>>14233221
>the ash studies
Do you mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments