And it's annoying that stereotypical male fascination with machinery seems to be more valuable in jobs market than F interest with people.
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev
I'm not entirely sure why that is. Might be a hangover from days in which women were seen as not needing to be paid as much generally.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No, I think it's just that we have a hi-tech economy where skills with machinery and coding pays more.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
But why do we? We have more nurses & carers & teachers & child-carers than engineers. We need them every bit as much.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It's economics I guess. It just makes more economic sense right now to pay coders more than carers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Could it be because they won't do the job if they don't whereas women more likely to accept lower pay for satisfying work? (I don't know)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well, it's more just the importance of IT right now to the economy. Carers are important, but they don't produce vast profits.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Can get a bit Marxist here. Men being the workforce. Women providing the workforce. In this case, enabling people to work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
By caring for the children, the elderly, the sick for relatively low pay, their family members can go out & earn better money.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
OK, well the link with Marxism just occurred to me so I had to share it. :-p
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.