Contrast this with:
You may characterize this second-quoted (but first posted) line as a rebuttal, and substantive. But when compared to your first-quoted post, I would gently suggest that of the two, the first-quoted one is the example of substance others should emulate.
I don’t think that I would call NOW’s plan of action “social engineering.” They do advocate for women, of course, but I would think this focuses more on economics. I will have to assume that there is still a teacher shortage – there almost always is. And I have read recent statistics about the nursing shortage. This is where money is needed.
Male nurses are very common now. There is no reason why men cannot take advantage of this part of the stimulus program. And certainly we need more men in classroom teaching roles – especially in elementary school.
But let’s just say for a moment that NOW’s scheme works and they get the percentage of jobs in traditional women’s roles that they are asking for. Will the stimulus go toward forming more jobs in traditionally men’s jobs or traditionally women’s jobs? Men’s jobs, of course! 58% of the jobs are still going to be in traditionally men’s jobs. Those nasty women at NOW aren’t even trying to get half of the jobs!
Again, NOW advocates for women. Aren’t single mothers usually the parent that takes the baby home from the hospital? Are women the ones who are paid less? You have only to look at the panic in this OP to see how women are still marginalized.
But don’t confuse that with a feminist:
No, sorry, Justin. The words do not have “equal but opposite” meaning. A masculinist believes in male superiority. A feminist believes in gender equality – economically, socially, and politically.
Oh course not. Gotta drum up business for all the new hospitals somehow.
But you can’t directly compare the two as the educational requirements for a physician assistant is greater than that for a blue collar construction job, therefore those that have already lost their jobs can’t just transfer without expensive retraining.
Economically, the only thing that justifies stimulus spending is the existence of a ‘multiplier’ - the notion that you’ll get back 1.5 dollars in GDP growth for every dollar you spend. A positive multiplier is necessary for the stimulus money to be able to be paid back, and not to be a net drag on the economy.
A multiplier only happens if the stimulus is targeted at idle resources. If you aim the stimulus money at an industry which has very low unemployment, you’ll make the problem worse, not better. Because all the unemployed are still unemployed, but the addition cash injection into the industry with high employment can easily cause inflation of salaries and products of that industry. This makes the lives of the unemployed even harder, hurts the economy, and wastes the stimulus money.
If 80% of the job losses were men, and 54% of the stimulus money is going to jobs with high female employment, that’s a problem for the multiplier. All arguments about feminism aside, it’s another sign that the stimulus is not as effective as promised.