h a l f b a k e r yWhat was the question again?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Apparently the increase of women in the workforce is an
important enough driver of income inequality to have merited a
New York Times article (linked).
How's that you ask -- apparently men who now meet and marry
coworkers no longer tend to marry their secretaries -- reducing
upward mobility.
Clearly a certain percentage of marriages must be arranged by
the state to reduce this important driver of income inequality.
At the very least, companies must immediate review policies
about dating co-workers and superiors -- who knew that they
should have set the opposite goals?
love and marriage
http://www.nytimes....s=AUDDEVREMARK&_r=0
[theircompetitor, Mar 03 2016]
[link]
|
| |
I would think that a certain percentage of marriages would be arranged by the internet, that great leveler. Or maybe not? Maybe internet-arranged dating all taps the same class group? |
|
| |
I once dated my boss but he is dead now. Does that make me
the new boss of me? Hmmm. |
|
| |
Why would upwards mobility have to involve marriage? |
|
| |
Sigh. I remember the days of three races and two genders. Things were so much simpler. |
|
| |
You were richer than somebody and poorer than somebody, but they were people you knew and might have even had a meal with. |
|
| |
There are so many more boxes these days, and no one has the sense to stay in their box. It is so confusing and mostly just as silly. |
|
| |
Unlikely that there were enough secretaries to go around - probably statistically insignificant. |
|
| |
Or, to quote Christopher Moore, " All men were tampons once - things where better then. " (Island of the Sequined Love Nun) |
|
| |
One state in India was paying men who married "untouchables". Not that I was considering it or anything. |
|
| |
OK, it's time for my regular "they tried this in classical antiquity" slot. |
|
| |
You'll all remember how ancient Athens had a sort of democracy while ancient Sparta did not. They fought a war. Sparta won. However, over the next few centuries, Sparta vanished virtually without trace, while Athens is now the capital of a united Greece (although that seems like a rather doubtful honour at present). |
|
| |
Ignoring for the time being external conquests (neither Sparta nor Athens could do much about the Macedonians or Romans, it turned out), Sparta's collapse seems to have been a sort of political-demographic process. |
|
| |
You see, although Sparta had a lot less democracy than Athens, it seems to have had significantly more gender-equality. That (according to some article I read as an undergraduate) led to assortative mating, which led to an ever smaller (but richer) ruling class - too small to keep its grip on the broader population. Also, back-of-envelope calculations based on some numbers from Thucydides and Xenophon suggested that the overall numbers of Spartans declined remarkably fast over ... well, just a century or so, really. That's despite the fact that, unlike Athens, they didn't have a great plague or lose a long war. |
|
| |
Now, Athens didn't have the state arrange marriages (though Plato thought that would be a good idea), but the restrictions on womens' rights in Athens (and, I suspect, most of the other city states), might have a similar effect in reducing the incidence and impact of assortative mating. |
|
| |
The precedent is worrying for anyone who would like (a) to be fair to women *and* (b) to keep western culture in existence *and* (c) to avoid a vast gulf between well-connected rich and alienated poor. It hasn't been proven that these three things form an "iron triangle" but, as I said, the precedent is worrying. |
|
| |