[Toshi]

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505844.html

definitely worth reading. this is the full transcript of the speech that caused such an (unwarranted imo) uproar this past month. larry/lawrence summers is the president of harvard university and a past treasury secretary, for those who might not know, and a record of the hubbub can be found here: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=summers+harvard&btnG=Search+News

 

[$tinkle]

been following this for a couple weeks now; didja notice when he asserted women react more emotionally (paraphrasing) than men, the women who complained were reacting more emotionally? just to make his point, i guess.

also this:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=j5xsqf7ykws6og4i30tv0lv6w9oewtun

 

[valve bouncer]

Has this bloke been having lunch with General Mathis? Some people have gotta learn to shut their gobs if they wanna keep their jobs.

 

[Heidi]

I haven't been following this, but I just read the transcript of his talk. Interesting. I'd have to say that I agree with him on a lot of points. If I were an employer, I would rather hire a guy. Plain and simple. In our society it is fair to say that men are less likely to ever be the ones that feel greater pressure to "be there" for the kids. I'm not saying it's right, it just seems (and i have no research to back me up), that men seem to better be able to put their jobs before thier kids. Dammit, I know I'm gonna take heat about this, but having worked in the big corporate world for 7 years or so, I was able to have first hand observations of the moms being the ones to more often leave work early to take care of the kids, or stay home when the kid was sick, while dad worked late.

I know I'm only mentioning one factor of his talk, but it was the one I picked up on right away.

 

[Andyman_1970]

........that men seem to better be able to put their jobs before thier kids.

I don't disagree with you, but what a terrible commentary about our cultures "wacked" priorities.

 

[valve bouncer]

I don't disagree with you, but what a terrible commentary about our cultures "wacked" priorities.

Absolutely mate. I think that was probabaly closer to the real point he wanted to make and I can't believe he didn't spell it out in HUGE letters at the start.

 

[ohio]

If I were an employer, I would rather hire a guy. Plain and simple. In our society it is fair to say that men are less likely to ever be the ones that feel greater pressure to "be there" for the kids.

Sure it's true that women have higher rates of attrition and potentially lower rates of attendance... however, in my business those concerns aren't nearly as important as the quality of a person's work. So for us it is more than worthwhile to invest in policies that attract women (paid maternity leave, flexible scheduling, specific trainings, diversity initiatives, etc.) simply to gain access to
a larger talent pool. I would much rather work with a top tier woman who may have to work shorter hours because of her children, than a second tier man that doesn't provide nearly as much value even if he works 50% more.

 

[valve bouncer]

Sure it's true that women have higher rates of attrition and potentially lower rates of attendance... however, in my business those concerns aren't nearly as important as the quality of a person's work. So for us it is more than worthwhile to invest in policies that attract women (paid maternity leave, flexible scheduling, specific trainings, diversity initiatives, etc.) simply to gain access to
a larger talent pool. I would much rather work with a top tier woman who may have to work shorter hours because of her children, than a second tier man that doesn't provide nearly as much value even if he works 50% more.

F*cken hell Ohio enough of these salient points that cut straight to the heart of the matter. Don't you know this forum is for scoring cheap points off the frothers.

 

[Heidi]

True - but in my case, I was assuming there was enough top tier men.

 

[Silver]

Has this bloke been having lunch with General Mathis? Some people have gotta learn to shut their gobs if they wanna keep their jobs.

Summers has a long history of foot in mouth disease. Here's a snippet from a memo that he wrote when he was the chief economist of the World Bank in the early 90's:

"The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

And economics gets called the dismal science...

 

[valve bouncer]

Summers has a long history of foot in mouth disease. Here's a snippet from a memo that he wrote when he was the chief economist of the World Bank in the early 90's:

"The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

And economics gets called the dismal science...

I think Peter Singer might have been at that lunch as well.

 

[Silver]

I think Peter Singer might have been at that lunch as well.

Utilitarianism and economics are just two sides of the same coin. Both totally logical, both leading to potentially horrific outcomes if taken to logical extremes.

 

[MikeD]

Utilitarianism and economics are just two sides of the same coin. Both totally logical, both leading to potentially horrific outcomes if taken to logical extremes.

Economics IS applied utilitarianism. The whole economic model of human behavior is modeled after the Utilitarian view.

Which is to say, it's highly inaccurate with respect to individual behavior, but does a passable job as modeling the behavior of large groups.

MD

 

[Silver]

Economics IS applied utilitarianism. The whole economic model of human behavior is modeled after the Utilitarian view.

Which is to say, it's highly inaccurate with respect to individual behavior, but does a passable job as modeling the behavior of large groups.

MD

edit: $tinkle was right. What I should have written was this:

If you assume utility and economy are the same thing.

Something people tend to forget is that Adam Smith was also (primarily) a moral philosopher.

 

[$tinkle]

I said two sides of the same coin because utilitarianism seeks to maximize utility

i thought you were being ironic

...like rain on your wedding day

 

[Silver]

i thought you were being ironic

Yeah, that doesn't read that well, does it?

At least I used efficiency instead of economy in the next sentence, right?