American Business is in the Very Best of Hands
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
The cure for insomnia. You’re welcome.
Also, on the business and financial management dimensions they are a bunch of steaming turds.
I’m so old I remember the 1980’s – the most recent times they had to fight runaway inflation [and nearly every S&L was losing money on high-rate deposits and relatively low rate, long fixed mortgages]. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board empowered them to do crazy things, like defer losses over 500 years [exaggeration], enter development and commercial lending [which they knew nothing about], count ‘contributed’ as regulatory capital capiital, etc. to ‘survive’ and by 1990, the taxpayers’ resolution [protect depositors] bill had risen to over $250 billion [in 1990 dollars], plus interest. They’re doing stupid stuff now when reported unrealized securities losses [interest rate risk] are $620 billion and the FDIC fund is $126.2 billion.
Like crack addicts, they’ve been living off near-zero interest rates and huge money printing [M2 skyrocketed from $15.5 trillion late 2019 to over $21 trillion now] for [with the exception of Fed FF rate targets rising in 2017 and 2018 – Get Trump!] since January 2009.
All that and the Fed put, which in March 2022 [at least a year too late] and each month thereafter became the Fed call-on-steroids.
And they’ll [being too stupid to be disingenuous] blame all of it on markets and Trump.
Let’s Go Brandion!
“Equity” isn’t about equal opportunity, fairness or excellence. On seeing unequal outcomes, the DEI commissars accuse racism, enact unfair & unequal access to achieve their equal outcomes making everyone average or less, causing resentment and never looking at the real causes like no father in the home, terrible schools and grade performance.
Diversity isn’t about diversity of thought, or diversity within peoples. If you’re white you’re put in the white bucket where you are to be thought of as certain way and must think a certain way, so too if you’re black, asian or hispanic. Each has their own bucket with no diversity.
There is no “Inclusion” for you if you do not obey the Diversity or Equity rules above. You are cast into the outer darkness.
The reason that “equity” became the rule of the day is that people stopped even being able to discuss the possibility that certain groups might be less apt to succeed in some areas than others. For example, there are demonstrably few female grandmasters in chess (around 1-2%.)
This phenomenon demands an explanation. An obvious one is that women, on the whole, are less suited for the type of deep thinking and methodical play required by chess (though obviously exceptions exist and many men also are not suited for this type of game.) But this explanation is completely unacceptable in polite society; even many institutions on the “right” would be hesitant to allow someone to say this view, much less endorse it.
Another explanation (which you will find in many articles around 2010 or so) is that women are less interested in chess, and so they play less and therefore become grandmasters less often (but they would totally get to 50% of the field if they played as often as men.) But this explanation is falling by the wayside too, for two reason: first, it implies that there is some defect in the interest of women, which is not allowed (“victim blaming.”) Second, when people said this around 2000-2010, it was always followed up by a call to action “that’s why we need more women in chess!” But despite efforts to recruit more women to play chess, women as a whole still largely are not interested in chess. So as this explanation does not lead to a “solution” (as if the situation needed to be solved) it is also rejected.
So if we can’t say women are worse at chess, and we can’t say that they are less interested in chess, what is left? You’re pretty much forced into saying that society is preventing them from becoming grandmasters, and all efforts are necessary to make them grandmasters, whatever else must be sacrificed to do so.
Now chess hasn’t conceded to equity just yet, though the writing is on the wall. But the same story plays out with respect to other questions, like “why are there so few female police officers?,” “why do blacks tend to do worse in college classes?,” “why do transsexuals commit suicide at such high rates, even after ‘transitioning'” etc. There are a variety of explanations to these problems, most not even requiring any difference in actual average ability, but every explanation other than “society is conspiring to keep these people down!” and hence we get “equity.”
In my neck of the woods there is a heavy push in schools and tertiary education to involve females in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) based subjects. Typically and traditionally females don’t have an inclination towards these subjects and therefore don’t excel as well as males do. It comes down to the age old idea that women are better at humanities and men are better at maths and science. However in an effort to encourage more females into engineering, my Almer Mater gives female applicants to engineering courses a 10 mark advantage over their male counterparts. The dropout rate for females who study engineering is 40%. The reasons are varied. Firstly, female student engineers display self doubt over problem solving in engineering tasks and second guess themselves- even though they know the solution and are just as apt at the task. Where as their male counterparts even though they may experience the same self doubt, don’t openly display this doubt and therefore appear more confident then their female counterparts. There is also the tendency to assign the more administration roles in group assessments to females. Males want to be the leaders in group assignments. Females also tend to choose engineering courses driven by the desire to see social change and improvement of their world. When they realise that is not how the profession necessarily works, they are less likely to have a desire to work in an industry which is male dominated and highly pragmatic, with less desire for social change. Women still experience sexual harassment and prejudice in the profession because it is heavily male. I think the figure of women actually working in engineering falls around the 10-11% mark. As a female I don’t think there is a right or wrong way forward, but I do question the idea of giving a 10 mark advantage to females purely based on this idea of equity, at the expense of a spot for a male student simply because we want “more women in engineering”- particularly when the dropout rate of female students is so high. Don’t try and push women into a field they are not naturally inclined towards “just because.”
Amen to all of the above. At the risk of being Captain Obvious, all of this seems to me to be a natural progression from abandonment of God. Once you have re-created the universe in your own image, such that all of reality is simply a matter of subjective feelings and desires, rather than objective truths, this pernicious postmodern idea of “equity” rushes in to replace Truth. Beauty and Goodness fall into oblivion as values soon afterward. Thus, the eternal Truth of God’s design of men and women as complementary but different is denied, with increasing degrees of vehemence as the subjective notions of reality recede further and further from that Truth. Perhaps the downward spiral can yet be broken before all Hell breaks loose. The challenge is, how to prompt people trapped in subjective pseudo-Truth to listen to that “still, small voice” that is trying to point them back toward their Creator? Because we know that voice is there, for everyone, if they will only hear it.
Ezabelle:
I taught chemistry and physics at an all-girls Catholic high school for 23 years. I agree that questions about “equity” have to asked, but they have to asked carefully and in context. Girls were discouraged from studying science and advanced math too often in the “good old days”, when the only options for women were “mums or nuns”. As late as 1990 there were more boys in high school chemistry than girls (as late as 1995 for physics). You have to provide the opportunities first, then see if differential interests or abilities show themselves.
Girls were discouraged from studying science and advanced math too often in the “good old days”, when the only options for women were “mums or nuns”. As late as 1990 there were more boys in high school chemistry than girls (as late as 1995 for physics). You have to provide the opportunities first, then see if differential interests or abilities show themselves.
[eyeroll]. A quarter of the working population was female in 1930 and 1/3 was in 1957.
Have a gander at the composition of tertiary schools in 1928. Hospital nursing schools were almost exclusively female, normal schools and teacher’s colleges were about 2/3 female. Undergraduate programs NOS at colleges and universities were 43% female. Graduate programs NOS were 39% female. The only segment of higher education which was predominantly male were professional schools (divinity, law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy &c). Even these were not in sum exclusively female (about 11% of their students and 5% of their graduates were female).
My father in 1960 hired a woman of 25 for his computer programming team. Previously, she’d been employed by General Electric in Schenectady. As a chemist, a subject she’d learned in high school and college (1948-56).
When I was in high school, about 30% of those taking advanced math were female, because that’s who made the grade. Advanced chemistry and physics was entirely male, not because girls were discouraged, but because they preferred biology.
The ratio of men to women among those awarded computer science degrees reached its peak in 1984 and then began a long slide. See Megan McArdle’s account of her youth and how she concluded that computer programming should not be her adult career; it had nothing to do with discouragement and mistreatment from men.
…the last three generations of my female ancestors would be quite shocked to find out that they were forced to be mothers.
Or are all their jobs– teacher, regional ag management, regional beef board head, various weed board positions both paper-based and direct weed control based, reporter, court stenographer, hotel management, regional hospitality and travel coordinator, ranch manager– not count, because there must always be a crisis?
There are some areas, and some sub-groups, that had issues; mistakenly claiming that is a broad issue does no good.
As late as 1990 there were more boys in high school chemistry than girls (as late as 1995 for physics).
Males outnumber females of the same age until at least their mid-20s. (There is some variance by how much stress mothers were under while pregnant– a male child is much more likely to be lost, or to die after birth, so it easily ranges from 101-110 males per 100 females born, in cultures not practicing sex-selective eugenics.)
Your statistic suggests that high school boys are the ones who have been abused, and for about a quarter of a century.
Art-
Advanced chemistry and physics was entirely male, not because girls were discouraged, but because they preferred biology.
Precisely.
Girls make different choices, on aggregate, because they tend to be different.
Male nurses are unusual enough to be very highly sought after, because there are some jobs that one male nurse can do with only one helper that would take four female nurses to do– but very few people insist that the tendency for not many guys to want to go into nursing means they’re being discouraged by outside influences.
Art and Foxfier:
You certainly read a lot into my comment. The stats on enrollments come from the national associations of chemists and physicists. There is certainly equal opportunity now, and we can examine the case for differential preferences in the 2020s. I still contend that within Catholic circles into the middle of the last century the expectations for girls were not full-time careers in the sciences. Many who started in nursing (seen as a caring and not scientific career) or teaching were expected to stay single or drop out after marriage to raise a family. Some didn’t, like some fish swim upstream and leap waterfalls, and good for them and their mentors. It was not a norm.
… * teacher, regional ag management, regional beef board head, various weed board positions both paper-based and direct weed control based, reporter, court stenographer, hotel management, regional hospitality and travel coordinator, ranch manager* …
My mother’s function concerning weed control was primarily delegatory in nature, as was her role in cookware sterilization and linoleum de-crumbing. 😀
I would personally like to see more men in elementary teaching and teaching in general. There are only two male teachers at my sons elementary school and when one left last year to take up a position at another school I was disappointed. Probably more so because I like the directness and assertiveness a male teacher offers for a young male student. Female students would benefit equally. From the perspective of someone who doesn’t homeschool, more strong male elementary teachers would be fantastic for the education system. I think many don’t do it because they fear they appear soft.
My mother’s function concerning weed control was primarily delegatory in nature, as was her role in cookware sterilization and linoleum de-crumbing.
Ha! As was my mother’s. (And mine when I get home to my “second job”.) Mind you my mother did not receive an education past the fifth grade because her mother sent her to be a dressmaker. This was the north of Lebanon in the 1960’s. To this day my mother laments her mother’s decision to pull her out of school and wonders what could have been if she had the opportunity to complete an education like her brother did. To her credit this did not stop her from migrating to an English speaking country and learning to read, write and speak English and helping my dad with his administrative tasks for his business. She is a very good dressmaker. And my sewing skills stop at sewing a button back onto a shirt or sewing crafts activities. I wish I had the skill and rely on her for it.
I still contend that within Catholic circles into the middle of the last century the expectations for girls were not full-time careers in the sciences. Many who started in nursing (seen as a caring and not scientific career) or teaching were expected to stay single or drop out after marriage to raise a family.
So what? We all are subject to expectations, and it’s generally a good thing too. Culture and tradition are means of instructing people in making prudent and virtuous choices. While we’re at it, very few people – male or female – have ‘careers in the sciences’. While we’re at it, nearly all of my elementary schoolteachers were addressed as “Mrs” or “Mr.”.(with the latter including administrators, coaches, music teachers, art teachers, but only one classroom teacher). The only ones addressed as ‘Miss’ got married within a year or two (and continued working). This is 50 years ago.
Tom-
We read your comment, and responded to it, directly.
If you did not want people to directly address your statements, you may want to reconsider making them.
You also did not deal with the problem that the example you chose to show that girls were being pushed away from chemistry actually shows that boys are being pushed out of chemistry.
CAG-
snickers No, not weeding.
Weed Board is a crud ton of work, and quite important, in agricultural areas. If your neighbor has a nasty batch of weeds, adn doesn’t control it, next year YOU have a nasty bunch of weeds. This gets into a lot of competing property right issues and requires a lot of attention to detail.
The regional hospitality and travel coordinator was hired to move from rural Oregon, to Kansas, at company expense, to run their train stops. That mostly meant managing the boarding houses, but also involved managing the travel arrangements for those coming in. Her son became a WWII veteran, for an idea of how long ago this was.
From the other side of the family at that time, the lady was only a school teacher, at the same time she was managing one of the larger ranches in the region while her husband was out checking on the shepherds for most of the summer.
Many who started in nursing (seen as a caring and not scientific career) or teaching were expected to stay single or drop out after marriage to raise a family.
As opposed to the current assumption that you’ll drop your six week old infant into daycare for 8-10 hours a day, and see them on the weekend, presumably for some “quality time.”
Horrors.
In past days, WOMEN CHOSE to stop working for a while, to raise their own children.
Yeah, a lot of my ancestresses managed it, in large part because they organized their lives to do so; YOU deciding that women who stop doing a job long enough to get their kids up to where they can both be a mother and whatever they are paid cash for are “dropping out” is the biggest example of pressuring women into doing what someone else wants in this thread so far.
There will always more female nurses and more male engineers, that’s the way we’re made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7uZOAzVRgU
Companies today (still) have a small percentage of women engineers but often a large percentage of women representative as engineering managers -for two reasons. 1. Women find that they don’t want to slug it out in a 30 year engineering career working with things and systematizing, and 2. Companies wishing to virtue signal -promote women as engineering managers. This causes other problems. One of which is the men (and women) think the woman got to be manager because she’s a she. That is offset because most male engineers want to do engineering and don’t want the manager job anyway. The women however can be jealous of the woman. They want the manager job. And the woman manager often finds she has no time for a husband and/or children being manager.