--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How would you measure "efficient"? Worker productivity has reached
> higher and higher levels since "Women's Lib", wouldn't this seem to
> support progress overall?
I have no way to counter most of what you have questioned. However, I do know
that the "produtivity" getting higher is not actualy correct. If you count
hours worked, it drops dramaticaly, we work longer hours now than before so
the mesure of productivity must be hour for hour not week for week. If you
then count the actual ~earnings~ of that productivity you find that it is
lower still. Finaly if you discount the productivity improvements do to
technology I think you will find that productivity is lower and lower.
Of course no one that I know of has done such a study. People tend to shoot
the messenger, don't they?
> > i.e. I think we are shifting from the standard being the "male" model to
> the
> > standard being the "female" model and this is why you see the numbers in
> the
> > article. At the same time I do not think that either extreem is the best
> one,
> > but rather the acceptance of individuals.
>
> I certainly don't see a "female" model, but agree with Debbie's later
> posts-
> more and more people are learning how to "put in the effort and work" to
> get to where they want to "be". Politics and "who you know" will always
> be present, but as demands for efficiency and productivity become more
> demanding (and outcomes more measured) hopefully there will be more
> effort to select "the best person".
The best person for plesant interaction, or the best person for achieving
technical results?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
