The amount of earned income of women who work full-time is smaller than that of similarly situated men. On the other hand, for every choice a person can make between higher income and some other benefit (flexible hours, commute time, safety, stress, physical effort, etc) men are more likely to chose the extra money than women are. This alone eliminates at least 2/3 of the difference. And just as importantly, almost every type of unearned income - from dating and spouses supporting each other and inheritance to government programs and charities - gives more money to women. The net effect is that women make 80% of consumer choices and own 60% of all the wealth in the US. While I do believe that there are workplace issues women face that need to be resolved, I don't think our income distribution is as bizarrely one-sided as some people want to believe.

In a similar vein, why would we want to? Sure, some women really want to do that, and they really should be able to, but why do the hard work of fighting to the top when you can just marry a coworker and pressure him to do it? And politically, women are the majority of voters, anything that gets labeled as a "women's issue" gets extra attention, and Joe Biden will happily go on TV and shame men into helping women. When's the last time you heard a politician talk about helping men?

Why would women care about pressuring men to look a particular way if we can get them to act in a particular way? If our society can pressure men to do most of the dirty, dangerous, and uncomfortable work, why worry about their fashion? Think about that next time you're shoveling a driveway, changing a tire, or carrying something heavy to help out a member of the "weaker" sex.

I not only would consider helping them, I would consider it an obligation. But part of that obligation is to actually help, not just a simpleminded "icky -> outlaw it".

And your solution to this horrific situation is to tell the "Bad Samaritan" than they can either help for free, or they should just keep driving? You need to understand that your solution would almost certainly get people killed. So why not look at a reward system for people who do help, a better emergency response system, ... something that is likely to actually make the situation better?

I've been in similar situations. I've known several people who lived for years in broken-down vehicles, people with untreated mental illness, etc. The most important lesson I learned apart from "holy fuck is life unfair" was that you have to be careful how you help. Giving money to the homeless might feel right, but if they use it to drink themselves to death you haven't really done any good.

And just look at the situation - you get all the good feelings of helping the poor (yay me!), people you don't like bear all of the costs (evil corporations), and if things don't turn out well you're unlikely to have to face that fact (unemployment increased as a result? evil corp's fault). That's pretty much a perfect storm for knee-jerk legislation that might do more harm than good.

So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job? And even stranger, someone who can get a mortgage [i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?

Let just be clear here. If I'm in a bad situation, and have found a way to improve it, you can stop me from improving my own life because some third person in a better position benefits even more, and you find that offensive?

Just in case this wasn't rhetorical, it's to reduce input costs. Take the Bt trait - if the corn/cotton makes its own pesticide, you don't have to buy it separately and drag several tons of diesel-powered equipment around in circles to spray it.

I see you've chosen "controlled by the Illuminati" - good luck with that.

And why would it be better? The purpose of most GMOs is to lower input costs - fewer herbicides and pesticides, no need to till, etc.

That's like ignoring fuel efficiency when comparing cars - "Same top speed, so it's not any better!".

That isn't science, it's a general policy position.

People with the job title "Breeder".

Pretty much.

*facepalm*

What? You think they're secretly using it, and nobody noticed?

Traits like the Roundup Ready one actually reduce the use of herbicides and let farmers use safer herbicides. I can go into more detail if you want.

Of course they do, they start with rats that have been bred to be susceptible to tumors - most of them will look horrible on any diet.

Breeders. That's an actual job title at many seed companies.

Usually they pick a particular trait that they would like to develop, preferably one that's easy to test for. They measure plants in the field, measure their output, scan the resulting product with near-infrared spectroscopy or nuclear magnetic resonance scans to find composition, and even look at genetic markers. Then they ship the seed for the next generation to be planted somewhere warm to shorten the generation time. Monsanto and Syngenta have labs a short drive from where I live that do NIR, MR, and PCR/marker testing for breeders, and there are lots of small fields full of odd-looking plants around here.

Exactly! So when someone is forced to pay a higher wage it makes it more likely that they will take advantage of other options.

You don't think it's possible to replace some janitors with "mop and wax" versions of Roomba, Teflon coatings, and by making employees empty their own trash?

You can buy automated "self checkout" systems from China. I'm pretty sure that if wages go up enough stores will turn into giant vending machines.