This whole idea of looking at gender statistics and then deducing there is a problem is stupid.
That part isn't stupid. What is stupid is deducing that the solution involves creating new incentives for young women to go into computer science. It's a far deeper cultural phenomenon*. People don't like to admit this though because addressing deep seeded cultural phenomena require generations to change. That's no good for politicians who can't see any further than the next election cycle or executives who can't even see further than the next annual earnings report.
* Note I use the word "phenomenon" and not "problem". Whether or not any cultural phenomenon is a problem is besides the point.
After watching the collective fail of an overeducated millennial generation so far, we just want our kids to get out there and succeed. Whether or not they have the same diploma on the wall that dad, grandma or the neighbors do...not so much.
Unfortunately that same diploma is becoming increasingly essential for any employment all the way down to gas station attendant. If I had kids I would highly encourage them to find a trade and go to a trade school. Find a job that pays just well enough to do the things you actually want to do while giving you enough free time to do them.
1.) It cost money
I don't see this being a reason given the vast sum of money being spent on technology for the classroom.
But the bigger problem now is the whole industry model. No ala cart pricing, and limited streaming. This spits in the face of market realities. I can't stomach paying for sports channels I will never watch and consider blocking in my household. Not to mention all the other trash channels I never watch. I am happy to pay a premium for only the channels I want, but this is not an option. On top of that, I want to watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it. This is why I ditched cable for a combination of roku, Amazon Prime, and Netflix. I am happy to pay for the shows I want to watch on Amazon Prime. I watch more TV than ever before and I pay a lot less for it.
Whether the consumer pays directly the entire cost of the panel, or pays indirectly through taxes, it still means we're paying more, a net loss to society.
How so? A net loss to the consumer sure. But to society? That's a stretch. You would need to assess the supplier chain to find out where all of that money ends up to make that determination. You can bet if you buy foreign made panels, almost all of that money is leaving society. If you're paying a premium for locally made panels, I would at least be willing to take the gamble that the majority of that money stays within our society.
At best it's a couple of dozen people working in the back office and some techs to walk around and monitor the automated plant.
Yeah, just look at all those technicians sitting around in a back room. I think you're mistaking the unibody assemby as representing the assembly of the entire car. It's standard for that to be mostly automated because of all the welding. But after it's painted, assembly is still mostly a well choreographed manual exercise. It just doesn't look as sexy on TV because people don't appreciate the organizational precision involved.
The most logical thing to do is, get the best education you can, and work your way up the food chain.
Really? My conclusion is that I should just leave this absurd place and go home where people are a touch more reasonable on the whole.