Unpopular Opinions

1…1920222425…54

Comments

  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,974
    edited July 2020
    First.Aspect said:

    ballysmate said:

    My brother in law has a Phd in fluid dynamics and gets a bit, well a lot, annoyed by medical professionals not being real doctors. It also annoys him if he is not addressed correctly in correspondence.
    Some people think this an easy way to bait him. Well at least one person does. ;)

    He needs to get over himself.
    No.

    He needs to go with the flow :D


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    Not sure of ages, but there is a broadly similar pattern in architecture. Representation of both sexes is reasonably good at lower grades but tails off markedly when you get to director level. Essentially, the professions doesn't really accommodate having a family very well. There is still an expectation that fathers will take maybe a couple of weeks off and then be straight back on it, while mothers will take 6-12months out and then come back part time. There is a bit of an unspoken idea that anyone taking that amount of time out is not quite serious about their career. It's being replaced by younger practices with a more enlightened approach to people having a life outside work and not forgoing half of the available expertise, but slowly.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,717
    edited July 2020
    As I said, I was earwigging, but it's not retiring is it, it's leaving the medical profession/NHS. And its new doctors today not from 10 years before I was born...

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    Not sure of ages, but there is a broadly similar pattern in architecture. Representation of both sexes is reasonably good at lower grades but tails off markedly when you get to director level. Essentially, the professions doesn't really accommodate having a family very well. There is still an expectation that fathers will take maybe a couple of weeks off and then be straight back on it, while mothers will take 6-12months out and then come back part time. There is a bit of an unspoken idea that anyone taking that amount of time out is not quite serious about their career. It's being replaced by younger practices with a more enlightened approach to people having a life outside work and not forgoing half of the available expertise, but slowly.
    Do you know if stats are different in the US where maternity leave is about 3 months?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    Not sure of ages, but there is a broadly similar pattern in architecture. Representation of both sexes is reasonably good at lower grades but tails off markedly when you get to director level. Essentially, the professions doesn't really accommodate having a family very well. There is still an expectation that fathers will take maybe a couple of weeks off and then be straight back on it, while mothers will take 6-12months out and then come back part time. There is a bit of an unspoken idea that anyone taking that amount of time out is not quite serious about their career. It's being replaced by younger practices with a more enlightened approach to people having a life outside work and not forgoing half of the available expertise, but slowly.
    Do you know if stats are different in the US where maternity leave is about 3 months?
    Not off the top of my head, but more info here.

    https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/how-architecture-cheats-women-results-of-the-2017-women-in-architecture-survey-revealed/10017497.article
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    You can not retire before 55 even if you build up the contributions to a level high enough to leave you a decent sum after reduction factors.
    My dad is a retired GP and he used to complain about female doctors asking to go part-time as it was more complicated to have two part-times rather than one full-timer. I can quite believe a lot of women with young children would want to leave the profession as the hours are much longer than when my dad was younger.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Sad news about Peter Green. Compared to Greenie, Clapton may have been an Apostle but he certainly wasn't God.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,379
    nickice said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    You can not retire before 55 even if you build up the contributions to a level high enough to leave you a decent sum after reduction factors.
    My dad is a retired GP and he used to complain about female doctors asking to go part-time as it was more complicated to have two part-times rather than one full-timer. I can quite believe a lot of women with young children would want to leave the profession as the hours are much longer than when my dad was younger.
    How do you square the circle though? I can't have a baby (I have a right to have a baby, even though I don't have a womb) and I'm better at my job than I was 4 years ago because I'm more experienced. Should I be paid by time elapsed since joining my profession, or by years experience in the profession?

    If the former then I should have qualified, buggered off travelling for a couple of years then demanded £65k because I was two years post qualified.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    nickice said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    You can not retire before 55 even if you build up the contributions to a level high enough to leave you a decent sum after reduction factors.
    My dad is a retired GP and he used to complain about female doctors asking to go part-time as it was more complicated to have two part-times rather than one full-timer. I can quite believe a lot of women with young children would want to leave the profession as the hours are much longer than when my dad was younger.
    There is a big difference between leaving and retiring.

    Early retirement due to cliff edge tax brackets is a completely different problem.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,717
    I'm getting into stuff I don't really know about there but I think it's better with GPs because there is a much better chance for a work/life balance if you work, say, 4 days a week (which Pa raver did most of his career) and don't have to do on-call as often any more (thanks to immigration of doctors from Europe....oh!)

    Compare and contrast that with an A&E or obstetrics consultant etc where being on-call is literally the whole job...

    It probably doesn't help that they tend to marry other doctors or medical professionals who have the same problems, so someone's career has to take the hit.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    nickice said:

    I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most stupid people to ever be elected to the US congress.

    That's quite a high bar. Even now there's Louie Gohmert and Thomas Massie.

    And the guy who never noticed all the abuse when coach of a wrestling team.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,269
    ballysmate said:

    Sad news about Peter Green. Compared to Greenie, Clapton may have been an Apostle but he certainly wasn't God.

    Yep. Good man, sadly wasted. Buddy of mine went to see him 10-12 years ago as support act for John Mayall. Now that would be a night to remember.

    I loved 'proper' Fleetwood Mac. RIP Peter.

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    orraloon said:

    ballysmate said:

    Sad news about Peter Green. Compared to Greenie, Clapton may have been an Apostle but he certainly wasn't God.

    Yep. Good man, sadly wasted. Buddy of mine went to see him 10-12 years ago as support act for John Mayall. Now that would be a night to remember.

    I loved 'proper' Fleetwood Mac. RIP Peter.

    Danny Kirwan died 2 years ago, having also suffered bouts of mental illness and homelessness. Don't think it was LSD induced, as it was with PG.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited July 2020
    First.Aspect said:

    nickice said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    ddraver said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    rick_chasey said:


    So is it that women don't like the job, or is it that the culture is hostile to women?

    Both parties have lost out there - someone who was a good worker and someone who wanted to work there.

    pblakeney said:

    The culture is hostile full stop.

    Nowt to do with women, just what PB said.
    By rule of thumb, the heavier the industry, the tougher the gig.
    Was earwigging a conversation my Dad was having with his also-retired-colleagues recently when this gem came up

    75% of medical students are now women.

    The average age of retirement of women doctors is 32.

    So...there actually is a bit of a problem building with this in many technical jobs...

    32 ? That can't be true.

    A quick google suggests that it's almost certainly not - a study of medical graduates from 74-77 have similar retirement ages regardless of their sex - can't see why that group would be so untypical of the population.

    You can not retire before 55 even if you build up the contributions to a level high enough to leave you a decent sum after reduction factors.
    My dad is a retired GP and he used to complain about female doctors asking to go part-time as it was more complicated to have two part-times rather than one full-timer. I can quite believe a lot of women with young children would want to leave the profession as the hours are much longer than when my dad was younger.
    How do you square the circle though? I can't have a baby (I have a right to have a baby, even though I don't have a womb) and I'm better at my job than I was 4 years ago because I'm more experienced. Should I be paid by time elapsed since joining my profession, or by years experience in the profession?

    If the former then I should have qualified, buggered off travelling for a couple of years then demanded £65k because I was two years post qualified.
    If work is all you give a sh!t about but I think there ought to be a place for people to be able to have families and both sides be able to work as appropriate.

    In the grand scheme of things a few years ought in your career ought not matter.

    If you want to think of it in purely material selfish terms, the generation these parents are bringing up will be paying for things and looking after you when you’re in the twilight of your life and there currently aren’t enough of them to do that en masse.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,486
    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,486
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    To disagree is fine, but why?
    I guess one of our opinions is unpopular. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    To disagree is fine, but why?
    I guess one of our opinions is unpopular. 😉
    Taking time off to look after kids is normal and necessary.

    Taking 5 years off to sun yourself isn’t and gives off lazy and not-career-minded vibes, rightly or wrongly.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    Which do you think reads better? I found there to be quite a lot of dislike for the years spent travelling, but not from everyone.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited July 2020
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    Which do you think reads better? I found there to be quite a lot of dislike for the years spent travelling, but not from everyone.
    Yeah clients hate it usually.

    Usually need reassurances they won’t want to do it again.

    (Travelling. Same with young children presumably but they’re not allowed to say)

    Let me put it this way. I’ve recruited people who are on mat leave but not people who are travelling.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    Which do you think reads better? I found there to be quite a lot of dislike for the years spent travelling, but not from everyone.
    Yeah clients hate it usually.

    Usually need reassurances they won’t want to do it again.

    (Travelling. Same with young children presumably but they’re not allowed to say)

    Let me put it this way. I’ve recruited people who are on mat leave but not people who are travelling.
    One guy asked me "So, when are you off travelling again?" . I wanted to reply "After 18 months in this job, you'll be moving on soon I presume based on your CV" . Obviously, I didn't.

    To be fair, there were quite a few supportive people.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    One is taking responsibilities the other the opposite etc
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,379
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    From a career perspective there is no difference between taking 5 years off to raise a child and 5 years sabbatical to travel the world.
    There is a difference in society terms, but not an individual's career.

    It reads rather differently on a CV so I disagree.
    To disagree is fine, but why?
    I guess one of our opinions is unpopular. 😉
    Taking time off to look after kids is normal and necessary.

    Taking 5 years off to sun yourself isn’t and gives off lazy and not-career-minded vibes, rightly or wrongly.
    Well what I do isn't anything to do with old rope, RC, and for at least 5 years after spending about 5 years qualifying, sheer volume of experience absolutely matters.

    I just want to challenge your presumption that somehow breeding is the most laudable thing one can ever do and society should prostrate itself to the endeavour. Isn't having children the ultimate selfish act? It's very bad for the environment for starters. And who is it for, primarily? Pretty sure you didn't have kids so that they would be able to look after childless old people, did you? If so, thank you so much and I take it all back.

    I've never had a problem with equal pay for equal experience, but I struggle with coarse and misleading gender pay gap comparisons.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    Which one do you think costs more? Not obvious to me having done both.

    Interestingly Aussies used to be more employable once they had done the big OE (overseas experience), because otherwise they were likely to be just saving up for it.

    Anyway, I try to encourage everyone to do it.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    Which one do you think costs more? Not obvious to me having done both.

    Interestingly Aussies used to be more employable once they had done the big OE (overseas experience), because otherwise they were likely to be just saving up for it.

    Anyway, I try to encourage everyone to do it.
    Kids are usually a bigger financial liability over the course of your life/career.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    Which one do you think costs more? Not obvious to me having done both.

    Interestingly Aussies used to be more employable once they had done the big OE (overseas experience), because otherwise they were likely to be just saving up for it.

    Anyway, I try to encourage everyone to do it.
    Kids are usually a bigger financial liability over the course of your life/career.
    Right. Long term cost. I was comparing a year of travel with a year of parental leave.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,379
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    Which one do you think costs more? Not obvious to me having done both.

    Interestingly Aussies used to be more employable once they had done the big OE (overseas experience), because otherwise they were likely to be just saving up for it.

    Anyway, I try to encourage everyone to do it.
    Kids are usually a bigger financial liability over the course of your life/career.
    Yes, but at the end of it you have kids.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    Which one do you think costs more? Not obvious to me having done both.

    Interestingly Aussies used to be more employable once they had done the big OE (overseas experience), because otherwise they were likely to be just saving up for it.

    Anyway, I try to encourage everyone to do it.
    Kids are usually a bigger financial liability over the course of your life/career.
    Right. Long term cost. I was comparing a year of travel with a year of parental leave.
    Yeah but that gives you a reason to work hard and earn ;)
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,379
    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    rick_chasey said:

    I guess people see travelling as self indulgent.

    Having kids is obviously the opposite.

    Plus one costs more than the other.

    This could not be more wrong.

Categories