If you work as a construction worker, you could die while building a highway or a skyscraper, but there's no way a construction worker will ever get an office job, and no promotion.
So the main difference is that a career in the army has positive and negative aspects. But a career as a construction worker has mainly negative aspects, and the only reason some men "choose" that field, is because they don't have any other options available.
So now you're probably thinking, a career in the army certainly has better positive aspects than a career as a construction worker, but chances are you're going to die, more likely, in the army. But
if you work as a construction worker, sure, there aren't many positive aspects, but you won't have the same chances of dying as in the army.
But are you sure about that? Let's give a quick look at US statistics on Injury related deaths of construction workers. Every year in the Usa, almost nine thousand construction workers die due to accidents or injuries. That's
three times the number of people who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center that destroyed the Twin Towers. That's almost 90 thousand men per decade. Since January the 1st 2000, the beginning of the new millennium, more than 100 thousand men have died working as construction workers, roofers, bricklayers or coal miners. That is the equivalent of 30 separate 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC. That means that every 15 years, an entire US capital city is completely vaporised, with all its inhabitants, like all people who live in Springfield, Illinois, were all exterminated. And all those citizens, were men. But
since the year 2000, around 5 thousand Us soldiers have died. that's almost 20 times less.
More construction workers die in one year, than soldiers in 15 years.
Well, I believe that now you know why women want to join the army so badly, and complain about systematic discrimination and sexism, but
they never ever complain about the fact that women only represent 3 percent of construction workers, and never demand for gender quotas in that field.
When a soldier dies, the whole nation cries, and his death is told in tears in front of tv cameras.
When a construction worker dies, well... no state funeral, no tvs, no journalists, no honor, no nothing. And the whole nation doesn't give a flying fuck.
Women are smart, who said they're stupid...
Jay Double Gee
comment section
Women In The Military - The Fiamengo File Episode 13
[emphasis JS]
You cannot follow the mass media
without being confronted every day with story after story of one corporation or
another trying to swindle the public in one way or another; the latest
egregious case being that of the much revered Volkswagen, recently revealed to
have manipulated the measurement of the car’s pollution emission. The fact that
half of the company’s Supervisory Board – responsible for monitoring the
Management and approving important corporate decisions – consists of employee
representatives elected by the employees did not prevent this egregious fraud;
the company is still obliged to strive to maximize profit and the firm’s
stock-market value. It’s the nature of the corporate beast within a capitalist
jungle.
...
Only removal of the profit motive
will correct such behavior, and also keep us from drowning in a sea of
advertising and my phone ringing several times each day to sell me something I
don’t need and which may not even exist.
The market. How can we determine
the proper value, the proper price, of goods and services without “the magic of
the marketplace”? Let’s look at something most people have to pay for – rent.
Who or what designed this system where in 2015 11.8 million households in the
US are paying more than 50 percent of their income to keep a roof over their
head, while rent is considered “affordable” if it totals some 30 percent or
less of one’s income. What is the sense of this? It causes more hardship than
any other expense people are confronted with; all kinds of important needs go
unmet because of the obligation to pay a huge amount for rent each month; it is
the main cause of homelessness. Who benefits from it other than the landlords?
What is magical about that?
William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #140
November 3rd, 2015
[emphasis JS]
At Shenzen Rapoo Technology Co. humans work next to 80 robotic arms assembling computer mice and keyboards. The bots have enabled the company to cut its workforce from over 3,000 in 2010 to less than 1,000 today. China has accounted for the most robot sales worldwide for two years running. And BCG expects 50% of robotics shipments will go to China and the US alone in the next decade.
...
While capability accounts for what can be automated, however, it’s how much robots cost compared to human labor that drives when they’ll be adopted. Electronics manufacturers are increasingly employing robots because they’re more capable and higher-than-average wages make them relatively more attractive.
...
According to BCG, a little over a decade ago, Chinese labor costs were roughly 1/20 of those in the US—but today, that gap has nearly closed. Meanwhile, in the four industries above, robotic systems in the US currently average $10 to $20 an hour to operate—which is already below the cost of equivalent American workers.
BCG expects those costs to fall even further, and the robots to gain more abilities.
Soon Countries Won’t Compete for Cheap Labor—But Robotics
SingularityHUB
Jason Dorrier
Oct 07, 2015
[emphasis JS]
The world produces enough food to feed everyone. For the world as a whole, per capita food availability has risen from about 2220 kcal/person/day in the early 1960s to 2790 kcal/person/day in 2006-08, while developing countries even recorded a leap from 1850 kcal/person/day to over 2640 kcal/person/day. This growth in food availability in conjunction with improved access to food helped reduce the percentage of chronically undernourished people in developing countries from 34 percent in the mid 1970s to just 15 percent three decades later. (FAO 2012, p. 4) The principal problem is that many people in the world still do not have sufficient income to purchase (or land to grow) enough food.
