28 January, 2006
Cityrail Weekender
Cityrail should have a 'Weekender' rail ticket that allows passengers to disembark as many times as they want between their home station and their destination on Saturdays and Sundays. For this privilege I would gladly pay around $10-12 from Beecroft to the city. The $15 day tripper is a joke unless you catch a ferry at least once. To make it worthwhile you'd be travelling an awful lot.
27 January, 2006
Finding Employees
There should be an online recruitment agency as comprehensive as the career classifieds websites currently in operation but catering for businesses looking for talent rather than unemployed talent looking for a job.
At its simplest level, candidates submit a comprehensive CV and/or portfolio and nominate which fields they would like to work in. There could also be an "attributes" section where candidates nominate their top 5 employable traits; reliability, time management skills, creativity, communication skills, deadline driven etc. The CV/portfolio would be searchable so that companies could find information like years of experience in a particular industry, particular qualifications, references etc. It would be super if the candidates could nominate a salary range or even provisos like "looking for $40K/pa but will settle for $36K/pa if in particular suburb/region" or "looking for $60K+ but will settle for $50K with car" etc.
The money to upkeep the site would come from the employer. While it would be free for candidates to save their profiles, there would have to be a way to conceal the identity of the candidates, including their name and any distinguishing features, to prevent discrimination and to leverage the site's clients. By that I mean when the employers search the site, they "add candidates" they would like to contact (for an interview or whatever) with an online shopping cart feature. When the employers have paid, the contact details for each candidate can be revealed to them. Perhaps for highly-paid positions or positions that require a particular level of expertise (like, $60K+ or "10 years experience in mechanical engineering" I'd charge a fee equivalent to the employee's weekly pay.
I think this system would ensure a greater accuracy rate in terms of matching employees to jobs, take the pressure off the unemployed and it'd mean that employers won't be bombarded with (sometimes unsuitable) candidates for a particular role. This system would have to co-exist with the current system so that jobseekers who are currently unemployed would have something to do and also so people who don't have great written skills or access to the latest technology can still apply for jobs.
It would be great to roll out physical offices where candidates without the technology or good writing skills go to the agency and someone would comprehensively interview them and then write up their profile, much like a recruitment agency does today. This could be done for a small fee (labour and rent costs money, you know!). Recruitment agencies would then search this site as just one of the ways they endeavour to find talent for their clients.
This idea is here because my head has become too full. As far as I know, it's original as of the date stamp given. I may or may not use this idea in a business environment in the future. If you think this idea has been stolen, or if you would like approval to use this idea, please contact me.
At its simplest level, candidates submit a comprehensive CV and/or portfolio and nominate which fields they would like to work in. There could also be an "attributes" section where candidates nominate their top 5 employable traits; reliability, time management skills, creativity, communication skills, deadline driven etc. The CV/portfolio would be searchable so that companies could find information like years of experience in a particular industry, particular qualifications, references etc. It would be super if the candidates could nominate a salary range or even provisos like "looking for $40K/pa but will settle for $36K/pa if in particular suburb/region" or "looking for $60K+ but will settle for $50K with car" etc.
The money to upkeep the site would come from the employer. While it would be free for candidates to save their profiles, there would have to be a way to conceal the identity of the candidates, including their name and any distinguishing features, to prevent discrimination and to leverage the site's clients. By that I mean when the employers search the site, they "add candidates" they would like to contact (for an interview or whatever) with an online shopping cart feature. When the employers have paid, the contact details for each candidate can be revealed to them. Perhaps for highly-paid positions or positions that require a particular level of expertise (like, $60K+ or "10 years experience in mechanical engineering" I'd charge a fee equivalent to the employee's weekly pay.
I think this system would ensure a greater accuracy rate in terms of matching employees to jobs, take the pressure off the unemployed and it'd mean that employers won't be bombarded with (sometimes unsuitable) candidates for a particular role. This system would have to co-exist with the current system so that jobseekers who are currently unemployed would have something to do and also so people who don't have great written skills or access to the latest technology can still apply for jobs.
It would be great to roll out physical offices where candidates without the technology or good writing skills go to the agency and someone would comprehensively interview them and then write up their profile, much like a recruitment agency does today. This could be done for a small fee (labour and rent costs money, you know!). Recruitment agencies would then search this site as just one of the ways they endeavour to find talent for their clients.
This idea is here because my head has become too full. As far as I know, it's original as of the date stamp given. I may or may not use this idea in a business environment in the future. If you think this idea has been stolen, or if you would like approval to use this idea, please contact me.
26 January, 2006
The Sad Tale of an Indian Girl
I read in the SMH News Review about the social problem of having daughters and the new social problem of technology that allows parents to see if the sex of their baby is female and an abortion if a daughter is confirmed ("A most serious calamity", 21-22 Jan, 2006). Briefly, having a daughter if you are a wealthy Indian basically means that when she is of marriageable age you will need to pay a large dowry when she hooks up with a husband and your business affairs are subject to the meddling of your son-in-law. It's the gender opposite of the poverty-stricken maidens looking for a rich husband a la Austen's world, except in this case the Indian women don't have the power of an English lord. A calamity indeed.
Writer Louise Williams notes that "in some of India's wealthiest districts as few as 750 girls are now born for every 1000 boys" compared to the national average of 930:1000. In one particular incident that brought a tear to my eye, a newborn baby girl was apparently flushed down the toilet of a passing train with her umbilical cord still attached. The girl was lucky - she suffered some bruises but is otherwise healthy and has been adopted by a family in a slum community. Other daughters will not even get the right to be born.
Two things worry me about the information in this article. One is the concept of being able to 'choose' a baby (see the film 'Gattaca') and the obvious gender imbalance it will cause in the next generation, not unlike China's one child policy that saw a similar rise in the ratio of male to female births (recorded births, that is - it is not known how many female babies died as a result of infantcide). Remember that this is occurring in two of the most populous countries in the world. Secondly, the article says "speculative work by the World Bank on China and India suggests a link between a high number of unmarried young men and crime, violence, prostitution and the trafficking of women." I would believe such a finding. Men can be competitive creatures and sometimes a sense of entitlement (to women, among other things) leads them to do things that destroy the person or people they are supposed to value. This is saddening.
I suppose what saddens me most is that using my rather Western/capitalist view on the situation, this does not make sense.
Okay, I know my opinions live in an idealistic world where gender equality exists unchallenged and a patriarchal culture of thousands of years is banished but they also acknowledge the simple commercial aspect of supply and demand. I thought this might be a transaction that the new Indian market might understand. Less women and more men mean that women become rarer and therefore more valuable and, you would think, more valued. Same with China. But instead there's an apparent increase in crime and violence, as if the two developing economies are coming to terms with the realisation that *shock, horror* patriarchal societies can be wrong and perhaps their respective societies need to get rid of this whole notion of business and wealth being a man's domain and instead embrace the new world order - women can be just as good if you give them a fair go. A rather Australian concept, don't you think?
When tradition is thrown out the window there needn't be a cause to discriminate between sons and daughters and their future impact on a family's finances. And I'm not saying there won't be trouble in ditching tradition but such a change is happening as we speak and I just hope that there will be fewer and fewer sad tales about Indian girls in time to come. I'm lucky enough to have two good friends of Indian heritage who happen to come from liberal families who have emigrated into a more liberal society. May this influence the new, burgeoning Indian society.
Writer Louise Williams notes that "in some of India's wealthiest districts as few as 750 girls are now born for every 1000 boys" compared to the national average of 930:1000. In one particular incident that brought a tear to my eye, a newborn baby girl was apparently flushed down the toilet of a passing train with her umbilical cord still attached. The girl was lucky - she suffered some bruises but is otherwise healthy and has been adopted by a family in a slum community. Other daughters will not even get the right to be born.
Two things worry me about the information in this article. One is the concept of being able to 'choose' a baby (see the film 'Gattaca') and the obvious gender imbalance it will cause in the next generation, not unlike China's one child policy that saw a similar rise in the ratio of male to female births (recorded births, that is - it is not known how many female babies died as a result of infantcide). Remember that this is occurring in two of the most populous countries in the world. Secondly, the article says "speculative work by the World Bank on China and India suggests a link between a high number of unmarried young men and crime, violence, prostitution and the trafficking of women." I would believe such a finding. Men can be competitive creatures and sometimes a sense of entitlement (to women, among other things) leads them to do things that destroy the person or people they are supposed to value. This is saddening.
I suppose what saddens me most is that using my rather Western/capitalist view on the situation, this does not make sense.
- A life should not have a financial value
- Men are no more valuable than women
- Marriage should not be the sole path of life paved by a family for their offspring.
- A family does not need to relinquish control to their son-in-law when they have a perfectly capable daughter (if only they'd had enough sense to educate her instead of not investing in her assuming that she would become her husband's property), or even pass a business or wealth into family hands at all, if they don't want to.
- If there are less women in these societies, then a shortage should see the rise of their value, which in turn should see men with dowries. Why should a woman have a dowry when she has more choice of husband?
- Why have a dowry at all? My understanding of a dowry is that when women used to outnumber men, a family would have to entice men to marry their daughter/s. Which also led to marriages that were more about how rich the family was rather than anything to do with the suitability of the daughter and man. It shouldn't happen in this day and age, especially when so many more women are financially independent and India is opening up (as a labour and trade market) to the world.
Okay, I know my opinions live in an idealistic world where gender equality exists unchallenged and a patriarchal culture of thousands of years is banished but they also acknowledge the simple commercial aspect of supply and demand. I thought this might be a transaction that the new Indian market might understand. Less women and more men mean that women become rarer and therefore more valuable and, you would think, more valued. Same with China. But instead there's an apparent increase in crime and violence, as if the two developing economies are coming to terms with the realisation that *shock, horror* patriarchal societies can be wrong and perhaps their respective societies need to get rid of this whole notion of business and wealth being a man's domain and instead embrace the new world order - women can be just as good if you give them a fair go. A rather Australian concept, don't you think?
When tradition is thrown out the window there needn't be a cause to discriminate between sons and daughters and their future impact on a family's finances. And I'm not saying there won't be trouble in ditching tradition but such a change is happening as we speak and I just hope that there will be fewer and fewer sad tales about Indian girls in time to come. I'm lucky enough to have two good friends of Indian heritage who happen to come from liberal families who have emigrated into a more liberal society. May this influence the new, burgeoning Indian society.
24 January, 2006
Diet & Exercise
Does anyone else think it's stupid that commercials for products that want to make tenuous links to being healthy always include "when taken as part of a balanced diet" or "as part of a regime of healthy diet and exercise"? I include products such as Nutella and slimming drinks in this spiel. Any health or slimming element would obviously come from the existing "balanced diet" or "regime of healthy diet and exercise" rather than the latched on product. I love my Nutella as much as anyone else but I'm hardly going to believe that any of its nutritious properties is the catalyst for improved health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)