Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

[nehalem256]

Yes, liberal values like "women aren't property" sure are to blame.

Right, because if you don't think women need to work you must think they are property

And again, you cannot push women into the workforce and then cry about the consequences.

Its funny how its always "liberal" values that cause divorces and children out of wedlock, but rightwingers certainly seem to do both a lot. Maybe its actually their fault?

No-fault divorce and accepting single motherhood are liberal values. Republicans may engage in them as well, but at least part of the problem is that since they are socially acceptable people of all political stripes will engage in them, as people are stupid and selfish.

EDIT: And notice how you did not even try to make the case that liberals approve of no-fault divorce and single motherhood.

 

[werepossum]

I am actually not even demanding that. I simply demanding that they not create MORE weight for others to pull.

That too is a good point. I support measures such as reduced benefits for additional children which are aimed at discouraging women on welfare and/or food stamps from having even more children they can't feed. (Or perhaps more properly, to encourage women on welfare and/or food stamps to effectively use birth control by making failure to do so result in less discretionary income rather than more.) But I still think that if these children are born anyway, we have an obligation to feed them, since the children themselves did nothing wrong.

 

[desy]

And again, you cannot push women into the workforce and then cry about the consequences.

What a 'insert explicative here'
My wife LIKES to work and as a person equal she has every right, women working aren't the sole reason working wages have declined but it seems to be the one you are fixated on.

 

[CitizenKain]

Right, because if you don't think women need to work you must think they are property

And again, you cannot push women into the workforce and then cry about the consequences.



No-fault divorce and accepting single motherhood are liberal values. Republicans may engage in them as well, but at least part of the problem is that since they are socially acceptable people of all political stripes will engage in them, as people are stupid and selfish.

EDIT: And notice how you did not even try to make the case that liberals approve of no-fault divorce and single motherhood.

Republicans engage in them, therefore they are conservative values. That's how it goes.

 

[nehalem256]

Republicans engage in them, therefore they are conservative values. That's how it goes.

So if a liberal commits murder than committing murder is a liberal value

 

[nehalem256]

And again, you cannot push women into the workforce and then cry about the consequences.

What a 'insert explicative here'
My wife LIKES to work and as a person equal she has every right, women working aren't the sole reason working wages have declined but it seems to be the one you are fixated on.

Well good for your wife. And as the chart posted earlier showed there was room for SOME women to enter the workforce.

And it is good that you agree that at least part of the reason wages have declined is because of more women working.

 

[actuarial]

Well good for your wife. And as the chart posted earlier showed there was room for SOME women to enter the workforce.

And it is good that you agree that at least part of the reason wages have declined is because of more women working.

There's room for tons of women to work if we remove men from the workforce.

If you believe we should be reducing workforce participation, I don't see why it has to come at women's expense. Maybe we should be encouraging more men to be househusbands.

 

[nehalem256]

There's room for tons of women to work if we remove men from the workforce.

If you believe we should be reducing workforce participation, I don't see why it has to come at women's expense.

Damn those selfish men not letting women go work in the coal mines!

Maybe we should be encouraging more men to be househusbands.

I believe I addressed the point earlier

I am sure you could try and encourage men to be house husbands.

But how many women do you think would be happy with that arrangement?

As well as the little problem of maternity leave, and that men are physically incapable of breast feeding.

 

[Jhhnn]

My assertion is that women working has consequences on unemployment and wages. Why do you continue to deny this.



Yes it does. The value of labor is decreased, because the supply increases. THAT is simply economics 101. And as you have shown previously the decline in national income began AFTER women entered the workforce, and BEFORE Reaganomics.

Wage decline at the median has not been proportional to workforce participation. Women working extends across all economic strata, as well, from the bottom to the top.

Two income families actually have less stability, as they are twice as vulnerable to job loss. Unless you are willing to live off the lesser of the 2 incomes even in good times there is no increase in stability.

Remarkable mental gymnastics in that, because it makes no sense at all. When the worker in a single earner family becomes unemployed, income falls to zero. When one worker in a dual income family suffers the same thing, income does not fall to zero. Three of four working scenarios in dual income families maintain some income, making income more stable, not less.

Then you assertion in no way refutes my original position on no-fault divorce.

You position on that is ludicrous for unrelated reasons. People who want divorce will get it, messy or neat. You merely want to make it messy.

EDIT:

And in fact it was completely possible for a smaller amount of women to enter the workforce, given that the labor force participation rate has decline among men

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[zinfamous]

Remarkable mental gymnastics in that, because it makes no sense at all. When the worker in a single earner family becomes unemployed, income falls to zero. When one worker in a dual income family suffers the same thing, income does not fall to zero. Three of four working scenarios in dual income families maintain some income, making income more stable, not less.

Holy shit, that is so bizarre, to believe such a thing. My first thought is to map the two situations into a simple Mendelian punnet square, and you can rather clearly see that dual income family is far more stable in any reality.



think about it: single earner loses job = zero income
both earners lose job = zero income

uh, that's a push. So, one is not worse than the other.

Of course, the probability of both earners losing both their jobs is less, so you have a better chance of having some income. To foolishly assume that losing one income is just as bad as losing both of them....well, wtf.

(Further: look at Germany. This is why their economy just keeps on rolling. The government wisely understood that some income is better than none--subsidize business to keep employees hired. Period.)

 

[Steeplerot]

Damn those selfish men not letting women go work in the coal mines!

Your problem here is a labor health/regulation one, not a sex based one. I am sure plenty of women can mine more coal then some men.

Terrible analogy. But consistent in the quality of your posts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Age was a start. And no there is no one, whose parents are not Mitt Romney, who can raise a child at 17 without government money. No WIC, no food stamps, no section 8, no Medicaid, no EITC. Yeah not happening.

Utterly false. Young single mothers who have familial support exist all over America, receiving no govt support at all.

It's not uncommon for middle class people to still love & lend support to their teenage daughters who become pregnant, and for 3 generations to occupy the same household.

It's also not uncommon for the boy's parents to provide child support until that boy reaches working age & beyond, & for the child to have the love of 2 sets of grandparents.

That scenario happens most w/ religious families who are opposed to abortion.

Your version & vision of this great nation is constricted, constipated, bound up in authoritarian misogyny & faux self importance.

It's not the Cleaver's America. It never was.

 

[nehalem256]

Wage decline at the median has not been proportional to workforce participation. Women working extends across all economic strata, as well, from the bottom to the top.

Its proportionality would obviously depend on the elasticity of demand for labor, which may vary for different economic strata.

Remarkable mental gymnastics in that, because it makes no sense at all. When the worker in a single earner family becomes unemployed, income falls to zero. When one worker in a dual income family suffers the same thing, income does not fall to zero. Three of four working scenarios in dual income families maintain some income, making income more stable, not less.

But the chance of unemployment doubles.

You position on that is ludicrous for unrelated reasons. People who want divorce will get it, messy or neat. You merely want to make it messy.

Historical facts disagree with you. The rate of divorce double after no-fault divorce came around

 

[nehalem256]

Your problem here is a labor health/regulation one, not a sex based one. I am sure plenty of women can mine more coal then some men.

Terrible analogy. But consistent in the quality of your posts.

My argument was not about women's ability to mine coal. It was that mining coal is not something that people do for "fun" in any sense of the word. And it is hazardous for your health. Damn men for not letting women get black lung!

 

[Jhhnn]

Holy shit, that is so bizarre, to believe such a thing. My first thought is to map the two situations into a simple Mendelian punnet square, and you can rather clearly see that dual income family is far more stable in any reality.



think about it: single earner loses job = zero income
both earners lose job = zero income

uh, that's a push. So, one is not worse than the other.

Of course, the probability of both earners losing both their jobs is less, so you have a better chance of having some income. To foolishly assume that losing one income is just as bad as losing both of them....well, wtf.

(Further: look at Germany. This is why their economy just keeps on rolling. The government wisely understood that some income is better than none--subsidize business to keep employees hired. Period.)

Once he believes in whatever it is, then there is no limit to what he'll believe or claim to support it, no matter how absurd.

 

[nehalem256]

Utterly false. Young single mothers who have familial support exist all over America, receiving no govt support at all.

It's not uncommon for middle class people to still love & lend support to their teenage daughters who become pregnant, and for 3 generations to occupy the same household.

And please tell me what jobs provide health insurance to grandchildren?

EDIT: And who will watch the child while the mother is in high school and the girl's parents are working?

 

[nehalem256]

Holy shit, that is so bizarre, to believe such a thing. My first thought is to map the two situations into a simple Mendelian punnet square, and you can rather clearly see that dual income family is far more stable in any reality.



think about it: single earner loses job = zero income
both earners lose job = zero income

Yes, but given that making more = spending more it means you need more income to pay for your cars, mortgage, etc.

EDIT:

So one income $50,000 lifestyle
2 incomes $100,000 Lifestyle

one person loses their job. Each family is $50,000 in the hole. But the dual income family is twice as likely to go into the hole.

Of course if you live a $50,000 lifestyle on a $100,000 income it works out great for you, but how many people will do that?

 

[Jhhnn]

My argument was not about women's ability to mine coal. It was that mining coal is not something that people do for "fun" in any sense of the word. And it is hazardous for your health. Damn men for not letting women get black lung!

There are female coal miners, have been for decades. Most women merely self select themselves out of that line of work.

http://cwcs.ysu.edu/about/current-projects/journalism/articles/female-coalminer

Young girls & boys both mined coal in industrial revolution England, under abysmal conditions of free market capitalism.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, but given that making more = spending more it means you need more income to pay for your cars, mortgage, etc.

EDIT:

So one income $50,000 lifestyle
2 incomes $100,000 Lifestyle

one person loses their job. Each family is $50,000 in the hole. But the dual income family is twice as likely to go into the hole.

Of course if you live a $50,000 lifestyle on a $100,000 income it works out great for you, but how many people will do that?

Like I said, you'll go full retard in defense of any silly thing you believe.

Dual income families can sustain themselves better when one becomes unemployed. At worst, with permanent unemployment, they downsize to single earner income lifestyle. Median single earner families rapidly downsize to poverty. That's utterly obvious. Dual income families also have greater ability to save & to invest, meaning they can more easily bridge gaps in employment by one partner or the other from reserves.

The chances of the family having employer based healthcare are likewise improved, along with the ability to participate in 401K retirement plans, even pension plans.

With some planning, dual income families make it more likely that one earner can start their own business, bridge the income gap most start-ups experience.

 

[nehalem256]

There are female coal miners, have been for decades. Most women merely self select themselves out of that line of work.

Gee I wonder why?

 

[actuarial]

Damn those selfish men not letting women go work in the coal mines!

I'm sure you'd be just as happy being told whether you're allowed to work, and if so where. If their position is so admirable, you should fight even harder to take their place.

I believe I addressed the point earlier

Mat leave is only 12 weeks, I'm sure they can manage (and in fact know many couples where the man does take pat leave).

 

[Jhhnn]

Gee I wonder why?

It doesn't matter. Your whole reference is dishonest, as usual.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure you'd be just as happy being told whether you're allowed to work, and if so where. If their position is so admirable, you should fight even harder to take their place.

You mean like how women fight to become coal miner's?

And you are falsely assuming that women like doing even the "fun" jobs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2011/11/11/why-millennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/

And of course you are failing to address this

But how many women do you think would be happy with that arrangement?

Mat leave is only 12 weeks, I'm sure they can manage (and in fact know many couples where the man does take pat leave).

Right, because I am sure that most single-income familes can afford to go without income for 3 months

 

[Jhhnn]

And please tell me what jobs provide health insurance to grandchildren?

EDIT: And who will watch the child while the mother is in high school and the girl's parents are working?

You think in a very, very small & rigid box.

Grandparents can legally adopt such a child, putting that child on their health insurance up to the age of 26. Many plans include maternity & delivery care for the daughter & cover the child for some months after their birth.

Many people can go to highschool & college at night or online. Many people can & do work different shifts to accommodate their family situations. Many families in such situations have other teenage children who can & will assist in baby care. Many families include great grandparents, aunts, uncles & cousins who'll play a role, as well.

Their love for each other is inclusive & adaptable, because they're family.

Your whole concept of the independent nuclear family is warped & delusional. It never existed, for the most part, other than on TV.

 

[nehalem256]

Grandparents can legally adopt such a child, putting that child on their health insurance up to the age of 26. Many plans include maternity & delivery care for the daughter & cover the child for some months after their birth.

So in other words the baby is not being raised by the teen mom after all.

Also sounds awfully similar to my adoption idea huh.