Hopefully one day you will realize the error of your ways, and the lack of benevolence you hold toward your fellow man.If they are hungry because of their own stupid life choices yes.
No children would be punished under my plan.Hopefully one day you will realize the error of your ways, and the lack of benevolence you hold toward your fellow man.
People aren't perfect, and to punish children for problems adults have is in no way fair.
Because holding women responsible for their choices... yeah that is "misogyny"Gotta admit that I've never seen a troll stick to such a single thought before. Even white supremacists eventually post about something other how inferior they think other races are, but his misogyny just keeps on trucking.
Considering you haven't said a thing about "independent" women before, and its obvious you don't believe women could or should be independent. Back to the kitchen and no shoes for them under the nehalem256 plan.Because holding women responsible for their choices... yeah that is "misogyny"
Because expecting "independent" women to actually be independent from men.. yeah that is "misogyny"
No it is liberals that don't believe women can be independent from men.Considering you haven't said a thing about "independent" women before, and its obvious you don't believe women could or should be independent. Back to the kitchen and no shoes for them under the nehalem256 plan.
1) Again a misrepresentation. Equality means everyone has access to every job, and employers don't discriminate based on gender when hiring. I have never suggested otherwise. There are also jobs dominated by women that men want nothing to do with.1.) So equality means that women work the "fun" jobs and the men get stuck in the mines.
2.) You have just cut the hours each male coal miner can work in 1/2. So to make up for the mine will need to hire additional workers. I wonder who they will be?
Right lets "evolve" to your philosophy where women are suppose to be men, and men are suppose to be slaves.Yeah we get it. You hate women. Congratulations, your philosophy reaches back thousands of years. Way to evolve.
You dont obviously seem to understand what you are proposing.2) Your whole premise is that we should have less workers in the workforce. You can't then turn around and put forth an argument that if we reduce the available workforce that companies will then need to hire additional workers.
And how is that different from taking women out of the workforce? What are the companies going to do that formerly hired women? Will they not need to now hire more people?You dont obviously seem to understand what you are proposing.
A employer has 40 hours of work that needs doing. He can hire one employee to work 40, or 2 to work 20.
So in your proposal he will have to hire an additional worker.
I said it was the same. I am saying that women are not going to be liking going into the coal mines to make up the men that can only work 1/2 time now.And how is that different from taking women out of the workforce? What are the companies going to do that formerly hired women? Will they not need to now hire more people?
A company currently employs 50 men and 50 women. If the women decide (or are forced) to stay at home, they will now need to hire 50 additional workers.
Total workforce participation is the same regardless of it's 1M people working 40 hours a week or 2M people working 20 hours a week. In both my suggestion (reducing hours) and your suggestion (reducing number of people working) the workforce supply is the same.
Which is inconsistent with your argument. If every employer simply hires more people to fill the backlog, how have you reduced the supply of labour?I said it was the same. I am saying that women are not going to be liking going into the coal mines to make up the men that can only work 1/2 time now.
As the employers are hiring more people the unemployment rate would go down.Which is inconsistent with your argument. If every employer simply hires more people to fill the backlog, how have you reduced the supply of labour?
If you're reducing the supply of labour, by definition, not every employer can make up for their lost employees.
And what does that have to do with wages going up?As the employers are hiring more people the unemployment rate would go down.
A two-earner household CAN be less stable, depending on behavior. Many if not most couples buy major purchases (notably houses, but also automobiles and often toys and vacations) on the basis on what they can afford at their total household income. If a single earner household loses its only job, two individuals are available to look for work, and assuming the formerly employed partner is unable to find work paying as well, the formerly non-working partner can seek employment to make up the difference between before and after wages. However, if a two-earner household buys a house at or near the limit of what they can afford, either partner losing a job and being unable to find an equivalent job is financial disaster. Although I can also see a possible offset; a single income household is probably an above-median income household, but a dual income household might well have more luxuries (on average) that can be cut without financial disaster because many single income households (my own included) are arranged thusly not because of a particularly high income but because of the inherent benefits in having one partner whose time is not already alloted.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.)
Assuming that half of qualified nurses are unemployed.And what does that have to do with wages going up?
If that's all you're looking for then fine - make it 30 hours a week or 35. Either way, there's no reason why it would require women to work in coal mines. Unemployed men would fill coal mine jobs, and unemployed women would fill nurses positions.
Nor is there any reason for them to have entered it in the first place. And there is a little reason called reality.In either case, there's no reason why the gender make-up of different jobs needs to change. Nor is their any reason why women need to be taken out of the workforce to accomplish your goals.
it's not "proven" just because you say it is. define prevented.Proven.
1.) It has been established that women who have children they cannot afford have worse lives.
2.) Having money taken from you to bail them out makes your life worse.
So, tell me whose life would not be made better if we prevented women from having children they cannot afford.