• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
34,286
13,156
146
If they are hungry because of their own stupid life choices yes.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
No children would be punished under my plan.

In fact everyone would have a better life.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Because holding women responsible for their choices... yeah that is "misogyny" :rolleyes:

Because expecting "independent" women to actually be independent from men.. yeah that is "misogyny" :rolleyes:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Sharia Law is not a plan. It is a system of control.
Taxation is also a method of control.

The difference is I am controlling people that make decisions that are bad for society AND bad for THEM.

You advocate a system in which everyone is worse off. o_O
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Because holding women responsible for their choices... yeah that is "misogyny" :rolleyes:

Because expecting "independent" women to actually be independent from men.. yeah that is "misogyny" :rolleyes:
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
No it is liberals that don't believe women can be independent from men.

This is why they:

1.) Support mandatory child support to force men to pay for women's reproductive choices.
2.) Expect men to pay for special women's health clincis.
3.) Expect men to subisdize women's health insurance
4.) Need special laws to protect them from domestic violence.
5.) Are in favor of medicaid/food stamps/etc to bailout women who cannot be independent :p


Well ok, maybe they do believe they can be independent from men, but only if they are dependent on the government instead.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
Yeah we get it. You hate women. Congratulations, your philosophy reaches back thousands of years. Way to evolve.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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? :confused:
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.

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.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
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.
That reminds me of the lie that reducing the "job creators" taxes will create more jobs....lol
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yeah we get it. You hate women. Congratulations, your philosophy reaches back thousands of years. Way to evolve.
Right lets "evolve" to your philosophy where women are suppose to be men, and men are suppose to be slaves.

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.
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.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
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.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
As the employers are hiring more people the unemployment rate would go down.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
As the employers are hiring more people the unemployment rate would go down.
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.

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.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
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.

o_O

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.)
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.

So I'd say a two-income household SHOULD be more stable than a single-income household, but due to human nature probably isn't.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
doubtful.
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.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
Assuming that half of qualified nurses are unemployed. :rolleyes:

Which should make it obvious why you plan is impossible.

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.
Nor is there any reason for them to have entered it in the first place. And there is a little reason called reality.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
34,286
13,156
146
Two problems are:

1. In a single income household, someone is at home to take care of children. That person may not have marketable skills that could produce a single income stable environment.

2. 100k - 50k = 50k; 50k - 50k = 0

A two income household is more likely to have a larger cushion to take the hit, if they don't that's their own fault for living outside their means.

A single income household is at 0, less likely to have the same cushion built up to get them through the hard times.

If a single income household is bring in 100k, that may or may not be a better situation.

What if's are easy to come by in these situations, because the factors in play are variable by the people.

From what I've seen, a single income household will be hard up if the only job they have is lost.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
34,286
13,156
146
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.
it's not "proven" just because you say it is. define prevented.

I'd rather my money be sent to needy children than line the pockets of greedy politicians, corp. USA, and government employees ridiculous benefits.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY