User Tag List

First 6141516

Results 151 to 158 of 158

  1. #151
    Senior Member Perch420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    NiTi
    Enneagram
    5w1
    Posts
    381

    Default

    You don't have a right to procreate. Making other people is something that involves someone other than yourself; the person you are creating. Therefore, it's not a human right just like killing someone or punching someone in the face is a human right.
    “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” - G. K. Chesterton

  2. #152
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    They are now, generally, but it's not like that was a planned reaction that occurred overnight. It was the system slowly adjusting to accommodate a two-person-working family.

    In a commercial society, prices eventually adjust to what people can pay.

    Which is why downturns in employment or rapidly increasing prices hit people hard... because the pricing at a point where people can't suddenly pay for it, and so either they go without or the pricing needs time to drop without ruining the corporation providing the goods.
    I'm not even sure it was that, entirely. I'd argue that the two-income family is more of a response to stagnant wages (because of massive increases in labor supply, including globalization, job-reducing technology, and political attacks on organized labor) and persistent inflation (because of supply shocks/dwindling energy reserves, easy credit, price stickiness, and the consumer society).

    The supposed postwar massive increase in female employment, especially married female employment, is misleading. What the statistics fail to take into account is the rapid and forced deagriculturalization of much of the country after World War II. Women in those households "stayed at home", but they were constantly working, fulfilling half of the tasks necessary to keep a farm going. After agribusiness bought up all of the land after the war, you had a critical increase in the labor supply (somewhat offset by the strong labor unions of the time) along with women who were used to working, yet had nothing to do. Because of the independent streak many of these men had, they resisted unionization (especially in the South), and the large numbers of uneducated men seeking work led to low wages. Their wives, who were used to working, went to work themselves to supplement a family income that fell below subsistence level.

    In the background of all of this, you have massive overhauls in monetary policy that seek to reduce American exposure to deflation through leveraging the US oil hegemony. OPEC introduces a major supply shock into the system, which sends the price of everything upward. Meanwhile, the changes to the workforce, lower wages, and effects of technology like containerization allow companies to hedge their gross losses with marginal gains, through layoffs, wage cuts, and outsourcing. That's what the stagflation of the '70s was.

    Here's where things begin to get all screwy, and why prices seem to require two incomes. Prices are a function of supply and demand, of course. At the same time, all we've seen is the price of essential goods increase. For essential goods, where the mean per capita demand should stay relatively stable, prices should only increase in response to a reduction in the ability to supply that widget, or the growth in aggregate demand outpacing supply. Except for energy shocks, the ability of companies to supply goods has steadily increased over the past few decades. In real terms, prices are historically low. Yet, people have problems paying with a single income.

    There are a few reasons. The first is the essential nature of many consumer goods: in a family structure, people will buy the essentials, no matter how many family members' wages it takes to afford them. Along with this is the exponential growth in global population, which increases demand while also increasing the labor supply, driving down wages, but still allowing for essential purchases within a family structure, provided that multiple incomes go into it. Advertising and social reorganization have also increased the number of consumer goods that are considered "essential." Planned obsolescence also comes into play, given that goods are no longer built to last.

    That advertising point is crucial. The United States has an incredibly isolating and commodifying culture. Loneliness makes us miserable, and the voice on the box tells us that buying stuff will make us feel better, or that things such as going to college or buying a house will do the same. Even though people are flat busted, they're still feeling like crap, but that's where cheap credit comes in. Thus, people can medicate their despondency with consuming, even though they dig themselves into a financial hole in the process. Thus, two incomes becomes necessary just for debt service. Meanwhile, the influence of monetarism since the '70s has completely divorced the idea of money from material wealth, allowing for an enormous expansion of the money supply through credit-fueled dollars, in abrogation of the principle that credit should mainly go toward productive capital expansion. Thus, why everyone panicked back in '08 - the economy began to recognize that a good chunk of the money supply was worthless. QE didn't drive up inflation because it merely supplanted the already-existing inflation.

    In short, women aren't the problem, because they've always been in the workforce, if in an overlooked capacity. The real culprits are globalization, technology, consumerism, easy credit, and counterdeflationary monetary policy.

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    How did this thread veer away from eugenics?

    Now I know this might sound like heresy from someone a bit left of center, but I remember flipping through a Glenn Beck book once and the guy brought up a good point:

    We require licenses for people to drive automobiles on the road because of the cost of a poor driver. What about requiring licenses to procreate due to the very real economic cost of people having children they cannot independently financially support? EG "Welfare queens", and so forth.

    IMO, shouldn't we be asking the question of whether or not only those who will not put relatively severe economic strain on the system be allowed to procreate? Aka no more of this "children being born into poverty" crap, because the cost of social programs, crime prevention, yadda yadda yadda, is just massive in comparison to children more well off, who don't get into gangs, do well in school and don't drop out to become juveniles, etc...

    Is that a form of eugenics? Sure.

    But would we be better served by it? IMO one very efficient way of eliminating poverty is to try and control the amount of people that get born into poverty.

    Not exactly the kindest thing to say, but hey, one way or another, the taxpayers have to pay for the social costs of those who can't support themselves.

    This includes both impoverished individuals...and on a tangential note, impoverished corporations. I'm against handouts both to the poor and to the rich.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  4. #154
    Aquaria mrcockburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ¥¤
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Posts
    1,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    How did this thread veer away from eugenics?

    Now I know this might sound like heresy from someone a bit left of center, but I remember flipping through a Glenn Beck book once and the guy brought up a good point:

    We require licenses for people to drive automobiles on the road because of the cost of a poor driver. What about requiring licenses to procreate due to the very real economic cost of people having children they cannot independently financially support? EG "Welfare queens", and so forth.

    IMO, shouldn't we be asking the question of whether or not only those who will not put relatively severe economic strain on the system be allowed to procreate? Aka no more of this "children being born into poverty" crap, because the cost of social programs, crime prevention, yadda yadda yadda, is just massive in comparison to children more well off, who don't get into gangs, do well in school and don't drop out to become juveniles, etc...

    Is that a form of eugenics? Sure.

    But would we be better served by it? IMO one very efficient way of eliminating poverty is to try and control the amount of people that get born into poverty.

    Not exactly the kindest thing to say, but hey, one way or another, the taxpayers have to pay for the social costs of those who can't support themselves.

    This includes both impoverished individuals...and on a tangential note, impoverished corporations. I'm against handouts both to the poor and to the rich.
    I agree with the general idea, but how do you enforce this? If 2 people are simultaneously irresponsible and horny, they're not going to give a damn about looking for a condom because of a child license.

    It's harder for people to illegally drive, due to the fact that a car isn't easy to obtain (esp without a license). But if you've got a willing partner and you've got the cognitive skill set to play Legos, you can procreate.

    And it's like gun laws - the only people who abide by them are those who don't even need the laws anyway.
    3w4-9w1-?w6 (nearly headless nick)
    sp/so
    Lawful Evil

    COCKBURN:

    http://sundrytimes.files.wordpress.c...tomic-bomb.jpg


  5. #155
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    How did this thread veer away from eugenics?

    Now I know this might sound like heresy from someone a bit left of center, but I remember flipping through a Glenn Beck book once and the guy brought up a good point:

    We require licenses for people to drive automobiles on the road because of the cost of a poor driver. What about requiring licenses to procreate due to the very real economic cost of people having children they cannot independently financially support? EG "Welfare queens", and so forth.

    IMO, shouldn't we be asking the question of whether or not only those who will not put relatively severe economic strain on the system be allowed to procreate? Aka no more of this "children being born into poverty" crap, because the cost of social programs, crime prevention, yadda yadda yadda, is just massive in comparison to children more well off, who don't get into gangs, do well in school and don't drop out to become juveniles, etc...

    Is that a form of eugenics? Sure.

    But would we be better served by it? IMO one very efficient way of eliminating poverty is to try and control the amount of people that get born into poverty.

    Not exactly the kindest thing to say, but hey, one way or another, the taxpayers have to pay for the social costs of those who can't support themselves.

    This includes both impoverished individuals...and on a tangential note, impoverished corporations. I'm against handouts both to the poor and to the rich.
    The first problem is that the cost of implementation of such a plan would likely exceed the costs saved.

    The second is that this is not a serious argument. This is dog-whistle speak for "those lazy n****rs are sitting around all day poppin' out babies to collect their government checks and spend it on flatscreens. If they're going to live like animals, well we should treat them like animals."

    The third is that there is a high probability that such a plan would meet a violent response from the targeted populations.

    Finally, I'm not so sure that eliminating the underclass' ability to reproduce would eliminate the underclass as a social structure. No one wants to be where they are, and yet, they got there for a reason. Seems like this would attack the symptom and not the disease.

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    You don't have a right to procreate. Making other people is something that involves someone other than yourself; the person you are creating. Therefore, it's not a human right just like killing someone or punching someone in the face is a human right.
    I was amused to remember being 4 or 5 at nursery and one of the mothers were complaining that her Son wouldn't be getting 'These small Easter eggs, he deserved much better'. Of course I then compare that with someone on daytime TV complaining that she could no longer afford to take her family of 4 for a piss up in Spain and it was their *right*; ah the joys.

    Some people need to learn to get a grip and if they want it *earn* it.

  7. #157
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    You don't have a right to procreate. Making other people is something that involves someone other than yourself; the person you are creating. Therefore, it's not a human right just like killing someone or punching someone in the face is a human right.
    Please, someone spread around this idea. The number of people with children who really, really, shouldn't be parents is frightening. What's worse is that they think that being a parent is some kind of accolade. Being human isn't an accolade, being a decent human being is.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrcockburn View Post
    I agree with the general idea, but how do you enforce this? If 2 people are simultaneously irresponsible and horny, they're not going to give a damn about looking for a condom because of a child license.

    It's harder for people to illegally drive, due to the fact that a car isn't easy to obtain (esp without a license). But if you've got a willing partner and you've got the cognitive skill set to play Legos, you can procreate.

    And it's like gun laws - the only people who abide by them are those who don't even need the laws anyway.
    How? Because there are plenty of medical procedures that come between having an egg fertilized and delivering a baby. If you don't have a license to procreate, whoops, no medical help for you, and odds are, the chances of that baby making it into this world alive and surviving are far far slimmer.

    Also, think of all the specific things would be mothers want to buy. If they have no license, tag them, sic the authorities on them, arrest them, abort baby.

    Odds are, it costs less money to have one abortion than to have a minor that the US government has to support for 18 years.

    Furthermore...pregnancies show. So if you look like a poor person who's pregnant, a police officer could have the right to say "license please".
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

Similar Threads

  1. What's wrong with hypocrisy?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 02:15 PM
  2. What's wrong with a little deflation?
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 11:05 PM
  3. What is Wrong with Economy
    By wildcat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:15 AM
  4. [MBTItm] What's wrong with being an xNTJ, anyway?
    By Enyo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 02:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO