My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

This just in!!!

Caring about families is socialism!!!

News at 11.

By caring about families do you mean disincentivizing women's employment? I just can't understand why its so hard for you to look past the superficial layer of the issues, despite repeated explanations that the issue has more depth than "Bagoo! you don't care about families!"
 
By caring about families do you mean disincentivizing women's employment?
tenor.gif
 
I’m certainly no socialist but I think your friend’s point has some merit. First, I assume we can all agree that attentive, present mothers are vastly important for children’s development and, by extension, society at large. Well my personal observation in business is that many of the most competent and conscious women are the exact type that is most likely to pause their career to attend to children. The problem is that when they try to reenter their career they are not only placed at the bottom of the totem pole, they are placed there as a middle aged individual. Meanwhile many less competent people who may have neglected parental responsibilities have been promoted multiple times. Point being, it’s not only a matter of fairness. It’s also a problem in missassesing talent and ability.


As a Bernie supporter I support this logic.
 
As a Bernie supporter I support this logic.

If the assessment of the ability and talent is the issue, then that's a place for market intervention not an intervention by threat of violence. By the way, that miscalculation, unless subsidized, isn't sustainable for the same reason no other misallocation is sustainable in a decentralized market environment. @Gunny

In other words, if its between determining who's making the appropriate pricing calculation for employment of child bearing women @Gunny / @franklinstower or all employers everywhere that send out offer letters... I'm going with the latter as the safe bet.
 
If the assessment of the ability and talent is the issue, then that's a place for market intervention not an intervention by threat of violence. By the way, that miscalculation, unless subsidized, isn't sustainable for the same reason no other misallocation is sustainable in a decentralized market environment. @Gunny

Market intervention works in ever single other area so why would it not work here right? I mean we NEVER see corporations deceitfully using toxic chemicals that effect peoples health, we never see corporate abuse in the mining industries, we basically never see any corporation or business do anything that is against the law but that increases profits. What we need is less regulations on all levels-- that will allow companies and businesses to maximize profits and that will always in every case protect the consumer, employee etc.
 
Market intervention works in ever single other area so why would it not work here right? I mean we NEVER see corporations deceitfully using toxic chemicals that effect peoples health, we never see corporate abuse in the mining industries, we basically never see any corporation or business do anything that is against the law but that increases profits. What we need is less regulations on all levels-- that will allow companies and businesses to maximize profits and that will always in every case protect the consumer, employee etc.

Who said anything about less regulation? I love regulation. I want mountains of it from the ventures I purchase from. However, I'm also not myopic and naive enough to think that regulation is best distributed and served by a fucking compulsory funded monopoly that takes direction from representatives appointed by the lowest common denominator.

The go to question I always love to throw out in this space is who do you imagine farmers are more concerned about? Gov't regulators or supermarket inspectors?
 
Who said anything about less regulation? I love regulation. I want mountains of it from the ventures I purchase from. However, I'm also not myopic and naive enough to think that regulation is best distributed and served by a fucking compulsory funded monopoly that takes direction from representatives appointed by the lowest common denominator.

The go to question I always love to throw out in this space is who do you imagine farmers are more concerned about? Gov't regulators or supermarket inspectors?


Supermarket inspectors have no knowledge of or care about the degree of carcinogens in the bug spray they are using, or whether something is actually organic or not. We simply must have oversight for a lot of these types of things or lying liars will fucking lie for more profit.
 
Supermarket inspectors have no knowledge of or care about the degree of carcinogens in the bug spray they are using, or whether something is actually organic or not. We simply must have oversight for a lot of these types of things or lying liars will fucking lie for more profit.

Excuse you. They don't??? If it's discovered that the produce of the farmer they're buying from is using carincogenic insecticides, do you imagine it's in their interest to buy it for your sale? And what's their incentive to find that before a third party external lab does that will publish the results versus the government regulatory agency?

I agree with the oversight. My question for you is why do you imagine the oversight is best handled by a compulsory funded monopoly?
 
If the assessment of the ability and talent is the issue, then that's a place for market intervention not an intervention by threat of violence. By the way, that miscalculation, unless subsidized, isn't sustainable for the same reason no other misallocation is sustainable in a decentralized market environment. @Gunny


To state for the record, I’m not necessarily advocating for any given policy and don’t claim to have the answers. I’m just recognizing the problem. Also, I don’t know that markets can provide the intervention you speak of. That would suppose that a company who recognizes the exceptional competence of a given mother reentering the workplace and rewards that competence with promotions/positions/pay above that of her peers would find themselves more successful than their competition who doesn’t. In practice however, what they may find themselves with is a demoralized workforce who feels their own contributions are overlooked and is less productive as a result. This is the same struggle companies always face when promoting internally vs. hiring from outside. Market theories always have to be tempered by an appreciation for human foibles.
 
Excuse you. They don't??? If it's discovered that the produce of the farmer they're buying from is using carincogenic insecticides, do you imagine it's in their interest to buy it for your sale?


Neither group will care if there is not a government regulation against it. FFS american apples are banned in Europe because our regulatory bodies here are already bought and paid for . My daughter has not eaten an apple grown in america her whole life because of this.

Meanwhile lobbyists are doing their damnedest to make it illegal to fucking label foods as organic or as non GMO foods. Anyone who thinks we dont need these government bodies is just plainly wrong.
 
To state for the record, I’m not necessarily advocating for any given policy and don’t claim to have the answers. I’m just recognizing the problem. Also, I don’t know that markets can provide the intervention you speak of. That would suppose that a company who recognizes the exceptional competence of a given mother reentering the workplace and rewards that competence with promotions/positions/pay above that of her peers would find themselves more successful than their competition who doesn’t. In practice however, what they may find themselves with is a demoralized workforce who feels their own contributions are overlooked and is less productive as a result. This is the same struggle companies always face when promoting internally vs. hiring from outside. Market theories always have to be tempered by an appreciation for human foibles.

Of course they do. They do all the time, perpetually and ubiquitously. That's how all prices are set. You're effectively arguing against provisional truths about game theory and foundational economics with regard to how prices are set.
 
Neither group will care if there is not a government regulation against it. FFS american apples are banned in Europe because our regulatory bodies here are already bought and paid for . My daughter has not eaten an apple grown in america her whole life because of this.

Meanwhile lobbyists are doing their damnedest to make it illegal to fucking label foods as organic or as non GMO foods. Anyone who thinks we dont need these government bodies is just plainly wrong.

Again excuse you. You didn't include an addendum to my post, so I'll reiterate.

What can you imagine is the supermarket's incentive to find that carcinogen before a third party external lab does that will publish the results versus the government regulatory agency? What's the government regulatory agencies motivation over a supermarket whose bottom line is at stake for being held to account for the sale of a dangerous product?

Let's be objective.
 
Of course they do. They do all the time, perpetually and ubiquitously. That's how all prices are set. You're effectively arguing against provisional truths about game theory and foundational economics with regard to how prices are set.

How am I arguing that?
 
How am I arguing that?

Because you rebutted that the market isn't able to establish the equilibrium price accurately for women of child bearing age, no? Or perhaps more outrageous that you are better able to make that calculation than all the employers everywhere that offer letters of employment? I'm up for correction if that's not your argument here.
 
Again excuse you. You didn't include an addendum to my post, so I'll reiterate.

What can you imagine is the supermarket's incentive to find that carcinogen before a third party external lab does that will publish the results versus the government regulatory agency? Let's be objective.


They will have no incentive to do so. They wont care at all. American apple pesticides are already banned in Europe as they are known to cause disease in children especialy.

All I am saying is there absolutely must be government regulation or else all kinds of horrific bullshit that corporations can deny will happen accross the board.
 
They will have no incentive to do so. They wont care at all. American apple pesticides are already banned in Europe as they are known to cause disease in children especialy.

All I am saying is there absolutely must be government regulation or else all kinds of horrific bullshit that corporations can deny will happen accross the board.

So let's make this more simple, because you've taken a deep dive into a black hole of bullshit, and I'm trying to pull you out. What do you imagine is responsible for the quality control you see in the products you buy? Is it government regulation?
 
So let's make this more simple, because you've taken a deep dive into a black hole of bullshit, and I'm trying to pull you out. What do you imagine is responsible for the quality control you see in the products you buy? Is it government regulation?

Instead of trying to skillfully lead me down a specific road you are setting, just go ahead and make a point or case of your own buddy.
 
Instead of trying to skillfully lead me down a specific road you are setting, just go ahead and make a point or case of your own buddy.

I can't make you come to the conclusion. You have to on your own, hence the questions. So what do you think? Is the QC in the products you buy, primarily responsible by way of gov't regulation?
 
I can't make you come to the conclusion. You have to on your own, hence the questions. So what do you think? Is the QC in the products you buy, primarily responsible by way of gov't regulation?


Again I find your style to be condescending and manipulative. Make a point of your own of fuck off friend.
 
Back
Top