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

[sub_thug]

it depends on the government... most regulations are put in place to protect consumers. They raise the standard of the products being created. Its usually experts in the fields that are consulted before they are implemented also.

The EU's food safety standards are an example of this, as is their car regulations. Which is why European cars are far superior to American cars

How they are written matters a lot. If before you can sell a product, you need to pay $1M in fees to have it inspected by a third-party, $200k to get an audit to show that you using X pre-approved method for construction of your product, and other stuff, I have a real problem with that. You're setting a high bar that a poor person can't pass over, even if they have the next great idea. By trying to protect the consumer in this way, you're actually protecting the big business's incumbency. If these are written in other ways, then I'm fine with it.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

that's a ridiculous argument
unless a wife is literally raped, she willingly chose not only to have unprotected sex but keep the child.....

Nobody else but that person is to blame if their income drops....

This relates to alimony as well, as if we have arranged marriages and women go into them against their will and have no say. Uh, no. If you choose to not work and stay at home, you shouldn't get a single cent if the relationship ends...in fact, you should owe that other person tens of thousands of dollars for supporting your non contributing self

Parents legally have to support their kids until the age of 18, they don't then get free money afterwards b/c of 'accustomed lifestyle' or whatever.....why? b/c they are now an adult, legally responsible for providing for themselves. Why a divorced/stay at home spouse is any different is retarded

 

[MayhemMonkey]

How they are written matters a lot. If before you can sell a product, you need to pay $1M in fees to have it inspected by a third-party, $200k to get an audit to show that you using X pre-approved method for construction of your product, and other stuff, I have a real problem with that. You're setting a high bar that a poor person can't pass over, even if they have the next great idea. By trying to protect the consumer in this way, you're actually protecting the big business's incumbency. If these are written in other ways, then I'm fine with it.

being poor isnt an excuse for shoddy work. the standard of the work is paramount. Regulations are necessary and if implemented correctly they raise the standard of products being produced

 

[panamaican]

I'm totally fine with everything you said as long as the judicial system looks at case in front of them instead of the lens of a microcosm of the larger trend. Policy is designed to apply to everyone, while the lower courts should be deciding the case that's in front of them (very different jobs). As long as the judicial system doesn't say things like, "Well, kids need their mother, so she gets full custody. Also, men make more than women do, so cough up, dude," I'm fine. If the case in front of them is a male that makes more than his ex-wife, then I think it's reasonable that he should pay more for the welfare of the kids.

The courts should, and do, decide the facts in front of them. But you have some men who look at the those outcomes where women primarily get custody and men primarily pay more in support and then complain that the system is sexist while disregarding the earning differences between the parties.

But then if you point them to these wage numbers, they'll say "Well, biologically women just don't want to earn money like men do. Biologically, women want to stay home and take care of kids." So what now? The legal system should hand the kids over the party that biologically doesn't want to stay home and care for them and put the economic burden on the party that biologically doesn't want to earn money.

If the wage difference is a natural occurrence then the judicial outcomes will be a natural occurrence in the other direction.

Those people annoy the living hell out of me.

 

[sub_thug]

being poor isnt an excuse for shoddy work. the standard of the work is paramount. Regulations are necessary and if implemented correctly they raise the standard of products being produced

I'm not arguing for shoddy work. I'm arguing that sometimes, we put so much time and money into compliance (get the audit that shows you are doing X before you are allowed to go to market) that we bog down the process in a way that hurts the people who need capitalism the most (our working poor).

 

[sub_thug]

The courts should, and do, decide the facts in front of them. But you have some men who look at the those outcomes where women primarily get custody and men primarily pay more in support and then complain that the system is sexist while disregarding the earning differences between the parties.

But then if you point them to these wage numbers, they'll say "Well, biologically women just don't want to earn money like men do. Biologically, women want to stay home and take care of kids." So what now? The legal system should hand the kids over the party that biologically doesn't want to stay home and care for them and put the economic burden on the party that biologically doesn't want to earn money.

If the wage difference is a natural occurrence then the judicial outcomes will be a natural occurrence in the other direction.

Those people annoy the living hell out of me.

You won't hear a peep from me on that. If you were the high earner before the marriage, didn't get a prenup that separates your marital assets, have a kid, and then divorce, you are and should be on the hook.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

nobody is complaining about child support.....that's fine

Alimony is not. Kids can't provide for themselves, an adult can and should. Period.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Wow.

It's not a wrong perception, it's a result. A result of production. On average, more 30 year old married men are going to be more responsible and career driven than a 30 year old party animal. Where as on average, married women with kids will produce less than no kids career focused women.

I work in the most corporate of corporate jobs at a reasonably high level, and I can tell you without a doubt the majority of highly successful women of all ages are ones with no kids. They don't take time off, or disappear during the peak of a client project for months because of a baby. They don't have to leave early and take off the next day because their kid is sick during a budget deadline in two days. They are here working hard, sacrificing, coming in 2 hours early, and they earn every ounce of it. They get big bonuses, they move up the ladder. The women who are married having their third child going on another paternity leave are the ones that advance slower and get lesser bonuses. Rightfully so, as their overall production is inferior and inconsistent.

Women can have all the kids they chose, more power to them. Blessing of child birth and all that sweet music. But don't expect them to be held in the same regard as women contributing significantly more to the company.

Yes you have got at exactly the heart of the issue I raised to his post.

his post seems like the type of political selective excerpts made to push these agenda driven items ('women's wage gap argument') where you put forth the truth of the matter ('married men with kids tend to make more than unmarried and yet married women with kids tend to make less') which in a veiled way hints at some type of inconsistency or wrong, but in fact with proper context makes perfect sense and would show things are functioning as they should.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I'm not arguing for shoddy work. I'm arguing that sometimes, we put so much time and money into compliance (get the audit that shows you are doing X before you are allowed to go to market) that we bog down the process in a way that hurts the people who need capitalism the most (our working poor).

it depends on the regulations. Not all regulations require an audit. They could be regulations about building supplies etc. I used food safety standards and car regulations(safety/emissions etc) as 2 such regulations that have benefited our societies by raising standards(food), or making higher quality cars that are safe for the public.

regulations are massively important imo.

 

[sub_thug]

it depends on the regulations. Not all regulations require an audit. They could be regulations about building supplies etc. I used food safety standards and car regulations(safety/emissions etc) as 2 such regulations that have benefited our societies by raising standards(food), or making higher quality cars that are safe for the public.

regulations are massively important imo.

I'm not saying that all regulations are bad. Some are good, and we should keep them. Others are bad, and we should get rid of them. But the ones that require the most money still favor incumbents, something I oppose for a variety of reasons (mostly because they innovate less than upstart competitors).

I also think there are other ways to do things. Instead of a regulation, a tax credit in the opposite direction can be a good approach. For example, "don't produce more than 2 tons of carbon byproducts" could be replaced by "we will give you back $10 in tax credits for every pound of carbon byproducts you reduce from this year's baseline over next year."

Something worth pointing out: We can both want the same things, as I think you and I have shown here. We can go about them in very different ways, and there's nothing wrong with that Just because I'm on "the right" and you're on "the left" doesn't mean that one of us doesn't care about something important. It's helpful when we approach one another in this manner (as you and I are doing at this very moment, so thank you) versus the usual bickering that happens here.

 

[Rod1]

Of course its not fair for the overworked employee, but then again society needs new people being born.

And yet white nationalists like @Amerikuracana blame some sort of feminist conspiracy when the fact is that in ALL societies around the world education translates to less kids because educated people can understand the relationship between kids and less income/time and plan accordingly.

People say eat cake and have it too, the same applies to immigration and the current first world life, if you want to keep living in a growing first world country, but refuse to have kids, people will need to be imported from abroad.

 

[method115]

My wife and I chose to work opposing hours so we could have a kid without much outside help. Any outside help, actually. I was fortunate to be able to do that, I get that some can't.

Me and my wife do the same sort of. We still need help but it's only for about 30 mins to an hour we need someone to watch him as I'm driving home and she's driving to work. Pretty soon my daughter will be old enough to just wait for us (I already think she is) but not sure my wife will ever be comfortable with that.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I'm not saying that all regulations are bad. Some are good, and we should keep them. Others are bad, and we should get rid of them. But the ones that require the most money still favor incumbents, something I oppose for a variety of reasons (mostly because they innovate less than upstart competitors).

I also think there are other ways to do things. Instead of a regulation, a tax credit in the opposite direction can be a good approach. For example, "don't produce more than 2 tons of carbon byproducts" could be replaced by "we will give you back $10 in tax credits for every pound of carbon byproducts you reduce from this year's baseline over next year."

Something worth pointing out: We can both want the same things, as I think you and I have shown here. We can go about them in very different ways, and there's nothing wrong with that Just because I'm on "the right" and you're on "the left" doesn't mean that one of us doesn't care about something important. It's helpful when we approach one another in this manner (as you and I are doing at this very moment, so thank you) versus the usual bickering that happens here.

 

[Seano]

Me and my wife do the same sort of. We still need help but it's only for about 30 mins to an hour we need someone to watch him as I'm driving home and she's driving to work. Pretty soon my daughter will be old enough to just wait for us (I already think she is) but not sure my wife will ever be comfortable with that.

How old? We're the opposite, my wife thinks my daughter could stay home by herself, I don't.

 

[method115]

How old? We're the opposite, my wife thinks my daughter could stay home by herself, I don't.

My daughter is 15. My wife brought up a good point that it’s better to drop them off and spend time with the grandparents. So I honestly don’t mind.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Of course its not fair for the overworked employee, but then again society needs new people being born.

And yet white nationalists like @Amerikuracana blame some sort of feminist conspiracy when the fact is that in ALL societies around the world education translates to less kids because educated people can understand the relationship between kids and less income/time and plan accordingly.

People say eat cake and have it too, the same applies to immigration and the current first world life, if you want to keep living in a growing first world country, but refuse to have kids, people will need to be imported from abroad.

White nationalist? I just had a baby with a girl from syria, and I have black friends, but really not any good white friends right now.

I demand fairness, equal rights, and no double standards. I would have marched for black rights in the 60s. If calling out double standards makes me a white nationalist, them the left is in trouble, and should be in more.

Do whites deserve to have a country to themselves in Europe? Exactly as much as anybody else has the right to the country they founded.

I didn't pay attention to the rest of your post because you suck.


EDIT: OK no lmao.. Endless growth is unsustainable and you do not need to punish a people who stop growing a population when a high standard of living has been established. Wrong b.s. in many levels from you.

 

[Seano]

My daughter is 15. My wife brought up a good point that it’s better to drop them off and spend time with the grandparents. So I honestly don’t mind.

Oh shit. 15 is fine. My daughter is 11. I'll probably let her be on her own at 13.

 

[method115]

Oh shit. 15 is fine. My daughter is 11. I'll probably let her be on her own at 13.

Ah yea 11 is to young IMO. Although I wasn’t left home alone plenty at 12 so it’s not unheard of.

 

[Rod1]

EDIT: OK no lmao.. Endless growth is unsustainable and you do not need to punish a people who stop growing a population when a high standard of living has been established. Wrong b.s. in many levels from you.

Of course its unsustainable, but nobody wants to be the generation of old men dying in ditches because there is nobody to sustain them.

Even Japan is relaxing its immigration laws nowadays, the shrinking economy breaks everyone.

 

[HomerThompson]

This just in!!!

Caring about families is socialism!!!

News at 11.