T1B

The dems cry about unions losing clout and the evil rich stealing it.

There may be something to that, but, it is insignificant compared to the 2 major reasons.

Number one is the fact that we buy everything from somebody else. We are finally getting to the point, I think where we will be forced to address this.

Reason number 2, which never seems to get any run, but, i think is significant is the fact that a much larger portion of the population is in the work force. In the 50-60s which are considered our golden age in this area, mom usually stayed home. now she's out there competing with dad for the yobs and simple supply and demand says that will result in lower wages.

why doesn't this get run? is it because nobody wants to appear anti-women in the work force?

Because you touch yourself at night.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Because you touch yourself at night.

The nuns never told me about that consequence, sorry.

smackaholic wrote:The dems cry about unions losing clout and the evil rich stealing it.

There may be something to that, but, it is insignificant compared to the 2 major reasons.

Number one is the fact that we buy everything from somebody else. We are finally getting to the point, I think where we will be forced to address this.

Reason number 2, which never seems to get any run, but, i think is significant is the fact that a much larger portion of the population is in the work force. In the 50-60s which are considered our golden age in this area, mom usually stayed home. now she's out there competing with dad for the yobs and simple supply and demand says that will result in lower wages.

why doesn't this get run? is it because nobody wants to appear anti-women in the work force?

They gave the current VA governor, McDonnell shit for writing something about this in a thesis.

1. It doesn't get much run because it's true.
2. It doesn't get much run because we're a self destructive species.

Mothers working full time contributes to the poor state this country is in.

I see where you're going with this trev, and I agree that all working mothers should be converted into free full-time hookers. Wages will increase as well as a happier, more productive workforce.

Based on the originator of this thread, the American workforce is getting much stupider.

Goober McTuber wrote:Based on the originator of this thread, the American workforce is getting much stupider.

I don't think the influx of women in the workforce has done that. Women are every bit as intelligent and intellectually capapble as men, perhaps more. I don't think that's what the theory is based on. It's based on supply and demand laws. More people means more supply, less demand, and lower labor cost.

Women, staying at home, managing a home and raising their children is the most important job ever IMHO. The husband is simply logistical support and getting the necessary resources to provide for that. In all honesty, men, fucked that up by taking advantage of the situation and dissing on the stay at home mom by fucking the hot, single, secretary at work and demeaning the work done at home by mom (if you read the propaganda).

Tom In VA wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Based on the originator of this thread, the American workforce is getting much stupider.

I don't think the influx of women in the workforce has done that. Women are every bit as intelligent and intellectually capapble as men, perhaps more. I don't think that's what the theory is based on. It's based on supply and demand laws. More people means more supply, less demand, and lower labor cost.

^^^^^^^^
Example #2.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Based on the originator of this thread, the American workforce is getting much stupider.

I don't think the influx of women in the workforce has done that. Women are every bit as intelligent and intellectually capapble as men, perhaps more. I don't think that's what the theory is based on. It's based on supply and demand laws. More people means more supply, less demand, and lower labor cost.

^^^^^^^^
Example #2.

You're alright old man.

Tom In VA wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Based on the originator of this thread, the American workforce is getting much stupider.

I don't think the influx of women in the workforce has done that. Women are every bit as intelligent and intellectually capapble as men, perhaps more. I don't think that's what the theory is based on. It's based on supply and demand laws. More people means more supply, less demand, and lower labor cost.

Women, staying at home, managing a home and raising their children is the most important job ever IMHO. The husband is simply logistical support and getting the necessary resources to provide for that. In all honesty, men, fucked that up by taking advantage of the situation and dissing on the stay at home mom by fucking the hot, single, secretary at work and demeaning the work done at home by mom (if you read the propaganda).

Being a mom to young chillins is indeed the single most important job in society. Just look around at what is walking the streets these days and you see the results of failure in this job.

so, what do we do about it?

currently, we encourage working moms with tax credits for daycare.

i don't have a problm with some sort of credit or subsidy in cases of single moms/dads, but, I do when mom is going to work to fund the beach house or worse yet, just because it's more funner than staying home with junior.

smackaholic wrote: so, what do we do about it?

I don't know that there's anything that can be done about it. Nature, ususally has a way of balancing things out and humanity of adapting/escaping.

trev wrote:Mothers working full time contributes to the poor state this country is in.

That doesn't have shit to do with it you lazy bon bon chugging bitch.

Preaching a strong work ethic to your children and leading by example is somehow worse than the kids having all-day access to the other dependent in the house preaching about what's best for everyone else in flaccid, short-sighted blanket statements like the one in quotes?

Have another drink retard.

Kids dont learn a strong work ethic when both parents work,they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

Kids should learn how to behave themselves first and foremost which will make learning a strong work ethic much easier. And there is no better rolemodel or enforcer for behaveing themselves then a parent at home.

Trampis wrote:Kids dont learn a strong work ethic when both parents work,they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

Kids should learn how to behave themselves first and foremost which will make learning a strong work ethic much easier. And there is no better rolemodel or enforcer for behaveing themselves then a parent at home.

By that logic, all the stay at home welfare moms should be the best fucking parents ever. After all, they're home.

Trampis wrote:they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

And if mommy was home, those same miscreants would be manipulating her. What in the world is your point?

I don't understand this emotional reaction to a simple theory that more women in the work force increase the supply of labor, which drives down cost. Cost, in labor is associated with the rate paid for a specific service.

It's also why the Libs are for the soft immigration policies. The "they do jobs Americans won't do" is bullshitese for "The more people we have coming, the lower the labor costs will be".

Each home is different and has different needs. That's why there is "law" about women working and there never will be. It goes down to decision in a family.

Ideally, kids with a stable home life, a regimented schedule, and a mother who works at home WITH THEM is what produces a well balanced, well adjusted person. It doesn't mean that can't happen with a working woman, or even a single mother.

None of that has anything to do with the theory that the increase in supply - lowers the labor cost and thus ... the amount of American wages.

The reason wages have remained stagnant since the SEVENTIES is because of the attack on unions, as well as the shameless implementation of the neo-liberal economic policies both here and abroad. If you can't see the basic criminality of this disastrous--and disgraced--system, you are either in deep denial or just an idiot.

The Koch brothers right ?

Tom In VA wrote:The Koch brothers right ?

Evidently the Bush Family Evil Empire is passe and with Darth Cheney in retirement/almost dead, they need a new boogie man.

Trampis wrote:Kids dont learn a strong work ethic when both parents work,they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

That just might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Rack you.

No, Screw, this is the dumbest thing you've ever heard. Or read. Then again, this auto-bot churns these out daily.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The reason wages have remained stagnant since the SEVENTIES is because of the attack on unions, as well as the shameless implementation of the neo-liberal economic policies both here and abroad. If you can't see the basic criminality of this disastrous--and disgraced--system, you are either in deep denial or just an idiot.

Anybody remember that toy where you pointed the lever at a cow and pulled the string and out would come "The cow goes moooooooo"?

That's our boy LTS here.

Any subject, any topic, he's got a canned response for. You know that song by Matchbox 20 "Real World"?

That's our boy LTS here.

Well, that's without saying, Whitey. Why do you GOPtards get so caught up in his shit?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Well, that's without saying, Whitey. Why do you GOPtards get so caught up in his shit?

Because I enjoy his posts ? I don't have to agree with him all the time to solicit his opinions and posts. He has an interesting writing style that I find enjoyable to read, I can't explain it.

Tom In VA wrote:He has an interesting writing style that I find enjoyable to read, I can't explain it.

His writing style is the audio equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard after having read it for umpteenth time.

And Tom, while I know you're a sucker for punishment, don't encourage this anonymous weasel. I know at least something about even the most liberal minded here and I respect their takes because I know where they're coming from.

But this guy? He might as well be from Pluto for all he's revealed about himself.

Yes, there are now women in the workplace. But that also includes in the boardroom. Yet executive wages have increased, not diminished. Can't blame this all on the entry of women into the workplace.

War Wagon wrote: And Tom, while I know you're a sucker for punishment,

:? IDGI

War Wagpn wrote: don't encourage this anonymous weasel. I know at least something about even the most liberal minded here and I respect their takes because I know where they're coming from.

But this guy? He might as well be from Pluto for all he's revealed about himself.

That's the point, it's such a different angle, it's somewhat refreshing. I don't need to know somebody's life story to appreciate the words I see on the screen. It's a post, on a message board, I read it.

R-Jack wrote:

trev wrote:Mothers working full time contributes to the poor state this country is in.

That doesn't have shit to do with it you lazy bon bon chugging bitch.

Preaching a strong work ethic to your children and leading by example is somehow worse than the kids having all-day access to the other dependent in the house preaching about what's best for everyone else in flaccid, short-sighted blanket statements like the one in quotes?

Have another drink retard.

I don't mean to offend you. How can a mom teach children a strong work ethic (or anything) when mom isn't around much? I guess it's better for kids to have a mother work a lot? Doesn't make sense to me. Overall it's best for kids not to be in daycare 6 to 6. The less a mom has to work, the better. There are many ways I can see this being achieved. Not saying a mom has to be home 24/7 either. But I do see kids every day that barely see their parents and I see these kids struggle with school and behavior.

I disagree with Magoo that trev should become a hooker, but in my heart, she'll always be...


...a Pretty Woman.

War Wagon wrote:Anybody remember that toy where you pointed the lever at a cow and pulled the string and out would come "The cow goes moooooooo"?

It's more like pulling the string and the cow takes a shit, imo.

Tom In VA wrote: That's the point, it's such a different angle, it's somewhat refreshing.

Tom, with all due respect, go pack sand.

R-Jack wrote:

Trampis wrote:they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

And if mommy was home, those same miscreants would be manipulating her. What in the world is your point?

I was responding to your insuation that children that have BOTH parents working outside the home learn a stronger work ethic when it is my opinion they do not.


And to respond to your above response, its less likely that the child would feel the need to be a miscreant because the whole reason they were being a miscreant with the babysitter/nanny was to get his/her parents attention. Kids want attention from their parents, and the substitute fill in, ie, nanny/babysitter is not the same thing.

Trampis wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

Trampis wrote:they learn how to manipulate babysitters, nannys and teachers.

And if mommy was home, those same miscreants would be manipulating her. What in the world is your point?

I was responding to your insuation that children that have BOTH parents working outside the home learn a stronger work ethic when it is my opinion they do not.


And to respond to your above response, its less likely that the child would feel the need to be a miscreant because the whole reason they were being a miscreant with the babysitter/nanny was to get his/her parents attention. Kids want attention from their parents, and the substitute fill in, ie, nanny/babysitter is not the same thing.

Kids learn a work ethic by working....be it household chores at a young age, mowing the lawn, a paper route, farm chores, doing homework, etc.....whether both parents work, or not, is pretty much irrelevant. The more important issue is how the parents teach these lessons to their children in the time they do spend with them.

Mace wrote: Kids learn a work ethic by working...

yep.

I had my first paper route by 9, mowing lawns and shoveling snow off sidewalks by 10.

Mace wrote:

Trampis wrote: its less likely that the child would feel the need to be a miscreant because the whole reason they were being a miscreant with the babysitter/nanny was to get his/her parents attention. Kids want attention from their parents, and the substitute fill in, ie, nanny/babysitter is not the same thing.

Kids learn a work ethic by working....be it household chores at a young age, mowing the lawn, a paper route, farm chores, doing homework, etc.....whether both parents work, or not, is pretty much irrelevant. The more important issue is how the parents teach these lessons to their children in the time they do spend with them.

I understand what your saying Mace.


But haveing a job is a tireing and stressful thing. And when both parents are tired and stressed about work, the time they do spend with their child is of lessor quality.

Trampis wrote:But haveing a job is a tireing and stressful thing. And when both parents are tired and stressed about work, the time they do spend with their child is of lessor quality.

Try not having a job.

What kinda' nancy boy are you, Trampis?

Quality time with your children? That's precious... you dumbfuck.

trev wrote:I don't mean to offend you.

Don't flatter yourself.

You were the one that made the broad brush statement, not me. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how much you stay at home if you are a shitty parent and a good parent can raise a good kid and hold down a job. My contrast/compare was merely an example of how going out and working hard provides a better example for kids than just staying home and not doing shit. By your logic, a schoolteacher* is a bigger contributor to the decline of this country than fucking welfare queen in house shoes.

Is it better to have a parent at home as much as possible? Sure, if it's a good parent. I hate to tell ya, but a good parent can walk and chew gum at the same time. Funny thing about good parents........what they teach kids when they are home is carried over into school and daycare time. You have clear guidelines on what good and proper behavior is and you enforce clear consequences if those guidelines are not met. Unless you have been blessed with a retard kid, that's about all it boils down to. I have no issue with anyone wanting to stay home and teach the children well, but really, it's not an 18 hour, 7 day a week job if you have a fucking clue.

A miserable cunt of a mother (or father) is not going to be a good parent, no matter how much they stay home. Period.



*yeah yeah, blahblahliberalagendablahblah, swap a diffent occupation in there if it helps.

88 wrote:I think that wages for unskilled Americans have stagnated since the 1970's for the following two primary reasons:

1. Intermodal shipping containers and foreign competition. When goods can be transported over great distances cheaply, unskilled labor becomes a commodity and the lowest bidder wins.

What?

Stick to what you may know something about, because you obviously don't know what it costs to ship a container overseas. It's not cheap, going or coming. Shipping costs are immutable and exorbitant. And why you would try to link shipping costs to unskilled labor is ponderous.

Go sleep it off.

smackaholic wrote:In the 50-60s which are considered our golden age in this area, mom usually stayed home. now she's out there competing with dad for the yobs and simple supply and demand says that will result in lower wages.

why doesn't this get run? is it because nobody wants to appear anti-women in the work force?

88 explained foreign competition and an unskilled US labor force. Wal*Mart out front makes that clear.

Also we have high illegal immigration and I don't see how hospitals stay in business with the tremendous amount of illegals in the waiting rooms. In the rural hospitals there are signs written in Spanish telling the illegals they cannot be turned away.

Many employers have to pay increasingly higher benefits or cut them.

After the women's lib movement, you saw them coming into the workforce in formerly male dominated occupations. A theoretical question to ask would be "What if women always stayed in the traditional role as home maker and it remained that way to this day?" How would that effect the way things are today? I keep thinking of those shows from the 60's and 70's (Dick Van Dyke Show, etc.) where the husband came home to a "happy" wife.

I'm not really buying it R Jack, but you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion on the matter is that kids grow up fast and why bother having them if you are going to leave them in daycare. That's just me. Call it a broad brush statement, but aren't kids better off being taken care of by family as opposed to strangers?