Women and payment?

[Spiffor]

I'm a communist (a socialist really), but I'm often speaking about what a reasonable policy would be in the capitalist economy, that's why I sound like a social-democrat sometimes.
In a socialistic society, women would have carreer guaranties and decent welfare during their pregnancy/education of their children anyways, without the needs of wishful thinking.

Besides, I think the workplace should reward people according to their work, and welfare should make sure everybody affords a decent way of life, even in a socialistic society. To me, it is only natural a diligent and competent worker gets more money than a lazy person who arrives as late as possible and leaves as soon as possible.

[Az]

This is obviously wrong. I think men and women should be treated the same. And to spite Agathon, men should be even allowed to women's gyms!

welfare should make sure everybody affords a decent way of life,

That's where we differ. I am more of an egalitarian technocrat.

In regards to financial security during pregnancy: I think that this should go according to which child is it, in connection to planned population statistics, to prevent the rise of women that make babies for a living. Taking care of children is a different issue.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

I thought you were a communist? Payment has nothing to do with the value of the output, but the need of the individual.

Yeah, but if you're a rational communist you realise that the communist state isn't going to be feasible for a very long time (Marx actually says this but nobody listened) and that it will come about quite naturally as capitalism works out its own contradictions.

But we have to work out what to do right now, within the confines of a mixed economy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
This is obviously wrong. I think men and women should be treated the same. And to spite Agathon, men should be even allowed to women's gyms!

Before this spirals out of control. I'd like to point out that I only said this was justifiable when men behaved very badly (same goes if women were behaving very badly). That actually happened in a case I know of, so they had to have a women only day. I'm talking about things like guys purposely wearing shorts and arranging themselves so that women could see their equipment.

Otherwise I'm all for mixed gyms.

Hell, I'm for mixed showers!!!!!!



*slaps self*

[Ben Kenobi]

We don't want people to have too many children, otherwise we adults would spend even more of our lives working to support an ever expanding welfare system.

Then I'll ask the question again. Can you give a number of children for each mother that would be considered 'too many' for a welfare state? At which point would the rider costs become 'too great' for the society to bear?

[Az]

Before this spirals out of control. I'd like to point out that I only said this was justifiable when men behaved very badly (same goes if women were behaving very badly). That actually happened in a case I know of, so they had to have a women only day. I'm talking about things like guys purposely wearing shorts and arranging themselves so that women could see their equipment.

This is not a reason to ban guys. It is making generalizations based on a gender. If a woman doesn't like it, she can proceed in a standard procedure. Ask to stop, complain to management.

In any case, I don't complain when "mature" women come in skimpy tight clothing to the gym.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Then I'll ask the question again. Can you give a number of children for each mother that would be considered 'too many' for a welfare state? At which point would the rider costs become 'too great' for the society to bear?

Of course I can't. Presumably you'd need an economist and social statistician for that.

All I'm claiming is that allowing people to have children for "free" may generate perverse outcomes, where people have more children than they might otherwise have had - because someone else is paying for it. The problem is that everyone is paying for it and it would become a drag on the economy.

[Az]

Then I'll ask the question again. Can you give a number of children for each mother that would be considered 'too many' for a welfare state? At which point would the rider costs become 'too great' for the society to bear?

1 is not enough, 5 is too many.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel

This is not a reason to ban guys. It is making generalizations based on a gender. If a woman doesn't like it, she can proceed in a standard procedure. Ask to stop, complain to management.

It's not the only solution, but the simplest one handy at the time given the magnitude of the problem and the trouble policing it (this was the sort of gym where you get your own key and there is no telling who might be there when you go - I used to go at 1 in the morning sometimes).

In any case, I don't complain when "mature" women come in skimpy tight clothing to the gym.

I definitely think there should be laws against that.

[Az]

It's not the only solution, but the simplest one handy at the time given the magnitude of the problem and the trouble policing it (this was the sort of gym where you get your own key and there is no telling who might be there when you go - I used to go at 1 in the morning sometimes).

I guess there is no problem with interning the japanese too? ( using a hyperbole to demonstrate that this is wrong )

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm a communist (a socialist really), but I'm often speaking about what a reasonable policy would be in the capitalist economy, that's why I sound like a social-democrat sometimes.
In a socialistic society, women would have carreer guaranties and decent welfare during their pregnancy/education of their children anyways, without the needs of wishful thinking.

Besides, I think the workplace should reward people according to their work, and welfare should make sure everybody affords a decent way of life, even in a socialistic society. To me, it is only natural a diligent and competent worker gets more money than a lazy person who arrives as late as possible and leaves as soon as possible.

Spiffor, I KNEW you were not really a communist. You are a compassionate conservative!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel

It's not the only solution, but the simplest one handy at the time given the magnitude of the problem and the trouble policing it (this was the sort of gym where you get your own key and there is no telling who might be there when you go - I used to go at 1 in the morning sometimes).

I guess there is no problem with interning the japanese too? ( using a hyperbole to demonstrate that this is wrong )

it depends on whether they were a real threat or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

Then give your opinion. That's what I am really after, what you mean by too many children.

Azazel:

1 is not enough, 5 is too many.

Why five? I'm just curious as to why you picked five and not four or six.

[Az]

Ned: I am sorry, but I don't think that compassionate conservatives believe in a state-run economy.

Agathon: at the time, it was the easiest solution possible, and at the time, the US intelligence couldn't know about the level of threat they presented. But we're getting sidetracked.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Agathon:

Then give your opinion. That's what I am really after, what you mean by too many children.

Like I said - so many that it begins to be a drag on the economy. I have no idea how many this would be per person. Ask an economist.