Responsible Breeding - Socially authorised procreation

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm not being snarky here, but do most employers actually look at your grades?  I have a BA, and I'm sure that is an advantage over someone who doesn't have a college degree, but I've never had anyone request my college transcripts.

That's because the BA speaks for itself.  It means, to an employer, that you have put forth effort and gained something for it.  I'm willing to bet that if you were at the starting point of your career getting an entry level job facilitated by your specific degree, grades might very well be a point in the hiring process.  Anyone hiring any position that pays more than minimum wage will see a degree as a good thing even if it has nothing to do with the job.  If you, with a BA degree, go to McDonald's for a job, the BA will be of no consequence unless you're applying for a managerial job or even shift leader.  But one can become a shift leader and even a manager without a degree...you just can't simply start at that position for all intents and purposes.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "how would I feel if my company took my job and gave it to someone else who needs a living wage?  If they took my job, I would be the one that needs a living wage!  LOL  Let me clarify, I don't think that a company is ever (or should ever) award jobs to people based on "need."

I'm glad to hear this.  Nor do I think any company should PAY on need.  Afterall, the company exists to make money, not lose it.  Paying anyone above what they deserve is rediculous.  Any CEO or such getting paid millions from a company that is not making money is not going to be at that job for long.

What I am saying isthe income disparity in this country is crazy.  I believe that the entery level people in my company make like $20-25K/yr, and the CEO prob makes about $8MM.  I'm sure lots of companies are like that.  And I'm not saying that everyone should be equal.  Of course not.  But surely the CEO would still feel like his hard work was valued if they paid the entry level people $40K/yr and they paid the CEO $2MM per year.  That's still a pretty big gap, yes?

Maybe you should work towards being the CEO of the company you work for and then see if you're willing to give up what you earned as pay.  I have no probelm being paid what I deserve according to my company.  If I don't like the pay, I can move on.

I just have a hard time believing that it's impossible to pay more peope a more reasonable rate and still not completely revert to communism and lines for bread and stuff.  We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's.  People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it.  There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."

Reasonable rate?  The problem is who is going to pay for that "reasonable rate"?  Put yourself in the place of the company owner.  Are you willing to simply pay a person what they need vs. what they are worth to your company?  Everyone gets paid what they are worth.  Period.  If *you should feel you're worth more, go out and prove it.  If we got paid based on need, we'd all need a new Mercedes every year and a designer home overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Malibu with enough $$ to send our kids to Pepperdine University or better...

[Ali]

Yes, I think that's a fine idea.  I'll aim to become CEO and see if I can then bear to scrape by at only a couple MM a year to afford my employees a better standard of living.  Today, client relations.  Tomorrow the world!  *floats off on a cloud of naive ideology*

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes, I think that's a fine idea.  I'll aim to become CEO and see if I can then bear to scrape by at only a couple MM a year to afford my employees a better standard of living.  Today, client relations.  Tomorrow the world!  *floats off on a cloud of naive ideology*

You would certainly be a huge hero to your employees.  I know I wouldn't give up my pay to undeserving employees just to "make things even..."  I would be more inclined to set aside a small chunk to help a few here and there that showed devotion to the company and really did have a need.  Everyone can use more income, but the flip side of that is that everyone that gains more income ends up using that income and is found once again in the column of needing a "living wage" as their living expenses grow with new income...to what end?

[Davin]

I know Ali has been doing a fine job responding so far, but I'd really enjoy reading the conversation more if those responding to her would stop putting words into her mouth and straw manning her argument.

Examples:

I know I wouldn't give up my pay to undeserving employees just to "make things even..."

I've found no where where Ali had said she wanted to make things even, and you put it in quotes which usually signifies that it is something she said. Let alone that she didn't say anything like that, I don't see any where where she even implied it.

Everyone can use more income, but the flip side of that is that everyone that gains more income ends up using that income and is found once again in the column of needing a "living wage" as their living expenses grow with new income...to what end?

This is not the "living wage" that Ali brought into the conversation.

[AnimatedDirt]

Apologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.

I'm just not sure to what end this idea of making wages balanced as in the 50's and 60's means if not for the purpose of making things more equal.

We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's.  People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it.  There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."

[Siz]

It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.

I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body,  and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.

A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.

Um...no...there is no way to draw a connection to criminal acts.  We're talking about removing rights from law abiding citizens....criminals know the consequences of getting caught.  So, bringing that up is heading down a rabbit trail and is not necessary to discuss.

I was illustrating the fact that we constantly rescind rights 'for the greater good' (like denying a criminal his right to physical freedom). So why is it so abhorrent for me to propose an adjustment of the line over which a person has to cross to have his rights revoked?
And can you not see that revoking rights for the greater good (like locking up a criminal) is somewhat in a different league from killing your granny?

I'm not saying we should kill people just because they meet some arbitrary standard of being useless to society; I'm saying that once you decide that it's okay to violate the rights of a person just because they meet some random standard that it's better for society that they not reproduce then you've opened the door wide open for violating the rights of all sorts of other groups of people when their contribution to society is deemed sub-par.  If a woman has no right to use her own body as she sees fit (such as for pregnancy) then you are going even further to say that the government basically owns our bodies and can do what they like with them if it is deemed best for society; slippery slope to euthanasia of the very old.  It may be a slow moving slippery slope but slippery nonetheless.

We've been on that slippery slope for hundreds of years. 300 years ago I had a right to build my house on common land. 100 years ago I had a right to take cocaine. 5 years ago I had a right to smoke a cigarette in a bar.

All of these rights were rescinded for the greater good. We accept them as reasonable now because we were born to it (except the latter). In 200 years, I expect it will be deemed reasonable - and necessary - to effect, by legislation as required, population control for social reasons. Just like they currently do in China.

[Tank]

Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?

[Davin]

Apologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.

I provided a few examples, not a whole list. Though if you want, I can count the amount of times she misrepresents your position vs. the amount of times you misrepresent hers.

[AnimatedDirt]

Apologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.

I provided a few examples, not a whole list. Though if you want, I can count the amount of times she misrepresents your position vs. the amount of times you misrepresent hers.

I suppose you want another apology.  Sorry for misrepresenting her position. 

[Davin]

I suppose you want another apology.  Sorry for misrepresenting her position.

No, I expressed what I wanted: I wanted it to stop. I have no use or want for apologies.

[Whitney]

Just like they currently do in China.

Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?

[Siz]

Just like they currently do in China.

Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?

Nope. Mine neither. But they're addressing their population issues...

[Whitney]

Just like they currently do in China.

Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?

Nope. Mine neither. But they're addressing their population issues...

But addressing them at what cost?  No one here is disagreeing with the need for population control, we are questioning methods that rely on forced control.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?

That's true! Free education for all! (paid for, of course, by the government  )

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?

That's true! Free education for all! (paid for, of course, by the government  )

If there could be ONE THING that government would pay for, I would choose education.   Think, for example, of the USA. Imagine 300,000,000 people all educated to the limit of their innate potential.  There would be nothing that nation couldn't accomplish.  Education is the most valuable infrastructure investment that a nation can possibly make. 

Among highly educated people, there is relatively little gender, religious, ethnic, racial  or any other type of discrimination.  All boundaries are erased among the very educated (for the most part).  I work in a hospital's legal department.  The attorneys there are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, and uncommitted. The physicians in our system are all of the above, plus Buddhist and outright atheist.  At that level, nobody gives a shit.  Everyone is doing OK, so who or what someone worships or doesn't worship, or whether they are male or female, black or white, etc., matters not. High levels of education engender high levels of mutual respect.  So, educate everyone, and all other problems tend to disappear.