Outlaw working mothers

[kiryan]

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local ... montonHome

Based on this study, we should pass a law to outlaw working mothers as it is shown to increase childhood obesity. We have this right because we pay for healthcare and what mom is doing here is cost shifting.

[Teflor Lyorian]

You took der Jerrbs.

[Kifle]

When the economy allows for single income families, you may have some point boardering on rational; however, at this point, I will just enjoy the sarcasm.

[Teflor Lyorian]

When the economy allows for single income families, you may have some point boardering on rational; however, at this point, I will just enjoy the sarcasm.

If half of the employees would leave the work force, the economy will allow for single income families.

[Kifle]

When the economy allows for single income families, you may have some point boardering on rational; however, at this point, I will just enjoy the sarcasm.

If half of the employees would leave the work force, the economy will allow for single income families.

I don't think most families would take the risk in hopes that their compensation would be adjusted, and I wouldn't blame them. Faced with higher profit margins, those in control of companies are inclined to keep them instead of distribution -- they keep their jobs in that case. I've unfortunately been in that position, and as ashamed as I am sometimes of thinking of the companies first, I'm more inclined to maintain my family than others.

Also, even if there were going to be a guarantee of adjustment, the time-table in which this would happen would be very slow. You would be faced with a goods surplus, a service deficit, and a capital deficit. You could increase the capital to adjust for the deficit, but it would be a huge risk to a company. The goods surplus could be avoided if there was some type of tiered removal of workers, but it would never be reduced to zero. The service industry would suffer in that, at first, the rates would increase, and nobody would want to pay them (as a natural aversion to paying a higher price regardless of increased income -- it always looks bad).

[Teflor Lyorian]

When the economy allows for single income families, you may have some point boardering on rational; however, at this point, I will just enjoy the sarcasm.

If half of the employees would leave the work force, the economy will allow for single income families.

I don't think most families would take the risk in hopes that their compensation would be adjusted, and I wouldn't blame them. Faced with higher profit margins, those in control of companies are inclined to keep them instead of distribution -- they keep their jobs in that case. I've unfortunately been in that position, and as ashamed as I am sometimes of thinking of the companies first, I'm more inclined to maintain my family than others.

Also, even if there were going to be a guarantee of adjustment, the time-table in which this would happen would be very slow. You would be faced with a goods surplus, a service deficit, and a capital deficit. You could increase the capital to adjust for the deficit, but it would be a huge risk to a company. The goods surplus could be avoided if there was some type of tiered removal of workers, but it would never be reduced to zero. The service industry would suffer in that, at first, the rates would increase, and nobody would want to pay them (as a natural aversion to paying a higher price regardless of increased income -- it always looks bad).

What I posted was general sarcasm, it'd be more likely for me to hit the lottery than to see half the workforce leave permanently. Most societal changes are one-way. The direction that benefits the employer and puts more people to work for less money is the single direction this will move in.

[kiryan]

lol

when the economy will allow for single income families.

I'm a single income family. My wife's mother is a single income family, her husband works at lowes and makes I dunno 11 bucks an hour with 5 kids at home. They "struggle" but certainly don't live like trailer park poor. They have good food every day and go out to eat more frequently than my wife and I.

I'd say most... if not all American could live on a single, modest income, if they were willing. You certainly can't survive on a single income when you insist on eating out 10 times a week, having a new car every 5 years and buying an expensive 1 bedroom/bathroom per person house. The exceptions I can think of would be people who are paying childsupport for a bunch of kids and living in places like New York city where housing is ridiculous expensive because too many people live there.

[Teflor Lyorian]

lol

when the economy will allow for single income families.

I'm a single income family. My wife's mother is a single income family, her husband works at lowes and makes I dunno 11 bucks an hour with 5 kids at home. They "struggle" but certainly don't live like trailer park poor. They have good food every day and go out to eat more frequently than my wife and I.

I'd say most... if not all American could live on a single, modest income, if they were willing. You certainly can't survive on a single income when you insist on eating out 10 times a week, having a new car every 5 years and buying an expensive 1 bedroom/bathroom per person house. The exceptions I can think of would be people who are paying childsupport for a bunch of kids and living in places like New York city where housing is ridiculous expensive because too many people live there.

The economy doesn't currently allow for single income families to be the norm. Our unemployment is only around 9.5%. There aren't enough workers to allow for many single income households.

[kiryan]

You have a point, but consider that the under employment rate is much higher than the unemployment rate... maybe as high as 25% and not all women are mothers caring for minor children.

[Ashiwi]

So you're proposing enforced abortion for all single pregnant women? Or that all single mothers be supported by the government? The forcible removal of all children from single-parent families and the placement of them into adoption and foster homes? Perhaps the imprisonment of all women who have children out-of-wedlock or whose husbands leave them, and the absorption of those children into a state-run orphanage?

[Teflor Lyorian]

I propose forced dieting until reaching an ideal weight. I propose mandatory IQ testing and the forcible sterilization of a percentage of people with lower intelligence according to how many pizzas need to be delivered. I propose drivers that have caused accidents being forced to drive cars that are made out of three foot thick nerf painted orange and hot pink, with thick black words painted on the side that say "I can't drive." I propose isolating Africa - no one in or out, for fifty years. Including Egypt. I propose drunk drivers that kill people be prosecuted for murder in the second degree. I propose that the Chinese be allowed to have as many kids as they want and all the old people must move to the desert. I propose one world currency other than gold. I propose white American reservations where they've been severely oppressed by other minorities - where they can create casinos to rob the colored folk blind. I propose sarcasm and endless wit. Possibly with a side of charm. I propose puppies. I propose ordering gravy & biscuits with an egg, along with a chicken fingers platter at Denny's at 11 PM.

[Ashiwi]

A lot of people have also proposed that Teflor walk in front of a bus. Obviously we can't all get what we propose. Which brings us back to Kiryan's original post...

[Teflor Lyorian]

I have walked in front of a bus. It stopped and I got to put my bike on the rack.

[kiryan]

I guess we need to pass some legislation to outlaw sleep deprivation. Its linked to a number of health conditions that will result in cost shifting to others.

I guess we need another a tax if you fail to get the requisite required amount of sleep.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011 ... th/?hpt=T2

"He says sleep deprivation has to be considered a lifestyle risk factor similar to smoking, alcohol and lack of exercise."

"Chronic short sleep produces hormones and chemicals in the body which increase the risk of developing heart disease and strokes, and other conditions like high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes and obesity." All of those conditions are also risk factors for heart attack and stroke. Hormone changes can lead to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance–both markers that lead to type 2 diabetes and increases in blood pressure. Chronic lack of sleep can activate a chemical in the body called cytokines, inflammation markers that are the basis for atherosclerosis–or hardening of the arteries–also common in people who have heart attacks and stroke.

[kiryan]

diet soda linked to vascular risks and salt linked to strokes. Time to outlaw both under the doctrine of public health costs.

In the sodium research, 187 ischemic strokes were reported during 9.7 years of follow-up. Stroke risk, independent of hypertension, increased 16 percent for every 500 mg of sodium consumed a day

"If our results are confirmed with future studies, then it would suggest that diet soda may not be the optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages for protection against vascular outcomes"

http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/web/o ... k-/1$29159