Odd, these French

[Ed]

Indeed, "spending power" is one of the specific reasons that unions called the strike. Another is to protest a law passed by the Villepin government soon after it was formed in May: Companies with 20 employees or less may now hire employees using a special contract that allows bosses to dismiss them without the complex procedures required by the French labor code.

Villepin's idea is that companies will hire more easily if they know they can get rid of people when times get rough. But unions are furious, and challenged the law in court.

"This means an employer can fire a employee without any real and serious reasons," said Bernard Thibault, the head of the CGT, a leading union. The law, he said Sunday on a nationally televised program, contradicted the basic principles of "social rights."

"If all you want out of work is to provide means for your existence, that's fine," Thibault said sarcastically. "But unions are here to obtain some legal norms that make work more respectable."
http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/10/04/international/IHT-04france.html?hp

The propriator of a company actually have control? How odd.

[CBL4]

The French unemployment rate is 10%. Youth unemployment is 21%.
http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,2340,en_33873108_33873376_34992056_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml
The British unemploment rate is 4.8%. Youth unemployment is 11.8%.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Labor
Do you think that Margaret Thatcher and unions account for some of the difference?

CBL

[Jon_in_london]

I'm not one for going on strike- in fact I think that many unions do more harm than good these days but I do believe there is a legitimate need for unions and laws to protect employees from things like bullying and summary dismissal.

I think the UK model is just about right in this respect- although there are a few unions that need a good thumping.

[Ed]

I'm not one for going on strike- in fact I think that many unions do more harm than good these days but I do believe there is a legitimate need for unions and laws to protect employees from things like bullying and summary dismissal.

I think the UK model is just about right in this respect- although there are a few unions that need a good thumping.

what is the problem with summary dismissal?

[Jon_in_london]

I dont think summary dismissal is right. I think there should be reasons given and that those reasons must be fair.

[Beady]

what is the problem with summary dismissal?

Nothing, so long as you're the boss. I imagine it's very handy to be able to fire anyone for any reason that strikes your fancy. It must be absolute heaven to be in charge of a workforce that has virtually no recourse to anything you do.

I don't think I'd want to work for anyone who had that much power, though.

[Manny]

Should a worker quitting also have to give reasons, and must they be fair?

[Ed]

I dont think summary dismissal is right. I think there should be reasons given and that those reasons must be fair.
why?

[Beady]

why?

I notice you skipped over my answer. Are you fishing for something in particular?

[Ed]

Nothing, so long as you're the boss. I imagine it's very handy to be able to fire anyone for any reason that strikes your fancy. It must be absolute heaven to be in charge of a workforce that has virtually no recourse to anything you do.

I don't think I'd want to work for anyone who had that much power, though.

What good is it when it interferes with productivity and the health of the business? People are free to leave and in my experience ******* bosses/companies tend to have to pay a premium to keep people. It evens out.

[Manny]

I notice you skipped over my answer. You didn't give an answer, you simply said it would be (and presumably is in places where it's the standard) a good thing for employer. Which it is. It's also a good thing for an employee to be able to quit for any reason which strikes his fancy, with the employer having no recourse. And yet employers hire people under those conditions all the time. Like, virtually, all the time.

[Ed]

I notice you skipped over my answer. Are you fishing for something in particular?

No. had to go out.

Manny summed up my feelings on the matter. At will employment means just that, on the part of the employer and the employee. Companies that cannot manage people go bust. You don't need outside agents, in fact haveing government interfere in human relationships seems pretty dumb to me in the first place.

Suppose you own a company, why should you not have absolute control over who you pay? Control in the sense of hiring and firing I mean.

[CBL4]

All the companies I work for have given severance to laid off people once who had been there for a while e.g. 6 months. Most gave 2 - 4 weeks of pay. I think this is appropriate.

I probably would not advocate this as law because I would bet it would quickly go from 2 weeks to 2 months and perhaps to 2 years.

CBL

[Ed]

All the companies I work for have given severance to laid off people once who had been there for a while e.g. 6 months. Most gave 2 - 4 weeks of pay. I think this is appropriate.

I probably would not advocate this as law because I would bet it would quickly go from 2 weeks to 2 months and perhaps to 2 years.

CBL

To think about this as law presupposes that the idiots in government know more about managing your business than you do. Actually, I suspect that precious few have ever managed anything that turned a profit.

[Jon_in_london]

Should a worker quitting also have to give reasons, and must they be fair?

Over here you have a contract that has a notice period- its my understanding that you if your contract says you have to give a months notice then thats what you have to do..... works the other way too......

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Jon in London
I'm not one for going on strike- in fact I think that many unions do more harm than good these days but I do believe there is a legitimate need for unions and laws to protect employees from things like bullying and summary dismissal.I agree. People should be able to unionize. I also think that right now almost all unions in industrialized nation do more harm than good. 100 years ago I think unions were absolutely necessary.

Unions are good for bad and mediocre union members. They are bad for good workers and they tend to be bad for non-union workers who are frequently unemployed rather than being hired for positions with union protect.

Overly strong unions are also very harmful for economies as a whole. They prevent need changes in business. In the US, failing companies can shrink to become viable again and new companies can grow quickly because they are free to fire people.

CBL

[Manny]

Over here you have a contract that has a notice period- its my understanding that you if your contract says you have to give a months notice then thats what you have to do..... works the other way too......Seriously? I have no objection if it's a voluntary contract which has evolved to a de-facto standard, but I'm surprised by that. So if a currency trader jumps from bank A to bank B he's required to give a month's notice? I thank you for the information and I'd like to learn more.


Edited to make it clear to whom I was repsonding. Sorry about that.

[Ed]

Over here you have a contract that has a notice period- its my understanding that you if your contract says you have to give a months notice then thats what you have to do..... works the other way too......

It probably varies by industry but in mine generally 2 weeks is standard though notice or quiting might occur and the employer might opt not to have the person on premises during that time. At a VP level the standard is a month, pretty much above that it is contractual.

I know of companies that have treated employees shabbily and have taken lumps. No stinkin' government or union, though.

[Luke T.]

Nothing, so long as you're the boss. I imagine it's very handy to be able to fire anyone for any reason that strikes your fancy. It must be absolute heaven to be in charge of a workforce that has virtually no recourse to anything you do.

I don't think I'd want to work for anyone who had that much power, though.

A small company needs to be as flexible as possible, and that means having the ability to flex with the economy. A boss doesn't hire and fire as it "strikes your fancy". If he did, he wouldn't last long in the business world. Hiring and firing (laying off) are for the survival of the company. Better to lay a few worker off than sink the whole ship and have everyone out of a job.

The boss knows who is a producer and who isn't and who has the skills necessary to steer the company through the storm, and those things aren't always based on seniority.

[toddjh]

The right to hire and the right to fire are examples of one of our most fundamental rights, the right to free association. If the government declares that you can't fire someone, they're essentially forcing you to enter into a business relationship with someone you don't want to. The thought of a government with that kind of power makes me very nervous.

As for anti-discrimination laws, I think those are justifiable because they protect an even more important right, the right to equality of opportunity. This right may not be spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (dunno about other countries), but I believe it is vital to any capitalist economy.

Jeremy

[Jas]

The right to hire and the right to fire are examples of one of our most fundamental rights, the right to free association. If the government declares that you can't fire someone, they're essentially forcing you to enter into a business relationship with someone you don't want to. The thought of a government with that kind of power makes me very nervous.


I have to agree.

I don't think people realize how much employee turnover hurts a company. It costs a lot of money to train people. Good management isn't going to fire people without reason - if they do, they're simply creating problems.

I have no problem with companies being able to fire workers for whatever reason they see fit. If it's a crappy reason, then it's ultimately detrimental to the company, and they're the ones that are going to suffer.

[Beady]

At will employment means just that, on the part of the employer and the employee.

Is it "at will" for the employee when he knows that walking out means losing his house and starving his family? Coercion and duress come in more than one form. Been there, done that.

There's a reason unions got started, in the first place. If I read you correctly, though, you don't believe that employers with unlimited power would ever abuse their employees. You believe the Muckrakers were just that, and that they never had a bona fide cause. The workhouses, coal mines and slaughter pens never existed; that chapter in our history never happened.

[Jon_in_london]

Seriously? I have no objection if it's a voluntary contract which has evolved to a de-facto standard, but I'm surprised by that. So if a currency trader jumps from bank A to bank B he's required to give a month's notice? I thank you for the information and I'd like to learn more.

yup. friend of mine who is an accountant had to fork over a large amount of cash to his current employer so he could take up employment elsewhere without the required notice period..... think of it as breach of contract.

[Ed]

Is it "at will" for the employee when he knows that walking out means losing his house and starving his family? Coercion and duress come in more than one form. Been there, done that.

Been there done that. I started a company with a house mortgage and if I fired someone it was deserved. Even if it wasn't, it was my nickel. A propriator needs an absolutely free hand. Who is really in a position to second guess him?

There's a reason unions got started, in the first place. If I read you correctly, though, you don't believe that employers with unlimited power would ever abuse their employees. You believe the Muckrakers were just that, and that they never had a bona fide cause. The workhouses, coal mines and slaughter pens never existed; that chapter in our history never happened.

I couldn't care less what "happened", why on earth should I? Do these victims want reparations or an apology or something?

[Ed]

I have to agree.

I don't think people realize how much employee turnover hurts a company. .

Not always. If you are supposed to be cutting edge new blood is a good thing. Also, if people at age 23-30 hang around too long it makes one wonder.

[luchog]

Is it "at will" for the employee when he knows that walking out means losing his house and starving his family? Coercion and duress come in more than one form. Been there, done that.

There's a reason unions got started, in the first place. If I read you correctly, though, you don't believe that employers with unlimited power would ever abuse their employees. You believe the Muckrakers were just that, and that they never had a bona fide cause. The workhouses, coal mines and slaughter pens never existed; that chapter in our history never happened.
Unions in the past served as a check on the robber barons. However, they were necessary mainly because the robber barons had government on their side (or, more accurately, in their pocket); and could abuse their workers with impugnity. Unions were formed to oppose them, and force changes resulting in better worker safety and and equitable treatment.

Modern unions no longer serve that function for the most part. They're generally not all that concerned with safety and equitability; but in lining the pockets of their own officials. They have a stranglehold on several major industries, and in many states, it's pretty much impossible to get a job in any of those industries without belonging to a union and paying a massive amount in dues every year, with little real benefit from it.

They are, in large part, the reason that American manufacturning hasn't been able to keep up with a lot of the rest of the word in flexibility and cost control. It's also reduced upward mobility and incentive to excel in industries where they have a lock, since promotion and recognition is far more often based on seniority (and good-ol'-boy politics) than it is on ability and effort. In some industries, it's nearly impossible to get rid of low-performing or problematic workers because of the miles of red tape created by the unions. (This is particularly bad in education, one of the worst and most poorly run unions in the US). Likewise, individuals have little, if any, say in how their job is run; and are unable to directly influence it.

As for "starving", "coercion" and "duress"... try finding ways to feed your family or going to work when your union decides that they're going on strike because the union leaders want to squeeze their employers for an extra few benefits for their old-guard (usually at the expense of their lower-ranked members); and you're not allowed to work without finding a new job in an entirely different industry.

They're a good idea, but their current form has long since outlived it's usefulness.

[kalen]

OK, that's it. I've had enough.

You're all FIRED!!!

[Orwell]

Mmm, have any of you ever had your girlfriend (or wife) fired two days after she announced to her co-workers that she was pregnant? I guess the economy was "flexing", eh?

I think it should be pointed out that it's usually those who need unions the most that have the most trouble having one... Wallmart employees come to mind...

By the way, from a French perspective, US practices are the ones that are "odd".

[Freakshow]

By the way, from a French perspective, US practices are the ones that are "odd".

And, that means...what? Here, let me try...

From a US perspective, Canadian practices are the ones that are "odd".

Doesn't really say much, does it?

[Ed]

Mmm, have any of you ever had your girlfriend (or wife) fired two days after she announced to her co-workers that she was pregnant? I guess the economy was "flexing", eh?

Have any of you had an employee who goes on matertity leave swearing that they will be back in 6 weeks and then quitting on the day they are due back? 3 times for me. I stopped hiring newlyweds.


By the way, from a French perspective, US practices are the ones that are "odd".

I think that their situation is not sustainable. We will see.

[NoZed Avenger]

Speaking of duress, losing your house, etc.: My Dad when a young man in California (closed shop those days in this field) tried to get a job working carpentry:

I'd like a job.

"Can't get a job unless you're in the union."

Can I join the union?

"Not without a job."

QED -- that's how they kept out anyone who didn't have an "in" with the Union. The lesson (for me) is not that either businesses or unions are bad, per se -- but that both can be.

To say -- as some above have suggested -- that unions may have outgrown their usefulness, however, is not to say that businesses either do have or should have "unlimited power," nor that unions were unnecessary at the time they were created.

[Orwell]

And, that means...what? Here, let me try...

From a US perspective, Canadian practices are the ones that are "odd".

Doesn't really say much, does it?

It says more than you think. Saying that some other country's work practices are "odd" is like saying that your practices are "normal" and, by extension, reasonable, and theirs are not.

[Orwell]

Have any of you had an employee who goes on matertity leave swearing that they will be back in 6 weeks and then quitting on the day they are due back? 3 times for me. I stopped hiring newlyweds.


Six weeks maternity leave! That's all! No wonder they quit!

By law, in Canada, female employees are entitled to a standard 24 weeks unpaid, job-protected maternity leave. And I don't think that's enough!

Well, see, I think that six weeks maternity leave is "odd".

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Orwell
By law, in Canada, female employees are entitled to a standard 24 weeks unpaid, job-protected maternity leave. And I don't think that's enough! I was at a company that hired a woman to be the system architect on a major project. She was the most important technical person out of over 50 engineers. She was pregnant when hired and her 6 weeks of maternity leave really messed up the project. If it had been 24 weeks, we would have to hire someone else to replace.

With 24 weeks of maternity leave, no sane, small company would ever hire a young woman to be in an important role. As Ed says, hiring a newlywed almost guarantees maternity leave within a few years.

I had a woman working for me who was an excellent engineer. While she was on maternity leave, I got her by far the best raise in my department. She quit anyway. I left the company and hired her at my new company. She got pregnant again but is still working there. The reality is that when I leave this company I would still recruit her again even if I thought she would get pregnant a third time. But if she were only good, I would probably have second thoughts. If she were to get 24 weeks maternity leave, I would not have hired her the second time. There is no way we could afford to lose 1 out of three software engineers for half a year.

CBL

[Jas]

Have any of you had an employee who goes on matertity leave swearing that they will be back in 6 weeks and then quitting on the day they are due back? 3 times for me. I stopped hiring newlyweds.

My entiments exactly. I wouldn't hire anyone that I thought was going to go off and get pregnant. This is also one of the reasons that many women get passed over for promotions.

Here they get a year mat leave, and they have to tell you that they're coming abck, or they don't get the leave. So you have to hire someone else in the meantime, on a contract basis, for just over a year (to account for training and such).

The person on mat leave is supposed to give you two weeks notice, as to whether they're coming back or not, but they're not penalized if they don't. So by the time the woman has decided if she's coming back or not, the person that you paid to train to take over, has already found a new job (because if they're smart, they aren't going to wait to see if the job might become permanent). So now you have to hire (and train!) yet another person, and who knows if they'll work out, or what they're learning curve is.

[b]Not always. If you are supposed to be cutting edge new blood is a good thing. Also, if people at age 23-30 hang around too long it makes one wonder.

True, but for the majority of companies, you prefer to retain your employees (well, the good ones, anyway).
Six weeks maternity leave! That's all! No wonder they quit!

By law, in Canada, female employees are entitled to a standard 24 weeks unpaid, job-protected maternity leave. And I don't think that's enough!

Well, see, I think that six weeks maternity leave is "odd".
Sometimes you reach special agreements with employees - we had one female that was really key who ended up getting pregnant. We offered her a pay raise to cut her mat leave to under 6 months (as opposed to taking the full year). The pay raise went into effect before she left on mat leave, so that she would be getting the immediate benefit. She ended up staying on mat leave for the full year (being as you legally can't 'make' someone come off mat leave), and then wondered why she was never offered another promotion.

French laws about firing people are such a joke.

[Ed]

Six weeks maternity leave! That's all! No wonder they quit!

By law, in Canada, female employees are entitled to a standard 24 weeks unpaid, job-protected maternity leave. And I don't think that's enough!

Well, see, I think that six weeks maternity leave is "odd".

mighta been 12, don't remember but it was paid.

only an idiot would put a person in a responsible position if they could, on their own responsibility, vanish for 24 weeks.

[Jon_in_london]

mighta been 12, don't remember but it was paid.

only an idiot would put a person in a responsible position if they could, on their own responsibility, vanish for 24 weeks.

Herein lies the great problem with female equality in the workplace....

[Ed]

Herein lies the great problem with female equality in the workplace....

I see no difference between a pregnant woman and a person that engages in any other riskey behavior that could render them hors de combat. It is personal responsibility pure and simple. If one chooses to be unreliable for whatever reason, I hope that the personal benefit is a subjectively good one because I really don't give a damn.

[New Ager]

Luchog,

You were right on with your post.

Unions have also attracted organized crime which control many of them.

And unions have created an awful education system in America that is broke and won't be fixed until they get rid of the socialistic practices in it.

[New Ager]

Six weeks maternity leave! That's all! No wonder they quit!

By law, in Canada, female employees are entitled to a standard 24 weeks unpaid, job-protected maternity leave. And I don't think that's enough!

Well, see, I think that six weeks maternity leave is "odd".

Most socialists do.

I guess socialism is alive and well in Canada.

Most in America don't like socialism and do like capitalism. It's why we are the greatest country in the world. It's "odd" that so many in the world don't seem to get that.

[New Ager]

Mmm, have any of you ever had your girlfriend (or wife) fired two days after she announced to her co-workers that she was pregnant? I guess the economy was "flexing", eh?

I think it should be pointed out that it's usually those who need unions the most that have the most trouble having one... Wallmart employees come to mind...



You know what I have done in the past when I didn't like my treatment on a job. I quit and found another one. Eventually, I started my own business.

Why do liberals need someone to hold their hand and do everything for them?

[Freakshow]

It says more than you think. Saying that some other country's work practices are "odd" is like saying that your practices are "normal" and, by extension, reasonable, and theirs are not.
So we say they're odd, and they say we're odd. That's like yelling "Are not!" and "Are too!" back and forth at each other. What's your point?

[Mycroft]

Is it "at will" for the employee when he knows that walking out means losing his house and starving his family? Coercion and duress come in more than one form. Been there, done that.


Obviously someone who has handled their finances so poorly that a short period of unemployment would destroy them will have less freedom than others, but that's always true no matter what the system.

[Orwell]

So we say they're odd, and they say we're odd. That's like yelling "Are not!" and "Are too!" back and forth at each other. What's your point?

You've just said my point.

"So we say they're odd, and they say we're odd. That's like yelling "Are not!" and "Are too!" back and forth at each other.

As you so kindly pointed out, it's meaningless.

[Orwell]

You know what I have done in the past when I didn't like my treatment on a job. I quit and found another one. Eventually, I started my own business.

Why do liberals need someone to hold their hand and do everything for them?

Well, mister conservative, not everybody can afford to quit, and not everybody can be their own boss.

If all you wanna do is disparage so called "liberals", I suggest you find some other forum: disparaging liberals doesn't contribute much, and there's already quite enough partisan bickering around here.

By the way, I dislike being called a "liberal". Not only because I'm not a US citizen, but also because if I happened to be one, I wouldn't be a liberal. I have no use for schmiberalism. The only tag political tag I don't completely dislike is "social-democrat".

[Orwell]

Most socialists do.

I guess socialism is alive and well in Canada.

Most in America don't like socialism and do like capitalism. It's why we are the greatest country in the world. It's "odd" that so many in the world don't seem to get that.

So I'm a socialist because I support extended maternity leave? Ok. Can't someone on the right be in favour of extended maternity leave? I mean, many conservatives like to talk about "family values". I find it curious that the same crowd who often talks about "family values" tend to support economic policies that play havoc with actually having a family. Why must women be penalised if they have children? Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.

And all the while, most western countries can't reach population replacement levels. Well, no wonder!

[New Ager]

Well, mister conservative, not everybody can afford to quit, and not everybody can be their own boss.

If all you wanna do is disparage so called "liberals", I suggest you find some other forum: disparaging liberals doesn't contribute much, and there's already quite enough partisan bickering around here.

By the way, I dislike being called a "liberal". Not only because I'm not a US citizen, but also because if I happened to be one, I wouldn't be a liberal. I have no use for schmiberalism. The only tag political tag I don't completely dislike is "social-democrat".

No, anyone can quit their job and get another. People do it all the time.

Disparaging liberals? Disparaging people of faith goes on around here a lot too. Should people discontinue that?

Social-democrat?!?!? LOL!! How come liberals try to hide what they are?

Anyway, I pick on liberals because, well....they are liberal. :)

[New Ager]

(Orwell)

So I'm a socialist because I support extended maternity leave?

(New Ager)

6 months maternity leave. Yep.

(Orwell)

Ok. Can't someone on the right be in favour of extended maternity leave?

(New Ager)

Not if they are smart.

(Orwell)

I mean, many conservatives like to talk about "family values". I find it curious that the same crowd who often talks about "family values" tend to support economic policies that play havoc with actually having a family.

(New Ager)

There are no such policies.

And the gov't forcing a business to give 6 months free pay to someone is welfare. Which is not family values, but socialism.

(Orwell)

Why must women be penalised if they have children?

(New Ager)

They aren't.

(Orwell)

Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.

(New Ager)

Imagine that. An adult having to make a choice. Does the gov't do all the choosing for all you European liberals? Rather sad.

(Orwell)

And all the while, most western countries can't reach population replacement levels. Well, no wonder.

(New Ager)

We have population problems?!??! That's news to me.

Which western countries are you talking about?

[Orwell]

No, anyone can quit their job and get another. People do it all the time.

Disparaging liberals? Disparaging people of faith goes on around here a lot too. Should people discontinue that?

Social-democrat?!?!? LOL!! How come liberals try to hide what they are?

Anyway, I pick on liberals because, well....they are liberal. :)

Can't deal with real life without labelling things with familiar tags, eh? ;)

[Orwell]

(Orwell)

So I'm a socialist because I support extended maternity leave?

(New Ager)

6 months maternity leave. Yep.

(Orwell)

Ok. Can't someone on the right be in favour of extended maternity leave?

(New Ager)

Not if they are smart.

(Orwell)

I mean, many conservatives like to talk about "family values". I find it curious that the same crowd who often talks about "family values" tend to support economic policies that play havoc with actually having a family.

(New Ager)

There are no such policies.

And the gov't forcing a business to give 6 months free pay to someone is welfare. Which is not family values, but socialism.

(Orwell)

Why must women be penalised if they have children?

(New Ager)

They aren't.

(Orwell)

Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.

(New Ager)

Imagine that. An adult having to make a choice. Does the gov't do all the choosing for all you European liberals? Rather sad.

(Orwell)

And all the while, most western countries can't reach population replacement levels. Well, no wonder.

(New Ager)

We have population problems?!??! That's news to me.

Which western countries are you talking about?

Woa! More rhetoric!

Yawn... Well, since you just wanna bicker, I'll just ignore you.

If someone else wants to disagree with me without any name calling and "because I say so" arguments, please feel free to do it. I enjoy a good discussion.

[bozothedeathmachine]

(New Ager)

We have population problems?!??! That's news to me.

Which western countries are you talking about?

Crap, I posted this once, but it went away.

Here's a summary.

New Ager: Orwell's right on the population thing. I'm only familiar with Germany and Czech Republic, but they are having "populations sustainment" issues. I've even seen an advertisement in Czech prompting the population to have more babies. My wife is European and has lived in both mentioned countries. Speaking with her and friends the reason people are not procreating is because it's too expensive to have children in those social-welfare states. She often jokes that that's the reason Germans have dogs, they are cheaper than kids. So Orwells agruement doesn't really hold water. What's more, the country that endorses such decried maternity leave practices, the U.S., doesn't seem to be having that population decrease issue.

[kimiko]

What's more, the country that endorses such decried maternity leave practices, the U.S., doesn't seem to be having that population decrease issue.We have high immigration; for example, one fifth of the citizens of Mexico live in the US.

There was an interesting thing about Mexico and jobs on NPR some time ago. Apparently, many Mexicans don't get birth certificates if they're born in rural areas where there isn't a resident doctor, and good employment in Mexico requires them. So for many Mexicans, they have to leave the country just to have a chance at a decent job.


But about conservatives and maternity leave- conservative "family values" generally refers to the traditional nuclear family, which doesn't include a working mother in its ideal. So naturally conservatives won't favor healthy maternity policies, because according to their ideal, the mother should be at home full time anyway.

[Ed]

Why must women be penalised if they have children? Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.




Why should women be treated differently than men when it comes to life decisions?

[Giz]

(Orwell)

Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.
--------------------

Imagine an adult having to make a decision like that:
1) take time off work to pursue other (non-work) interests/goals
2) concentrate on their career

Oh, the horror! We certainly can't have people taking responsibility for their own lifestyle choices can we...

And those evil bosses who want to employ people on the basis that they will be productive... what kind of logic is that!?

[Orwell]

But about conservatives and maternity leave- conservative "family values" generally refers to the traditional nuclear family, which doesn't include a working mother in its ideal. So naturally conservatives won't favor healthy maternity policies, because according to their ideal, the mother should be at home full time anyway.
Yes, I know that. But these days an average middle class family can't afford to lose the proportion of its income brought in by women. I've never heard anyone from the "family values" crowd mentioning income supplements for stay at home moms. Their idea is women at home, men bring bacon. Well, these days, most men can't bring enough bacon to pay for all.

[Orwell]

Why should women be treated differently than men when it comes to life decisions?

They shouldn't. I want a long unpaid paternity leave too, so that I can't take care of my wife and my kid. In Canada, employees who meet eligibility requirements are entitled to unpaid parental leave ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. Some collective agreements provide partial pay during parental leave, but that's between the employer and his workers.

Is this unreasonable? I don't think so.

[Orwell]

(Orwell)

Right now, women who want careers are often being forced to choose between a promotion and a kid.
--------------------

Imagine an adult having to make a decision like that:
1) take time off work to pursue other (non-work) interests/goals
2) concentrate on their career

Oh, the horror! We certainly can't have people taking responsibility for their own lifestyle choices can we...

And those evil bosses who want to employ people on the basis that they will be productive... what kind of logic is that!?

Nobody called anyone evil. Please restrain from the manichean rhetoric. I don't see why people should have to choose between satisfying a basic biological need and having a career. In other words, I don't think having children is a "lifestyle choice". Many countries have legislation that allow for extended parental leave.

[Ed]

They shouldn't. I want a long unpaid paternity leave too, so that I can't take care of my wife and my kid. In Canada, employees who meet eligibility requirements are entitled to unpaid parental leave ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. Some collective agreements provide partial pay during parental leave, but that's between the employer and his workers.

Is this unreasonable? I don't think so.

If an employer agrees, without duress, then I have no problem, providing of course that seniority does not advance and that there is no guarentee that the person will come back to thier old job.

I also think, for the sake of equlity that this should be termed a "lifestyle sabbatical" and that if it is offered to parents it must be offered to anyone else that feels a personal need to expand their horizens.

Is this unreasonable? I think not!

[Manny]

Oh Jebus, don't give them any ideas, Ed. Next thing you know I'll be hiring part timers while my real guys are out "finding themselves" in drum circles in the Adirondaks.

[bozothedeathmachine]

But these days an average middle class family can't afford to lose the proportion of its income brought in by women.

I don't see why people should have to choose between satisfying a basic biological need and having a career.

I'm interested in the "biological needs" argument. Granted, there are some people who simply cannot get by (i.e. survive) on a single income, but that's not many. The other people who "need" the second income are so they can live extremely comfortably, or some might argue, opulantly. I've heard some colleagues make the 2 income argument. They have 2 cars, a large house, satellite (or cable), broadband, play golf regularly, and go out to eat lunch almost daily.

So, does the need to own a Lexus trump the need to breed?

I realize I might be a bit extreme, but just to prove a point.

ETA: I consider myself to be in the "average middle class" bracket, same for the people I work with.

[Orwell]

I'm interested in the "biological needs" argument. Granted, there are some people who simply cannot get by (i.e. survive) on a single income, but that's not many. The other people who "need" the second income are so they can live extremely comfortably, or some might argue, opulantly. I've heard some colleagues make the 2 income argument. They have 2 cars, a large house, satellite (or cable), broadband, play golf regularly, and go out to eat lunch almost daily.

So, does the need to own a Lexus trump the need to breed?

I realize I might be a bit extreme, but just to prove a point.

ETA: I consider myself to be in the "average middle class" bracket, same for the people I work with.

That sounds like upper middle class to me. The median income for family households in the US is about 54 000 bucks. For married couple families, it's about 62 000 bucks. Ok, ball park numbers arguments here, but... Lets say, for simplicity's sake, that half of that is brought in by the women (in reality, it's usually less than that, since on average women make less then men): 62 000/2 = 31 000 bucks. By the way, female householders, no husband present, make, on average about 29 000 bucks, while male householder, no wife present, a rare breed, make 42 000 bucks. I couldn't find any numbers for married couples with one income earner. Besides, they wouldn't mean much: I'm willing to bet that married couples with one income earner can afford to be that way i.e. the single income earner makes quite a lot.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html

[Orwell]

If an employer agrees, without duress, then I have no problem, providing of course that seniority does not advance and that there is no guarentee that the person will come back to thier old job.

I also think, for the sake of equlity that this should be termed a "lifestyle sabbatical" and that if it is offered to parents it must be offered to anyone else that feels a personal need to expand their horizens.

Is this unreasonable? I think not!

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

[bozothedeathmachine]

That sounds like upper middle class to me. The median income for family households in the US is about 54 000 bucks. For married couple families, it's about 62 000 bucks. Ok, ball park numbers arguments here, but... Lets say, for simplicity's sake, that half of that is brought in by the women (in reality, it's usually less than that, since on average women make less then men): 62 000/2 = 31 000 bucks. By the way, female householders, no husband present, make, on average about 29 000 bucks.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html

So how far should we dissect brackets? "Upper middle", "middle middle", "middle upper middle middle lower middle"?

And with the whole "no husband" argument: it sounds like there's a lot more to worry about than maternity leave. If the husband is an a-hole and splits that's one thing, I do believe in a "hardship" allowance. If a single woman chooses to have a baby while single that is a choice, and it shouldn't be her employer's responsibility to compensate. If a single woman "accidentally" gets pregnant, why should her employer have to be responsible for her irresponsibility?

I don't want to come across as an elitist a-hole. I have couple of female friends in such situations, and they are making due. My wife is also 6 months pregnant and is planning on quitting (not taking leave) when it's time, and I support her in that. Granted, the money would be great too, but she wants to stay home with the baby. We will make due. Her employer is scared sh**tless that she'll want to take leave and further weaken already struggling production, and I don't blame them.

P.S. I don't know what happened, but in my browser your original post ended at "bucks". I didn't see the rest until I hit the quote key, so I quoted the whole thing.
P.P.S. Love your avatar. I'm in Europe for a few weeks and that's one of the few DVDs I brought. ***** genius!

Edit: I suck at spelling.

[BPSCG]

Can't someone on the right be in favour of extended maternity leave? I mean, many conservatives like to talk about "family values". Okay, I will. I see nothing wrong with an employer's agreeing to give an employee 24 weeks' maternity leave. Hell, if they agree on 52 weeks, what business is it of mine?

But why is it the government's business to decide that an employer must give that employee 24 weeks? What if the employer and employee are both satisfied with six weeks? Must the employee take the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to? If not, then why must the employer give the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to?

And what if most of the people in a given country believe that six weeks is enough? Should the government force the 24 weeks on them?

[toddjh]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course kids are lifestyle choices. In fact, that's exactly why my wife and I decided not to have any -- having children requires a lifestyle that we simply do not want.

What's the alternative? Children are a social necessity? Maybe, if you live in a region where people reproduce at below replacement levels. Even then, I don't think having children is mandatory, so it would still fall under the category of a choice.

That said, naturally no country wants its population to decline sharply, so it's going to be a fact of life that those with sustainability problems will offer incentives for having children, regardless of the resulting inequality. It's a case of what the government perceives to be the lesser of two evils.

Jeremy

[BPSCG]

Yes, I know that. But these days an average middle class family can't afford to lose the proportion of its income brought in by women. I submit that if a family's finances are so close to the edge that they would face financial ruin if one of them lost a job, they should not be having children.
I've never heard anyone from the "family values" crowd mentioning income supplements for stay at home moms. And who would the "income supplements"* come from? Presumably from taxes paid by people who were still working, which means, disproportionately, men, and by people who have higher incomes, which also means, disproportionately, men. You sexist pig. ;)

*Gotta love that term, "income supplements." Why don't you just call them what they are - cash rewards for having a baby?

[bozothedeathmachine]

I would also like to add, on the topic of needs, that once one has (or finds out they will) have a baby there's a tremendous urge to improve one's situation for a number of reasons. I work 40+ hours a week, I attend night school to get my MBA, and I try to make time for my wife and to improve our living situation for our child (temporarily known as "Stinker", since we're not finding out the gender).

In a moment of über-ironism, we want to move to Europe (well, back to Europe for her) - how's that for full circle? As anti-social-welfare-state as I am, I'm willing to make (huge) sacrifices to do so. Since I found out she was pregnant, I've put my schooling on the fast track (by the way I'm concentrating in International Management in order to make myself more marketable on the continent...hence the school part).

I'm doing this all for my family. I am/we are making the sacrifices for our choices. I don't expect anyone else to, and I don't know why they should.

[Giz]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course having kids is a choice.

Presumably you feel that in most instances people should be responsible for their actions, why not in this case?

Why is it moral for people who are having kids to make childless people pay for them?

(Not being sarcastic but an honest question, why do others morally owe you this?)

(Also this refers to non-essential benefits like extending maternity leave to 24 weeks . No-one is suggesting that mothers should have to give birth during their lunch break or that poor babies should starve)

[Orwell]

Okay, I will. I see nothing wrong with an employer's agreeing to give an employee 24 weeks' maternity leave. Hell, if they agree on 52 weeks, what business is it of mine?

But why is it the government's business to decide that an employer must give that employee 24 weeks? What if the employer and employee are both satisfied with six weeks? Must the employee take the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to? If not, then why must the employer give the full 24 weeks, even if she doesn't want to?

And what if most of the people in a given country believe that six weeks is enough? Should the government force the 24 weeks on them?

Because the government might decide that it is a good long term policy to encourage women to have kids and to encourage mothers to be around their kids during some very important developmental years.

[Orwell]

Of course having kids is a choice.

Presumably you feel that in most instances people should be responsible for their actions, why not in this case?

Why is it moral for people who are having kids to make childless people pay for them?

(Not being sarcastic but an honest question, why do others morally owe you this?)

(Also this refers to non-essential benefits like extending maternity leave to 24 weeks . No-one is suggesting that mothers should have to give birth during their lunch break or that poor babies should starve)

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

[Ed]

Why do you consider having kids to be a "lifestyle choice"? Are you married? Do you have kids? Could you please ask your wife if she considers your kids to be "lifestyle choices"?

Of course it is a lifestyle choice. It is a choice and it impacts your lifestyle. Seems self evident to me.

And, yes, for us it was a lifestyle choice. It seemed to us that our photographic christmas cards lacked a certain *something* that kids would add. We are now thinking of a dog.

***true derailing story. The woman that we bought our previous house from in a sorta upscale area of CT had a Lab because it "looked good in front of the house. No joke***

But, on topic, it seems to me that a volintary act that impacts one's ability to perform against commitments has consequences. The "for the children" argument sucks when it comes to porn, guns, dope, or violence on TV. I won't give them a pass on this one. And as somebody pointed out, if you can't afford it, don't do it.

Why do people have such a problem with personal responsibility?

[Orwell]

I would also like to add, on the topic of needs, that once one has (or finds out they will) have a baby there's a tremendous urge to improve one's situation for a number of reasons. I work 40+ hours a week, I attend night school to get my MBA, and I try to make time for my wife and to improve our living situation for our child (temporarily known as "Stinker", since we're not finding out the gender).

In a moment of über-ironism, we want to move to Europe (well, back to Europe for her) - how's that for full circle? As anti-social-welfare-state as I am, I'm willing to make (huge) sacrifices to do so. Since I found out she was pregnant, I've put my schooling on the fast track (by the way I'm concentrating in International Management in order to make myself more marketable on the continent...hence the school part).

I'm doing this all for my family. I am/we are making the sacrifices for our choices. I don't expect anyone else to, and I don't know why they should.

You know, I think that it is more important for a kid to have his parents around than to have all kinds of neat toys and comforts. I have friends who work long ours to pay for all kinds of neat things for themselves and their kids. But they never have the time to enjoy them, and their kids are turning into spoiled brats.

[Giz]

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

You make it sound like a pyramid scheme.

Surely any future shortfall in workers could be solved by bringing in immigrants? (and that way you'd have more control over the number & skills that you get).

[toddjh]

Because these kids will eventually pay for the childless people's retirements and the infrastructure they depend upon.

This assumes that these incentives will actually cause the birthrate to increase. Is there good evidence that this is the case? Do you know many people who say, "Honey, let's have a kid so we can get a few months off work and pay lower taxes?"

I think the real reason governments subsidize children is more obvious and less idealistic: parents are a powerful voting bloc in any country.

Jeremy

[Orwell]

Of course it is a lifestyle choice. It is a choice and it impacts your lifestyle. Seems self evident to me.

And, yes, for us it was a lifestyle choice. It seemed to us that our photographic christmas cards lacked a certain *something* that kids would add. We are now thinking of a dog.

***true derailing story. The woman that we bought our previous house from in a sorta upscale area of CT had a Lab because it "looked good in front of the house. No joke***

But, on topic, it seems to me that a volintary act that impacts one's ability to perform against commitments has consequences. The "for the children" argument sucks when it comes to porn, guns, dope, or violence on TV. I won't give them a pass on this one. And as somebody pointed out, if you can't afford it, don't do it.

Why do people have such a problem with personal responsibility?

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility. I don't have a problem with rewarding people for being responsible. I do have a problem with penalising people for being responsible, though.

[Ed]

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility. I don't have a problem with rewarding people for being responsible. I do have a problem with penalising people for being responsible, though.

Not being able to afford a child is not responsible. Asking me to contribute, against my will, is not responsible.

[BPSCG]

Because the government might decide that it is a good long term policy to encourage women to have kids and to encourage mothers to be around their kids during some very important developmental years.And if the government decides that brushing your teeth and flossing and exercising regularly and rinsing fruits before eating them and not sitting too close to the television and staying abreast of current events and voting on election day are good long-term policies, should it enact laws to enforce them?

And while it may be a good long-term policy to encourage women to have kids (that's part of the reason you get a tax exemption for each kid in this country) and be around them during some very important developmental years, is it not also a good long-term policy to encourage mothers to avoid having children they can't afford, and to encourage them to avoid deliberately engaging in actions that will have them sucking at the collective teats of the rest of the taxpayers?

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

[bozothedeathmachine]

You know, I think that it is more important for a kid to have his parents around than to have all kinds of neat toys and comforts. I have friends who work long ours to pay for all kinds of neat things for themselves and their kids. But they never have the time to enjoy them, and their kids are turning into spoiled brats.

I agree. That's why I'm so supportive of my wife's choice to stay home.

[Ed]

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

And make abortion first degree murder?

If it is a "good" and a biological urge that cannot be avoided it seems to me that you cannot favor abortion under any circumstances.

[Orwell]

You make it sound like a pyramid scheme.

Surely any future shortfall in workers could be solved by bringing in immigrants? (and that way you'd have more control over the number & skills that you get).

I started this line of reasoning because I was pointing out the contradictions of the "family values" crowd. Last time I checked, the family values crowd doesn't like immigration much.

If a society decides that economical gain is more important than raising a family, hey, who am I to argue against that? It's their choice. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The family values crowd usually supports economic policies that don't help people have families, while at the same time they keep giving lip service to the "family values" rhetoric. I wanted to point out that progressive policies can be more family friendly than the "family values" stuff. That was my initial intention.

[Orwell]

And if the government decides that brushing your teeth and flossing and exercising regularly and rinsing fruits before eating them and not sitting too close to the television and staying abreast of current events and voting on election day are good long-term policies, should it enact laws to enforce them?

And while it may be a good long-term policy to encourage women to have kids (that's part of the reason you get a tax exemption for each kid in this country) and be around them during some very important developmental years, is it not also a good long-term policy to encourage mothers to avoid having children they can't afford, and to encourage them to avoid deliberately engaging in actions that will have them sucking at the collective teats of the rest of the taxpayers?

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

Slippery slope fallacy.

Many European countries (and Canada) have parental leave policies more generous than those of the US, and none have instituted those kinds of things.

[Orwell]

Not being able to afford a child is not responsible. Asking me to contribute, against my will, is not responsible.

Your government already asks you to "contribute" to a lot of useless things. Extended unpaid parental leave like that enjoyed in Canada and Europe, would almost certainly be more useful than missile defence and a few extra airplane carriers.

But hey, what do I care! It's up to you. You decide what's important. I just don't share your values.

[BPSCG]

I started this line of reasoning because I was pointing out the contradictions of the "family values" crowd. Last time I checked, the family values crowd doesn't like immigration much. Could you please tell us where and when you checked? 'Cuz that doesn't sound like many of the members of the "family values crowd" I know.

Translation: Provide a cite, please.

[BPSCG]

Slippery slope fallacy.

Many European countries (and Canada) have parental leave policies more generous than those of the US, and none have instituted those kinds of things.That's not my point. My point is that just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's the government's business. Having both parents taking an active part in raising their children is a good idea. Frankly, having six parents would be an even better idea, but nature has put some natural limits on that one. But why is it the government's business to see to it that you take five months off work to be with your newborn?

[Ed]

Your government already asks you to "contribute" to a lot of useless things. Extended unpaid parental leave like that enjoyed in Canada and Europe, would almost certainly be more useful than missile defence and a few extra airplane carriers.

But hey, what do I care! It's up to you. You decide what's important. I just don't share your values.

Bad behavior is no excuse for more bad behavior.

[CBL4]

In the five years before my wife and I had children, we saved between 15 and 25% of our income. Now we have the option of one of us staying home or not.

CBL

[CBL4]

Let's look at extreme consequences of 24 weeks of maternity leave. Jane Swift was the acting governor of Massachussets when she gave birth. If she had taken 24 weeks of maternity leave, where would this have left the state?

I had the 2 best of the 6 people working for me on maternity/paternity leave at the same time. For a month, my department could not do anything except respond to emergencies. If this had gone on for 6 months, we would have been screwed.

Businesses cannot cope with ridiculously high absentee rates. Their only logical response is to discriminate against people who are likely to take extended leave.

CBL

[Orwell]

Could you please tell us where and when you checked? 'Cuz that doesn't sound like many of the members of the "family values crowd" I know.

Translation: Provide a cite, please.

Of course not! Anti-immigration people in the States and in Europe always deny being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant, though they acknowledge pressing for reductions in immigration levels and support laws that target illegal immigrants. But these laws are only occasionally proposed as straight anti-immigration laws (although sometimes they are, like the Mass Immigration Reduction Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.946.IH:), proposed by Tom Tancredo, R (CO), I think it failed to pass). Since it is politically bad for the Bush administration to directly restrict legal immigrants (can't alienate the immigrant voters and the people who need immigrant labour), they discourage it by making it harder to get work visas. The net result has been that legal immigration to the US has been falling since 2000.

Study: Immigration falls from 2000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-27-immigration_x.htm)

[Orwell]

Bad behavior is no excuse for more bad behavior.

Well, since I don't share your values, I don't consider extended parental leave "bad behaviour".

[Orwell]

Let's look at extreme consequences of 24 weeks of maternity leave. Jane Swift was the acting governor of Massachussets when she gave birth. If she had taken 24 weeks of maternity leave, where would this have left the state? You're right, that's an extreme consequence. Not very representative, is it?

I had the 2 best of the 6 people working for me on maternity/paternity leave at the same time. For a month, my department could not do anything except respond to emergencies. If this had gone on for 6 months, we would have been screwed. If you knew that was coming, you could have prepared for it. If leave only lasts a month, there's no point in hiring temps, or training people... And how about all the loses in productivity because new parents are too tired, or too worried, to work properly? And the leave of absences because the baby isn't well?

Businesses cannot cope with ridiculously high absentee rates. Their only logical response is to discriminate against people who are likely to take extended leave.

CBL

Man, I wonder how the Norwegians do it! Or the Canadians!

[Orwell]

In the five years before my wife and I had children, we saved between 15 and 25% of our income. Now we have the option of one of us staying home or not.

CBL

Well, congratulations! How about those who can't afford to do that but would wish to have a kid? My girlfriend got pregnant by accident. We decided to keep the baby (although were both pro-choice). I was a lowly research assistant, not making much. I proposed finding a better paying job, but we agreed that that would be screwing with our future. So she had to get welfare for several years, until the kid was big enough to go to kindergarten, and then she went back to school. She's finishing a Ph. D. in Psychology now.

She had to go on welfare, and put up with all the crap people on welfare put up with, just because she wanted to keep this baby. We were dirt poor for several years (welfare is a pittance, and they make it so that it's humiliating as hell to get it). We were penalised for doing the responsible thing. Imagine if abortion was illegal in Canada? We wouldn't have had the choice! Family values indeed!

We decided to have another kid, but this time, its planned, and we are both going to take extended parental leave.

[toddjh]

How about those who can't afford to do that but would wish to have a kid?

How about those who can't afford an expensive car but would wish to have a Mercedes?

It's not my fault if you've made poor financial decisions and don't have enough money to support as big a family as you'd like. Why should my money pay for your poor planning? Isn't that just rewarding irresponsibility?

Jeremy

[Orwell]

How about those who can't afford an expensive car but would wish to have a Mercedes?

It's not my fault if you've made poor financial decisions and don't have enough money to support as big a family as you'd like. Why should my money pay for your poor planning? Isn't that just rewarding irresponsibility?

Jeremy

Look, I don't feel like arguing along those lines. I find comparing children and human beings in general to consumer goods highly... How to put it politely?... Distasteful?

Your argument also doesn't take into account that hey, faeces happen sometimes.

[Orwell]

You know, no offence, but it's talking about these little details that convince me that it would be a bad idea to move to the US. Ok, now, back to work...

See ya latter 'gator.

[toddjh]

Look, I don't feel like arguing along those lines. I find comparing children and human beings in general to consumer goods highly... How to put it politely?... Distasteful?

It's not an attempt to equate the two; it's a reminder that children are not a necessity any more than a fancy car is. I find it equally distasteful to suggest that innocent bystanders should be forced to pay the bills for another person's poor decisions.

Your argument also doesn't take into account that hey, faeces happen sometimes.

I was proactive in making sure I wouldn't unintentionally cause a pregnancy.

I am also pro-choice, as is my government. If **** happens, do what you have to do. If you decide that you're not comfortable with an abortion, well, that's your choice (emphasis on "your"). It's irresponsible to expect other people to pick up the slack. If it takes a village to raise a child, at least do the village the courtesy of consulting them about it first.

Jeremy

[CBL4]

Orwell,

I am so glad that you and your girlfriend decided that I should pay for your "accident" in addition to paying for my own family. I sacrificed for 5 years to pay for my children and now I get to pay for your girlfriend and your child as well. Are you planning to pay me back sometime?

She had to go on welfare, and put up with all the crap people on welfare put up with, just because she wanted to keep this baby.She had to go on welfare. Uh, uh. You could have taken a better job but that would have messed up your future. She could have worked but that would have messed up your family. If I did not have to pay for leeches like you, perhaps my children would be better off. Perhaps I would buy my children new clothes instead of used one.* But don't worry about them as long as you are happy.

And for your next child, you are going to make your company pay as well. It is very generous of you to pass the pain around.

* - I do buy them new pajamas and socks because I cannot find them used. Other than that, I bet that I have not bought 5 pieces of new clothing for my two children combined.

CBL

[BPSCG]

Of course not! Anti-immigration people in the States and in Europe always deny being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant, I see. So, by that reasoning, if they were to admit they were anti-immigrant, that would be evidence they were pro-immigrant.

And furthermore:

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery

(You know all about that, don't you Orwell?)
though they acknowledge pressing for reductions in immigration levels and support laws that target illegal immigrants. Okay, why is supporting laws that target illegal immigrants anti-immigrant? And do you really believe it's only the "family values crowd" that resents illegal immigrants?
But these laws are only occasionally proposed as straight anti-immigration laws (although sometimes they are, like the Mass Immigration Reduction Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.946.IH:), proposed by Tom Tancredo, R (CO), I think it failed to pass). It did? Despite the fact that the Republicans - you know, the "family values crowd" party - control both houses of Congress? Curiouser and curiouser.

Since it is politically bad for the Bush administration to directly restrict legal immigrants (can't alienate the immigrant voters and the people who need immigrant labour), they discourage it by making it harder to get work visas. The net result has been that legal immigration to the US has been falling since 2000.

Study: Immigration falls from 2000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-27-immigration_x.htm)Well, since you were kind enough to give a cite, for once, let's have a look at some of what it says:
Passel and Roberto Suro, co-author and director of the center, based their analysis on data from the Census Bureau. Passel believes the fluctuations were dictated by the U.S. economy, increasing in flush years when demand for work was high and decreasing during downturns.The guys that did the study appear to disagree with you; it's not visas that's the problem - it's jobs. Then, almost as an afterthought:
Passel cited other possible causes for the subsequent decline, including the government's increased scrutiny of immigration applicants after the 9/11 attacks.

So, in support of your claim that the "family values crowd" is anti-immigrant, you present the argument that

1) They claim they are not anti-immigrant;
2) They are opposed to illegal immigrants;
3) They defeated the only anti-immigrant bill you can cite, and
4) A study appears to show that the main reason for the drop in immigration from its record highs is economic downturn.

You know, I want to believe you, but I'm just not getting there.

[Orwell]

None of you yanks are paying for me, I'm Canadian. Canadians have paid for me, and once I and my girlfriend get those good paying job we deserve thanks to our Ph.Ds., we will pay Canadian society back with our taxes and work. And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

Ok, have your way. You have your values, I have mine. I just don't wanna live in the kind of society you seem to want, that's all.

[toddjh]

And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

That's fine, except the part where you think it's better to have children before you're financially able to support them instead of just waiting a few years until you are.

It's not the outcome that bothers us, it's your apparent belief that everyone else should sacrifice so that you don't have to.

Ok, have your way. You have your values, I have mine. I just don't wanna live in your society, that's all.

Yes...you might have to pay your own bills that way. Couldn't have that.

Jeremy

[Orwell]

That's fine, except the part where you think it's better to have children before you're financially able to support them instead of just waiting a few years until you are.

It's not the outcome that bothers us, it's your apparent belief that everyone else should sacrifice so that you don't have to.



Yes...you might have to pay your own bills that way. Couldn't have that.

Jeremy

Ooohh, you got some heavy hitting argumentation going on there, Jeremy!

The problem is, you see it as "sacrifice" instead of "investment".

For the record, I think that parental leave policies in almost every rich nation are more generous than those of the US. Concerning at least this, the US are the "odd" ones.

But you know what, I'm tired of this argument. It's one of them "values" things, and I know (long experience), that these arguments are pointless and they just create bitterness and resentment. Besides this thing is becoming too personal (and I'm to blame for that).

I'm off this thread...

[toddjh]

Ooohh, you got some heavy hitting argumentation going on there, Jeremy!

Thank you!

The problem is, you see it as "sacrifice" instead of "investment".

Not at all. I'm all in favor of making sure the next generation is as successful as possible. I just think the manner in which you forced others to invest is unfair. The same goal could've been accomplished without taking money away from other people -- many of them also parents -- if you'd just waited until your education was complete before reproducing.

If you're willing to argue that it's society's responsibility to help care for your children, doesn't that imply it's also society's privilege to help decide how they should be raised? Is that something you'd be comfortable with? I don't think I would be.

For the record, I think that parental leave policies in almost every rich nation are more generous than those of the US. Concerning at least this, the US are the "odd" ones.

The "odd French" comment was about employment policy in general, not maternity leave in particular, or parental welfare at all. And I wasn't one of those who said it to begin with. Personally, I'm more concerned with ethics than conformity.

But you know what, I'm tired of this argument. It's one of them "values" things, and I know (long experience), that these arguments are pointless and they just create bitterness and resentment.

Possibly. I'll try to keep my tone under control if you think it would lead to a more constructive debate. I apologize for letting this become personal; in general I try to stay away from that.

Jeremy

[Jas]

The family values crowd usually supports economic policies that don't help people have families, while at the same time they keep giving lip service to the "family values" rhetoric. I wanted to point out that progressive policies can be more family friendly than the "family values" stuff. That was my initial intention.

Not neccessarily.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/24/the_parents_tax_relief_act.php

And if you take a look at the Christian message boards (who are very right wing, pro-family,republican/capitalist), most are very supportive of tax breaks for SAHM families.

[Jas]

If you knew that was coming, you could have prepared for it. If leave only lasts a month, there's no point in hiring temps, or training people... And how about all the loses in productivity because new parents are too tired, or too worried, to work properly? And the leave of absences because the baby isn't well?

Man, I wonder how the Norwegians do it! Or the Canadians!

How about all the losses in productivity that Canadian companies must deal with in hiring/training replacements for those on mat leave, and for when they decide they won't stay on mat leave?

Leave of absences because the baby isn't well? That happens all throughout childhood, not just the first year. If the kid's sitter is sick, or there's a problem with the dayhome, or they get in a fight at school - parents are ALWAYS taking time off, not just in the first year.

Again, why is this the problem of the employer? Why should they be responsible for the personal choices made by their employees?

[BPSCG]

For the record, I think that parental leave policies in almost every rich nation are more generous than those of the US. Concerning at least this, the US are the "odd" ones. No argument there. You can throw in the death penalty for good measure, plus 52% of our voters supported George Bush last time out. So, no question, we're the oddball country.

We're also richer than Satan. Might there be some causality there?
But you know what, I'm tired of this argument. It's one of them "values" things, and I know (long experience), that these arguments are pointless and they just create bitterness and resentment.And that's why you have your country, and we have ours, and the Europeans have theirs.

[Jas]

None of you yanks are paying for me, I'm Canadian. Canadians have paid for me, and once I and my girlfriend get those good paying job we deserve thanks to our Ph.Ds., we will pay Canadian society back with our taxes and work. And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

I'm Canadian, and I fully second what CBL4 had to say.

And I pay just as many taxes as you - more, when you take into account that I wasn't a direct cause of a 'few thousand dollars in welfare payments', during which time, taxes were not being paid by the recipient.

So why am I paying for you and your inability to plan properly?

[toddjh]

Leave of absences because the baby isn't well? That happens all throughout childhood, not just the first year. If the kid's sitter is sick, or there's a problem with the dayhome, or they get in a fight at school - parents are ALWAYS taking time off, not just in the first year.

Again, why is this the problem of the employer? Why should they be responsible for the personal choices made by their employees?

Hear, hear! I can't tell you how many times I've had to pick up the slack for coworkers with children who leave to take them to doctor appointments or little league games or because they have the day off from school. It wouldn't bother me so much if the rest of us got the same kind of no-questions-asked, short-notice time off when we wanted it, but of course that's not the case. We're expected to stay after hours to do the work the parents can't be bothered with because their kid has band practice.

I'm occasionally on search committees to interview job candidates. I really wish it were legal to ask about children, because that's the first thing on my mind.

Jeremy

[Freakshow]

You've just said my point.



As you so kindly pointed out, it's meaningless.

Oh...I think I might have missed a post somewhere. Seriously. :) I see what you meant now. I didn't quite get the context of your original post. Sorry about that, old chap! :)

[Grammatron]

None of you yanks are paying for me, I'm Canadian. Canadians have paid for me, and once I and my girlfriend get those good paying job we deserve thanks to our Ph.Ds., we will pay Canadian society back with our taxes and work. And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

Ok, have your way. You have your values, I have mine. I just don't wanna live in the kind of society you seem to want, that's all.

It's fascinating to me how "your" society changes the way people thinks. For instance, the phrasing of "good paying job we deserve" where is someone here would most likely say "good paying job we earned."

Entitledment is funny like that.

[Jas]

She had to go on welfare, and put up with all the crap people on welfare put up with, just because she wanted to keep this baby. We were dirt poor for several years (welfare is a pittance, and they make it so that it's humiliating as hell to get it). We were penalised for doing the responsible thing. Imagine if abortion was illegal in Canada? We wouldn't have had the choice! Family values indeed!


"Oh, poor me! I can't believe how humiliating it is to choose not to work and get free money because my boyfriend refuses to take a better paying job. Boo-hoo! Now I might have to take transit because I'm not getting enough free money as a result of my mishap! Woe is me!"

And, turning down a higher paying job so that other people will pay for your mistake is not 'doing the responsible thing'.

And what on earth does the legality of abortion have to do with your argument?

**edited to fix formatting

[Jas]

...and once I and my girlfriend get those good paying job we deserve ...

Good paying jobs that you deserve?

No one deserves a good paying job - you EARN it. No ones owes you anything.

[Freakshow]

None of you yanks are paying for me, I'm Canadian. In a sense, we are. It is the US and the US military being next-door that allows Canada to spend so little on its own military. Which allows it to spend much more on social causes. If the US vanished overnight, Canada would have to slash its social spending in order to increase its military spending. A lot.

It doesn't really cost us anything more. But our existence is allowing Canada to budget its finances in a certain way.

[Jas]

Hear, hear! I can't tell you how many times I've had to pick up the slack for coworkers with children who leave to take them to doctor appointments or ...

Funny you should mention that...

I'm actually playing secretary today, because the real one is on vacation, her replacement got fired, and her replacement took off for an undetermined length of time to find a new dayhome because she got into some disagreement with the woman who runs her dayhome and 'she doesn't feel comfortable sharing what the disagreement was about'.

(probably the flavour of cheerios being served)

[Orwell]

Well, the level of argument on this board is not always very elevated, but this is ridiculous. Let me get this straight: this single word is being picked upon because some people think it denotes some kind of "entitlement" (whatever that means)? One single little word written without any second thoughts, and bam... Entitlement! :rolleyes: Lordy!

And the military protection argument... Another horse manure argument! I don't need your "protection", I happen to believe that Canada doesn't need your "protection", but it doesn't matter. Even if all of Canada insists that you mind your own business, you'll provide your "protection" whether we like it or not. Pff...

Now I'm very definitely outta here. Things can only go downhill from here. I'll leave you self-righteous folks to yourselves on this one. Cheerio! :p

[Dorian Gray]

Hear, hear! I can't tell you how many times I've had to pick up the slack for coworkers with children who leave to take them to doctor appointments or little league games or because they have the day off from school. It wouldn't bother me so much if the rest of us got the same kind of no-questions-asked, short-notice time off when we wanted it, but of course that's not the case. We're expected to stay after hours to do the work the parents can't be bothered with because their kid has band practice.

I'm occasionally on search committees to interview job candidates. I really wish it were legal to ask about children, because that's the first thing on my mind.

Jeremy 'I don't have kids and I act in such-and-such a way, and so should people WITH kids', is it? Tell me, does your business take Christmas off? How would you feel about Jews and Muslims bitching about having to do the work you can't be bothered with because you have to watch football and eat ham?

I really wish it were legal to ask about religion, because that's the first thing on my mind.:rolleyes:

The thing is, people like you will later come down on the people who ditch their kids for work, and blame them for not watching/raising/guiding them properly.

Also, if you want the same time off that parents get, go knock someone up. And try to at least take into account that there are other actual people in the world who have - gasp - different needs, wants and lifestyles than you do. Once you secede and form the Confederation of Todd, maybe then you can dictate to everyone else. Right now, you're on Planet Todd, and no one else lives in your world.

[Grammatron]

Well, the level of argument on this board is not always very elevated, but this is ridiculous. Let me get this straight: this single word is being picked upon because some people thin its denotes some kind of "entitlement" (whatever that means). One single little word written without any second thoughts, and bam... Entitlement! :rolleyes:

Now I'm very definitely outta here. Things can only go downhill from here. I'll leave you self-righteous folks to yourselves on this one. Cheerio! :p

And you have a PhD in what exactly?

[Orwell]

And you have a PhD in what exactly?

Annoying self righteous jerks with a major in pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Tchuss!

[Grammatron]

'I don't have kids and I act in such-and-such a way, and so should people WITH kids', is it? Tell me, does your business take Christmas off? How would you feel about Jews and Muslims bitching about having to do the work you can't be bothered with because you have to watch football and eat ham?

I really wish it were legal to ask about religion, because that's the first thing on my mind.:rolleyes:

If their religion required them to not work 24 consecutive weeks you would see less of them employed.

The thing is, people like you will later come down on the people who ditch their kids for work, and blame them for not watching/raising/guiding them properly.

Also, if you want the same time off that parents get, go knock someone up. And try to at least take into account that there are other actual people in the world who have - gasp - different needs, wants and lifestyles than you do. Once you secede and form the Confederation of Todd, maybe then you can dictate to everyone else. Right now, you're on Planet Todd, and no one else lives in your world.
The problem here is that you only give one side a choice, and funny enough that's the side who would end-up getting something for nothing.

[Freakshow]

And the military protection argument... Another horse manure argument! I don't need your "protection", I happen to believe that Canada doesn't need your "protection", but it doesn't matter.
Are you one of those people that thinks that if you are simply nice to other people, they'll leave you alone? I bet a lot of Europe was thinking that in the 1930's, too.

[Grammatron]

Annoying self righteous jerks with a major in pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Tchuss!
Then you obviously did not DESERVE it :P

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Orwell
I'll leave you self-righteous folks to yourselves on this one. Leave our money to ourselves while you are at it.

Are you sure you meant self-righteous? Perhaps you meant self-supporting? Or self-reliant? Or self-sufficient? Or self-responsible? Or self-disciplined?

BTW, it one thing to be self-centered and self-indulgent but quite another to claim the moral high ground while doing so.

CBL

[Orwell]

But I sure as heck EARNED it!

[Jas]

'I don't have kids and I act in such-and-such a way, and so should people WITH kids', is it? Tell me, does your business take Christmas off? How would you feel about Jews and Muslims bitching about having to do the work you can't be bothered with because you have to watch football and eat ham?


Oh, I was unaware that Jews and Muslims don't have religious holidays.

In fact, there are people at my work who are of cultures/beliefs who's holidays don't coincide with Xmas or Easter. They take days in lieu. It's not a difficult concept.

[toddjh]

'I don't have kids and I act in such-and-such a way, and so should people WITH kids', is it?

Well, yes, if they want to be treated the same as the rest of us regarding promotions, raises, and the like. Performance should matter.

I don't have a problem with them taking excessive time off if they're prepared to accept that it will have consequences for their careers. It's the expectation that their boss shouldn't hold it against them when they're gone two days every week that I'd like to avoid.

Tell me, does your business take Christmas off? How would you feel about Jews and Muslims bitching about having to do the work you can't be bothered with because you have to watch football and eat ham?

I'd rather not have Christmas as a designated holiday, actually, though of course I'd have no problem with people using vacation time for Christmas if they want. My employer recently took that approach with Good Friday, giving everybody an extra vacation day instead of a fixed holiday, and it works well.

The thing is, people like you will later come down on the people who ditch their kids for work, and blame them for not watching/raising/guiding them properly.

Watch the generalizations, please. I don't "blame" people for being irresponsible parents unless I see evidence of it. And it doesn't necessarily correlate with missing lots of work.

Also, if you want the same time off that parents get, go knock someone up.

Biologically impossible at this point, but thanks for the advice.

And try to at least take into account that there are other actual people in the world who have - gasp - different needs, wants and lifestyles than you do.

I have absolutely no problem with that. I have different "needs, wants, and lifestyles" than the majority of the population. I just don't think everybody else should have to pick up the tab for my decisions, that's all.

Once you secede and form the Confederation of Todd, maybe then you can dictate to everyone else. Right now, you're on Planet Todd, and no one else lives in your world.

For future reference, my imaginary country is called "Jermany," not "the Confederation of Todd."

Jeremy

[Dorian Gray]

Funny you should mention that...

I'm actually playing secretary today, because the real one is on vacation, her replacement got fired, and her replacement took off for an undetermined length of time to find a new dayhome because she got into some disagreement with the woman who runs her dayhome and 'she doesn't feel comfortable sharing what the disagreement was about'.

(probably the flavour of cheerios being served)

As for you - if you agree with the whole 'who picks up the slack' argument, I have some questions for you: Who picked up the slack when you went to court to haggle over your tickets for speeding and parking? Who picked up the slack when you came to work still drunk from the night before? Who picked YOU up when your car was stolen?

Can't you read a calendar? Can't you control your drinking? Can't you obey the speed limit and park where you're supposed to? Couldn't you have parked three blocks away and walked to your house, or are you too good for that? Can't you lock your doors and afford to live in a safer neighborhood? Let me guess - you WOULD be able to, but everyone else keeps taking credit for your work. Why do you compose nasty e-mails about your coworkers instead of confronting them directly?

You sound like an irresponsible and bitter backstabber who blames others for their own shortcomings to me.

I bet you're feeling mighty defensive right now. The moral of this story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. My version of the moral of this story is that you should go get YOUR personal shiznit together, and THEN maybe you can come attack and judge other people.

You're welcome.

[Dorian Gray]

In a sense, we are. It is the US and the US military being next-door that allows Canada to spend so little on its own military. Which allows it to spend much more on social causes. If the US vanished overnight, Canada would have to slash its social spending in order to increase its military spending. A lot.

It doesn't really cost us anything more. But our existence is allowing Canada to budget its finances in a certain way. Guess what? Canada's existence is allowing the US to budget its finances in the same exact way. Not having to have a huge military presence along a 3,000+ mile long stretch of your border tends to save you a little money, no?


$13,195,694,000 - Canada's military budget, 16th in the world
$419,000,000,000 - America's military budget - first

[Jas]

Who picked up the slack when you went to court to haggle over your tickets for speeding and parking?

I used my own vacation time/flex days, everyone gets that. And no-one 'fills in for me' - I can and do take work home.
Who picked up the slack when you came to work still drunk from the night before?
Drunk? Refresh my memory on that one - but I still do my own work. No one would have 'filled in' for me.

Who picked YOU up when your car was stolen?
Insurance got me a rental, though the first morning (being as it was a weekend, I didn't get everything through until Monday), I took transit, iirc.

Can't you read a calendar?
Last I checked, I could.
Can't you control your drinking?
I don't see the relevance of that. Can you provide a quote?
Can't you obey the speed limit and park where you're supposed to? Well, I will admit, the speed limit thing is a bit of an issue. Though how does this effect my work?
Couldn't you have parked three blocks away and walked to your house, or are you too good for that?
I'm not quite sure which issue you're referring to. Can you provide a quote?
Can't you lock your doors and afford to live in a safer neighborhood? Sorry, I don't recall where I didn't lock my doors. Please refresh my memory. I also don't see where I 'can't afford to live in a safer neighborhood'. I have worked since I was an adolescent, and bought my condo when I was 20. The neighborhood in which I currently reside is one of the most desirable in the city - since you obviously took the time to go through all my posts, there is one where I posted pics - I'm right on the river. Ask Badger if you don't believe me.
Let me guess - you WOULD be able to, but everyone else keeps taking credit for your work.
? There's only one person that does that, and that's wy her contract isn't being renewed.
Why do you compose nasty e-mails about your coworkers instead of confronting them directly?
Oh trust me, I have plenty to her directly. And I alreayd said that the email wasn't smart - why are you harping on it?


You sound like an irresponsible and bitter backstabber who blames others for their own shortcomings to me.
Please provide an instance where I have not provided responsibility for my own actions. Irresponsible? I've managed a mortgage and all the expenses that come with it since the age of twenty, not to mention school courses at the same time. I have never asked anyone to carry me financially, and I get out of my own messes.

I bet you're feeling mighty defensive right now. The moral of this story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. My version of the moral of this story is that you should go get YOUR personal shiznit together, and THEN maybe you can come attack and judge other people.

You're welcome.

Since you seem to have resorted to attacking me, well, yes, I do feel defensive. WTF is your problem?!?

[BPSCG]

Well, the level of argument on this board is not always very elevated, but this is ridiculous. Let me get this straight: this single word is being picked upon because some people think it denotes some kind of "entitlement" (whatever that means)? One single little word written without any second thoughts, and bam... Entitlement! :rolleyes: Lordy!

And the military protection argument... Another horse manure argument! I don't need your "protection", I happen to believe that Canada doesn't need your "protection", but it doesn't matter. Even if all of Canada insists that you mind your own business, you'll provide your "protection" whether we like it or not. Pff...

Now I'm very definitely outta here. Things can only go downhill from here. I'll leave you self-righteous folks to yourselves on this one. Cheerio! :pHmmm, anyone here remember Ex Lion Tamer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1063745#post1063745)? He bailed back in June, 2005 complaining about all the nasty people here.

And now we have Orwell, who's been here since... why, it's June, 2005! And compare the last paragraph above with ELT's:I'm sure you'll be quite happy to see me go, as I will be quite happy never to have to read your ************* again. Win/win situation. I happen to have a life, and I'm clearly wasting my time here.

Cheriochinchin,

:xtongue

ELT, we really missed you!

[Ed]

$13,195,694,000 - Canada's military budget, 16th in the world


What did they do, buy a plane?

[Orwell]

Hmmm, anyone here remember Ex Lion Tamer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1063745#post1063745)? He bailed back in June, 2005 complaining about all the nasty people here.

And now we have Orwell, who's been here since... why, it's June, 2005! And compare the last paragraph above with ELT's:
ELT, we really missed you!

Who?

I'll have you know that "cherio" is often used by Rowan Atkinson (and Blackadder) fans. Maybe this Ex Lion Tamer fellow happened to be one of them, I dunno, but that's were I picked it up. ;)

[Jas]

What did they do, buy a plane?

If I recall, the joke goes something like this:

"Did you know that Canada's combining their Navy and Airforce?"

"Yeah, the plane hit the boat"

(substitute 'SeaKing' for plane, and that's pretty real life)

[Manny]

Who?See, now here I've had one of my cultural biases corrected. I figured that Canada was small enough that Canadian doctoral candidates who were born on November 30 and use a lot of exclamation points would know each other. Thank you for disabusing me of that notion.

[Orwell]

See, now here I've had one of my cultural biases corrected. I figured that Canada was small enough that Canadian doctoral candidates who were born on November 30 and use a lot of exclamation points would know each other. Thank you for disabusing me of that notion.

I wasn't born on Nov 30. I'm an Aries. ;) Where did you get that idea?

[Manny]

From your profile, and from his. But now I learn that that was a bug -- I think pretty much everybody's birthday was reset to November 30 during the upgrade. Sorry for the error.

At any rate, you might run into this Lion Tamer fellow yet. His profile lists as a homepage "crappity.com" where a guy with the username "Tripp" uses the same picture as you do here as his avatar. I guess Canada is a pretty small place after all. You should pop over there and say "hi."

[Orwell]

From your profile, and from his. But now I learn that that was a bug -- I think pretty much everybody's birthday was reset to November 30 during the upgrade. Sorry for the error.

At any rate, you might run into this Lion Tamer fellow yet. His profile lists as a homepage "crappity.com" where a guy with the username "Tripp" uses the same picture as you do here as his avatar. I guess Canada is a pretty small place after all. You should pop over there and say "hi."

Well, it's a small country, but it isn't that small. There are many canadians who know that Marshalls go up to 11.

Never heard of this crappity place.

[Freakshow]

There are many canadians who know that Marshalls go up to 11.
Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top number, and make that a little louder?

[Manny]

Well, it's a small country, but it isn't that small. There are many canadians who know that Marshalls go up to 11.Exactly! It's kind of freaky that you chose exactly the same picture, so I'm sure you'll have a lot to talk about. And maybe "Tripp" can introduce you to that Lion Tamer guy -- I don't know his handle over there.

Never heard of this crappity place.It's apparently a pretty influential site, as that's where you found the cartoon you attached to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1180108#post1180108). Imagine the coincidence of that coming up in a your random wanderings on the web and it turning out to be from the very site that someone else who left in a huff had listed as his homepage! Freaky, I tell you.

Of course this is all off topic and should probably be moved to the Forum Community. Do you want to alert the mods so they can split it off, or should I?

[Orwell]

Exactly! It's kind of freaky that you chose exactly the same picture, so I'm sure you'll have a lot to talk about. And maybe "Tripp" can introduce you to that Lion Tamer guy -- I don't know his handle over there.

It's apparently a pretty influential site, as that's where you found the cartoon you attached to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1180108#post1180108). Imagine the coincidence of that coming up in a your random wanderings on the web and it turning out to be from the very site that someone else who left in a huff had listed as his homepage! Freaky, I tell you.

Of course this is all off topic and should probably be moved to the Forum Community. Do you want to alert the mods so they can split it off, or should I?

That's a Steve Bell cartoon, from the Guardian site. That's were I obtained it. By the way, Manny, I noticed that you also joined in June 2005. How do I know that you aren't in fact, this Lion tamer guy trying to throw people off his trail? I mean, I think you use more exclamation points than I do. ;)

[Orwell]

Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top number, and make that a little louder?

(Extremely long pause) These go to eleven.

[Manny]

That's a Steve Bell cartoon, from the Guardian site. That's were I obtained it. By the way, Manny, I noticed that you also joined in June 2005. How odd, then, that you chose the crappity.com site to hotlink from. I guess the Guardian put in that html to prohibit hotlinks or something.

How do I know that you aren't in fact, this Lion tamer guy trying to throw people off his trail? I mean, I think you use more exclamation points than I do. ;)I do use them, probably more than I ought to. But I'm not a left-leaning Canadian doctoral student who's a fan of a tiny message board with about 50,000 total posts and who signs off on arguments by saying "Cheerio" and using the tongue smiley who uses exclamation points a lot. So you can see where the possibility of confusion is a little higher in your case.

[BPSCG]

That's a Steve Bell cartoon, from the Guardian site. That's were I obtained it. But... but... but...

When I right-click on the cartoon in your post, and then I click on "Properties", it shows the location as crappity.com.

That's just...amazing! You got it from The Guardian, and it's clear that they got it just via a link to crappity (how else would the location show up as crappity?). And the Canadian guy on crappity who's getting his degree uses the same avatar as you do.

This is far, far too unlikely to have happened by random chance.

There's only one possible explanation:




INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!




ELT, you are so busted! :D

Welcome back, son! Although, in truth, you were never really gone, were you?

[Orwell]

How odd, then, that you chose the crappity.com site to hotlink from. I guess the Guardian put in that html to prohibit hotlinks or something. I must have googled it then, I guess. You went through all of this guy's posts in attempt to "get" me? Boy, don't you have nothing better to do?

I do use them, probably more than I ought to. But I'm not a left-leaning Canadian doctoral student who's a fan of a tiny message board with about 50,000 total posts and who signs off on arguments by saying "Cheerio" and using the tongue smiley who uses exclamation points a lot. So you can see where the possibility of confusion is a little higher in your case.

Well, and maybe you are Grammatron's or BPSCG's sock puppet. I mean, you right wingers all look alike to me.:cool: But still, I have to deal with you as if you were a separate individual. It doesn't really matter who you really are now, does it? ;)

[Grammatron]

Well, and maybe you are Grammatron's or BPSCG's sock puppet. I mean, you right wingers all look alike to me.:cool: But still, I have to deal with you as if you were a separate individual. It doesn't really matter who you really are now, does it? ;)
Pfft, I wish I was as eloquent.

[Manny]

I must have googled it then, I guess. You went through all of this guy's posts in attempt to "get" me? Boy, don't you have nothing better to do? See, and here I wasn't going to report you.

Goodbye.

[Orwell]

Good bye?

But why, Manny?

:D

[Orwell]

Pfft, I wish I was as eloquent.

You mean you wish you were as eloquent as me?

Why, thank you, but you know, it's not that hard. Just stop hanging around with the Dubya crowd, and you'll see, you'll improve considerably. ;)

[Grammatron]

You mean you wish you were as eloquent as me?

Why, thank you, but you know, it's not that hard. Just stop hanging around with the Dubya crowd, and you'll see, you'll improve considerably. ;)

I give you C for effort and F for results.

[Dorian Gray]

I used my own vacation time/flex days, everyone gets that. And no-one 'fills in for me' - I can and do take work home. So maybe the parents are doing the same thing?

Last I checked, I could. You somehow missed that it was Sunday, not Saturday.

Well, I will admit, the speed limit thing is a bit of an issue. Though how does this effect my work? If you're in court defending a ticket, you're not at work doing work. It's not a difficult concept.

I also don't see where I 'can't afford to live in a safer neighborhood'. Your car was stolen.

Oh trust me, I have plenty to her directly. And I alreayd said that the email wasn't smart - why are you harping on it? So you can harp forever but can only be harped upon once? Dish out, not take?

Since you seem to have resorted to attacking me, well, yes, I do feel defensive. WTF is your problem?!? As demonstrated by your highly defensive post, when the lens is turned onto YOU, you can explain away or rationalize all your actions. All I'm saying is that the person you are attacking and/or mocking...

(reminder)""Oh, poor me! I can't believe how humiliating it is to choose not to work and get free money because my boyfriend refuses to take a better paying job. Boo-hoo! Now I might have to take transit because I'm not getting enough free money as a result of my mishap! Woe is me!"

is someone that is completely unknown to you, and someone by the way who didn't do anything illegal, unlike you. You didn't like it when I came on strong and pored over your life with a little mud - and now your confused indignance might be tempered with a little understanding. You made some poor or questionable choices in your life, and no one had been mocking or attacking you for them, had they?

[Beady]

I couldn't care less what "happened", why on earth should I?

I would sugggest that, if you replicate the conditions of the experiment, you will replicate the result. IOW, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it's mistakes."

A complete lack of restrictions on the owners and employers gave rise to the conditions which caused restrictions to be implemented. Now, what do you think is going to happen if those restrictions are removed?

BTW, so far I've just been using examples from American history. Shall we get into what happened when European owners and employers were allowed to run roughshod over their employees?

[Orwell]

By the way, I didn't "refuse" to take a better paying job. I was ready to do it, but my girlfriend didn't want me to: I was 2/3 through a masters degree, and stopping would have been heartbreaking and impossible to recuperate. I would have had to start everything again, two years of constant work down the drains. How do you think my supervisor (i.e. my boss, in a way, since he was paying me out of his research funds) would have take it, eh? Oh, and we always use transit, never owned a car, don't need one. ;)

Anyway, I'm always surprised how nastily judgemental some people can be!

Hey Manny, look, an exclamation point! Oh and another one! And another! Wait, I gotta stop this! Oh damn! All right...

By the way, did you report me, after all?

[bozothedeathmachine]

Anyway, I'm always surprised how nastily judgemental some people can be!


I don't think you should be surprised people responded the way they did. Almost everyone here who was on anti-long-term-leave wagon stressed personal responsibility and liability. Then you go and admit to being the pinnacle of irresponsibility, with regard to the debate at hand. You even used the word "accidently" for Pete's sake. Then rationalized that Canadian tax-payers should pay for your irresponsibility.

You're right, I'm not Candian, so it doesn't really affect me. Your flippant attitude about it does highlight what I consider a major flaw in social-welfare states.

Bottom line: You screwed-up, other people paid for it.

[BPSCG]

By the way, did you report me, after all?Just FYI, while I didn't report you to the mods, it's likely that now that you've been publicly busted, you're going to have one or the other of your accounts killed or have them both merged into one or something, because your membership agreement doesn't allow multiple accounts. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744)

So you probably want to start thinking about whether you prefer to be known as "Ex Lion Tamer" or "Orwell."

How do you feel about a poll on the issue?

[Orwell]

I give you C for effort and F for results.

Ooooh, presidential grades! Neat!

[Orwell]

Ok, ok, I will admit it, I lied. There's a connection between yours truly (not) and this Ex Lion Tamer fellow. Yes...

Remember when I said I never heard of crappity? Well, I'm actually a member.
And so is Ex Lion Tamer. We're buddies. He told me about this place. Initially, I didn't want to post here, I limited myself to lurking. This was his "domain". But then he bailed out, and I decided to take over from him.

We do share similar views, and we both are grad students, and we've hanged out together for so long that we both now share some language quirks, but I'm not him. For starters, he has a much shorter fuse than I do. I have a much greater toleration for male bovine manure and personal attacks than he does.

Besides, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether I'm him or not. I know for a fact that he hasn't posted a word in here ever since he bailed out. His account is inactive. And, as far as you are concerned, I could be the queen of England and you wouldn't know it. ;)

[Ed]

By the way, I didn't "refuse" to take a better paying job. I was ready to do it, but my girlfriend didn't want me to: I was 2/3 through a masters degree, and stopping would have been heartbreaking and impossible to recuperate. I would have had to start everything again, two years of constant work down the drains. How do you think my supervisor (i.e. my boss, in a way, since he was paying me out of his research funds) would have take it, eh? Oh, and we always use transit, never owned a car, don't need one. ;)

Anyway, I'm always surprised how nastily judgemental some people can be!

Hey Manny, look, an exclamation point! Oh and another one! And another! Wait, I gotta stop this! Oh damn! All right...

By the way, did you report me, after all?

Love the eschewing of responsibility. Now you are blaming your girlfriend and your supervisor.

[BPSCG]

Love the eschewing of responsibility. Now you are blaming your girlfriend and your supervisor.And his evil twin doppelganger.

[Grammatron]

By the way, I didn't "refuse" to take a better paying job. I was ready to do it, but my girlfriend didn't want me to: I was 2/3 through a masters degree, and stopping would have been heartbreaking and impossible to recuperate. I would have had to start everything again, two years of constant work down the drains. How do you think my supervisor (i.e. my boss, in a way, since he was paying me out of his research funds) would have take it, eh? Oh, and we always use transit, never owned a car, don't need one. ;)

Why would you have to stop?

[BPSCG]

Ok, ok, I will admit it, I lied.Why? And, now that you've 'fessed up (sort of), why should we believe anything you post, including this explanation? There's a connection between yours truly (not) and this Ex Lion Tamer fellow. Yes...

Remember when I said I never heard of crappity? Well, I'm actually a member.
And so is Ex Lion Tamer. We're buddies. He told me about this place. Initially, I didn't want to post here, I limited myself to lurking. This was his "domain". But then he bailed out, and I decided to take over from him. Wow, for someone so reluctant to post on "his domain", you've come on like gangbusters. Over a thousand posts in something like four months. That's an average of eight a day, seven days a week.

So you're both members at crappity? And do you post there, or is that "his domain," also?
We do share similar views, and we both are grad students, and we've hanged out together for so long that we both now share some language quirks, but I'm not him. For starters, he has a much shorter fuse than I do. I have a much greater toleration for male bovine manure and personal attacks than he does. Question: Does he tend to show up at certain times, like when you've stopped taking your medication for a few days?
Besides, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether I'm him or not.Yes it does. Read your membership agreement.
I know for a fact that he hasn't posted a word in here ever since he bailed out. How can you possibly know that, if you're not him?
His account is inactive. And, as far as you are concerned, I could be the queen of England and you wouldn't know it. ;)Oh, we could probably find that out, too. Vee haff vays of making you talk...

If you sense a little skepticism here, please refer to your first sentence above.

[Orwell]

Love the eschewing of responsibility. Now you are blaming your girlfriend and your supervisor.

Uh? What responsibility? What blame?
What's this? If you're rich, you earned it, if your poor, you deserve it?
And receiving welfare for a while ain't no crime. At least not yet, and not in Canada. We didn't lie about the reasons why, and we actually got a bit more because I was in grad school. I'm glad I'm Canadian, eh? :D

[Orwell]

Hey Manny, I'm still here! Did you report me yet?

[Orwell]

Why? And, now that you've 'fessed up (sort of), why should we believe anything you post, including this explanation?Wow, for someone so reluctant to post on "his domain", you've come on like gangbusters. Over a thousand posts in something like four months. That's an average of eight a day, seven days a week.

So you're both members at crappity? And do you post there, or is that "his domain," also?
Question: Does he tend to show up at certain times, like when you've stopped taking your medication for a few days?
Yes it does. Read your membership agreement.
How can you possibly know that, if you're not him?
Oh, we could probably find that out, too. Vee haff vays of making you talk...

If you sense a little skepticism here, please refer to your first sentence above.

Did I mention he's a close bud of mine? I know he hasn't posted. And crappity is ours, we're founding members.

[Orwell]

Why? And, now that you've 'fessed up (sort of), why should we believe anything you post, including this explanation?Wow, for someone so reluctant to post on "his domain", you've come on like gangbusters. Over a thousand posts in something like four months. That's an average of eight a day, seven days a week.

So you're both members at crappity? And do you post there, or is that "his domain," also?
Question: Does he tend to show up at certain times, like when you've stopped taking your medication for a few days?
Yes it does. Read your membership agreement.
How can you possibly know that, if you're not him?
Oh, we could probably find that out, too. Vee haff vays of making you talk...

If you sense a little skepticism here, please refer to your first sentence above.

Did I mention he's a close bud of mine? Actually, there's a another, more intimate connection between me and Ex Lion Tamer. We're secret gay lovers. Yes, our secret is out. I'm posing as this het guy, you know, but in fact, I'm gayer than RuPaul. I'm going to marry Ex Lion Tamer soon, thanks to my country's permissive marriage laws.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[Jas]

So maybe the parents are doing the same thing?

But with 5 minutes notice? And it generally just counts as missed time - they need vacation time with their kids as well, apparently. Not to mention, like I said earlier, regardless of what time I might miss at work, I still do all my work - either from home, or I'm at the office afterhours. Or I schedule things around work.

You somehow missed that it was Sunday, not Saturday.
I'm sorry, instead of making these cryptic comments, could you please provide a reference or link?

If you're in court defending a ticket, you're not at work doing work. It's not a difficult concept. But if I'm in court fighting a ticket, I generally let them know a minimum of a week in advance, schedule my appt's around it, and make up the work.

Your car was stolen.

And it was stolen once. If it was a common occurence, and I complained that I couldn't afford to live in a safer neighborhood (or, complained about my neighborhood at all), due to the world being out to get me, and I demanded that taxpayers pay my way into a safer neighborhood - well, then you would have a point. Please let me know how a freak occurence of my car being stoen demonstrates my being irresponsible.

So you can harp forever but can only be harped upon once? Dish out, not take? Please tell me where I blamed someone else for my mistake, and demanded that they pay for my actions.

As demonstrated by your highly defensive post, when the lens is turned onto YOU, you can explain away or rationalize all your actions. All I'm saying is that the person you are attacking and/or mocking...

(reminder)""Oh, poor me! I can't believe how humiliating it is to choose not to work and get free money because my boyfriend refuses to take a better paying job. Boo-hoo! Now I might have to take transit because I'm not getting enough free money as a result of my mishap! Woe is me!"

And please show me one instance where I asked for someone else to take responsibility for my actions. I'm not saying people don't mess up, but I do ask that they be accountable for my actions.

If I had gone out, had too much to drink, then called in sick to work because 'it's not my fault I had to much to drink', then you would have a point. If I missed work or asked someone to please pay for me to buy a garage, then you would have a point. But you don't.

I was decrying the lack of personal responsiblity exhibited, not the fact that a mistake was made. Please show me where I did otherwise.

is someone that is completely unknown to you, and someone by the way who didn't do anything illegal, unlike you. You didn't like it when I came on strong and pored over your life with a little mud - and now your confused indignance might be tempered with a little understanding. You made some poor or questionable choices in your life, and no one had been mocking or attacking you for them, had they?

Like I said - I wasn't judging them for mistakes, nor am I saying I'm perfect. I'm judging the fact that they seem to think that the world owes them something as a result. But I do accept responsibility for my actions, always have.

And I didn't decide to go out of my way to sift through old posts so I could bring up unrelated incidents into an unrelated thread, either.

[Orwell]

Why would you have to stop?

Because I have to spend a lot of time in the lab in my line of research. Don't ask me what line of research is, I'll just probably make something up. I'm not going to divulge my entire life on the net for your amusement. I've already said way too much already. Now everyone knows I'm gay!

[Orwell]

Jas, dahlin', the world owes me nothing. Your right wing goggles are making you read things I've never wrote. Relax, would ya? This is da weeb, da intranet... Enjoy yourself, and keep your heavy judgements for yourself, 'k?

[Jas]

Jas, dahlin', the world owes me nothing. Your right wing goggles are making you read things I've never wrote. Relax, would ya? This is da weeb, da intranet... Enjoy yourself, and keep your heavy judgements for yourself, 'k?

So your girlfriend never went on welfare because you had an unplanned pregnancy and didn't want to take a higher paying job because you felt that my taxes should support you?

My mistake.

[Jas]

double post

[CBL4]

Orwell (or any other Canadian),

In the US, if you and your girlfriend got married, she would lose much of her welfare benefits. Is this the case in Canada as well?

I will explain how the US system allows single leeches to go to school. If you are in a college and you have children, you get your education, food and rent paid for. The rent is not for a small apartment but a rather nice one - 1 leech, two kids get $1053 in my town which has very cheap rent. If the children are of different sex, they must have a 3 bedroom apartment. In addition to your own food, you get enough of certain foods (e.g. milk) that you can share it with several of your closest friends. If the leech plays its cards right, it is able to do for almost a decade by going into a PHd program.

Of course, if the leech were to get married, it would lose its benefits. However, there is no reason that the leech's significant other cannot become a co-leech in the same apartment. Well after putting my wife through college, I realized that a divorce would have gotten us well over $10,000 a year.

Is the system similar in Canada?

CBL

[Orwell]

So your girlfriend never went on welfare because you had an unplanned pregnancy and didn't want to take a higher paying job because you felt that my taxes should support you?

My mistake.

Well, it was for a good cause! ;)

By the way, I just got this check from the feds, it's a GST credit. I think I'm going to buy me some quality weed with it. Or maybe a hooker, I haven't decided yet. :D

[Jas]

Or maybe a hooker, I haven't decided yet. :D
Y&ou might want to run that plan by your girlfriend.

[Orwell]

Woa! Welfare recipients are now being called leeches!

My-o-my, the heavy smothering judgemental self-righteousness now circulating in this thread is making me gasp for air!

You guys are a barrel of laughs. Really. If you didn't exist, I would incapable of inventing you.

[Orwell]

Y&ou might want to run that plan by your girlfriend.

Now that's funny!

By the way, you mean my boyfriend, don't you? Remember, I'm gay! And when I mean hooker, I mean male prostitute. And he doesn't care: remember, we left-wing leeches are renowned for our loose morals.

[Jas]

Woa! Welfare recipients are now being called leeches!


Um, they always have been.

[Jas]

By the way, you mean my boyfriend, don't you? Remember, I'm gay! And when I mean hooker, I mean male prostitute. And he doesn't care: remember, we left-wing leeches are renowned for our loose morals.
I thoiught I had the loosest morals on the forum, though perhaps I was mistaken.

I think you're confusing capitalists, right wingers, and Xtians.

[Grammatron]

:tr:

[Orwell]

Um, they always have been.

See what I mean? A barrel laughs. Well, Jas, I can understand your feelings... I mean, Harper and co. aren't making any headway east of Manitoba. You must be all bitter and resentful that most canadians don't buy that kind of claptrap.

But that's life...

[Orwell]

:tr:

Well, I guess that today's my turn being a troll. And by Jove, it sure seems to be working! I've already got one guy calling welfare recipients leeches.

:D

[Jas]

See what I mean? A barrel laughs. Well, Jas, I can understand your feelings... I mean, Harper and co. aren't making any headway east of Manitoba. You must be all bitter and resentful that most canadians don't buy that kind of claptrap.


It wasn't Alberta that awarded Coffin with a speaking tour - "How to Defraud the Gov't 101".

Apparently that's the sort of 'claptrap' that most Canadians buy.

[Orwell]

I thoiught I had the loosest morals on the forum, though perhaps I was mistaken.

I think you're confusing capitalists, right wingers, and Xtians.

Well, good for you. But I guess I will restrain from making a pass at you, I mean, you probably don't approve of us eastern leeches, eh?

[CBL4]

Welfare recipients are now being called leeches!
People who choose to take the money of other people rather support themselves exhibit the characteristics of leeches.
leech v. tr
To drain the essence or exhaust the resources of. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leech&db=*

Some people were taught to fend for themselves. They consider taking money that they did not earn shameful. Other people were taught to rely on mommy, daddy and the nanny state. If you ever grow up enough to take responsibility for yourself, you will understand why responsible people resent paying for deadbeats.

CBL

[Orwell]

It wasn't Alberta that awarded Coffin with a speaking tour - "How to Defraud the Gov't 101".

Apparently that's the sort of 'claptrap' that most Canadians buy.

Well, I most admit, Canadians seem to be a lot more tolerant of fiberal claptrap than of reformatory claptrap. I've never voted for the liberals myself...

[Jas]

Well, I most admit, Canadians seem to be a lot more tolerant of fiberal claptrap than of reformatory claptrap. I've never voted for the liberals myself...Let me guess - Jack Layton? What a shocker - welfare recipients vote for the NDP. Call the Globe and Mail! I feel a cover story coming on!

[Orwell]

People who choose to take the money of other people rather support themselves exhibit the characteristics of leeches.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leech&db=*

Some people were taught to fend for themselves. They consider taking money that they did not earn shameful. Other people were taught to rely on mommy, daddy and the nanny state. If you ever grow up enough to take responsibility for yourself, you will understand why responsible people resent paying for deadbeats.

CBL

Dude, I am not going to lower myself to your level by arguing about this crap with you. See, I don't share your particular protestant work ethic hang-ups. In other words, I don't see anything wrong with getting help when you're down or in trouble. No person is an island, screw this dog-eat-dog crap and all that. By the way, I've been involved in quite a lot of activism, and benevolent work, related to my particular neck of the woods (I live in a rather poor corner), so don't bore me with your self-righteousness.

Also, it should be pointed out that, as non-qualified jobs get exported to the third-world or being replaced by mechanisation, there's a pretty good chance the number of people on welfare is going to increase with time.

So you better get used to them "leeches"...

[Orwell]

Let me guess - Jack Layton? What a shocker - welfare recipients vote for the NDP. Call the Globe and Mail! I feel a cover story coming on!

Nope... I'm in Quebec, I'm one of them separatists. :duck:

[Jas]

See, I don't share your particular protestant work ethic hang-ups.

ROTFLMAO

I don't think anyone ever argued that.

And that is so going in my sig.

[Orwell]

Nah-ah-ah, no quoting out of context! I'll report you!

No I won't. But go ahead anyway. Nobody pays attention to those signatures. I mean, nobody reads mine! If they did, they wouldn't get all prissy each time I annoy them. And I know you're not really rolling on the floor with laughter. You're probably just glaring at the screen, all pissed off and muttering about "leeches".

Relax, Jas! It's gonna be ok.

[Orwell]

Anyway, it's been fun, but I gotta go.

Toodles!

[Beady]

Obviously someone who has handled their finances so poorly that a short period of unemployment would destroy them will have less freedom than others, but that's always true no matter what the system.

Do you always blame the victim?

[kimiko]

I'm an American, but I see nothing wrong with Orwell's girlfriend having gone on welfare temporarily and him continuing his job. That's one of the good things about welfare- it allows students to finish their education in a timely manner despite unplanned pregnancies. Higher education is correlated with higher earnings, meaning higher taxes in the future. Not quitting a graduate program and staying in an associated job means he can attain higher education levels and get a better paying job when he's finished. There is good reason to suppose the kind of job his higher education will allow/allowed him to get will more than make up for the welfare in increased taxes paid into the system over the course of his career.

Canada is well served by having a highly skilled and educated workforce- there was a thread on here some time ago about a large company opening their factory in Canada instead of the US because the tax incentives offered in the US would have been eaten up by training costs, whereas Canada's workforce is educated enough not to require the increased cost. When companies look at places to do business, he and his girlfriend, and every other welfare recipient who increased their education, help the overall picture.

I would probably have chosen an abortion if faced with a similar situation, but reproducing is such an emotionally-charged biological function that I don't expect that to be necessarily a widespread choice. The goal is to get the best out of the situation for both the individuals involved and the country as a whole, and we'd need data to say either way, so let's hold off on the personal criticism until we have more information that his girlfriend's time on welfare most likely led to a net cost for the country.

[RandFan]

Ok, ok, I will admit it, I lied. Busssted!

Oooops...... :D

[Orwell]

Do you always blame the victim?

Do ursines defecate in wooded areas? ;)

[BPSCG]

Nobody pays attention to those signatures. I mean, nobody reads mine! If they did, they wouldn't get all prissy each time I annoy them. Actually, I'm quite familiar with yours, which seems childishly, but not uncharacteristically, immature.

Since you seem so childishly eager to find out if Manny has reported you yet, and he hasn't responded, I've decided to end your suspense for you, and I've notified the mods of your apparent sock puppetry.

Oh, and BTW, welcome to my "Ignore" list. It's a very exclusive club. In fact, it has only a single member. Hope you're proud.

Now go back and play in your crappity sandbox, little boy.

[Orwell]

Actually, I'm quite familiar with yours, which seems childishly, but not uncharacteristically, immature.

Since you seem so childishly eager to find out if Manny has reported you yet, and he hasn't responded, I've decided to end your suspense for you, and I've notified the mods of your apparent sock puppetry.

Oh, and BTW, welcome to my "Ignore" list. It's a very exclusive club. In fact, it has only a single member. Hope you're proud.

Now go back and play in your crappity sandbox, little boy.

Yep... Prissy. And humourless. But hey, he won't read me, it seems he's ignoring me. I got news for you: this is a web forum. Taking stuff that happens in here very seriously is (you guessed it) immature and rather silly. This isn't real life so lighten up!

[LeFevre]

Yep... Prissy. And humourless. But hey, he won't read me, it seems he's ignoring me. I got news for you: this is a web forum. Taking stuff that happens in here very seriously is (you guessed it) immature and rather silly. This isn't real life so lighten up!
Tell that to your buddy ELT, who ran away in a pissy huff.

[Orwell]

Tell that to your buddy ELT, who ran away in a pissy huff.

See? Further proof that he ain't me. ;)

[kittynh]

the French are the most productive people in the world, when they are working. Meaning they are far more productive than Americans and Brits. They did fight hard for their really nice work schedules. Holidays off, a decent wage and hours.

French workers are for the most part very happy.

I'm not sure about unemployment, but prices in the UK are quite high. The average worker in the UK has to work many more hours to pay for a car, or clothing, to say nothing of housing prices.

My husband works in France a lot. He's said to his French friends, "don't give up what you have without a fight!" Because eventually you'll end up like the UK and US, where you can't even take your vacation time because there is no way you will get your work done. Or if you go on a vacation, better take the cell phone and computer, or you company will get mad at you for not checking in. There is no such thing as time off anymore.

It's not all economics. They have a decent way of life. The strikes and all that are way overdone. But wanting to keep a humane way of work and life is important. They suffer from far less stress, and their families are quite happy. Maybe because the kids get to see their parents.

It's always the profit margin. What happened to companies that worried about the quality of life of the workers? They used to exsist. A few still do.

[Orwell]

Yeah, it should be "work to live", not "live to work".

[Grammatron]

the French are the most productive people in the world, when they are working. Meaning they are far more productive than Americans and Brits. They did fight hard for their really nice work schedules. Holidays off, a decent wage and hours.

French workers are for the most part very happy.

I'm not sure about unemployment, but prices in the UK are quite high. The average worker in the UK has to work many more hours to pay for a car, or clothing, to say nothing of housing prices.

My husband works in France a lot. He's said to his French friends, "don't give up what you have without a fight!" Because eventually you'll end up like the UK and US, where you can't even take your vacation time because there is no way you will get your work done. Or if you go on a vacation, better take the cell phone and computer, or you company will get mad at you for not checking in. There is no such thing as time off anymore.

It's not all economics. They have a decent way of life. The strikes and all that are way overdone. But wanting to keep a humane way of work and life is important. They suffer from far less stress, and their families are quite happy. Maybe because the kids get to see their parents.

It's always the profit margin. What happened to companies that worried about the quality of life of the workers? They used to exsist. A few still do.

I can't speak for other but I love what I do and getting paid for it is a very nice bonush, IMHO. Sure as a human I would love to have a month off to do nothing at all but I don't stress out that much at my work to need that much time off.

I don't know where that perception of if you work more you live less comes from, it's seems very dumb to me.

[Perforatu]

I can't speak for other but I love what I do and getting paid for it is a very nice bonush, IMHO. Sure as a human I would love to have a month off to do nothing at all but I don't stress out that much at my work to need that much time off.

I don't know where that perception of if you work more you live less comes from, it's seems very dumb to me.
Not dumb at all when you actually bother to think about it. You say you're in the priviliged position of having a stress-free job that you like so much, you consider getting paid as a nice bonus. Do you think everyone has a job like that? In many sectors of industry, you're lucky to have the job you have. Simply quitting because it's a boring, unsatisfying or highly stressful job is not a realistic option. There's bills to be paid and families to be fed after all. So for people with unsatisfactory jobs, more work does equal less quality living. And conversely, more time off can make the job more bearable.

[luchog]

the French are the most productive people in the world, when they are working. Meaning they are far more productive than Americans and Brits. They did fight hard for their really nice work schedules. Holidays off, a decent wage and hours.

French workers are for the most part very happy.

I'm not sure about unemployment, but prices in the UK are quite high. The average worker in the UK has to work many more hours to pay for a car, or clothing, to say nothing of housing prices.

France has one of the highest unemployment rates in Western Europe, tied with Greece and Germany. Roughly double that of the UK and several others. It also has one of the longest unemployment periods, with close to half of all job searchers spending over a year, on average, between jobs. Roughly equal to Germany, slightly behind Greece, and over double that of the UK.

Greece has an unstable and highly corrupt government and a very unstable economy. Germany has a very high level of immigration, as well as being still in the process of incorporating and normalizing the East German population and economy (a process which will likely go on for at least another decade). France has a much more restrictive immigration policy, along with protectionist tariffs and legislation that have reduced the availability of lower-priced import goods and services; thus artificially bolstering French industry.

Their GDP is slightly below the UK, and about 50% below Germany. Their growth rate is less than a third that of the UK (Germany actually has minor negative growth, due to the aformentioned integration and immigration). Their productivity rate is less than half that of Germany, and less than a third that of the UK. Their Consumer Price Index is slighly higher than that of the UK, and over a full point higher than that of Germany. By comparison, the US is considerably higher in GDP, productivity, and growth; but also a full point higher in CPI.

(They've also been among the slowest in Western Europe to update their communications and power infrastructures; and have invested far less capital in doing so.)

So, no, the average UK worker doesn't really spend that much more time working to pay for equivalent costs, since they have a lower CPI and much higher productivity.

source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/)

[Nick Bogaerts]

Luchog, were did you say you got your productivity numbers from?

GDP per hour worked, in USD:

U.K: 39.5, U.S.: 45.2, France: 48.4, according to this document (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/7/29880166.pdf).

[CapelDodger]

I don't know where that perception of if you work more you live less comes from, it's seems very dumb to me.If you're working two minimum-wage jobs just to keep your family housed, fed occassionally entertained you're selling part of your life so you can have the other bit. I've enjoyed my work, but I'm unusual in that regard. For a lot of people it's not an option, and in any system somebody has to do the crap-work. We can't all get the satisfaction of exercising our peculiar talents in a comfortable environment amongst educated, interesting folk, and being well-paid for it.

I've seen people who put in the hours and dedication because career is the only yard-stick they have to measure themselves by. That's living to work. I've always worked to live, can I help it if the work was part of the living? When it stopped being I kept it up so that I could buy time not working but living.

[Grammatron]

If you're working two minimum-wage jobs just to keep your family housed, fed occassionally entertained you're selling part of your life so you can have the other bit. I've enjoyed my work, but I'm unusual in that regard. For a lot of people it's not an option, and in any system somebody has to do the crap-work. We can't all get the satisfaction of exercising our peculiar talents in a comfortable environment amongst educated, interesting folk, and being well-paid for it.

If you can't afford a family don't start one. It's not that hard of a concept.

I've seen people who put in the hours and dedication because career is the only yard-stick they have to measure themselves by. That's living to work. I've always worked to live, can I help it if the work was part of the living? When it stopped being I kept it up so that I could buy time not working but living.
People have different needs, some people enjoy the challenge of their carreer far more than a challenge of a family life.

[BPSCG]

In many sectors of industry, you're lucky to have the job you have. Simply quitting because it's a boring, unsatisfying or highly stressful job is not a realistic option. There's bills to be paid and families to be fed after all. So for people with unsatisfactory jobs, more work does equal less quality living. And conversely, more time off can make the job more bearable.If your job is unsatisfactory, change jobs. Twenty years ago, I was stuck in a very high-stress job with decent-but-not-great pay, a frightful commute, and zero promotion/transfer potential. Looking back, if I had stayed there, I faced the prospect of retiring at that job, dying at that job, or getting myself on the six o'clock news at that job.

I started going to school at nights and weekends, on my own dime - actually, it was more like my own five or six thousand bucks. Might have been nice if I could have quit my job and let my wife support us while I changed careers, except that my wife was in the middle of divorcing me and wiping me out. When I found a new job, my starting salary was a big pay cut from what I'd been making before.

My life is a lot better now. And it's not like I'm some kind of wondrous success story - I guarantee half the regulars here have similar stories.

Just because you have a lousy job and no transferable skills doesn't mean you're stuck there for life. Unless, of course, all you do is sit around and moan about what a lousy hand life has dealt you

[Orwell]

If you can't afford a family don't start one. It's not that hard of a concept. Things change, faeces happens. You might be able to feed your family, and then you can't anymore, for some reason, and you need help. Conversely, you might have some financial trouble at one time, and then solve them. A family is a long term thing.

People have different needs, some people enjoy the challenge of their carreer far more than a challenge of a family life.

And some of us can't see why we can't have both. It doesn't have to be either a family or a career. Presuming that one excludes the other is what is called a false dilemma.

[Grammatron]

Things change, faeces happens. You might be able to feed your family, and then you can't anymore, for some reason, and you need help. Conversely, you might have some financial trouble at one time, and then solve them. A family is a long term thing.

I can't see what problems will cause me to habe not one minimum-wage job but two.

And some of us can't see why we can't have both. It doesn't have to be either a family or a career. Presuming that one excludes the other is what is called a false dilemma.
Not my point at all.

[Orwell]

I can't see what problems will cause me to habe not one minimum-wage job but two. Some minimum wage jobs are more demanding than others. Some minimum wage jobs (i.e. research assistant and T.A. at a big canadian university, for instance, I bet you didn't know that it,s a minimum wage job) demand that you spend your time juggling correcting written reports, reading articles, slaving away in the lab, writing up a thesis and, to top it all, thinking about what the hell is wrong with your assumptions, and why won't this result conform to the expected calculations. That's very long hours, and quite often. But in the end it all pays off, when you get on that stage and receive your diploma. And this minimum wage job is a breeze compared to the kind of crap many workers need to do for a living.

Not my point at all.

I know.

[Grammatron]

Some minimum wage jobs are more demanding than others. Some minimum wage jobs (i.e. research assistant and T.A. at a big canadian university, for instance, I bet you didn't know that it,s a minimum wage job) demand that you spend your time juggling correcting written reports, reading articles, slaving away in the lab, writing up a thesis and, to top it all, thinking about what the hell is wrong with your assumptions, and why won't this result conform to the expected calculations. That's very long hours, and quite often. But in the end it all pays off, when you get on that stage and receive your diploma. And this minimum wage job is a breeze compared to the kind of crap many workers need to do for a living.

Why would you start a family at that point in your carreer?

[Orwell]

Why would you start a family at that point in your carreer?

As I said before, faeces happen. It wasn't planned. We decided to keep the baby. I haven't regretted my decision one bit, and if I could go back, I would do the exact same thing again. We lived on a crummy income for three years to keep that baby and to raise her properly, but it was worth it. You don't seem to realise that getting an abortion, or that better paying job, would have probably been much easier than keeping the baby while I stayed in school. Yeah, we got some welfare money, but is was a pittance, a small supplement. If you think we were living high on the hog, think again.

[Perforatu]

If your job is unsatisfactory, change jobs. Twenty years ago, I was stuck in a very high-stress job with decent-but-not-great pay, a frightful commute, and zero promotion/transfer potential. Looking back, if I had stayed there, I faced the prospect of retiring at that job, dying at that job, or getting myself on the six o'clock news at that job.

I started going to school at nights and weekends, on my own dime - actually, it was more like my own five or six thousand bucks. Might have been nice if I could have quit my job and let my wife support us while I changed careers, except that my wife was in the middle of divorcing me and wiping me out. When I found a new job, my starting salary was a big pay cut from what I'd been making before.

My life is a lot better now. And it's not like I'm some kind of wondrous success story - I guarantee half the regulars here have similar stories.

Just because you have a lousy job and no transferable skills doesn't mean you're stuck there for life. Unless, of course, all you do is sit around and moan about what a lousy hand life has dealt you
Of course most people will try to look for new jobs - but my point is that it's not quite as simple in some sectors. For instance, the Dutch ICT sector has been in a bit of a slump until recently, and is just now picking up. Applying for the right job - one that you're reasonably sure will improve your situation, in time - could take months, perhaps even the better part of a year in such a situation. Certainly, night school or weekend school is a good choice to broaden your options and improve your chances, but it requires money (which isn't easy to set aside if you have a family to feed), a lot of stamina left at the end of the day (which not everyone has at the end of a stressful day) or... more free hours.

Besides, even people with satisfactory jobs will sometimes equate more time off to beter quality living. Me, I like my job, but I like time spent with my family even more. I'm lucky to have landed a job where I can strike a balance - even if it means I don't earn as much as I could.

[BPSCG]

Certainly, night school or weekend school is a good choice to broaden your options and improve your chances, but it requires money (which isn't easy to set aside if you have a family to feed), a lot of stamina left at the end of the day (which not everyone has at the end of a stressful day) Yeah, there's always some excuse. But what it comes down to is, what would you rather do? Stay in your dead-end, high-stress, insecure job, fretting about what will happen when and if you lose it, or scrounge up the money and the time somehow to get trained to do something else?

[Grammatron]

As I said before, faeces happen. It wasn't planned. We decided to keep the baby. I haven't regretted my decision one bit, and if I could go back, I would do the exact same thing again. We lived on a crummy income for three years to keep that baby and to raise her properly, but it was worth it. You don't seem to realise that getting an abortion, or that better paying job, would have probably been much easier than keeping the baby while I stayed in school. Yeah, we got some welfare money, but is was a pittance, a small supplement. If you think we were living high on the hog, think again.

Actually, my point was that one would take steps in making sure a pregnancy would not happen in the first place. There are plenty of methods out there that make it almost certain one would not have an unwanted pregnancy.

Unless, of course, you suggest that both parties tooks steps in prevention and it still resulted in that unlikely chance of failure.

[Perforatu]

Yeah, there's always some excuse. But what it comes down to is, what would you rather do? Stay in your dead-end, high-stress, insecure job, fretting about what will happen when and if you lose it, or scrounge up the money and the time somehow to get trained to do something else?
Ah, for many people that somehow that you so conveniently gloss over is the difficult bit. But yeah, my advice would also be to start considering a career change if the current job becomes too unpleasant. If that's not an option - for whatever reason - then I can certainly see how some people would consider more time off a reasonable stopgap alternative. I don't think it's dumb at all.

As CapelDodger said, somebody has to to the crap work in any system. For a while, at least. For some employees a good salary is one way to make crap work more tolerable; for some, more time off can be a form of compensation. And for some, the only way is to find another job as quickly as possible.

[BPSCG]

Ah, for many people that somehow that you so conveniently gloss over is the difficult bit. But yeah, my advice would also be to start considering a career change if the current job becomes too unpleasant. If that's not an option - for whatever reason - then I can certainly see how some people would consider more time off a reasonable stopgap alternative. I don't think it's dumb at all.Getting back to the French, though - it seems that they've decided all their jobs are too unpleasant - at least if one goes by your "lengthy vacation as a respite from crummy work" measure.

[Orwell]

Actually, my point was that one would take steps in making sure a pregnancy would not happen in the first place. There are plenty of methods out there that make it almost certain one would not have an unwanted pregnancy. Well, duh! Thanks, Ann Landers! :)

Unless, of course, you suggest that both parties tooks steps in prevention and it still resulted in that unlikely chance of failure.

We have a winner!

[Grammatron]

Well, duh! Thanks, Ann Landers! :)



We have a winner!

I see so you not only were irresponsible about taking steps to prevent pregnancy but also in securing finances for a "faeces happen" situation in the future.

So you getting PhD in communications then?

[CapelDodger]

If you can't afford a family don't start one. It's not that hard of a concept.So you'd better know the company isn't going to leave your company-town over the next 15 years or so before you let any accidents go to term. I see your point. I'm down with the whole Voluntary Extinction of Humanity idea.

I'm a family of one, and I didn't choose to start it. It still needs to be fed, housed and occasionally entertained.

People have different needs, some people enjoy the challenge of their carreer far more than a challenge of a family life.People have different ranges of options available to them, and it may not include a challenging career. Not even the Army will take everybody. The solace available from non-unitary family life is likely to be attractive in those circumstances.

"Family" life isn't the only alternative challenge to career. Social life without the shared-gene safety-net can be a challenge. And challenge isn't the be-all of life anyway. (A relationship doesn't have to be worked at, work has to be worked at. Relationships are a free-time thing. No surprise I'm a family of one. :) ) Utterly unproductive lazing in the garden is living. A whisky by the fire with a good book is living. Serenity ...

Of course, there's no money in it.

[CapelDodger]

Things change, faeces happens. You might be able to feed your family, and then you can't anymore, for some reason, and you need help. Conversely, you might have some financial trouble at one time, and then solve them. A family is a long term thing.That's something that can't change. You can't take stock of changed realities halfway down the line, and liquidate your 7-year-old as no longer viable. But on the other hand we are exhorted to embrace change at an ever-increasing pace, because that's the future. Expect three major career changes in your working life, and slip the rag-rut phase in there in a responsible manner. Don't complain, the rug-rat has four major career-changes to look forward to. :eek:

[Orwell]

I see so you not only were irresponsible about taking steps to prevent pregnancy but also in securing finances for a "faeces happen" situation in the future.

So you getting PhD in communications then?

Mmm, are you trying to bait me? 'Cause, you know, it ain't working.

If you actually believe what you are saying, I think you might be a good candidate for the bunghole of the year award. Tell me, how could a 25 year old university student financially prepare for a "faeces happen" situation? Also, short of not doing it, or getting a vasectomy, do you know that there's no such thing as 100% safe contraception?

[Grammatron]

So you'd better know the company isn't going to leave your company-town over the next 15 years or so before you let any accidents go to term. I see your point. I'm down with the whole Voluntary Extinction of Humanity idea.

I'm a family of one, and I didn't choose to start it. It still needs to be fed, housed and occasionally entertained.

You lost me with that one, sorry.

People have different ranges of options available to them, and it may not include a challenging career. Not even the Army will take everybody. The solace available from non-unitary family life is likely to be attractive in those circumstances.

"Family" life isn't the only alternative challenge to career. Social life without the shared-gene safety-net can be a challenge. And challenge isn't the be-all of life anyway. (A relationship doesn't have to be worked at, work has to be worked at. Relationships are a free-time thing. No surprise I'm a family of one. :) ) Utterly unproductive lazing in the garden is living. A whisky by the fire with a good book is living. Serenity ...

Of course, there's no money in it.

Now you're making a philosophical argument, my pointed is more rooted in reality.

[Grammatron]

Mmm, are you trying to bait me? 'Cause, you know, it ain't working.

If you actually believe what you are saying, I think you might be a good candidate for the bunghole of the year award. Tell me, how could a 25 year old university student financially prepare for a "faeces happen" situation? Also, short of not doing it, or getting a vasectomy, do you know that there's no such thing as 100% safe contraception?

If you put on a condomn and your gf uses about 10 or so available birth control devices it's about 99.9%. However, if I understand your comment correctly, neither was done thus it's not a "faeces happen" it's "We were stupid" situation.

I agree there are limited choice a 25 year old grad student will have, but as long as he or she doesn't do something stupid to needlesly complicate their situation they should be in control.

[Orwell]

If you put on a condomn and your gf uses about 10 or so available birth control devices it's about 99.9%. However, if I understand your comment correctly, neither was done thus it's not a "faeces happen" it's "We were stupid" situation.

I agree there are limited choice a 25 year old grad student will have, but as long as he or she doesn't do something stupid to needlesly complicate their situation they should be in control.

Yep, more baiting. Or is it a case of "bunghole of the year"... Boy, do you sound smug or what? Grammatron, I don't think I have to tell you were you can shove your judgements. ;)

Funny thing with children is, stupid mistake or not, once they're around, you can't imagine your life without them. That is, if you love them... I dunno, maybe you're just a bitter old fart, Grammatron!

Now, enough about me... Tell me Grammie, do you have a family? Kids? Is it lonely in Grammieland?

[Grammatron]

Yep, more baiting. Or is it a case of "bunghole of the year"... Boy, do you sound smug or what? Grammatron, I don't think I have to tell you were you can shove your judgements. ;)

Funny thing with children is, stupid mistake or not, once they're around, you can't imagine your life without them. That is, if you love them... I dunno, maybe you're just a bitter old fart, Grammatron!

Now, enough about me... Tell me Grammie, do you have a family? Kids? Is it lonely in Grammieland?

Well I'll tell you as much as you told me, which is nothing...accept I don't leech of the government for mistakes I made while not taking proper precautions. But since you don't care about my opinions no point in this discussion anyway.

[Orwell]

Well I'll tell you as much as you told me, which is nothing...accept I don't leech of the government for mistakes I made while not taking proper precautions. But since you don't care about my opinions no point in this discussion anyway.

Let's nitpick, shall we? You see, Grammie, "leeching" denotes a parasitic relationship forced upon a host. We didn't force anyone to give us anything, we're not that powerful. We politely asked for temporary financial assistance, and they "kindly" provided it to us, after asking us for nearly our entire life's history and a ton of documents. By the way, we now make enough money to pay income tax. I guess the gov. is going to get what it's due and then some... See, I don't see anything wrong with this "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine" arrangement.

[Grammatron]

Let's nitpick, shall we? You see, Grammie, "leeching" denotes a parasitic relationship forced upon a host. We didn't force anyone to give us anything, we're not that powerful. We politely asked for temporary financial assistance, and they "kindly" provided it to us, after asking us for nearly our entire life's history and a ton of documents. By the way, we now make enough money to pay income tax. I guess the gov. is going to get what it's due and then some... See, I don't see anything wrong with this "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine" arrangement.

Then why didn't you take out a loan then? And you need to look up what a leech is again.

[Skeptic]

The problem, Orwell, is not that you got your girlfriend pregnant and had to go on welfare as a result--many people here screwed up far worse in their lives--but that you feel no guilt at your screw-up (it somehow just happened) and no shame at the result (there's "nothing wrong" with being on the dole, you say). Worse, you try to convince us that this lack of guilt and shame is not a character flaw, but merely "proves" how much more "enlightened" and "caring" you are than the rest of us.

[Leif Roar]

If you put on a condomn and your gf uses about 10 or so available birth control devices it's about 99.9%.


Using the numbers from http://www.epigee.org/guide/order.html, typical uses of condoms plus oral contraceptive has a total 98.8% chance of preventing a pregnancy. That leaves 1.2%, which basically means that for one hundred couples practicing safe sex, one will have an accident -- more or less each year.

[ingoa]

Funny discussion....

Are the French odd?

I would assume that in this case the majority of the Europeans (and obviously a many Canadians :rub: ) are odd. But we like it that way.
As it was mentioned, Orwell's case is seen as an investment. Manure should not happen, but it does. In that case, leaning on the welfare (for a limited time) is okay. If you get off welfare as soon as you can, then it is even not damaging to one's reputation. In general the population is supporting that. Hence the kind of governments we have.

[Ed]

And some of us can't see why we can't have both. It doesn't have to be either a family or a career. Presuming that one excludes the other is what is called a false dilemma.

Asking someone else to pay the freight is called leeching. Obtaining something that you cannot afford is selfindulgence. Tell me, in your word view what does the world owe to me? That first edition of R. Burton I've been wanting that would help round out my life?

[Darat]

Cool the personal insults and remarks.

[Orwell]

Then why didn't you take out a loan then? And you need to look up what a leech is again.

Because I didn't have to. How many times do I have to repeat: I don't share your hang-ups about welfare! It's there, it exists, I used it in a moment of need, without lying or malice. In other words, I used welfare as it was intended to be used. Jaysus, had this thing been called a "government sponsored scholarship" instead of "welfare", you wouldn't be giving me all this crap.

[Orwell]

Funny discussion....

Are the French odd?

I would assume that in this case the majority of the Europeans (and obviously a many Canadians :rub: ) are odd. But we like it that way.
As it was mentioned, Orwell's case is seen as an investment. Manure should not happen, but it does. In that case, leaning on the welfare (for a limited time) is okay. If you get off welfare as soon as you can, then it is even not damaging to one's reputation. In general the population is supporting that. Hence the kind of governments we have.

Why thank you! Someone who gets it. Yes, we got off welfare as soon as we could. Did I mention that I now pay taxes like everyone else?

[Skeptic]

And some of us can't see why we can't have both. It doesn't have to be either a family or a career. Presuming that one excludes the other is what is called a false dilemma.

You are allowed to have both; you might manage to have both. The question is: do you consider having both some sort of right which justifies your demand of other people's money?

[Orwell]

I think the fundamental problem here, the thing that is getting a lot of the US right wing folks panties in a knot, is that they are opposed to the idea of welfare in general.

[Skeptic]

Because I didn't have to. How many times do I have to repeat: I don't share your hang-ups about welfare!

Did I tell you I stole money from an old lady the other day? It was there, it existed, I needed it. I don't share your hang-ups about stealing, so what's the problem?

I think the fundamental problem here, the thing that is getting a lot of the US right wing folks panties in a knot is that they are opposed to the idea of welfare in general.

No, the fundamental problem is that you feel neither guilt at your screw-up nor shame at living on the dole, and are shocked--SHOCKED!--to discover that some people think you did something wrong. How could that be, when you so readily and easily convinced yourself you behaved perfectly respectfully?

Surely, you conclude, since you can see nothing wrong with your own behavior, the criticism of it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with it--if those evil people think you did something wrong, it must be because they are that most evil creature on earth, a "conservative".

[Orwell]

And some of us can't see why we can't have both. It doesn't have to be either a family or a career. Presuming that one excludes the other is what is called a false dilemma.

You are allowed to have both; you might manage to have both. The question is: do you consider having both some sort of right which justifies your demand of other people's money?

Uh? Where do you get this? Who's talking about "rights" here? I think everybody should get off their big "moral" horses, get back down to reality. We had a problem, we found a solution. I'm a practical man who lives in the real world, not some ideologue who puts what he believes in before his own good and the welfare of those he loves.

You expect me to feel "guilty" because I had my daughter under some tough circumstances? Nuts!

[Orwell]

Because I didn't have to. How many times do I have to repeat: I don't share your hang-ups about welfare!

Did I tell you I stole money from an old lady the other day? It was there, it existed, I needed it. I don't share your hang-ups about stealing, so what's the problem?

See, as I said before, the problem is ideological here. You object to welfare in general: to you, it's stealing. I stole. So, of course, I'm "guilty", and I should feel "guilty". I don't and I would do the same thing again. :p

To me, it's help in time of need. It's there, it's legal, we needed it, we used it. The government was free to refuse to give it. In fact, that's what I was expecting. I was quite surprised to receive it. Therefore, I don't feel "guilty". The fact that, over the years, thanks to my education, I will, in all probability "pay back" this help and much more contributes to this absence of "guilt".

Tell me, do you cheat on your taxes? Do you find any loophole you can so you don't have to pay them?

I don't look for loopholes, I pay what I am supposed to pay.

[Orwell]

Because I didn't have to. How many times do I have to repeat: I don't share your hang-ups about welfare!

Did I tell you I stole money from an old lady the other day? It was there, it existed, I needed it. I don't share your hang-ups about stealing, so what's the problem? False analogy: receiving welfare isn't illegal if it's done under legitimate circumstances. Whereas stealing is a crime.

I think the fundamental problem here, the thing that is getting a lot of the US right wing folks panties in a knot is that they are opposed to the idea of welfare in general.

No, the fundamental problem is that you feel neither guilt at your screw-up nor shame at living on the dole, and are shocked--SHOCKED!--to discover that some people think you did something wrong. How could that be, when you so readily and easily convinced yourself you behaved perfectly respectfully?

Surely, you conclude, since you can see nothing wrong with your own behavior, the criticism of it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with it--if those evil people think you did something wrong, it must be because they are that most evil creature on earth, a "conservative".

No, I am shocked--SHOCKED!--to discover that some people dare to go around making big heavy moral judgements over something like this.

[CBL4]

Orwell,

Welfare is that it is OK if it is a last, shameful resort. But once it becomes an acceptable means of life, it becomes a major burden on the hardworking people who do their best to never get in the situation.

Faeces does happen and at times some people do need assistance. It is shameful to have it happen and my wife and I have avoided it even though we have both been laid off and once I was to ill to work for two months. We prepared by saving money and I borrowed from my fiancee (now wife) instead of getting the handouts we were eligible for.

I know a woman who was earning over 75K a year and got laid off with a lump sum of six month of work (e.g. almost 35K). She was eligible for unemployment and took for three months instead of looking for a job. Her excuse was that she had been paying unemployment "insurance" for year. Was it legal? Yes but it was shameful. Your situation is less disgusting but by choosing to leech instead of fend for yourself, you showed you true (lack of) character.

We might not have been so hard on you except for your comment about your girlfriend having to put up with the hardship of welfare. It also appears as if you are not getting married because that would cut your benefits. I would consider that welfare fraud which is not legal. Unfortunately, this is impossible to prove which means it is very common.

CBL

[Leif Roar]

Orwell,

Welfare is that it is OK if it is a last, shameful resort. But once it becomes an acceptable means of life, it becomes a major burden on the hardworking people who do their best to never get in the situation.

Of course welfare is a burden on hardworking people. But then again, so is military defence, the building of roads, care for the elderly, schooling for the young, the justice system and most of the other stuff the government dabbles in.

That it's a burden doesn't mean it's an undue burden; nor does it mean that the negative aspects automatically outweigh the positive.

Besides, even the hardworking people who never get in the situation where they need the direct benefit from welfare might receive some indirect benefits from it such as the security of knowing there's a safety net if he'll ever need it; not needing to get a second mortgage on the house when his son gets in economical difficulties; less destitute people in his neighbourhood (which translates into less crime and prostitution and better maintained property values,) and suchlike.

(Edited to fix tags)

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Of course welfare is a burden on hardworking people. But then again, so is military defence, the building of roads, care for the elderly, schooling for the young, the justice system and most of the other stuff the government dabbles in.

That it's a burden doesn't mean it's an undue burden; nor does it mean that the negative aspects automatically outweigh the positive. I totally agree. The question is when it becomes a burden and when the negative aspects outweigh the positive.

If Orwell said he married his girlfriend, was working extra hard to finish his schooling faster, making sacrifices and generally feeling guilty about taking other peoples money I would not object because I believe in the value of education. The problem is that he feels entitled to other peoples money and does not get married presumably because it would cut his families benefits.

This entitlement part encourages lack of responsibilities. The marriage part is probably the most damaging trend for society. We are actively discouraging men from taking responsibility from their actions.

Besides, even the hardworking people who never get in the situation where they need the direct benefit from welfare might receive some indirect benefits from it such as the security of knowing there's a safety net if he'll ever need it; not needing to get a second mortgage on the house when his son gets in economical difficulties; less destitute people in his neighbourhood (which translates into less crime and prostitution and better maintained property values,) and suchlike.I would agree with the safety net part but not much else. I think someone should get a second mortgage to care for their son instead of having the son on welfare. My brother-in-law got in some legal and financial difficulties. My wife and I have given him about $30,000 which is now part of our credit card debt.

As far as welfare preventing crime, I doubt that is the case overall. People with too much time on their hands are much more likely to use drugs which are the biggest factor in almost every crime. The rise of the welfare state corresponds with the rise of crime in inner cities. There has been a drop in the crime rate since welfare laws were tightened. I understand that correlation does not prove causation but when possible causal factors can be identified (drug use, lack of marriages, etc.) it is extremely suggestive.

CBL

[Orwell]

Orwell,

Welfare is that it is OK if it is a last, shameful resort. But once it becomes an acceptable means of life, it becomes a major burden on the hardworking people who do their best to never get in the situation. Faeces does happen and at times some people do need assistance. It is shameful to have it happen and my wife and I have avoided it even though we have both been laid off and once I was to ill to work for two months. We prepared by saving money and I borrowed from my fiancee (now wife) instead of getting the handouts we were eligible for. We were young, we had a bunch of school related debts (hence no bank would lend us money), and we both come from low income families. Since we kept the baby, realistically, there was was only two possible things I could have done: leave grad school and get a better paying job i.e. jeopardise all I had worked for until then, or get welfare. I stayed in school (we both decided that I should) and kept my crummy salary, and we got welfare to cover for the rest. Welfare was only a supplement and a small one at that. Hell, it is even possible that getting a job wouldn't have worked: I had no idea how much I would be able to pull and there's a good chance that I would have been obliged to start reimbursing my school debts.

I know a woman who was earning over 75K a year and got laid off with a lump sum of six month of work (e.g. almost 35K). She was eligible for unemployment and took for three months instead of looking for a job. Her excuse was that she had been paying unemployment "insurance" for year. Was it legal? Yes but it was shameful. Your situation is less disgusting but by choosing to leech instead of fend for yourself, you showed you true (lack of) character. I lived most of my life on 15 k a year or less. My dad was a cab driver (albeit an educated one), my mom worked in a factory. Don't gimme me no "moral" lessons on hard work or on "leeching" welfare.

We might not have been so hard on you except for your comment about your girlfriend having to put up with the hardship of welfare. It also appears as if you are not getting married because that would cut your benefits. I would consider that welfare fraud which is not legal. Unfortunately, this is impossible to prove which means it is very common.

CBL Do you know how to read? We aren't on welfare anymore, we got out of it as soon as we could. We stayed on for three years, until the kid was big enough to go to kindergarten. We got on welfare so that my girlfriend could stay home to take care of the baby.

We both have decent incomes now (my girlfriend went back to grad school), and more than enough to live. And by the way, at the time, we had been living together for more than a year, we were common law. Regarding welfare, we were treated as if we were a married couple i.e. in our case, getting married wouldn't cut our "benefits". There was no fraud. We intended to get married one day, but we both, like many canadians of our generation, don't take the institution very seriously, so there was no hurry. Were I live, provincial law has changed to accommodate this reality: there is almost no difference, from a legal stand point, between being common law and being married.

I don't give a damn about your prejudices, and the only reason I keep putting up with this crap is because I do believe that welfare is needed, and I do think that we did the right thing. And I do resent all the crap the welfare people made us go trough. See, I really don't like being treated as a potential fraud case, and I really don't like all the assumptions people make because you happen to ask for some government help. Funny thing is, they became less of a pain once I proved that I was still in grad school... I imagine what uneducated folks must go through when they need welfare, and I shudder...

[Jas]

And I know you're not really rolling on the floor with laughter. You're probably just glaring at the screen, all pissed off and muttering about "leeches". Well, maybe not rolling on the floor laughing, but definitely giggling. That's probably one of the funniest things I've ever heard you say.

[Orwell]

Well, maybe not rolling on the floor laughing, but definitely giggling. That's probably one of the funniest things I've ever heard you say.

I object: I've said some things that were much funnier!

[CBL4]

And I do resent all the crap the welfare people made us go through. Taking other people's money and whining about the strings attached has got to be one of the most self-centered behaviors known to mankind. You took hard working peoples' money. Be grateful and apologetic.

CBL

[Orwell]

Taking other people's money and whining about the strings attached has got to be one of the most self-centered behaviors known to mankind. You took hard working peoples' money. Be grateful and apologetic.

CBL

Bovine manure: there is no reason why people on welfare have to be treated like potential criminals. Of course, to you, it's all perfectly normal, since people on welfare are criminals, right?

[Skeptic]

I don't give a damn about your prejudices, and the only reason I keep putting up with this crap is because I do believe that welfare is needed, and I do think that we did the right thing.

Well, you would, wouldn't you?

And I do resent all the crap the welfare people made us go trough.

You want other people's money, you play by their rules. Beggars can't be choosers.

[Jas]

Bovine manure: there is no reason why people on welfare have to be treated like potential criminals. Of course, to you, it's all perfectly normal, since people on welfare are criminals, right?

It's "bovine manure" that people should be grateful and apologetic for taking other people's money?

[Perforatu]

Welfare is that it is OK if it is a last, shameful resort. But once it becomes an acceptable means of life, it becomes a major burden on the hardworking people who do their best to never get in the situation.
I may just be nitpicking here, but that seems like a rather broad judgment to me. If welfare really is a last resort for someone, is it always shameful? I mean, if that person had him or herself to blame for the situation, then yeah... But can't you imagine scenarios where people require welfare support through no fault of their own? Should they feel shame for being supported by a system that was created for that very purpose?

I think there's still quite a bit of room between "not feeling shame" and "considering it an acceptable means of life".

[Orwell]

I don't give a damn about your prejudices, and the only reason I keep putting up with this crap is because I do believe that welfare is needed, and I do think that we did the right thing.

Well, you would, wouldn't you?

Yes I would. Since it will be impossible to get any kind of agreement on this, I suggest we move on and talk about something else. But if you wanna keep boring me with your sermons, that's ok. But I won't care nor listen.

Regarding my case (I'm not including every single welfare recipient in this, nor am I talking in general about welfare):

Economically, being on welfare was a good deal both for me and the gov. They will get an educated citizen that didn't have to abandon his studies for a lower paying job for an indeterminate amount of time, and a new citizen with caring educated parents that potentially will pay lots of taxes during his life.
Ethically, I did nothing wrong. Welfare isn't illegal. No lies, no fraud, the money was given consensually.
The only thing left is that slippery thing called "moral values". Your values say that being on welfare is "leeching", something shameful to be avoided as much as possible. You decided that my troubles were not serious enough to "forgive me" for getting welfare. We couldn't figure a way to get out of trouble without making some really crap choices. Since my values say that there's nothing wrong with getting some help when in trouble, we asked for welfare help and we got it, after going through the generalised bad faith of the institutions that provide help and a lot of bureaucratic shenanigans.

Eh, that's how it is!

[Leif Roar]

If Orwell said he married his girlfriend, was working extra hard to finish his schooling faster, making sacrifices and generally feeling guilty about taking other peoples money I would not object because I believe in the value of education.

So should I feel guilty for having accepted state sponsored scholarships to complete my eduction? If not, what's the qualitative difference between such scholarships and welfare?