In Greece, you get punished for getting pregnant [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Absinthe

10-01-2009, 12:02 PM

As you all may know already, in southern Europe and especially the Banana Republic of Hellenistan, the concept of a "state support for mothers" is virtually unknown - and if it is ever heard people treat it like a joke or urban legend.

Well on the other hand people are whining about low birth rates (at the same time where all immigrants here receive benefits from various NGOs and "humanitarian organizations" to have as many kids as they can), the Greek women are treated like lepers not both by the State and the public sector.

Well here's the latest: :mad:

In my former place of employment, I heard the news today that two girls that recently became mothers got fired on the very same day that their maternity leave expired (yesterday, that was).

On one occasion, the one girl got pregnant and she took her legal maternity leave.
The boss got very angry and said in front of other people "when she returns, the little bitch is fucked".

On another occasion, the woman got pregnant, she had a child and shortly after that she got pregnant again.

So she took some months of maternity leave and during that time the other, female boss, said to her assistant "she's out of here, we can't keep paying her for nothing. Damn bitches can't keep their legs closed!".

So both women got sacked having months-old babies to take care of and no one will hire them from now on as you can guess.

The third person that got sacked yesterday was a man whose wife recently give birth, and she also got sacked from another company.

So she was unemployed and he was saying "thank goodness at least I have a job" - well not anymore! :rolleyes:

This is happening in the majority of private companies in Greece, well just because they can get away with anything, since the State is corrupt and incapable of enforcing the Laws.

Some companies also make women sign a contract in advance, saying that they will not get pregnant, or else they will be fired and by signing they resign to their rights to maternity leaves and extra benefits. :mad:

Lady L

10-01-2009, 12:42 PM

Funny how they have no respect for how they were brought into this world. ;)

Does Greece not look at the importance of family and motherhood the way we do...?

Tabiti

10-01-2009, 12:48 PM

Happens here as well. On many places they hire only women under 25-30, because most of females don't have children around that age. This is discrimination against young mothers as well.
Funny is at the same time they are crying "Have children - we are dying nations"!

Äike

10-01-2009, 03:39 PM

I'm glad that my country actually has great policies for mothers. No women get fired because of getting pregnant. Getting children is supported here, as there are only 900 000 Estonians and more kids are needed.

Liffrea

10-01-2009, 04:18 PM

I wonder if the idea of having a crèche in work would be to far fetched?

Women have always worked and had children, the stay at home mother isn’t the same as saying she doesn’t work, that’s really a post industrial concept and even then not strictly accurate. In agricultural societies everybody worked because if you didn’t then you didn’t eat. Women helped the men on the land, and often with their crafts, but the obvious difference is most people never went out to work; home-work was a self contained community.

Perhaps a retreat from office blocks and factories and a return to cottage industries…

Hrafn

10-01-2009, 04:50 PM

I think there was a case in Switzerland as well if i am correct.
I am afraid that this is the result of modern liberal way of life. They make you work more, spend more and have less time for you and your family.
Family doesn't have any role in modern liberal societies.
Spending on your new gadgets does.

Atlas

10-01-2009, 10:31 PM

Haven't heard such stories in Frankreich, just once a young woman in the military who got in trouble for being pregnant, what a joke the french army is...

Rhobot

10-02-2009, 12:11 AM

This is why Greece and Italy have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

Brynhild

10-02-2009, 12:14 AM

In this instance, I'm truly grateful for the more socialist stance that our country has adopted in looking after our mothers. I was one of those who not only had the joys of maternity leave, but had also been allowed to return afterwards.

Psychonaut

10-02-2009, 04:36 AM

Absinthe

10-02-2009, 10:47 AM

My venture capitalist friend....I don't even know where to begin... ;)

Honestly, I don't think that maternity leave is anyone's right.

Let's twist your argument:

In the same company that fired those women, there is also a friend of mine, who has a problem with his knee (meniscus).

He knows he needs to be operated but if he does he will have to take a two-month recovery leave.

He told the boss and the boss told him that if he does, he's fired.

Is he also not entitled to a leave? Or is the water that moves the windmills of capitalism even more important than the welfare of the human being? :icon_ask:

Unless you're working for some type of company that has provided you with a written agreement, then, IMO, you don't have a reasonable expectation that the company will, at a detriment to its own profits, keep a spot open for you and/or keep paying you while you're not working.

Unless we're talking about the People's Republic of China or some obscure state where its people have only value as workers, then I beg to differ.

Employees are human beings, and those tend to procreate. It's part of the human condition and companies should think of that too, otherwise they can hire robots to do the job.

Businesses are profit making endeavors, not charities.

They are, but there is a limit to everything. I don't see how profit is more important than the declining birthrates of their nation.

After all, it's mathematics: if the population continues aging and no new children are born, then soon enough there will be no consumers to buy their goodies. ;)

If I run a shop and have a staff of three people that's necessary to run my store, should I, when Mary goes on maternity leave, operate below my minimum manning?

Like I said, that is part of the human condition and you must take it into account. At some point, someone may become a parent.

If you're (not you Absinthe ;)) not at a point where you and/or your spouse can provide for a child, then it's probably not a good idea to do things that might result in the creation of one.

Oh-my-Goodness! :eek:

That is the last thing I expected to hear from you and frankly it saddens me because you already have a great family but somehow you fail to see that this logic of yours is exactly the cause of why other great people like you do not also have their own families :(

Not that the "if you can't provide, do not have them" (I agree on that), but the logic that state and/or businesses should not be obliged to support motherhood.

And even if we follow this "profit above everything" logic, I wonder how we can separate the businesses and their profit from the actual people:

it is a feedback loop.

The lower the birth rates, the lousiest the things for the market, right?

Monolith

10-02-2009, 12:27 PM

Honestly, I don't think that maternity leave is anyone's right. Unless you're working for some type of company that has provided you with a written agreement, then, IMO, you don't have a reasonable expectation that the company will, at a detriment to its own profits, keep a spot open for you and/or keep paying you while you're not working. Businesses are profit making endeavors, not charities. If I run a shop and have a staff of three people that's necessary to run my store, should I, when Mary goes on maternity leave, operate below my minimum manning? Should I temporarily hire and then fire someone else? I just don't see the common sense in this. Sure, it sucks to lose your job when you are just about to have a new expense (teh baby), but poor planning on the part of the mother-to-be is not really the responsibility of her employer. If you're (not you Absinthe ;)) not at a point where you and/or your spouse can provide for a child, then it's probably not a good idea to do things that might result in the creation of one.
Sure, but in today's world it's not sufficient if only the father brings home the bacon. So women don't have much choice. I think motherhood should have top priority and in turn should be protected at all cost. We are not here because of the system, it is the other way around.

The lower the birth rates, the lousiest the things for the market, right?
Capitalist system mostly prefers short term over long term, so I guess they can always import people, which is happening as we speak.

Skandi

10-02-2009, 12:46 PM

Sure, but in today's world it's not sufficient if only the father brings home the bacon. So women don't have much choice. I think motherhood should have top priority and in turn should be protected at all cost. We are not here because of the system, it is the other way around.

Yes my Bf works, he works for local government, we could just survive on his wage, but that involves sharing the house etc etc. if we wanted to have children it would become impossible, going onto the dole would double the household income, so the question is, should the state or private companies be paying?

lei.talk

10-02-2009, 03:34 PM

Sure, but in today's world it's not sufficient if only the father brings home the bacon.
So women don't have much choice.women do have a choice - two important choices:

they should choose
a husband that is capable of supporting a family

and they should choose
an appropriate time to have a child.

it is truly dazzling - the number of rationalisations
that boil-down to the childish demand/expectation
that some one take care of them.

the urbanisation of humans
undeniably has infantilised the vast majority (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=%22Dmitri+Belyaev%22+foxes&aq=f&oq=&aqi=).

Monolith

10-02-2009, 06:01 PM

Yes my Bf works, he works for local government, we could just survive on his wage, but that involves sharing the house etc etc. if we wanted to have children it would become impossible, going onto the dole would double the household income, so the question is, should the state or private companies be paying?
The state should, but mothers should be legally protected against layoffs when pregnant. Economically speaking, such policy is a long-term investment. The more people you have, the more people who pay taxes, and subsequently more people to finance government expenditure, which in turn can be used to guide a country's economy etc.

they should choose
a husband that is capable of supporting a family
That is very difficult in my country, and I bet we aren't the only such example.

and they should choose
an appropriate time to have a child.
And when exactly is that?

it is truly dazzling - the number of rationalisations
that boil-down to the childish demand/expectation
that some one take care of them.

Ummm I still fail to see why they shouldn't be helped?

the urbanisation of humans
undeniably has infantilised the vast majority. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=%22Dmitri+Belyaev%22+foxes&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
No argument here.

anonymaus

10-02-2009, 06:17 PM

I still fail to see why they shouldn't be helped?

To the contrary: you haven't provided a justification for helping them.

Psychonaut

10-02-2009, 06:33 PM

In the same company that fired those women, there is also a friend of mine, who has a problem with his knee (meniscus).

He knows he needs to be operated but if he does he will have to take a two-month recovery leave.

He told the boss and the boss told him that if he does, he's fired.

Is he also not entitled to a leave?

Entitled? No, not unless there's a pre-arranged agreement. If the company can support it, then it'd sure be the kind and charitable thing to do, but many companies cannot afford to make such sacrifices in the kind of economy we're seeing. This is particularly true of small businesses.

They are, but there is a limit to everything. I don't see how profit is more important than the declining birthrates of their nation.

Important to whom? On an individual level, almost all people are more concerned with their individual situation than with the national situation; that's human nature. Some are more concerned with the welfare of the collective, but to expect your average person to spend their own money to support the pregnancy of another is unrealistic.

That is the last thing I expected to hear from you and frankly it saddens me because you already have a great family but somehow you fail to see that this logic of yours is exactly the cause of why other great people like you do not also have their own families :(

Not that the "if you can't provide, do not have them" (I agree on that), but the logic that state and/or businesses should not be obliged to support motherhood.

My logic is this: I don't support redistribution of private funds to other private citizens. I know Greece is not the US and you guys have a completely different tradition, but I simply don't see myself as being obliged to support poor mothers. I am already forced to do so for tens of thousands welfare mothers, and I resent it greatly. To me it's less of an issue of declining birthrates and more of an issue of personal liberty and personal accountability. I get very angry when the government forces me to financially support the poor choices of others.

Monolith

10-02-2009, 07:09 PM

To the contrary: you haven't provided a justification for helping them.
Oh, but I have, even by using a strictly materialist approach. Read my post again. Anyway, why should that require a justification in the first place? Why should they get laid off if they get pregnant? So, it is work vs. motherhood? A false dilemma.

Loki

10-02-2009, 07:51 PM

I can't be bothered typing a lengthy response now, but I will say that Absinthe's and Monolith's arguments are well-reasoned and make the most sense. Fully agreed.

Lysander

10-02-2009, 11:34 PM

Greece sucks, end of story.
We sucked since 1453 and we'll suck for ever onwards.

Andorran

10-02-2009, 11:55 PM

My logic is this: I don't support redistribution of private funds to other private citizens. I know Greece is not the US and you guys have a completely different tradition, but I simply don't see myself as being obliged to support poor mothers. I am already forced to do so for tens of thousands welfare mothers, and I resent it greatly. To me it's less of an issue of declining birthrates and more of an issue of personal liberty and personal accountability. I get very angry when the government forces me to financially support the poor choices of others.

I feel the same way. In the US at least it's always the same old story: the productive are expected to pay the taxes that support myriad welfare/social programs that they can't possibly benefit from. If these taxes were going towards the right folks, I wouldn't resent them as much, but in most cases it's Tamika Shabazz-Washington with her hand out.

Again though, if I were living in a homogenous country of people who looked like me, I'd feel a little better about footing the bill.

Jamt

10-03-2009, 12:38 AM

Greece sucks, end of story.
We sucked since 1453 and we'll suck for ever onwards.

Greece for me is the interrail tickets I bought at the age of 15 and 16, and the islands I can hardly remember the names of now. Renting vespas, sleeping on the beach and stopping in taverns in the hills and older women running out and pointing at and making sure I ate the food (I was a skinny kid). You could leave your rucksack anywhere (Greeks don’t steal). The only trouble I can remember is not being allowed to rent vespas for being too young and a cop yelling at me for smoking hash. Maybe stuff is different now but I remember the Greeks as classy people. Why aren’t there any Greek Regional forum?

Lysander

10-03-2009, 11:30 AM

Greece for me is the interrail tickets I bought at the age of 15 and 16, and the islands I can hardly remember the names of now. Renting vespas, sleeping on the beach and stopping in taverns in the hills and older women running out and pointing at and making sure I ate the food (I was a skinny kid). You could leave your rucksack anywhere (Greeks don’t steal). The only trouble I can remember is not being allowed to rent vespas for being too young and a cop yelling at me for smoking hash. Maybe stuff is different now but I remember the Greeks as classy people. Why aren’t there any Greek Regional forum?

That's a tourist's point of view. I loved Germany but I'd absolutely hate to be living there considering their politics.
As for not stealing, it used to be true back in the days but now we get so many immigrants thefts have sky rocketed, "the Albanian league" might ring a bell for other Europeans too. Afghans are still the worst though.
In any case, Greece is corrupt and slow, the only sane place left is the Holy mountain Athos.

RoyBatty

10-03-2009, 12:05 PM

I can't be bothered typing a lengthy response now, but I will say that Absinthe's and Monolith's arguments are well-reasoned and make the most sense. Fully agreed.

Agree

Lutiferre

10-03-2009, 02:44 PM

It seems the motherhood is not respected anymore, even in countries like Denmark with welfare support, it is not enough. Women have to be modern women *cough*man-women*cough*, too, with great careers on the same time, and otherwise, they are looked down upon as pathetic, backwards. And the more they do to detriment their modernness *cough*maleness*cough* the less they are worth as women, apparently.

SwordoftheVistula

10-04-2009, 04:21 AM

the other, female boss, said to her assistant "she's out of here, we can't keep paying her for nothing. Damn bitches can't keep their legs closed!".

Here's the problem right here, the companies are forced by law to pay pregnant/recent mothers even though they aren't working. If this law wasn't there, they wouldn't be trying to avoid pregnant/likely-to-get-pregnant employees.

In the same company that fired those women, there is also a friend of mine, who has a problem with his knee (meniscus).

He knows he needs to be operated but if he does he will have to take a two-month recovery leave.

He told the boss and the boss told him that if he does, he's fired.

Is he also not entitled to a leave?

He should not be entitled to be paid by his employer during time he is not working for the employer, if that's what you mean. It's not fair either to the employer or the other employees who keep working.

Or is the water that moves the windmills of capitalism even more important than the welfare of the human being? :icon_ask:

Unless we're talking about the People's Republic of China or some obscure state where its people have only value as workers, then I beg to differ.

Which people? What happens in a company when someone is not working for a long period of time and yet still paid by the company? Probably either the other workers have to put in extra work with no additional pay, or the company simply factors in such things as a 'cost of labor' and thus reduces the base pay to balance their budget.

I don't see how profit is more important than the declining birthrates of their nation.

After all, it's mathematics: if the population continues aging and no new children are born, then soon enough there will be no consumers to buy their goodies. ;)

If that's a state interest, then the state should pay for it, instead of forcing employers to pay for it. Otherwise, you get situations like you described. Companies compete against eachother, and thus a company with 10% of its workforce out on paid leave will be at a disadvantage in labor costs against a competing company with only 1% of its workforce out on paid leave. Thus, each company will try to be the one with only 1% of its workforce out on paid leave instead of the with 10% of its workforce out on paid leave. As such, this law mandating companies to provide paid leave for pregnant/recent mothers actually discourages companies from hiring such people and thereby probably reduces the birthrate.

Capitalist system mostly prefers short term over long term

More like the opposite, socialist policies usually provide short term benefits but act as a drag long term. Take this law for example, back when it was proposed, the intended goal was probably to support young women who wanted children while not dropping out of the workforce entirely. "force employers to provide paid leave, what a great idea! And it doesn't cost the government budget anything!" Now, as we can see, such women can't even find jobs at all, and are thus even more locked out of the workforce than if they quit their job when they had the baby and looked for another one a year later.

The state should, but mothers should be legally protected against layoffs when pregnant. Economically speaking, such policy is a long-term investment.

Not for that particular company. A better policy would be to encourage a fluid labor market so that these women can find new jobs when they are ready to. Otherwise, if they are 'protected from layoff' this hurts that specific company, so they will try to avoid hiring such people.

Monolith

10-04-2009, 10:28 AM

More like the opposite, socialist policies usually provide short term benefits but act as a drag long term.
Let me rephrase: it is beyond any doubt that capitalism prefers cash right here and right now, than at any given time in the future. The system itself acts like a framework for any existing policy.

Not for that particular company.

Indeed, but I was talking about the economy as a whole. In short term, the company in question has nothing to gain if there's a policy enforcing protection of female employees. However, that radically changes in the long term, and not just for one company but for the entire economy, for reasons explained above.

A better policy would be to encourage a fluid labor market so that these women can find new jobs when they are ready to. Otherwise, if they are 'protected from layoff' this hurts that specific company, so they will try to avoid hiring such people.
Fluid labor market can also hurt the company's productivity, as new employees need time to adapt to a new environment. Aside from that, people always form a social network in a company which employs them, so that's also a limiting factor because the network is shattered when you lay off some of its members and introduce new ones. You can't simply replace people.

Anyway, other than that, fluid labor market exist when there's a high unemployment rate (which is a bit superficial, a better indicator is the employment rate), so it is relatively easy to replace the employees.

Lysander

10-04-2009, 10:28 AM

Here's the problem right here, the companies are forced by law to pay pregnant/recent mothers even though they aren't working. If this law wasn't there, they wouldn't be trying to avoid pregnant/likely-to-get-pregnant employees.

Capitalism at its worst, it reduces humans to resources.

Lutiferre

10-04-2009, 12:34 PM

Capitalism at its worst, it reduces humans to resources.
Indeed, like other materialisms, marxism notably.

Fortis in Arduis

10-04-2009, 05:54 PM

It is surely preferable to being made pregnant for punishment.

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 06:10 PM

women do have a choice - two important choices:

they should choose
a husband that is capable of supporting a family

Unfortunately these times that can change overnight. And who is guilty then?

Once again I notice it is no use trying to discuss social issues with yankees.

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 06:14 PM

Entitled? No, not unless there's a pre-arranged agreement. If the company can support it, then it'd sure be the kind and charitable thing to do, but many companies cannot afford to make such sacrifices in the kind of economy we're seeing. This is particularly true of small businesses.

Well, in this country they have to, as maternity leave is federal law here. Unlike the U.S. enterprises have to reach a certain critical mass here, which keeps a lot of fly-by-night operations away from doing business.

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 06:17 PM

the only sane place left is the Holy mountain Athos.

Every place is sane that keeps females out.

Karaten

10-04-2009, 06:21 PM

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 06:31 PM

Lutiferre

10-04-2009, 06:54 PM

What are you doing in a forum that is concerned with the preservation of the European people, who are dying out because of low birth rates?
I think there are many members here you should ask that question..

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 07:03 PM

I think there are many members here you should ask that question..
I am asking that question to anyone who thinks that motherhood is a mistake that a woman should be punished for by her employers,
and that money/profit of private companies is more important than the welfare as well as the propagation of their people.

Psychonaut

10-04-2009, 07:03 PM

What are you doing in a forum that is concerned with the preservation of the European people, who are dying out because of low birth rates?

Especially when you think that becoming a mother is a "mistake" that one must "pay" for?

So, if I'm not willing to pay for the expenses of mothers who cannot afford to have children, I'm not a preservationist?

Loki

10-04-2009, 07:08 PM

I am asking that question to anyone who thinks that motherhood is a mistake that a woman should be punished for by her employers,
and that money/profit of private companies is more important than the welfare as well as the propagation of their people.

For many of the American extreme capitalists, money for an already rich company is way more important than family, pregnancy and welfare. It's all about money, money, money. This filthy modern tendency is just as bad, if not worse, than extreme Communism. And it will also come to a humiliating fall. The credit crisis over the last few years was a mere foretaste of what could happen -- and probably will happen. Not to even talk about the utter destruction of family values and the eradication of any common sense, conscience and character. It's just MacDonald consumerism and a lust for money. That has nothing at all to do with community preservation, but is in fact the enemy thereof.

/rant over

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 07:11 PM

So, if I'm not willing to pay for the expenses of mothers who cannot afford to have children, I'm not a preservationist?
How can mothers afford to have children if not by working and earning money in the case where the husband's salary is not enough to cover all expenses (which is most frequently the case for middle-class families).

So no, you're not a preservationist if you believe so.
You're one of those people that are the reason for the shit we find ourselves into today.

With attitudes like that, in fact, we deserve to die out. We put profit and individualism over our own survival as a species. It's pure Darwinism.

Sorry, this is nothing personal just how I feel :)

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 07:13 PM

As a female you are supposed to study, work and have children. When and how exactly nobody can tell you, and the results of such polciies are quite evident. As a man you are supposed to study, work, be flexible (i.e. travel around the world for your bosses on a 24 hrs notice), yet you are supposed to have a family and be there for them as well. This cannot and does not work out, basically because the whole scenario fails at the 'work' stage, with hundreds of thousands of academicians and skilled workers without a chance to get a job.

The problem with Calvinists and Puritanical tunnel vision zealots is their work fetishism, as if it is a goal in itself. As a German I can tell you a lot about work ethics, but the deification of Work as an institute is a sick, capitalist aberration. Work is a means to an end, and often it seems to be the only one. Take away that option and you can see a whole generation end up in a dead end, like in Spain, Greece and soon also Ireland.

Jamt

10-04-2009, 07:22 PM

So, if I'm not willing to pay for the expenses of mothers who cannot afford to have children, I'm not a preservationist?

Do you think she should be fired for having children?

And don’t you think mothers have contributed to the expenses for maternity leave to?

Unemployed mothers, at least in Sweden, don’t get much and in some cases shouldn’t get any in my opinion, but that is not topic.

Psychonaut

10-04-2009, 07:31 PM

How can mothers afford to have children if not by working and earning money in the case where the husband's salary is not enough to cover all expenses (which is most frequently the case for middle-class families).

I would say that if the husband cannot support her, then she has chosen a poor husband. :shrug:

I'd much rather see people rely on the support of their extended families, religious communities, private charities, etc. than the government for a handout.

Sorry, this is nothing personal just how I feel :)

Understood, and I'm glad that we can disagree in a civil manner. :)

Do you think she should be fired for having children?

I think that the decision should be up to the company, not the government. If she has an arrangement with the company, then she should not be fired. If she chose to work for a company that does not provide maternity leave, then the company should not be forced to provide it for her.

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 07:35 PM

I would say that if the husband cannot support her, then she has chosen a poor husband. :shrug:

Oh my goodness, my goodness, you *did not* just say that women should be after a man's money?
Did you? Did you? Please tell me you didn't! :confused:

Loki

10-04-2009, 07:36 PM

I think that the decision should be up to the company, not the government.

Company policy in a capitalist environment is maximum profit. That's it. No company would voluntarily even pay tax, if it wasn't required by law.

Tony

10-04-2009, 07:43 PM

Some companies also make women sign a contract in advance, saying that they will not get pregnant, or else they will be fired and by signing they resign to their rights to maternity leaves and extra benefits. :mad:
This kind of stuff is becoming more and more common here as well , they force a newly employed woman to sign a white paper in advance and both of them know that maternity is the first condition for that paper will be filled in and used for the resignation.
After the collapse of communism and the advent of globalization the condition for workers has dropped in the western world and it's getting even worse , we just can't compete with the asian workforce , plain and simple.
In my view a society that put money and greed above all can't even be classified as Aryan or European.
An Aryan man/woman work to live , not the other way around.
I sincerly hope in this crisis , it's got to get worse and worse , only at that point , maybe , politicians will be forced to put some fence up , both on foreign goods and immigrants.

Psychonaut

10-04-2009, 07:46 PM

Oh my goodness, my goodness, you *did not* just say that women should be after a man's money?
Did you? Did you? Please tell me you didn't! :confused:

:D

I don't at all think that money should be the factor that determines who a woman marries, but I think that it's pretty dumb for someone to marry someone who you know is not able/willing to support you in the event you decide to have children. I'm very much in favor of traditional gender roles and don't think that mothers of small children should be working. I think that their time is much better spent caring for their children in the home. Thankfully, my wife agrees. ;)

Company policy in a capitalist environment is maximum profit. That's it. No company would voluntarily even pay tax, if it wasn't required by law.

I dunno about that. In the US, conservatives have been shown to donate far more to private charities than their commie counterparts. ;)

Loki

10-04-2009, 07:52 PM

... I think that it's pretty dumb for someone to marry someone who you know is not able/willing to support you in the event you decide to have children.

Not everyone have the same amount of money throughout their lifetimes, so it's a pretty silly point. A young couple also can't predict the future of what might happen. If women marry men solely based on their wealth, as Absinthe says, then there is no hope for thriving ethnic preservation. All young girls might just as well get the next flight to New York and bag themselves a rich young Jewish boy.

I dunno about that. In the US, conservatives have been shown to donate far more to private charities than their commie counterparts. ;)

Yeah, probably donating to things like Third World charity, or matters that won't be of any benefit to American society -- the only reason they do it is to raise the company's profile in order to make even more profit, not because they have a conscience.

Jamt

10-04-2009, 07:52 PM

:D
I dunno about that. In the US, conservatives have been shown to donate far more to private charities than their commie counterparts. ;)

Are companys in the US conservative?

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 07:53 PM

:D

I don't at all think that money should be the factor that determines who a woman marries, but I think that it's pretty dumb for someone to marry someone who you know is not able/willing to support you in the event you decide to have children.

But in most cases, at least in my part of the world, the people who are well off to support a family on their own, constitute about a 20% percent of the population...

The remaining 80% earns 700-1000euros/month which is barely enough to support oneself...

Are you saying therefore that 80% of the population should remain childless because they're not a clever choice for a woman that wants a family?

I'm very much in favor of traditional gender roles and don't think that mothers of small children should be working. I think that their time is much better spent caring for their children in the home. Thankfully, my wife agrees. ;)

I agree completely, but like I said, where I come from, it is not an option for most people...

Psychonaut

10-04-2009, 08:03 PM

Not everyone have the same amount of money throughout their lifetimes, so it's a pretty silly point.

Personally, I think that it's a good idea for a woman to marry a slightly older man who has already established himself in a career and has shown himself to be a responsible adult.

Are companys in the US conservative?

I don't really have any good data on that. :shrug:

But in most cases, at least in my part of the world, the people who are well off to support a family on their own, constitute about a 20% percent of the population...

Let's think about this though...

In the last 100,000 years of human history, there was no such thing as socialism. How did people have families? They lowered their expectations of personal wealth/comfort/etc. and they relied on the support of their families. Many people just have completely unrealistic expectations about how much money is needed to live and feel that they "need" all kinds of extraneous luxury items like TVs, internet, etc.

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 08:06 PM

In the last 100,000 years of human history, there was no such thing as socialism. How did people have families? They lowered their expectations of personal wealth/comfort/etc. and they relied on the support of their families. Many people just have completely unrealistic expectations about how much money is needed to live and feel that they "need" all kinds of extraneous luxury items like TVs, internet, etc.

Aren't you defeating your own argument?

Isn't capitalism what raised the materialistic expectations of people, hence leading them into infertility because they'd rather buy "the newest" than have their own families? :lightbul:

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 08:14 PM

So if women only married men with a decent career those 90% without a career would remain bachelors. As births out of wedlock are out of the questions for moral reasons this would leave us in a situation that only about 10-15% of the population would be legitimate for procreation. Now deduct those who for whatever reasons are infertile. In order to secure replacement level births these women would have to have at least 25 children. It is simple maths.

Absinthe

10-04-2009, 08:16 PM

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 08:17 PM

In the last 100,000 years of human history, there was no such thing as socialism.

In the last 99,800 years there was no capitalism either.

Tony

10-04-2009, 08:19 PM

Yes, we should blame the employer for the irresponsibility of the employee and expect them to pay the mother to sit at home.

When we grew up, our parents teach us, well at least a majority of us, that we must pay for our mistakes, and she is doing so. I applaud the employer for his actions.
This is a mentality of a third worlder , of a slave perpetually humiliated by the boss and the strangest thing is you don't even realize it.
Thanks to this mentality the west is being overrun with asians and arabs , well let's go on with this capitalism and individualism , go on , till the end , where no white will be left...
capitalism has been proved to be unable to protect European culture , European values and people too , its outcomes are before our eyes , it's a FAILED system.

Jamt

10-04-2009, 08:22 PM

Are companys in the US conservative?

Psychonaut. I asked the question because of your answer at Loki when he claimed that companies are all about money and you answered no because conservatives give more to charity. Of course companies are not conservative. How could they be?

Osweo

10-04-2009, 08:36 PM

Oh my goodness, my goodness, you *did not* just say that women should be after a man's money?
Did you? Did you? Please tell me you didn't! :confused:
Oh Christhawk. He's certainly condemned me to childlessness!

PSY! Don't you think that it might be a good thing for the world if I was to breed some time? :(

Personally, I think that it's a good idea for a woman to marry a slightly older man who has already established himself in a career and has shown himself to be a responsible adult.
Grumble... Younger women are usually pretty irritating. ;)

At the end of the day, the capitalists here are missing the point that we don't have a level playing field upon which to start implementing their theory now. We have all kinds of nasty cultural, economic and political baggage that kills their utopia right in the cradle. Massive perestroika is needed before their ideas might have some sense to them. The workingman's lifestandards have been spiralling downwards ever since Irish labour was introduced in England, never mind more recent developments. There are so many dysgenic phenomena occuring now in concert that we can't simply start applying seemingly logical rules that have been in abeyance for decades.

Skandi

10-04-2009, 09:00 PM

Let's look at this another way. To support just me I need an income of after taxes (£7000) Now on that income you can NEVER go out for a drink NEVER smoke NEVER drink and you certainly can't go on holiday. So for two people you need an income of about £12000. add a child or three and your probably looking at an income of £20,000 that would just about allow you to buy clothes etc for said children. It would also allow you to buy a modest present, and for the child to go on school trips. You would still not get a holiday or be able to go to a restaurant. But the average full time wage in this country is £26,000 (before tax £19,500 after tax) that includes all those on several million, but does not include the unemployed. A supermarket worker would have to work 96 hours a week to reach the average. Why should they not be able to have children?

By your reckoning most people would not be able to breed, Now that is clever.

Having looked at the figures I see I may be under estimating the cost of a child, the first year average cost is according to the office of national statistics over £8,800. Now I would guess that this can be done cheaper, but probably not much, remember we need to have more than one child each also.

The problem is more the low wages that workers are now paid to make us competitive with other places. If the average man could pay for his wife and children then there would be no need for state or company support. But he can't and that is through no fault of his own. Remember we need all classes of people not just the very top to be able to breed, you don't need a university degree to empty the bins but it does need to be done, they are paid around 15,000 after tax so their breeding days are gone.

Tony

10-04-2009, 09:06 PM

I would say that if the husband cannot support her, then she has chosen a poor husband. :shrug:
Lol , the same words of Berlusconi a few months ago , a young woman approached him , told him she was just been fired and couldn't find any job , asked him what to do and he answered half joking half serious "marry a rich man , perhaps my son" :icon_ask:
Psicho we're not talking here of scum who don't wanna work or stuff , it's actually became very difficult here to go on and raise a family , too many times young couple (most of them , a great majority) are forced to choose between having children and starve or just work and delay the children to a distant future , it sucks.

I'd much rather see people rely on the support of their extended families, religious communities, private charities, etc. than the government for a handout.
And that's a humiliation to me , I wouldn't rely on the mood of someone else , the State collect taxes and it has the moral duty to take care of some welfare.
Otherwise if I have to rely on other private institutions I shouldn't have to pay any tax.

Personally, I think that it's a good idea for a woman to marry a slightly older man who has already established himself in a career and has shown himself to be a responsible adult.
That's a point I second :D

Skandi

10-04-2009, 09:13 PM

find me an older man who has money and isn't married, then I'll consider it, until then I'm stuck, and there won't be any children, because I don't want to work for the first few years.

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 09:28 PM

The state wanted it that way, so the state either has to pay for the consequences, or - what I would prefer - rethink their policies. But as Jews, muslims and other protected minorities are sacrosanct here, have no education and don't work either, the money has to be taken from the few German idiots like me who work the crappiest jobs of the world for peanuts so that some good-for-nothing oily eyes can watch TV all day and loot all night.

Karaten

10-04-2009, 10:00 PM

What are you doing in a forum that is concerned with the preservation of the European people, who are dying out because of low birth rates?

Especially when you think that becoming a mother is a "mistake" that one must "pay" for?

Well, the problem with your thinking is that if these people are going to expect everyone to roll over for them simply because they were not responsible enough to make sure that all of their immediate responsibilities will be insured when they have a child, then they're not the kind of people we want reproducing. Tell you what, we'll allow everyone to breed like bunnies and then we'll allow everyone to die out because of overpopulation. I never once stated that it was because she was white that she should not reproduce, it's because that a child takes recourses and pregnancy takes rest, and if she's not even smart enough to realize that her boss might actually want to get what he pays for and check with him before having a child then she should wait.

Children take recourses and time, whether they're white, black, Asian, or mixed, and just because everyone else is part of the problem doesn't mean we should be too.

If they're going to ACT like black people, then why even have white people?

I don't believe in double standards, no matter where you place them and on whom you place them.

Osweo

10-04-2009, 10:11 PM

Well, the problem with your thinking is that if these people are going to expect everyone to roll over for them simply because they were not responsible enough to make sure that all of their immediate responsibilities will be insured when they have a child, then they're not the kind of people we want reproducing.

And if that is next to IMPOSSIBLE?!? (You read a thing we've said about real life circumstances here?)

Phlegethon

10-04-2009, 10:26 PM

What do you expect from an 18-year-old? Probably never seen a workplace in his life.

ikki

10-04-2009, 10:56 PM

What do you expect from an 18-year-old? Probably never seen a workplace in his life.

Thats what you get from socialism, coming up with crazy ideas like forbidding child labor, compulsory universal education for a nutty 9 years absolute minimum, 8 hour workdays and other nonsense.

No. 13 should be considered a age by which you either work.. or are something of a lazy loser. By 15 a fullblown carreer going. Education? If the employer requires it, they determine what the employee study... and pay for it.
17-19 start a family and have the first few kids.

Karaten

10-05-2009, 12:28 AM

Thats what you get from socialism, coming up with crazy ideas like forbidding child labor, compulsory universal education for a nutty 9 years absolute minimum, 8 hour workdays and other nonsense.

No. 13 should be considered a age by which you either work.. or are something of a lazy loser. By 15 a fullblown carreer going. Education? If the employer requires it, they determine what the employee study... and pay for it.
17-19 start a family and have the first few kids.

Yeah, welfare for irresponsible people is certainly not socialist. I hope you realize your rant about responsibility is on my side, and if you are, I apologize.

I just think that a couple should make sure that they have the means to take care of a child before they have one.

Psychonaut

10-05-2009, 07:50 AM

This psychonaut knows when he's outnumbered and will be stepping out of this thread tactfully. He's said his peace and knows that he won't be convincing any of those who disagree with him through any furtherance of this. He bids you all a good evening and remains glad that he was fortunate enough to grow up in a system that leans more towards capitalism than socialism.

:yo:

Monolith

10-05-2009, 12:44 PM

Especially when you think that becoming a mother is a "mistake" that one must "pay" for?
Such statements make my blood boil. :puke

So, if I'm not willing to pay for the expenses of mothers who cannot afford to have children, I'm not a preservationist?
You don't seem to understand the principle behind this discussion. Money is nothing. You'll always earn it, one way or another. Frankly, I've seldom seen Americans whose reasoning was not materialist. It's about defining priorities and defending permanent values, in this case your own progeny.

The credit crisis over the last few years was a mere foretaste of what could happen -- and probably will happen. Not to even talk about the utter destruction of family values and the eradication of any common sense, conscience and character. It's just MacDonald consumerism and a lust for money. That has nothing at all to do with community preservation, but is in fact the enemy thereof.

Very true. Speaking of crisis, there will always be business cycles, but as the economies grow larger, the recessions' negative influence will eventually grow so powerful that the current recession will look like a minor fluctuation.

Bari

10-05-2009, 04:55 PM

I dont see the problem that tax payers money are used to increase the decreasing population. Although the problem would be different in the U.S. than Europe, where most countries are still ethnic homogenous. One can only imagine the babyboom among blacks and mexicans in U.S. if they start supporting people getting babies.

Imo women shouldn't have to look for the man with the money to raise a family, when the state should and could contribute by aiding economical support. If the birth rates are decreasing it should be dealth with properly, even if it costs money. The economical support as well as being given the right by public law to take a year of because of pregnancy withouth getting fired.

The modern capitalist society are ruining thousands of years old family structure for the lust of profit. This is how low humanity now has reached.. Even if the population is slowly decreasing goverments and wealthy dont care much, because there are millions of immigrants they can import and replace the local population that can be loyal voters and cheap labour.

Its absolutely sickening!

Phlegethon

10-05-2009, 06:29 PM

Lysander

10-05-2009, 08:08 PM

Although the problem would be different in the U.S. than Europe, where most countries are still ethnic homogenous.

So do you live in Greenland or are you just blind? :P

Immigrants are swarming every major and minor city on this continent.

Bari

10-05-2009, 08:20 PM

So do you live in Greenland or are you just blind? :P

Immigrants are swarming every major and minor city on this continent.

- Are the number of non-white immigrants in Greece similar to U.S.? Are you implying the numbers are the same in all over Europe?

According to the UN the typical American woman today bears 1.93 children. That is below the 2.1 "replacement" rate required to keep a population stable over time, absent immigration. The Census Bureau estimates the US population will grow from 281 million in 2000 to 397 mil in 2050 with expected immigration, but only to 328 mil with zero immigration. "If we have zero immigration with today's low birthrates the American population would eventually begin to shrink.

A new report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will account for 47% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The Asian population is expected to more than triple by 2050. Overall, the population of the United States is due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase coming from immigrants.

In 35 of the country's 50 largest cities, non-Hispanic whites were at the last census or are predicted to be in the minority.[39] In California, non-Hispanic whites slipped from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 43% in 2006.

Lysander

10-05-2009, 08:26 PM

- Are the number of non-white immigrants in Greece similar to U.S.? Are you implying the numbers are the same in all over Europe?

According to the UN the typical American woman today bears 1.93 children. That is below the 2.1 "replacement" rate required to keep a population stable over time, absent immigration. The Census Bureau estimates the US population will grow from 281 million in 2000 to 397 mil in 2050 with expected immigration, but only to 328 mil with zero immigration. "If we have zero immigration with today's low birthrates the American population would eventually begin to shrink.

A new report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will account for 47% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The Asian population is expected to more than triple by 2050. Overall, the population of the United States is due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase coming from immigrants.

In 35 of the country's 50 largest cities, non-Hispanic whites were at the last census or are predicted to be in the minority.[39] In California, non-Hispanic whites slipped from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 43% in 2006.
The numbers are similar yes.

Look at Paris, look at Malmo, for God's sake look at London.

Search Enoch Powell on youtube for words of wisdom.
Don't fool yourself, we are on the brink of extinction in the old world as well.

RoyBatty

10-05-2009, 08:49 PM

Assuming current immigration trends are maintained (and likely sped up), it'll be a couple of decades and whitey will be in the minority over much of Western Europe. I've lived through it before. I know what's coming. Loss of nation, culture, identity, freedom, power...........

Karaten

10-06-2009, 03:05 AM

Most governments would probably be happy if they could pay out for maternity leave, because that would men that there actually are children born. But because of the job crisis it is only those on welfare already or those who are mentally or physically handicapped who have children. The "irresponsibility" therefore isn't on the side of those who actually work a job.

The people who have a job are simply the ones who were irresponsible enough in High School to get friends to refer them.

- Are the number of non-white immigrants in Greece similar to U.S.? Are you implying the numbers are the same in all over Europe?

According to the UN the typical American woman today bears 1.93 children. That is below the 2.1 "replacement" rate required to keep a population stable over time, absent immigration. The Census Bureau estimates the US population will grow from 281 million in 2000 to 397 mil in 2050 with expected immigration, but only to 328 mil with zero immigration. "If we have zero immigration with today's low birthrates the American population would eventually begin to shrink.

A new report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will account for 47% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The Asian population is expected to more than triple by 2050. Overall, the population of the United States is due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase coming from immigrants.

In 35 of the country's 50 largest cities, non-Hispanic whites were at the last census or are predicted to be in the minority.[39] In California, non-Hispanic whites slipped from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 43% in 2006.

Those 9/10 children concern me most.

Bridie

10-06-2009, 04:54 AM

Makes me realise how lucky I am to live in Australia. Our economy is strong enough, even now, that the majority of mothers can afford stay at home with their babies. Without exception, every mother I know (and that's a lot) who works outside the home does so for the sake of her own sanity. To have a break. Men don't realise how easy they've got it....

RoyBatty

10-06-2009, 05:47 AM

Makes me realise how lucky I am to live in Australia. Our economy is strong enough, even now, that the majority of mothers can afford stay at home with their babies.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Thrymheim's post

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109125&postcount=59

sums up the situation in the UK and much of Western Europe quite well for a lot of people. Unless both parents are working it's quite difficult to get by for many families. Due to the banksters manipulation of the property market (cheap loans causing runs on the market) housing has become near unaffordable for many people. It just isn't possible for them to earn enough to pay for living costs AND to pay off an overvalued property.

That in turn forces them to stay home or rent or to live in unsuitable accommodation. Financial pressures are imo one of the biggest reasons why the indigenous Euro birthrate is so low.

On the other hand many of the ghetto and "asylum seeker" classes have no such problems. Why? Because they are professionals at working the welfare system either by being born into it or by learning from family and friends about it. A surefire way for many ghetto teenage girls to get free money and accommodation is to have numerous children out of wedlock. Asylum seekers, for some reason, also appear to enjoy similar financial backing from the state.

For those who do work and are actually trying to do something productive it's a different story. Whatever money may have remained are now quickly being siphoned off by the State and Local Councils through an ever increasing system of stealth taxes, environmental taxes and fines on any imaginable topic in order to pay for the 5 million professional layabouts in this country (the UK) who have never worked, to pay for the Governments never-ending series of wars and to pay for the expenses of corrupt and greedy local politicians.

In relative terms the general population have, imo, been getting poorer. Yes, it is now "cheaper" or more affordable to buy electronic Chinese gadgets and luxury items, but perversely, the relative cost of basic necessary items like housing, transport, fuel and food have gone up!

It's all very easy to claim that "parents need to be responsible about having a family" or women "need to marry men who can afford to support them" but as has been pointed out numerous times, those arguments effectively exclude a large swathe of the local population from starting families through no fault of their own.

A number of factors have driven up the cost of living and driven down the price of labour. Some have already been pointed out and I'll include them:

- Introduction of Irish Labour in the UK, increased labour pool, forced down prices.
- Emancipation of women, encouraging to compete with men for available jobs. This in effect has also led to an increase of labour in the market. Result, lower prices for labour.
- Subsequent mass immigration, extra labour, therefore again lower prices.

The cost of living has been driven up through a number of factors such as:

- Runs on the housing market, mainly because of the availability of cheap bank loans. The end result is that prices start skyrocketing beyond the means of the average person.
- Food production and supply is increasingly becoming outsourced and / or placed under the control of mega corporations who are then able to influence and increase the price.
- In a number of industries, anti-competitive practices are allowed to flourish by the authorities, helping to create price-fixing cartels. A prime example of this is the Steel Industry. As the larger companies swallow up the smaller ones, they cement their position in the supply chain and then increase the price whilst decreasing the labour force because they can now dictate and control the supply. Capitalism and efficiency wins, the worker and consumer loses.
- Another fantastic example of this is the rail industry where a couple of franchise holders now enjoy the ability to dictate the prices they set for services. Those prices are, generally speaking, extortionate.

Super dog-eat-dog capitalism triumphs, "efficiencies" are improved, the market becomes "more competitive" and the net result of all this is that people are now being reduced and dehumanised to being commodities and living cash cows for the rich elites, the corrupt leadership castes and their pets, the ghetto dwellers and asylum seekers.

It comes down to what one's priorities are.

Are those to be proud adherents of the ratrace where the selfish and slavish pursuit of profits, media trends and consumer items are the new gods or are they to live a relatively normal, modest life in a healthy community orientated environment which takes care of the interests of its members whilst its members take care of their local communities and by extension, their country, culture and way of life?

Bridie

10-06-2009, 06:02 AM

It's all very easy to claim that "parents need to be responsible about having a family" or women "need to marry men who can afford to support them" but as has been pointed out numerous times, those arguments effectively exclude a large swathe of the local population from starting families through no fault of their own.Well, I would say that such comments are a result of being insulated (and ignorant about) the socio-economic realities of foreign environments... whether those environments be foreign countries, foreign regions or even just different neighbourhoods.

I've got to say, it does irritate me when people judge the rest of the world in the context of their own square, so to speak.

Anyway, insightful post, RoyBatty. :)

ikki

10-06-2009, 01:04 PM

ikki

10-06-2009, 01:17 PM

http://daddytypes.com/2008/03/28/finnish_government_handouts_totally_killed_local_c ardboard_baby_box_market.php

boxes content is worth some 275, want cash instead.. you get 140.
And have to see a maternity control thingy by 4th month, and get it signed out 2 months before birth.

http://www.kela.fi/in/internet/suomi.nsf/NET/060509132644HL?OpenDocument
varying in content somewhat from year to year depending on feedback... so no formulas, since those got quite some negative, having been smuggled in there as freebies as a marketing gimmick.

SwordoftheVistula

10-06-2009, 03:38 PM

Lifting the ban on polygamy would seem to solve most of these problems :D

And if US style capitalism is so bad for the birthrate, why is the US white birthrate higher than the total birthrate of most European countries? Ireland and Australia, which are even more capitalist than the US, also have high birthrates, while the lowest come from the more socialist countries of eastern Europe

Loki

10-06-2009, 03:42 PM

Phlegethon

10-06-2009, 07:07 PM

And if US style capitalism is so bad for the birthrate, why is the US white birthrate higher than the total birthrate of most European countries?

Because China currently is paying your lifestyle while the U.S. is descending under a load of debt it will never in a million years be able to pay back?

Tony

10-06-2009, 09:22 PM

Because China currently is paying your lifestyle while the U.S. is descending under a load of debt it will never in a million years be able to pay back?
The issue of different birthrates is a complicated matter in my view and should be analyzed in depht , I could reply that the biggest tfr is that of Niger with over 7 children per woman and China doesn't matter anythinh with that.
There must be many more factors that influence the birthrate than a mere economic condition , we can't explain demography just with an economic answer.
Probably white Americans attend the Church more than we Europeans do and that must count too , they have more space than us , leave the family earlier than us etc

Osweo

10-07-2009, 12:08 AM

here you get a box :p

http://mediaserver-2.vuodatus.net/g/8034/236414.jpg
http://daddytypes.com/archive/finnish_baby_loot.jpg

and then the little ones can sleep in the box as their first bed :p

http://plaza.fi/s/f/vanhat/23311.gif Tasty book!

I am impressed! :thumb001:

And aren't baby clothes just so cute and small! :D

GODDAMNIT. Surely there's a girl here who wants to make a baby with me right now? :tongue

The Lawspeaker

10-07-2009, 12:09 AM

I am impressed! :thumb001:

And aren't baby clothes just so cute and small! :D

GODDAMNIT. Surely there's a girl here who wants to make a baby with me right now? :tongue

:D Glad to see that I am not the only bloke whose clock is ticking.

Phlegethon

10-07-2009, 12:52 AM

Just remember Anthony Quinn, or Julio Iglesias's father. You still have 60 years left for that. Of course you also need some moolah to get girls once your butt gets wrinkled.

Osweo

10-07-2009, 02:00 AM

Just remember Anthony Quinn, or Julio Iglesias's father. You still have 60 years left for that. Of course you also need some moolah to get girls once your butt gets wrinkled.

Actually, my male line doesn't have many who lasted that long, in order to let this reassure me. :eek: We get but 'two score years and ten and a bit' on average. :(

Admittedly, me and my Dad are the first MacOssus ever to not smoke and drink almost constantly, so we'll see. If Dad makes it past 58, I'll be a little relieved. But he just married a younger woman. Maybe it won't be drink or cigs, this time... :eek:

RoyBatty

10-07-2009, 05:40 AM

And if US style capitalism is so bad for the birthrate, why is the US white birthrate higher than the total birthrate of most European countries? Ireland and Australia, which are even more capitalist than the US, also have high birthrates, while the lowest come from the more socialist countries of eastern Europe

I'll try to elaborate on my comments about capitalism.

I don't have much against "garden variety capitalism" where there are a number of competitors vying against one another for market share and where they are (relatively speaking) evenly matched.

What I do have a problem with is capitalism + monopoly. One cause would be monopolies growing too powerful through a series of acquisitions or simply achieving phenomenal success in the marketplace. Another cause could be that they are delivering a product or service where it is difficult / next to impossible to have genuine competition amongst suppliers.

One example of this is the British Rail System. While there are different companies offering services it is next to impossible to have a genuinely competitive environment and to offer the customer ie the public an actual choice on services in this particular case. It's "take what you can get".

This is what I mean when I refer to "super capitalism". It's basically conditions under which the more powerful corporations and institutions are able to exploit and enforce anti-competitive practices for maximum profit by extorting money from those who have little choice but to pay the demanded price. In the UK this is often done in collusion with the State.

For me, this is where capitalism goes badly wrong. It becomes exploitative, it rips off ordinary people who through no fault of their own now have no alternatives and have to pay unreasonable amounts to fat cats for essential items.

I don't see why "success" in the marketplace ought to be rewarded with a license for monopolism and to make the people suffer for it.

It is also true that in some cases monopolies aren't too bad simply because the monopolist chooses not to abuse their position or because the monopoly is effectively under state control and not run on a basis to return mega profits to shareholders but to provide services / goods at reasonable cost while earning enough income to remain operational.

RoyBatty

10-07-2009, 05:51 AM

The news that France has overtaken Ireland to boast the highest birthrate in Europe is intriguing for three different reasons.

The first is that for a Europe that is worried about too few children being born to support the fast-growing numbers of elderly retirees, it suggests that public policy can make a difference.

France now pays any mother with a third child about $1,200 in child support, along with massive discounts on train and public transport and subsidized day care. These incentives seem to work.

The number of reasons are a bit unclear? :confused:

- "Worried Europe".... (unlikely reason why ppl are having more kids imo)
- "Cash incentives"..... much more likely reason why ppl are having more kids.

Obviously the incentives are working and most likely those taking maximum advantage are the Africans and A-rabs. It would be interesting to see an ethnic breakdown of the French birth stats and whether it will indicate a clear disparity between "European population growth" and "non-European population growth" inside France.

I'll wager a 6-pack on whitey's numbers still shrinking while the difference + more is made up by the immigrants.

Bridie

10-07-2009, 06:24 AM

SwordoftheVistula

10-07-2009, 08:44 AM

Australia is more capitalist than the US? I didn't think so, considering the differences in our health care systems, education systems, welfare systems etc... I would have thought that Australia is more on the socialist side compared to the US.

In this study (the only comprehensive detailed one I am aware of) Australia ranks as the 'most capitalist' in the world after Hong Kong and Singapore, followed by Ireland, New Zealand, and then the US and Canada. Greece and Poland are the 'most socialist' in Europe aside from the former Yugoslavia and USSR. Both of these 2 countries also seem to be on the more 'religious' side as far as Europe goes and yet have low birthrates.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking

Compare to birthrate rankings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e

The white fertility rate in the US is 1.9

An article I saw in the news today explains why capitalist countries have both higher native birthrates and are more likely to be deluged by third world immigrants, both are results of economic prosperity:

http://cheapskate.blogs.time.com/2009/09/25/ten-odd-economic-indicators-hot-waitresses-mens-underwear-blacked-out-football-games-and-more/

It's hard for the lay person to wrap one's brain around the rise or fall of GDP, new residential sales, money supply, and other traditional economic indicators. What do those numbers really mean? Well, here are some other indicators that do as advertised, truly indicating in simple terms how people are living, what they're doing to keep themselves busy or make ends meet, and what they're buying—or not buying—in today's economic climate.

The signs are everywhere. You know the economy is struggling big time when your underwear is old, the armed forces don't need recruits, there's a hot resale market for cemetery plots, you can't find the local pro football game on TV, your rich neighbors are clipping coupons, and your waitress looks like Megan Fox. That is, if you're eating out at restaurants at all.

1. Appalachian Trail Hikers. When the going gets tough, the tough take a hike. There's been a spike in the number of hikers making the long trek—meaning plenty of people have plenty of free time on their hands.

2. Immigrants in the U.S. After rising for decades, the number of foreign-born residents has stalled. Apparently, immigrants just aren't as attracted to this country as they once were.

3. Men's Underwear Index. When the economy is stable, the sale of men's underwear remains flat and strong. But when money is tight, sales drop pretty quickly as men tend to wear their skivvies more times before replacing them. After all, nobody (or not that many people) sees your tightie whities or boxers. In 2009, men's underwear sales are expected to be down for the first time in years.

4. The Reselling of Cemetery Plots. When people buy one of these, you gotta assume that the thought never entered their heads that one day they'd want to—or have to—sell before putting them to use. People need the money, and suddenly cremation is cool.

5. Pro Football Games Blacked-Out on TV. As the NFL season opened, a dozen teams had not sold out their home games, and with blackout rules that means that viewers at home might not be able to watch those games on TV. They blackout games to encourage people to buy tickets, but fewer folks today are eager to drop big bucks on something that (normally) they can enjoy for free from home. Blackouts are just one reason fans may feel alienated by the NFL.

6. Fewer Babies Born, Fewer Babies Planned. In one survey, 44 percent of women said that they were going to put off having kids or have fewer kids because of the economy.

7. The Toughness of Marine Ads. The Marines have met all of their recruitment goals, as typically occurs when the job market is bad. And so ads on TV are showing the toughest side of being a Marine, with barbed wire and even some dry heaving. Why? Because now they can be picky, and they want to attract the toughest, most highly motivated recruits.

8. Coupon Redemption. The numbers are already up 23 percent so far this year, demonstrating that people are eager to save money. And you know who is more likely to be clipping those coupons? Folks who are well-to-do.

9. Long-Distance Relationships. Because job prospects are so hard to come by, people are more inclined to relocate for a good offer, even if that means leaving a loved one behind.

10. The Hot Waitress Index. Here's the theory: When times are flush, attractive women in big cities have many opportunities to make money through marketing gigs, modeling, hosting parties, and such. When times are less than flush, those opportunities dry up, and then restaurateurs scoop them up to wait tables—and to attract diners who like being served by hot waitresses.