Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Utah claims gay marriage is just like abusing your employees, because reasons   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 57
    More: Fail, Utah, Utah claims, homophobias, opinion leaders, same-sex couples, twentieth century, due process, Fourteenth Amendment  
•       •       •

2346 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 01:39:33 PM  
When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.
 
2014-03-17 02:00:06 PM  

Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.

Are you a vampire? Because that's the only way to explain why you'd know from personal experience what the prevailing thoughts in Provo were during the 1890s. Furthermore...

He what? ...

The 1990s? No, that can't be right ...

Oh dear.
 
2014-03-17 02:01:59 PM  
From the brief:

"That is also why a decision affirming the district court would  not be the  Loving of our age -  a narrow decision enforcing a clear Fourteenth Amendment command against one type of naked racial discrimination."

Was the word "narrow" needed. Because that makes you look racist too.

"It would impose by judicial fiat rather than democratic processes the novel principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond any two (or more) people say it is."

Yes, because the democratic processes hasn't always been effective in making sure that human rights are being preserved as was seen in the "narrowly" decided Loving.


"It would thereby enshrine in federal law the corrosive principle that moms and dads are interchangeable and, ultimately, irrelevant to children. "

1) No one said that. 2) Not all marriages involve children 3) People are widowed and remarrried 4) People divorce and remarry. 5) With points 3 and 4, we have "step-parents. Something that's been going on since Biblical time (I know this because it's written in said Bible).

It would also unfairly dismiss the majorities in more than half of the States and numerous judges as irrational bigots.

Argumentum ad populum is no way to defend a case. Also, I would grant a title of "rational bigot" to a couple of people if needed.

(1) a risk of increased fatherlessness and motherlessness, with the emotional, social and economic damage such a deprivation imposes on children;

What about the bonus of double fatheredness and motheredness and the bonuses that that would create?


(2) a risk of reduced birth rates, with the demographic and economic damage that would impose on all future children; and

So, the rationale goes, if gays aren't allowed to marry, they will be out there making babies instead? Because that doesn't make sense. The gays will exist whether they can marry or not. (I'd actually be willing to wager that more gays would be willing to have in vitro or adoption if they could marry).

(3)more generally, a risk of increased self-interest in parental decision-making on a range of issues, including not just romantic relationships and procreation, but also recreation, career choices and living arrangements.
 Umm, what? So more people choosing frisbee golf? I don't get their point at all.


Although other district courts (but no appellate courts) have interpreted  Windsor like the district court and the Plaintiffs, they are mistaken in cherry-picking snippets from that decision while ignoring its full rationale, including the federalism principles it reaffirms.

You mean like the fact that the federal government now recognizes state marriages between same sex couples? That part of federalism?


The only resolution of the same-sex marriage issue consistent with that doctrine and with both Windsor
and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)is that the several States remain free to adopt same-sex marriage or to retain the traditional definition, in either case without "federal intrusion."


By 'federal intrusion', I'm sure they mean the over 1000 federal benefits conferred upon married couples.
 
2014-03-17 02:13:15 PM  
They're throwing massive quantities of derp against the wall, hoping that some of it will stick.

Whoever wrote this tripe should be mocked in legal circles for all eternity.
 
2014-03-17 02:20:25 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: They're throwing massive quantities of derp against the wall, hoping that some of it will stick.

Whoever wrote this tripe should be mocked in legal circles for all eternity.


But will most likely be given a prime news talkie slot so that "both sides" are presented.
 
2014-03-17 02:25:08 PM  
I believe this brief now breaks the longtime record for the biggest pile of bullshiat ever trumpeted as real by someone in Utah, possibly breaking this fellow's record that stood for over a century and a half:

www.ldschurchtemples.com
 
2014-03-17 02:37:29 PM  
Did anyone read that as "Just like abusing your slaves"?

Or was that just me?
 
2014-03-17 02:54:14 PM  

stpauler: (2) a risk of reduced birth rates, with the demographic and economic damage that would impose on all future children; and

So, the rationale goes, if gays aren't allowed to marry, they will be out there making babies instead? Because that doesn't make sense. The gays will exist whether they can marry or not. (I'd actually be willing to wager that more gays would be willing to have in vitro or adoption if they could marry).


Not so - it makes sense if you have a belief that being gay is a choice, and that those gay folks who want to get married would otherwise choose to be heterosexual, marry, and have children.
Which really makes it an insight into the life of the person making the argument: they're probably closeted and trapped in a loveless heterosexual marriage, and, if gay marriage had been legal, would have chosen differently. And they believe that many others are in the same position.

It's sad, really. Anyone making that argument deserves our pity and sympathy, not scorn.
 
2014-03-17 03:10:24 PM  
Granting gays the right to marriage will clearly lead them to want to take part in St. Patrick days parades.  WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS STOP?!

/i got nothing
 
2014-03-17 03:11:08 PM  

Ambivalence: Did anyone read that as "Just like abusing your slaves"?

Or was that just me?


Not at all, for I have been told by people on Fark that slaves were treated amazingly well.   Therefore even the sentence construct of "abusing your slaves" is such a non-gestalt that the concept can't even be understood.
 
2014-03-17 03:11:31 PM  
Oh, right, and we're now supposed to believe Republicans care about not abusing employees?
 
2014-03-17 03:15:09 PM  
 
2014-03-17 03:15:59 PM  

gingerjet: Granting gays the right to marriage will clearly lead them to want to take part in St. Patrick days parades.  WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS STOP?!

/i got nothing


That's actually a valid point.  I think a lot of this boils down to more than just base hate of homosexuals.  I think that the big issue many of them take is that it is no longer a shameful thing buried and hidden so they'd never have to deal with or accept it.  They long for the times when it wasn't a civil rights issue, when it wasn't a public fact about someone, when it was something that people had to hide and feel ashamed of as different from the status quo.
 
2014-03-17 03:16:08 PM  
Wow, they really have nothing. You can tell by the craziness of their arguments that are just like your crazy uncle rambling incoherently.
 
2014-03-17 03:18:21 PM  
"... . But if a State chooses-even when supported by sound logic, experience and social science-to reject those views, it would effectively lose its sovereignty over marriage and other sensitive domestic relations matters."

Yup, nailed it.
 
2014-03-17 03:19:27 PM  
stpauler:
"It would thereby enshrine in federal law the corrosive principle that moms and dads are interchangeable and, ultimately, irrelevant to children. "

1) No one said that. 2) Not all marriages involve children 3) People are widowed and remarrried 4) People divorce and remarry. 5) With points 3 and 4, we have "step-parents. Something that's been going on since Biblical time (I know this because it's written in said Bible).



Not that anything you're saying is wrong, but I feel the counter-point to this argument is that there have been several major studies on the matter, and science has fairly definitively said that moms and dads  are interchangeable... there is a difference between a single parent and two parents, but the genders and the combination thereof of the "two parents" case does nothing.

So basically they're objecting to legally "enshrining" something that is  entirely quantitatively true.  It's like objecting to something because it would set a legal precedent that objects moving at less than escape velocity eventually tend to fall downwards.
 
2014-03-17 03:19:27 PM  

QuillofNumenor: Oh, right, and we're now supposed to believe Republicans care about not abusing employees?


Republicans only care about the corporations and not the employees.
 
2014-03-17 03:20:53 PM  
(1) a risk of increased fatherlessness and motherlessness, with the emotional, social and economic damage such a deprivation imposes on children;

It's almost as if these people don't realize that people are not born with chastity belts which can only be removed by a priest on a wedding day.
And it's especially ironic given that the states most opposed to gay marriage are the same states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy.
 
2014-03-17 03:21:36 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: gingerjet: Granting gays the right to marriage will clearly lead them to want to take part in St. Patrick days parades.  WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS STOP?!

/i got nothing

That's actually a valid point.  I think a lot of this boils down to more than just base hate of homosexuals.  I think that the big issue many of them take is that it is no longer a shameful thing buried and hidden so they'd never have to deal with or accept it.  They long for the times when it wasn't a civil rights issue, when it wasn't a public fact about someone, when it was something that people had to hide and feel ashamed of as different from the status quo.


Yeah, well, screw them. Mixed-gender couples have been able to parade around with their significant other/fiance/spouse and do relatively innocent things like hold hands in public, hang pictures of their family at work, politely mention their other half at parties, and eat dinner at a restaurant together with nobody throwing a fit. Same-sex couples shouldn't be crushed for wanting to do those same things or told they just need to shut the fark up.
 
2014-03-17 03:22:15 PM  

Jim_Callahan: stpauler:
"It would thereby enshrine in federal law the corrosive principle that moms and dads are interchangeable and, ultimately, irrelevant to children. "

1) No one said that. 2) Not all marriages involve children 3) People are widowed and remarrried 4) People divorce and remarry. 5) With points 3 and 4, we have "step-parents. Something that's been going on since Biblical time (I know this because it's written in said Bible).


Not that anything you're saying is wrong, but I feel the counter-point to this argument is that there have been several major studies on the matter, and science has fairly definitively said that moms and dads  are interchangeable... there is a difference between a single parent and two parents, but the genders and the combination thereof of the "two parents" case does nothing.

So basically they're objecting to legally "enshrining" something that is  entirely quantitatively true.  It's like objecting to something because it would set a legal precedent that objects moving at less than escape velocity eventually tend to fall downwards.


This is a good example of being meta wrong.

No one is actually saying it, but even if they were saying it it would still be wrong.

Watching these pieces of shiat try desperately to find a way to not simply own up to being a total farking piece of shiat is pretty funny.
 
2014-03-17 03:33:35 PM  

Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.


Of course, you're talking about Provo.

For those who don't know, Provo is to Utah what Utah is to the REST of the country. It really has no relation to most of the state in things like women in the owrkplace.
 
2014-03-17 03:37:46 PM  

Serious Black: UncomfortableSilence: gingerjet: Granting gays the right to marriage will clearly lead them to want to take part in St. Patrick days parades.  WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS STOP?!

/i got nothing

That's actually a valid point.  I think a lot of this boils down to more than just base hate of homosexuals.  I think that the big issue many of them take is that it is no longer a shameful thing buried and hidden so they'd never have to deal with or accept it.  They long for the times when it wasn't a civil rights issue, when it wasn't a public fact about someone, when it was something that people had to hide and feel ashamed of as different from the status quo.

Yeah, well, screw them. Mixed-gender couples have been able to parade around with their significant other/fiance/spouse and do relatively innocent things like hold hands in public, hang pictures of their family at work, politely mention their other half at parties, and eat dinner at a restaurant together with nobody throwing a fit. Same-sex couples shouldn't be crushed for wanting to do those same things or told they just need to shut the fark up.


I don't disagree, I'm merely pointing out that the response has likely been so violently backwards because now they are being told that they have to deal with it like adults.  That and our constitution actually protects the rights of all people to be treated equally.  God forbid they have to interact with people who aren't hiding who they are because of years of repressive dialogues from the religious and "traditional values" homophobes out there.  They've already lost, they are just going through the stages of grief for the loss of their right to be bigoted.
 
2014-03-17 03:46:00 PM  

Mikey1969: Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.

Of course, you're talking about Provo.

For those who don't know, Provo is to Utah what Utah is to the REST of the country. It really has no relation to most of the state in things like women in the owrkplace.


I was going to just bite my tongue and hold off, but.....

It sounds like the original poster is remembering something from a basic economics class talking about available work force vs cost of labor. if you have lots of people willing to work for few jobs, cost of labor goes down. If you have lots of jobs, but few people, cost of labor goes up, since the potential employee can look for the best possible solution. If you remove half the work force (be it women, men, people over 35, etc) the potential result could be an increase in the cost of labor, hence salaries potentially doubling.

Now if some idiot wants to tie that to "let's get rid of women working so that men will get twice as much".. well... Probably a reason he didn't do so well in economics.

(Speaking as someone who grew up elsewhere, but has had several kids go through the school system in Provo and hasn't heard any of the BS previously mentioned).

Now for the arguments actually presented in the article....  I still haven't read the full brief to say one way or another, though the slant on the article was obvious.
 
2014-03-17 03:49:53 PM  
Well, this is going to seem familiar to anyone who remembers the lead-in to the Iraq invasion... As soon as one line of reasoning is debunked, they'll pull out another, last one was that there needed to be both a mother and a father to raise a child successfully. I can't even guess what my great state is going to throw out next... Maybe that gay marriage is bad for the economy because same sex couples by a disproportionate amount of gender-specific stuff? Maybe if too many men are buying men's deodorant, or too many women are buying feminine hygiene products? It isn't any stranger than the other arguments they're using.

OTOH, it's kind of what is expected, the state is fighting it, so they're going to argue whatever they can come up with it, in hopes that siomething will work. Ultimately, they'll just have to give in and admit that they're full of shiat, of course.
 
2014-03-17 03:59:17 PM  

Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.


Which would leave traditional families' incomes unchanged, while negatively impacting single, divorced, and widowed women.  But they should just find a man anyways, so who cares?
 
2014-03-17 03:59:43 PM  
www.dumpaday.com
 
2014-03-17 04:00:28 PM  

Zandor: I was going to just bite my tongue and hold off, but.....

It sounds like the original poster is remembering something from a basic economics class talking about available work force vs cost of labor. if you have lots of people willing to work for few jobs, cost of labor goes down. If you have lots of jobs, but few people, cost of labor goes up, since the potential employee can look for the best possible solution. If you remove half the work force (be it women, men, people over 35, etc) the potential result could be an increase in the cost of labor, hence salaries potentially doubling.

Now if some idiot wants to tie that to "let's get rid of women working so that men will get twice as much".. well... Probably a reason he didn't do so well in economics.

(Speaking as someone who grew up elsewhere, but has had several kids go through the school system in Provo and hasn't heard any of the BS previously mentioned).

Now for the arguments actually presented in the article....  I still haven't read the full brief to say one way or another, though the slant on the article was obvious.


Well, before I moved here, a friend who used to live here(Ogden, I think) "warned" my wife and I about Utah. Supposedly his mother tried to take the car in to the shop, and the mechanics wouldn't work on it until her husband called in to "OK" the work she wanted. Of course, we haven't run into anything like this. My cousins who have lived here their whole lives(And are all 3 women) haven't encountered anything like this either.

Then again, like I said, Provo IS its own little special case, but even if that really occurred, it would be an isolated incident. Despite our "warning", we haven't encountered anything like that in the 7 1/2 years we've lived here.
 
2014-03-17 04:04:17 PM  
Allowing gay marriage makes my penis blister.
 
2014-03-17 04:05:38 PM  

Mantour: [www.dumpaday.com image 620x412]


Stereotypes...

They're only bad when someone else is flinging them around.
 
2014-03-17 04:06:28 PM  

exick: Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.
Are you a vampire? Because that's the only way to explain why you'd know from personal experience what the prevailing thoughts in Provo were during the 1890s. Furthermore...

He what? ...

The 1990s? No, that can't be right ...

Oh dear.


I actually heard that same line of thinking when I was at a base in Utah helping configure some software. One of the female contractors went by (networking engineer) and another of the engineers pipes up once she's out of hearing saying he wished that women would quit going into the workforce because it was lowering the wages.

I almost asked if that also applied to the black guy sitting next to him but somehow I just kept a straight face and went right on giving instructions for the admins like nothing happened. Think I'll pass on Utah on my list of 'areas I'd move to'. It's right in the same list as Alabama or Mississippi as 'never move to' states.
 
2014-03-17 04:10:40 PM  
The GOP loves abusing employees, so what's the problem?
 
2014-03-17 04:12:45 PM  

Mikey1969: Mantour: [www.dumpaday.com image 620x412]

Stereotypes...

They're only bad when someone else is flinging them around.


Are you Mormon? And even if you are, you have to admit that is funny. I got Jewish stereotypes haunting me and I gladly joke about them.
 
2014-03-17 04:15:10 PM  

gingerjet: Granting gays the right to marriage will clearly lead them to want to take part in St. Patrick days parades.  WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS STOP?!

/i got nothing



At least you admit you've got nothing.
 
2014-03-17 04:19:31 PM  
You know, Deuteronomy provides a helpful means of determining whether these "prophets of old-timey religion" are worth listening to. If they predict things in god's name which do not come to pass, they are false prophets.

They said allowing gay marriage would cause the downfall of society and the collapse of the family. As we've now allowed gays to marry for several years, in several states and countries, with no reports of brimstone raining from the sky made by any meteorologist of note (in those areas or any others*), and Western civilization is no closer to collapse than we were a decade ago, it's time to start calling bullshiat.

Oh, and what else does Deuteronomy say about false prophets, who predict things in god's name that turn out not to be true? Death penalty. So strap in, fundies - your god demands you fry for your sins.

*though there have been several tornadoes in "religious" areas like Alabama and Oklahoma, I notice.
 
2014-03-17 04:24:52 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Mikey1969: Mantour: [www.dumpaday.com image 620x412]

Stereotypes...

They're only bad when someone else is flinging them around.

Are you Mormon? And even if you are, you have to admit that is funny. I got Jewish stereotypes haunting me and I gladly joke about them.


No, I'm not. Yeah, it's funny, but it's a pretty broad brush to paint Utah with, and it gets kind of annoying at times. It's also rather inaccurate.

That said, I toyed with the idea of getting a set of those, and then just having the 'kid' silhouettes stretch all the way around my Jeep. Big families are FAR more accurate of a joke than polygamy. As a matter of fact, the only polygamist that I know personally doesn't even live in Utah.
 
2014-03-17 04:28:03 PM  

xaldin: I actually heard that same line of thinking when I was at a base in Utah helping configure some software. One of the female contractors went by (networking engineer) and another of the engineers pipes up once she's out of hearing saying he wished that women would quit going into the workforce because it was lowering the wages.


Kind of weird how only some people seem to have experienced this. Not that I'm accusing you of making shiat up, or anything.
 
2014-03-17 04:30:35 PM  

Mikey1969: xaldin: I actually heard that same line of thinking when I was at a base in Utah helping configure some software. One of the female contractors went by (networking engineer) and another of the engineers pipes up once she's out of hearing saying he wished that women would quit going into the workforce because it was lowering the wages.

Kind of weird how only some people seem to have experienced this. Not that I'm accusing you of making shiat up, or anything.


Taken for what it is worth, I do not think the majority of Mormons think this way. Yes, I was in Provo. No, I hadn't heard it while I was in Arizona, rural or in Mesa. But sometimes Elder's Quorum classes got ... interesting.
 
2014-03-17 04:31:19 PM  

Mikey1969: Mantour: [www.dumpaday.com image 620x412]

Stereotypes...

They're only bad when someone else is flinging them around.


Jeebus, welcome to fark...
 
2014-03-17 04:34:36 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Not that anything you're saying is wrong, but I feel the counter-point to this argument is that there have been several major studies on the matter, and science has fairly definitively said that moms and dads are interchangeable... there is a difference between a single parent and two parents, but the genders and the combination thereof of the "two parents" case does nothing.


It's almost as if having a second person to share the burdens of child-raising was somehow helpful, that children might benefit from having another loving individual to spend time with them, pay attention to them, help them with school, keep their house clean, keep them fed, and periodically give the other parent a break.

That's farking communism, you sumbiatch, and I won't have you spreading red propaganda around the internets no more.
 
2014-03-17 04:38:46 PM  

xaldin: exick: Nadie_AZ: When I lived in Provo Utah, I was told that wages would double overnight if women would stay at home and not work. That was a prevailing thought in the 90s.

I'm not surprised at all.
Are you a vampire? Because that's the only way to explain why you'd know from personal experience what the prevailing thoughts in Provo were during the 1890s. Furthermore...

He what? ...

The 1990s? No, that can't be right ...

Oh dear.

I actually heard that same line of thinking when I was at a base in Utah helping configure some software. One of the female contractors went by (networking engineer) and another of the engineers pipes up once she's out of hearing saying he wished that women would quit going into the workforce because it was lowering the wages.

I almost asked if that also applied to the black guy sitting next to him but somehow I just kept a straight face and went right on giving instructions for the admins like nothing happened. Think I'll pass on Utah on my list of 'areas I'd move to'. It's right in the same list as Alabama or Mississippi as 'never move to' states.


It's funny how people who blame women workers for low wages never seem to blame automation or outsourcing or any of the multitude of other ways corporations make big profits while keeping wages stagnant. They're trained to snipe at their fellow workers and never question their corporate lords.
 
2014-03-17 04:52:33 PM  
can we get around to just banning marriage?  It used to be a good system of social control for us men-folk.  now we have shows like bridezilla.  It has gone too far and this must stahp
 
2014-03-17 04:52:53 PM  

palelizard: That's farking communism, you sumbiatch, and I won't have you spreading red propaganda around the internets no more.


It would be really interesting to try it with 3 or 4 people with guardian-level obligations and see if the optimum occurs at higher than 2, but the difficulty of these kinds of studies is that you need a couple hundred family structures that actually remain stable for 20-ish years and are willing to report in regularly (1/year or so) on some fairly personal information.

So probably not going to be viable to actually do such a study for another 50 years (then tack on another 30 to actually finish it, so call it 80).  Since there's not an actual policy reason to study it really, just "we're curious", and that kind of thing is expensive, we'll probably never know.
 
2014-03-17 04:53:34 PM  

Theaetetus: stpauler: (2) a risk of reduced birth rates, with the demographic and economic damage that would impose on all future children; and

So, the rationale goes, if gays aren't allowed to marry, they will be out there making babies instead? Because that doesn't make sense. The gays will exist whether they can marry or not. (I'd actually be willing to wager that more gays would be willing to have in vitro or adoption if they could marry).

Not so - it makes sense if you have a belief that being gay is a choice, and that those gay folks who want to get married would otherwise choose to be heterosexual, marry, and have children.
Which really makes it an insight into the life of the person making the argument: they're probably closeted and trapped in a loveless heterosexual marriage, and, if gay marriage had been legal, would have chosen differently. And they believe that many others are in the same position.

It's sad, really. Anyone making that argument deserves our pity and sympathy, not scorn.


pretty much that
 
2014-03-17 04:56:46 PM  
How about y'all just tend to your own marriages, and your own churches, and let other folks deal with their own salvation and families?

What consenting adults do, is their own damn business.

Again: I'm fairly Conservative, but I support marriage equality on grounds of religious freedom, equality under the law, and the right to privacy. It's none of any church's business what OTHER churches are doing. And for damn sure, it's none of their damn business what folks are doing in civil ceremonies. Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what other people are putting on their own damn plates. It worked when you were five, it still works today.
 
2014-03-17 05:00:58 PM  
Well, I found that all remarkably boring and stupid. So here is a rabbit with a pancake on its head.
Actually, a rabbit with a pancake on its head is foolish.
Here's a Brazilian volleyball player in very little clothing.
Wake up. And smell the coffee.
img.fark.net
Utah can suck it.
 
2014-03-17 05:12:19 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It would be really interesting to try it with 3 or 4 people with guardian-level obligations and see if the optimum occurs at higher than 2, but the difficulty of these kinds of studies is that you need a couple hundred family structures that actually remain stable for 20-ish years and are willing to report in regularly (1/year or so) on some fairly personal information.

So probably not going to be viable to actually do such a study for another 50 years (then tack on another 30 to actually finish it, so call it 80).  Since there's not an actual policy reason to study it really, just "we're curious", and that kind of thing is expensive, we'll probably never know.


Personally, I'm okay in concept with polygamy (though there are usually issues with the execution), so we could just legalize it and see what happens.

Though, just from a throwing it out there perspective, with such arrangements where # parents > 2, I'd expect similar problems as in marriages with stepchildren and half-siblings (you know, where # of parents are already > 2).  "You're not my real daddy!" and "I'm better than you because I'm their real kid" could crop up, though I've no reason to believe more or less than they would in present arrangements.
 
2014-03-17 05:21:15 PM  

Zandor: It sounds like the original poster is remembering something from a basic economics class talking about available work force vs cost of labor. if you have lots of people willing to work for few jobs, cost of labor goes down. If you have lots of jobs, but few people, cost of labor goes up, since the potential employee can look for the best possible solution. If you remove half the work force (be it women, men, people over 35, etc) the potential result could be an increase in the cost of labor, hence salaries potentially doubling.


Well, no, that kind of makes assumptions of the price elasticity of supply and demand for labor.


We can also look at empirical data (i.e. history) and see that when in, for example, the US that women went from only small scale participation in the measured economy, to a large fraction being part of it, if your/his theory were true then real wages would have halved (or grown less slowly than expected) from roughly the 50s to the 80s, which is not the case.


The reality is that wages are not significantly affected in the long term by the amount of people joining or leaving the market - sure in the short term you can have shortages or gluts, particularly of unskilled workers (or workers with specific skills in surplus when a large employer closes down). In the medium and particularly longer term the market settles back close to the original equilibrium - if there was a glut of workers pushing prices down then over time more new businesses are try to start up and are successful, whereas if wages have spiked due to lack of workers, more businesses go broke or shut down as they don't have the profits to justify paying the higher wages they need to keep their staff.
 
2014-03-17 05:21:47 PM  

palelizard: Jim_Callahan: It would be really interesting to try it with 3 or 4 people with guardian-level obligations and see if the optimum occurs at higher than 2, but the difficulty of these kinds of studies is that you need a couple hundred family structures that actually remain stable for 20-ish years and are willing to report in regularly (1/year or so) on some fairly personal information.

So probably not going to be viable to actually do such a study for another 50 years (then tack on another 30 to actually finish it, so call it 80).  Since there's not an actual policy reason to study it really, just "we're curious", and that kind of thing is expensive, we'll probably never know.

Personally, I'm okay in concept with polygamy (though there are usually issues with the execution), so we could just legalize it and see what happens.

Though, just from a throwing it out there perspective, with such arrangements where # parents > 2, I'd expect similar problems as in marriages with stepchildren and half-siblings (you know, where # of parents are already > 2).  "You're not my real daddy!" and "I'm better than you because I'm their real kid" could crop up, though I've no reason to believe more or less than they would in present arrangements.


If kids do this kind of shiat, it's almost certainly because their parents are being royal douches and encouraging their kids to be royal douches themselves. As you note, that can happen in just about any kind of family, even a family involving a mom and dad who have only ever been married to each other and are biological parents to each kid in the family.
 
2014-03-17 05:22:26 PM  
"It would thereby enshrine in federal law the corrosive principle that moms and dads are interchangeable and, ultimately, irrelevant to children. "

I find it utterly depressing that there are people out there, smart people, who think this is anything more than gobbeldy-goop.
 
2014-03-17 05:28:51 PM  

Serious Black: If kids do this kind of shiat, it's almost certainly because their parents are being royal douches and encouraging their kids to be royal douches themselves. As you note, that can happen in just about any kind of family, even a family involving a mom and dad who have only ever been married to each other and are biological parents to each kid in the family.


Yep.  Douchey parents tend to raise douchey kids, regardless of number or gender. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report