The TRshady Forum became read-only in December 2014. The 10 year history will live on, in this archive.
Continue the discussion with the new home for the Eminem and Hip Hop discussion:
HipHopShelter.com.
It's a fucking joke, why should female representation on a bank note even make news for? Don't people have nothing better to debate/petition for? And why they cared enough to make it an issue, fuck knows, like having more females on bank notes is gonna change shit
It would seem as though some people are obsessed with representation percentages in all parts of society. Fact is that man - for the most part of history - has been the sex that's accomplished cultural and scientific advances.
For example, the Nobel Prize has been awarded 807 times to men and 44 times to women. A ratio of 18:1 for men. Or in percentages; Men: 94.9 % and Women: 5.1 %. OMFG, this doesn't seem fair, RIGHT?!! Who are the Nobel Prize committees to discriminate women like that!!
Point is, Jane Austen shouldn't "feature on the next £10 note" in order to "avoiding absence of women represented on banknotes", but because she was BRILLIANT in her field and deserves that spot, irrespective of the sex.
but tell me, why would employers give decent wages to people in poor areas? There is no reason for them to give them more than they are worth and without education they are not worth much. Employee could be paid anything and they wouldnt have no say in it because they can be replaced by anyone at any time. Of course this could be solved with redistribution of wealth but im guessing you are against that as well .
Cause you'll never take my pride from me It'll have to be bribed from me" - marshall "sellout" mathers
but tell me, why would employers give decent wages to people in poor areas? There is no reason for them to give them more than they are worth and without education they are not worth much. Employee could be paid anything and they wouldnt have no say in it because they can be replaced by anyone at any time. Of course this could be solved with redistribution of wealth but im guessing you are against that as well .
(Copy+paste from last post)
So the first question one should pose is; how did it come about that area X is poor in the first place? If you take a closer look, you’ll see that most of these areas are poor due to very high unemployment. And why is the unemployment rate high? Common contributing factors are (i) lack of (good) education, (ii) bad government policies.
Solution? Well, the first problem that needs to be addressed is the high unemployment rate, which leaves people with lack of health insurance, reduced life quality and reduced skills. Then one must ask, how does one employ people with lack of experience, lack of education, and consequently lack of skill? If you set a “minimum wage”, you are indirectly/unintentionally setting up a system under which these individuals remain unemployed.
If you instead abolish the minimum wage law, and let employers hire people at lower cost, their incentive to move business to these “poor areas” increase. In turn, individuals in these areas would get employed, get health insurance receive skills at work, and in general increase life quality. As (i) less and less people stay unemployed and (ii) individuals skills increase at work --> the pressure for higher wages will increase, and consequently the wages will rise. In the meantime, there are several federal support mechanisms that could be applicable. Milton Friedman suggested a negative-income tax, which would guarantee that no individuals earned less money than X.
NextEpisode wrote:So the first question one should pose is; how did it come about that area X is poor in the first place? If you take a closer look, you’ll see that most of these areas are poor due to very high unemployment. And why is the unemployment rate high? Common contributing factors are (i) lack of (good) education, (ii) bad government policies.
Solution? Well, the first problem that needs to be addressed is the high unemployment rate, which leaves people with lack of health insurance, reduced life quality and reduced skills. Then one must ask, how does one employ people with lack of experience, lack of education, and consequently lack of skill? If you set a “minimum wage”, you are indirectly/unintentionally setting up a system under which these individuals remain unemployed.
If you instead abolish the minimum wage law, and let employers hire people at lower cost, their incentive to move business to these “poor areas” increase. In turn, individuals in these areas would get employed, get health insurance receive skills at work, and in general increase life quality. As (i) less and less people stay unemployed and (ii) individuals skills increase at work --> the pressure for higher wages will increase, and consequently the wages will rise. In the meantime, there are several federal support mechanisms that could be applicable. Milton Friedman suggested a negative-income tax, which would guarantee that no individuals earned less money than X.
I don't know where the fuck you studied economics but you should sue your teachers
Oh thank you
Please elaborate though, educate the fool that I am.
Cool, what exactly is it that you do for feminism? I guess you could call me a civil rights activists... because I'm not racist.
Not discriminating against women does not mean you are a fucking feminist. And women who claim to be feminists without doing a god damn thing except being a woman piss me off the worst.
Calandre wrote:I don't know where the fuck you studied economics but you should sue your teachers
Oh thank you
Please elaborate though, educate the fool that I am.
Nice try
Based on your comment, it seems you live in a shit place where unemployed people are left with any kind of health insurance.
Maybe you should consider changing places - in several Western European countries (UK, France, Spain for example) you will be never left in that situation. As a matter of fact, our National Health Systems (yes, with Capitals) are one the things we are most proud of. We don't even care paying taxes to support it because it is a fundamental pillar of our society and of who we are.
Regarding the second part... well... my clients pay an awful lot of money for me explaining sutff like that. Why should I do it for free here? In any case, if you think you're right, prove it.
This thread is about feminism, which is the reason I brought up the policy of 'minimum wage' in the first place. One of the members (seemingly from the US?) then questioned this policy on the basis that undesirable consequences may follow. Therefore, the considerations of my argument had US as a reference point, where 'health care' isn't included in the tax-system (?), at least not to the same degree as in many European countries. But again, the question of 'health care' is not even a vital part of the argument I made.
I'm from Sweden. You're from Spain, no? Before talking about other people living in "shit places", you should probably consider that the place you're living in is no 'nirvana' either. For instance, reports from last week indicate that you have a youth (under 25) unemployment rate of ~57.5 %. I love Spain though, I'm actually going there next week.
You say: "As a matter of fact, our National Health Systems (yes, with Capitals) are one the things we are most proud of. We don't even care paying taxes to support it because it is a fundamental pillar of our society and of who we are."
I'm not particularly informed on your 'tax system' or your 'health care system'. But the text which is marked red here makes no sense. Are you implying that 'health care' is a free-good? It appears out of thin air? Or are you implying that A and B should pay C and D for their services to help E and F, in a situation where E and F makes an active choice of not caring to pay. That would not only be an economic problem, but also a moral problem, in my view.
It's ironic, I find both of your replies in this thread to be very close minded. Why is it ironic? Well, you posted this in another thread:
Calandre wrote:
"Read widely". "Try new things".
In alignment with the quotes above, allow yourself to think and theorize about issues and concepts which challanges the status quo. In particular, challenge your own opinion. That would be my advice for you.
So, instead of throwing out 'attempts of insults' like: "I don't know where the fuck you studied economics but you should sue your teachers", maybe you could take the advice of the person you quoted and "read widely". Two of the most praised and influential economist of the 20th century, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman (both Nobel laureates, by the way), supports the view that 'minimum wage' is not a good policy.
Charlotte Mathers wrote:My views on feminism are that both girls and guys need to stop living in the past. Yes, there was a time when women weren't treated as equals, neither were Afro-Americans. Everyone had their activists and all women are fine to go to every school, university, do any job they'd like and can vote, whatever they wanna do. I agree totally with the feministic activists in the past, the ones who jumped barricades, caused mayhem. That was needed back then to get what we have right now. They did right by defending our rights but I honestly don't see the point in feministic activists as for now. You're just all making matters worse; intentionally or not.
I think things as quotas are stupid too. In this company there should be working an X amount of women at least, so that it doesn't look like you're discriminating. I think a difference in qualities doesn't mean inequality. E.g. some jobs are men more carved for than women, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We have our differences and that is fine, we don't need to be 100% equal and be good at the same things, have the same things, feel the same things.
I think in our modern society we should be able to crack some jokes on the expense on eachother's gender just because it shouldn't be a sensitive subject anymore. I mean, yeah, the "make me a sandwich, woman"-joke is getting old but it isn't offensive our downgrading at all 'cause it's just for laughs; the people that are the problem are the ones that start getting butthurt about it and start going back to the past and address feminism. Both men and women do this. There's no harm done in joking around, as long as you don't say anything explicitely to hurt someone or to talk to them in a real downgrading way. Cracking a joke about women isn't mysogynistic at all and it shouldn't be seen that way 'cause it causes uncalled for attention to something so irrelevant. Offensive? Nah.
It's especially funny 'cause the women who scream the loudest about inequality are the ones that get mad the next day when their date wants to split a bill.
WOW! #CHARLOTTE4PRESIDENT
I agree with everything, especially the 2nd paragraph.
Rollefsen wrote:this guy is THE Spongebob.
Menzo wrote:one of my lowkey favourite 'newcomers' atm.
I'm going to start taking pictures of every meeting (internal and external) I go where I'm the only woman in the room I'm also going to start counting how often some of my male colleagues question my orders
.
