Good Manners

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

<completely off topic, but:>
You mean "aspiration, right (also, senior)? 'cause, otherwise, I might see why your Advanced English teacher would have wanted to fail you, and it's more basic than gender rights and whatnot.

Corrected.

 

[JMohegan]

Interesting sidenote - in New York City, it's obvious that the teenage boys being raised by their grandmothers are still operating on old code. New code hasn't become universal by a long shot.

My nephew was raised, by his parents, with the new code. But since he perceives himself as healthier & stronger than pretty much everybody except his athletic peers, he'll only be sitting if the numbers of seats exceeds the number of riders.

Hold on, JM. Where's #3 coming from? I'm reading it as 'it's wrong that women are sharing that responsibility", but, at the same time, I'm putting words in your mouth...I think. Where are you getting your notion from?

1, 2, and 3 were straight observations. No positive or negative commentary applied.

ETA: Oh and btw, according to my high school advanced English teacher there is something wrong with wanting to be a housewife and she nearly failed me because I did my seinor exit project on that asperation.

I wonder if you misunderstood her reasoning, Wench. It's tough to know without talking to the teacher in question.

As I've said, there's nothing wrong with aspiring to be a housewife. But if the assignment was to write about your career plans, then talking about housewife aspirations *in that context* is wrong. Housewife is not a career in the sense of being an occupation or profession enabling one to support oneself. It is a means of sharing responsibility during the time one happens to be in a relationship in which that opportunity presents itself.

What I meant was value in an economic sense (econ student, so, can't help getting teknical): what you do has value. However, if everybody in society was still operating on the level of a "housewife"- and, please bear with my gross generalization and distortion here- by which I mean, if everybody was growing food, cooking, cleaning, and caring for kids, then everybody'd be poor, 'cause no one would be making the machinery to simplify life (your washing machine, microwave, stove, fridge, phones, computers, etc). That, however, is a crap example, going from housewife to medieval peasant. But that's what I'm talking about.
A more apt point is this: As a society, we've gotten as far from the savanna as we've gotten (replace savanna by caves if that works for you) because we've specialized. We choose to do very specific tasks and trade with others, because that lets us be more productive, and, therefore, better off (overall), 'cause now we can have the doctors, engineers, entertainers, factory workers that make our life a lot more bearable than it's been in the past. Yes, yes, modern stresses and whatnot, but our quality of life is still better than it's ever been before. Why? Cause people are more productive.
Does that little (and overly simplistic) econ lesson shed more light on what I was saying?

Those doctors and engineers would have a lot less time for doctoring and engineering, if they had to raise their own children, prepare their own meals, and clean their own toilets.

Of course, absent a willing partner to provide those services, doctors and engineers pay for outside help. Then the economic value of the labor becomes readily apparent. It can actually be quantified, in real dollars and cents.

 

[teknight]

Corrected.

Thanks!

 

[eastern sun]

I never claimed my education was complete (or ever will be). The day I claim that, had better be the day I die, 'cause, otherwise, I'd be an idiot.

Society, as it exists today, is built not on peasants, but on this whole diversified labor thing. Yes, we need to eat, but there's more to us than our stomachs.

So, are you saying that capitalism and the lifestyle it's brought about for you are evil? 'cause you can still become a house slave in parts of the world where you won't be too affected by it that much.

Yes, there are excesses, and yes, people have made idiotic blunders, especially when they claimed to know everything- the current crisis was brought about, in part, by financial companies claiming to know everything. That was idiotic, moronic, wrong. Somebody, somewhere did know that no bubble ever lasts, but they were drowned out by group think and the majority. However, all this speculative bullshit does have a very real foundation- it's investment. Giving your money to other people so that they can create newer and better things, which wind up enriching your pockets, and giving the world better things. There is value in that. But I choose not to denigrate it, just 'cause the economy's hiccuped. It's done so before (and it's rebounded) and it will do so again (and it will rebound again.) That the world will not look the same after the rebound merely means that the unproductive industries and companies have been wiped out, which is a good thing.

A quick reality check:
-not all investments will succeed. Shit happens. On average, however, more succeed than fail.

Have you considered, in this global economy, that the "third world" laborers might be playing the roles of the old feudal peasants? Even in the medieval system, there was division of labor. With modern communication and modes of transport, we don't need to be tied so closely to our serfs.

How could anyone generate the assets for investment without the cheap labor at the bottom level of the economic pyramid?

I'll admit, I don't much like capitalism, even though I benefit from its rapaciousness. I also think our ability to create new technologies is outstripping our ability to use them wisely. I rather like the idea of slowing down the engine so that us human beings can catch up.

 

[the captians wench]

<completely off topic, but:>
You mean "aspiration, right (also, senior)? 'cause, otherwise, I might see why you Advanced English teacher would have wanted to fail you, and it's more basic than gender rights and whatnot.

No, I don't spell very well. But the grammar natzi have given me a free pass because I contribute thought out and organized ideas to the topics I choose to participate in. Sorry oh mighty keeper of the conversation that I didn't hit the sell check button. I worked late last night, and I'm a morning person so only had a few hours sleep which I don't personally function well on and makes for very grumpy and lazy Mondays.

If you have a problem with my pass, go seek out the GN.

The comment about my teacher failing my exit project was more a tongue in cheek comment. I did discuss it with her then, and because of my reasoning with her and the fact that I used the housewife thing as a second back up and completed the rest of my assignment based on the first two choices, we agreed to disagree and she upped my grade on the project. She was the one teacher I found that didn't like me. She didn't think I belonged in her class, because of my poor spelling.

 

[teknight]

My nephew was raised, by his parents, with the new code. But since he perceives himself as healthier & stronger than pretty much everybody except his athletic peers, he'll only be sitting if the numbers of seats exceeds the number of riders.

1, 2, and 3 were straight observations. No positive or negative commentary applied.

It did feel like I was putting words in your mouth (sorry about that). I do lack your observations, duh! Still, care to expand on that 3rd point, please?

Those doctors and engineers would have a lot less time for doctoring and engineering, if they had to raise their own children, prepare their own meals, and clean their own toilets.

That's what she...uhhh..I said!

 

[teknight]

Have you considered, in this global economy, that the "third world" laborers might be playing the roles of the old feudal peasants? Even in the medieval system, there was division of labor. With modern communication and modes of transport, we don't need to be tied so closely to our serfs.

How could anyone generate the assets for investment without the cheap labor at the bottom level of the economic pyramid?

I'll admit, I don't much like capitalism, even though I benefit from its rapaciousness. I also think our ability to create new technologies is outstripping our ability to use them wisely. I rather like the idea of slowing down the engine so that us human beings can catch up.

No, they're not. Could they be treated better? Absolutely- but they're flocking to what we perceive as shitty jobs, with low pay and horrible work conditions. You know why? 'cause it's better than what they can find in their villages, and they can afford to support themselves (and maybe a family). Again- they work horrible hours, in poor conditions, and only see an infinitesimal fraction of what we pay for the end products. But, the problem there is, that there will always be another man/woman/ child (sad as that is) who will do the same job for less than that person who demands a raise. It's a sad fact. Absolutely. But it's a fact. Would you deny the person willing to work for less a job, 'cause they're undermining another person who's not well off?
And yeah, it is just that- cheap labor. They're not serfs, much as their lives suck.

OK. We slow down the global machine. What do we do we about the the billions of people around the world living on a dollar/day or less*? Do we let them starve, 'cause we feel guilty for "exploiting" them? Is that fair? Will that abate your guilt then?


*reference for the poverty numbers. It's old, but apt nonetheless.

 

[JMohegan]

That's what she...uhhh..I said!

Nope. What you said was:

Toil only means that you're incapable of producing much of value.

I'm saying you're wrong.

Labor has real economic value. Pick a task, pinpoint the location, and I can put a price on it.

 

[teknight]

Nope. What you said was:

I'm saying you're wrong.

Labor has real economic value. Pick a task, pinpoint the location, and I can put a price on it.

If you're toling 16 hours/day, 7 days/ week, and can barely feed yourself and your family...yeah, there's not much added value in your labor. In the dollars and cents meaning.

I'll grant that last night, I did use the term loosely and not in the econ sense. Even so, I hold by what I said. There's not much value, dollars and cents wise, in that kind of back breaking toil. Yes, it's sad, but it's fact.

And I was agreeing on the point of specialization, which you reworded and repeated.

 

[eastern sun]

No, they're not. Could they be treated better? Absolutely- but they're flocking to what we perceive as shitty jobs, with low pay and horrible work conditions. You know why? 'cause it's better than what they can find in their villages, and they can afford to support themselves (and maybe a family). Again- they work horrible hours, in poor conditions, and only see an infinitesimal fraction of what we pay for the end products. But, the problem there is, that there will always be another man/woman/ child (sad as that is) who will do the same job for less than that person who demands a raise. It's a sad fact. Absolutely. But it's a fact. Would you deny the person willing to work for less a job, 'cause they're undermining another person who's not well off?
And yeah, it is just that- cheap labor. They're not serfs, much as their lives suck.

OK. We slow down the global machine. What do we do we about the the billions of people around the world living on a dollar/day or less*? Do we let them starve, 'cause we feel guilty for "exploiting" them? Is that fair? Will that abate your guilt then?


*reference for the poverty numbers. It's old, but apt nonetheless.

I agree with you about the desirability of those jobs. And I do feel guilty for my own prosperity, largely unearned and founded on some gross misconduct on the part of my country's forefathers and recent leaders. I also don't like the fact that the modern technologies are being used in large part to feed addictions, and put people into a deeper sleep.

If there were a way to slow down the engine, and redistribute the wealth, I wouldn't complain, even if I lost the advantage of my worldly position.

Human nature being what it is, though, I recognize my naivete. Unless the greed, the desire for power, and the fear of vulnerability are reduced at the source, the addition of new resources to any point in the system creates the opportunity for yet more self-centered thinking and behavior.

 

[JMohegan]

It did feel like I was putting words in your mouth (sorry about that). I do lack your observations, duh! Still, care to expand on that 3rd point, please?

"3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult."

Old expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity is much lower than his own, and he will work while she stays home (assuming he can afford it) during the entirety of their time together.

New expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity may lower than, equal to, or in excess of, his own, and she may choose to work for a substantial part (or even the entirety) of their time together.

 

[eastern sun]

Btw, if you want to see a path that is denigrated, ridiculed and often leaves the person who chose it feeling very isolated, talk to a stay at home dad. I know stay at home moms who aren't allowed by their husbands (yes, allowed, and they aren't BDSM) to hang out with stay at home dads.

This is true. Also true for men who are staying at home to care for aging parents. In both cases, the altruism in their actions seems to be completely missed.

But I think the real concern is that the stay-at-home dads are going to hit on their stay-at-home wives, don't you?

 

[JMohegan]

If you're toling 16 hours/day, 7 days/ week, and can barely feed yourself and your family...yeah, there's not much added value in your labor. In the dollars and cents meaning.

Clearly you've never attempted to hire a competent housekeeper/nanny in a major metropolitan environment.

I'm not talking about what goes on in the 3rd world. I'm talking about what ES does, and what it would cost to replicate those services.

 

[teknight]

If there were a way to slow down the engine, and redistribute the wealth, I wouldn't complain, even if I lost the advantage of my worldly position.

Human nature being what it is, though, I recognize my naivete. Unless the greed, the desire for power, and the fear of vulnerability are reduced at the source, the addition of new resources to any point in the system creates the opportunity for yet more self-centered thinking and behavior.

I fully agree. Unfortunately, I grew up in an allegedly communist country (Romania- and I say "allegedly" 'cause that was not the heralded communism the twoo believers had been hawking) and I outright reject redistribution as a good thing (yeah, taxes....are a complicated issue, for a whole other thread...or 50).

And, don't worry- everyone's self centered.

"3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult."

Old expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity is much lower than his own, and he will work while she stays home (assuming he can afford it) during the entirety of their time together.

New expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity may lower than, equal to, or in excess of, his own, and she may choose to work for a substantial part (or even the entirety) of their time together.

OK. Thanks. That makes sense. I say "Dual income=more Furraris!!"

 

[teknight]

Clearly you've never attempted to hire a competent housekeeper/nanny in a major metropolitan environment.

I'm not talking about what goes on in the 3rd world. I'm talking about what ES does, and what it would cost to replicate those services.

Not to denigrate the people that do that work, but the high wages are more a result of high demand than inherent worth in the work. Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*.


*I do not mean the Justin Biebers of the world!!
** on 2nd thought, being a good caretaker should commend a premium, 'cause there should be more than "feed the kid" and "make sure they don't kill/maim themselves" in the equation. However, if housekeepers do only the first two things, then, they're replaceable, and as such, aren't providing a lot of value.

ETA: back to the toil thing: I was talking about the middle ages and before, not modern day housewives/husbands. But, whatev'.

 

[eastern sun]

I outright reject redistribution as a good thing

Why??

 

[teknight]

Why??

Uhh...Communism/Socialism: It did that-the redistribution thing. It failed. MISERABLY.

ETA:I'm thinking of Communism/Socialism in the context of your global redistribution and righting of wrongs. The commies tried. They FAILED!

 

[JMohegan]

Not to denigrate the people that do that work, but the high wages are more a result of high demand than inherent worth in the work. Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*.


*I do not mean the Justin Biebers of the world!!
** on 2nd thought, being a good caretaker should commend a premium, 'cause there should be more than "feed the kid" and "make sure they don't kill/maim themselves" in the equation. However, if housekeepers do only the first two things, then, they're replaceable, and as such, aren't providing a lot of value.

ETA: back to the toil thing: I was talking about the middle ages and before, not modern day housewives/husbands. But, whatev'.

Thanks for clarifying on the toil thing.

Your 2nd thought is important. As someone who was raised by a stay-at-home mom, I consider the value of those services to be very high indeed. Reflective of a host of critical intangibles.

 

[eastern sun]

Not to denigrate the people that do that work, but the high wages are more a result of high demand than inherent worth in the work. Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*.

*I do not mean the Justin Biebers of the world!!
** on 2nd thought, being a good caretaker should commend a premium, 'cause there should be more than "feed the kid" and "make sure they don't kill/maim themselves" in the equation. However, if housekeepers do only the first two things, then, they're replaceable, and as such, aren't providing a lot of value.

You are denigrating the inherent worth in this type of work in your comments, and if it is a product of your economic studies, and not just your own mind, then I will take my concerns to the economic departments of major universities.

If anyone can clean up shit, why do so few do it? Why are we such a dirty species, creating more filth than we can clean? And the responsibilities in childcare are mind-boggling, requiring at least a working knowledge in medicine, nutrition, education and psychology.

I can only assume you haven't actually engaged in this type of work yet.

 

[eastern sun]

Uhh...Communism/Socialism: It did that-the redistribution thing. It failed. MISERABLY.

ETA:I'm thinking of Communism/Socialism in the context of your global redistribution and righting of wrongs. The commies tried. They FAILED!

Why? It's a genuine question. You grew up within it. I'm assuming you have a perspective I don't share.

 

[teknight]

Thanks for clarifying on the toil thing.

Your 2nd thought is important. As someone who was raised by a stay-at-home mom, I consider the value of those services to be very high indeed. Reflective of a host of critical intangibles.

Umm....I absolutely agree that a parent has more vested interest in a kid's upbringing and final outcome. Absolutely. However, since you were talking about hiring a housekeeper in a major urban setting:
-it's not that parents wouldn't pay a premium to get a caring/considerate/educative person to look after their kids. However, in such a context, they might not always have the choice of such high quality services....and they might only be able to afford someone to look after the kids- whether all the extra goodness occurs or not. This demand for babysitters would exacerbate the price even for those providing the lowest quality of service, alas, 'cause you'd need someone to look after the kid, and at certain points, when you're out of options your choices turn into a monopoly. The point I'm making is that the mere price of a babysitter in an urban environment isn't necessarily indicative of the value of their services.

For what it's worth, both my parents worked, but still had time to raise me. Feel free to judge how that turned out.

 

[ownedsubgal]

wow, "anyone" can clean a house, and most anyone could "look after" a child. wow.

 

[JMohegan]

Umm....I absolutely agree that a parent has more vested interest in a kid's upbringing and final outcome. Absolutely. However, since you were talking about hiring a housekeeper in a major urban setting:
-it's not that parents wouldn't pay a premium to get a caring/considerate/educative person to look after their kids. However, in such a context, they might not always have the choice of such high quality services....and they might only be able to afford someone to look after the kids- whether all the extra goodness occurs or not. This demand for babysitters would exacerbate the price even for those providing the lowest quality of service, alas, 'cause you'd need someone to look after the kid, and at certain points, when you're out of options your choices turn into a monopoly. The point I'm making is that the mere price of a babysitter in an urban environment isn't necessarily indicative of the value of their services.

For what it's worth, both my parents worked, but still had time to raise me. Feel free to judge how that turned out.

By definition, the price = the economic value of the services. The demand curve intersects the supply curve and - voila! There it is.

Of course, economic value may differ from an individual's perspective of true value. But how does that relate to your earlier assertion, quoted below?

"Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*."

What did you mean when you said the work itself does not add much value?

 

[teknight]

You are denigrating the inherent worth in this type of work in your comments, and if it is a product of your economic studies, and not just your own mind, then I will take my concerns to the economic departments of major universities.

If anyone can clean up shit, why do so few do it? Why are we such a dirty species, creating more filth than we can clean? And the responsibilities in childcare are mind-boggling, requiring at least a working knowledge in medicine, nutrition, education and psychology.

I can only assume you haven't actually engaged in this type of work yet.

I'm pointing out a discrepancy, that's all. A good parent is worth a ton of money, but, and I'll use a subjective argument here, my parents both worked, and I came out OK*. So, the end results are the same even if someone doesn't spend their life being domestic.

So few cleaners exist 'cause those are low paid jobs. They're low paid 'cause anyone can pick up a rag/mop/broom/sponge and clean. Not everyone can do your taxes, or fix your computer.
The following will be denigrating:
Mind boggling? No. People have been raising kids for hundreds of thousands of years, without a ton of knowledge. Does a good modern day parent strive to learn as much as possible in order to be a good parent? Do we put more energy into raising our kids 'cause we choose to raise fewer of them, since medicine and sanitation mean they'll live past 2 years old? Sure. But that doesn't mean that raising a kid is a science, or that it needs to be hard work (regardless of how harrowing it'd seem to someone that does it day to day).

And what's "working knowledge" actually mean?

*zip it, peanut gallery!

Why? It's a genuine question. You grew up within it. I'm assuming you have a perspective I don't share.

It took wealth (seized factories, land and cattle) and redistributed corruption and a low quality of life. It did however give out solid science education and decent healthcare, so, there is that.
Why do you think communism collapsed? It didn't collapse 'cause the people were living the good life, it collapsed 'cause they weren't even getting the basics- bread, eggs, milk. Yeah, I remember gigantic queues for stuff like that, 'cause there was very little of it, if there was any at all. I remember stores with empty shelves and nothing else (and not because they'd just had some huge liquidation sale), but because redistribution didn't know how to distribute raw materials and goods. Because the raw materials were poorly distributed, goods weren't getting made.
What's more, communism encouraged laziness. People got paid for showing up to work in some cases. The joke of the day was "We pretend we're working, and they pretend they're paying us." Only, it was true. If you get paid regardless of the work you do, and if you see that your hard efforts aren't being rewarded, why work your ass off? It makes no sense. Communism failed.

 

[teknight]

wow, "anyone" can clean a house, and most anyone could "look after" a child. wow.

Yeah. Cleaning a house, from top to bottom, might take time, but, barring some major handicap anyone could do it. Do you need an intensive training period to mop or run a vacuum cleaner? What's so difficult about any part of cleaning a home?...other than it being a time consuming activity?

Making sure the kids are fed and clothed and aren't killing themselves can be done by a bunch of people.

Yes, raising a child to be a good human being (or whatever your goal as a parent might be) takes a lot more than that, but, I meant nothing more than what I've just said. To keep the kids fed, clothed, and alive takes very little energy.