cab21

ill do a listen of those podcasts how will the CAB minimize costs and maximize the well being of a child? the idea is definitely worth expanding on and flushing out. i will look at the study, a gdp of 4X is not going to mean that people get the same standard of living by only working .25x though. thats just not how GDP works getting rid of some government regulations would be good, and passing the rest on to dro's would be good, it would create a better economy. some could do 10 hour work weeks or stay at homes, but i still think others won't, at least at the start. working on the cab idea is good. i think mentality is a big part in getting more SAH parents and less "work and send the kids to daycare" just reading articles about duel incomes and daycares, people will comment about how they feel they are struggling making 200k a year after taxes, so i have no idea what's going on with the choices of some people. if people making that much think that, what are people that get more from government than they give to the government thinking?

Parents would have to work to buy a DRO plan, would they not? People are already working to be able to afford all sorts of insurance types. Would a dro system let people not work so much and still have all these dro and insurance policies that people are currently working to purchase? Would poor people just be having babies, and not be part of a dro that has such requirements? the wonder is if we are going to have people with dro's and stay at home parents, then people without dro's where both parents work, and people with dro's where both people work, and how that will effect mobility if the people without dros where both parents work are turned into outcasts, and their children turned into outcasts? It sounds like it could get expensive if each baby is valued at millions of dollars by the dro's, it's all too easy to get pregnent and there are millions of abortions a year, and millions of births a year. people could just be having their babies without being part of dro's that hold clients to better and more expensive standards. then we have some children with parents with dro's with incentives for good parenting, and other children with parents who can't afford the dro's at all , or can afford one with less standards for coverage.

i thought socialists blamed capitalism for the daycare industry, so without such socialists, that daycare industry might grow? that the poor in capitalism have to work more, and thus need daycare more. also that those that want to be materialistic need to work more, and need daycare more. i don't think there is some one size fits all for parent bonding or daycare, and that each individual would have different needs. say the daycare center does not allow children who have separation anxiety, but does allow children that enjoy the daycare? that can even be another point socialists try and falsly make, that the capitalist daycare center just wants the money and does not care for the childs wellbeing, while some state funded program would resolve such ishues. it seems like a healthy child would be able to be with the childs parents and be without the parents and still be healthy. i don't want it to be a choice between where a child gets abused, but what if that is the case for some?

well being with one's mother does not guarantee a person is going to have a good relationship and bond with the parent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3357276/Mothers-who-cant-bond-with-their-babies.html sometimes the abuse at home can be worse than at a daycare, and that abuse is not filmed. so if I'm given stats on abuse in daycare, there are also stats of abuse in the home, by the child's own parents. i did not mean for the question to have a lack of compassion as much as i am trying to figure out these issues with children and bonding with their parents. my thought was "what if the child has 5 years with a stay at home mother, and still does not form a good bond with that mother?" im wondering if simply having the child stay with a stay at home instead of a parent is something that will give a bond, or just a factor that might lead to a better bond, but does not mean the child has a better bond with the parent. another factor here, is that paid maternity leave and all this stay at home mothering is usually promoted by progressiveness and socialism, and not so much part of capitalism, or at least socialists blame capitalism for a lack of babies bonding with their mothers and that huge staterun childcare centers serving mother and child are something socialists would provide more than capitalists for all children and mothers.

do you feel that spending that time with your mother and/or father would have created a better bond and trust? also, that doing so would have prevented damage to you as a child?

so a parent does due diligence into the quality of the daycare. that's still like pointing at mcdonalds and saying restaurant food is bad and noone at a restuarant can cook if people are just looking for examples of poor quality. what exactly are we meaning when we talk about daycare? can this be a stay at home mom taking care of friends of the family, a business well researched in childcare and develupment, or does it have to be some ghetto place like in these videos? why not look for a place with a huge portfolio and testimonials and experience and results in child development education beyond what I have? this means looking for professionals, not just a daycare without due diligence. so say these were stay at home parents with the black kid in the example, the father went in the daycare and hit a child, the wrong child, but still with the intention of striking a child,what kind of father is this man anyway? is he just violent when then , or is he the type that would be violent to his child and wife even in other situations.

what does this have to do with all daycare though? finding one example of a bad daycare, so all daycare is bad? like if one bad apple is found, all apples are bad? if there is a reason daycare is bad, that some have problems like these is not a good reason, since it does not even apply.

so smooching is kissing mooching is living off their resources without payment. think of how you can trade with your parents for what you want, how can you add value to their lives that they are happy with the situation. if they are happy with it, it's a trade, not really mooching

so then the government bans robots

this is confusing she thought someone was hanging in a cell, so she cut the throat of a different person, while on heroin?

some people use contraceptives for medical reasons other than birth control, sebelias made that argument in her arguments. i'ts not like products have 1 use only and can be used for nothing else. free market for healthcare is going to save a lot more lives than what the government is doing.

why were they hired in the first place, if they were fired for not speaking the language the company wanted them to speak?

what definition of parasite is being used? it does not fit the definition as used in science. it might fit the definition as used in slang to be derogatory.

supply and demand wise, government regulations seem to be what government can do( or not do). i would think a capitalist would go after the government regulations, and maybe a socialist would go after the number of labor force. unskilled labor must work to become skilled labor, or allow new types of unskilled labor as the labor market changes. more people would naturally mean more jobs i would think, at least need for productivity to provide for what people consume. usa already has socialist policies paying people more to not be in the labor market than a labor market would pay, and this is all just being paid by debt and fiat currency rather, as well as the productivity of those in the labor market.

so im reading some candidates pages, and dave brat apparently defeated eric cantor in a primary. on his page http://davebratforcongress.com/issues/ he says "Adding millions of workers to the labor market will force wages to fall and jobs to be lost." to me that just sounds wrong, like national socialism or something. i would think adding millions of workers in a free market would cause economic growth to skyrocket. the mindset of more workers meaning more threat to jobs seems like something that leads to china's one child only policy or some other totalitarian policy.

ill check out the book looks very interesting

i think one definition i have seen is common ownership of the means of production. so one commune without coercion would be a place where the ownership of the means of production is common and agreed to by freedom of association. it could just be state interference where i see all these low wage workers demand the state raise their wages, but that seems like a case of few people wanting to do something that has not become more valuable. i could be that lots of people want a job for money, rather than the job itself. fair enough so by dependant class, that would mean people voting for the state to give more resources than the person produces/earns? that rather than working to be friendly and more productive, the person works to get government legislation. that would rule out people that really have disabilities that go to family and try and make friends to out out, rather than government. i think what i have been reading about communism is it's goal to to be classless and stateless, and that in the real world has always just been stuck at dictatorship levels. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48758/kyril-tidmarsh/russias-work-ethic this was one article, i don't agree with the solutions it proposes, but it does list some motivation problems ussr had.

yes it's immoral, but coercion is one type of motivation. part of capitalism is that supply surpass demand for some jobs, driving wage costs down and production up. even people keeping 100%, if they expect a society to be more advanced than it is, people are still going to have to do certain jobs. i'd say some people have jobs because they want to earn money, more than they have the job because they like doing the work to the point of doing the work without the money. if people are doing the work without the money, then a communist post money economy is certainly a option that requires no coercion whatsoever. a society that wants a good sewage system is going to have to have sewage, workers, whether or not anyone particularly dreams of working with sewage. people get paid what they negotiate, this can be more or less than what a person produces value wise. if a society has jobs that must be done, and more people that need jobs than jobs, the wage can lower while the demand for production can increase. this gives the ruling classes and enforcer classes a motivation to keep to coercion, and a motivation for the dependent class to support a ruling class and enforcer class. makes me wonder why the working class puts up with the dependent, ruling, and enforcer classes? that coercion works as a immoral motivator sounds like the case here. a society always will have dependent classes, such as children to a certain extent like infants), so maby the environment the children get raised in plays a important factor in later motivation. im wondering how much babies growing up and wanting to keep enforcer and rulling classes is nature or nurture?

so i have been reading about how communism is a motivator for people. trying to think about incentives, would killing people that did not work solve that problem? like if all the i would think in capitalism, it's really work or die, so creating a work or die communism might solve for something in capitalism that people say communism takes away? was this some overpopulation that just needs a population cull to solve? in capitalism people don't get the luxury to be lazy or only do jobs they like to do, so weeding people out that can't work in such a environment almost seems natural. a society needs people to do lots of jobs, and people doing those jobs well no matter what it's pay is. high paying jobs don't come if everyone in society refuses to take anything less than what they personal like and pays well. just watching wilderness survival shows, if the people don't like the work or the compensation and decide not to work, they die. if the survivalists do poor work, they die. is it modern society and technology that has lead to such entitlement of people thinking they can skip work and be provided for?

what movement teaches what that article claims mens rights movement to teach? those claims are absurd.

at what point is it poor parenting, vs the individual just being a poor human being?

what would the father do to his daughter if he found her reading the book on her own? these protests sometimes come from people that read the bible, which has daughters raping their fathers, among other scenes of graphic nature.

i thought that a reward was to support work a person is already doing? people only get a championship, after they win. they don't get a championship in order to play more to try and win. say a teacher says "ill give feedback on work you submit for my review", is that a carrot or supporting work a person is already doing?

so if we donate to fdr, we are punishing stefan?

so the wikipedia says ethiopia has 11 666.7* fatalities per 100k motor vehicles and that the usa has 15 per 100k motor vehicles