patrick.net

Anyway, due to the law being written that way, the average woman in Japan has two abortions in her lifetime.

Abortion cannot possibly be good for the body. I hope they will rewrite the law there soon. :(

And I am NOT saying that abortion should be illegal. But birth control should be legal and promoted.

Unfortunately, bap, I don't think you have much inkling of hardship and the nature of the working poor and the fact that people on minimum wage represent unskilled labour operating in a secondary, segmented and precarious labour market - most people earn above minimum wage for starters.

All these hypothetical arguments about running burger stands don't really represent the real world issues of poverty and providing a minimum safety net for those who have less to bring to the labour market.

They also overlook the fact jobs come easily to the middle class and that this easy certainty breeds indifference and cruelty and an inability to take the role of the other (which seems to be the main problem of 1 or 2 posters here, although you are complaining about high house prices for yourselves).

But your arguments are not uncommon amongst the mainstream of people who take their own position for granted and like to make life as difficult as possible for others.

Of course, if you are working poor, then that makes your arguments even harder to understand...

Each one blowing away your Anti-American, commie, left-lib crap.

I don't think so. nice of you to try though... I'm not against vigorous debate...

Cash requires working. If a person wants more choices they should earn them. That is how life works. You work for cash and cash gives you choices. A person with cash can choose between walking and driving a car. A person with even more cash can have a Caddy to drive. A person with even more cash has the first person drive them around in a long Caddy. Works pretty simple. The pro-welfare people mistake “want” with “need” and even worse, they mix up “hand out” with “right to have”. Nobody has a “right” to a free ride. None.

Look, I know an exporter here in Australia who did the following:
- felt there was a certain confectionery missing from the US market
- went to a confectinery maker uninterested in exporting and signed an exclusive US export/volume agreement with them
- went back to the US and signed an agreement with a supermarket chain and a packager
- buys bulk confectionery from the manufacturer, arranges to have it shipped to the packager in the US and retails it in the supermarkets
- sits back and lets the whole thing operate without him - he neither manufactures, nor packs, nor distributes, but makes $500 K a year profit. He distributes this income to himself and 2 relatives to reduce the tax payable. They all sit around on their bums 364 years a day doing nothing but taking home $166 K each. he owns a BMW.
- his next move is to sign an even more lucrative $10M deal with another American supermarket so he can sit on his bum some more and get even richer. The US market is big - there's a lot of profit in selling to 300 million people with a favourable exchange rate.

Another example:
- Bill Gates has barely written a line of code in his whole life. He purchased DOS (CP/M) for $50K off someone else with Dad's money, and the rest just snowballed from there. Bill Gates' own father, a lawyer, recently released a book actually saying the way money is accumulated in society is pretty harmful, and property laws only foster it. (William H. Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins, Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm)

Another:
- A guy in New Zealand (total population 4 million) just sold an eBay-like site to a newspaper for $675 million at 30 years of age. The site only operates in NZ. He pockets some $200 million of it directly and continues to run the business. These revenues are raised by charging the public for classified ads, of course.

Another:
- Tom Anderson of myspace.com sold the business to Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd for around $600 million. The site raises virtually no revenue at all, so it is hard to see what News Ltd are going to do with it, except start injecting more banner ads into every page.

You have to ask how the 'person with more cash' got it, bap. It was not through hard work at an hourly wage. So quit punishing all the little people at the bottom who barely make anything and have a terrible life, under the thumb of some bullying supervisor, and start asking questions about the sharp people skimming at the top who do 1/4 of the hard work of the janitor and ride around in Rolls Royces. These people get rich by skimming tiny bits of money from a lot of people, and nobody really notices it. Or, in the case of Bill Gates, $399.95 or whatever for MS-Office, none of which he wrote himself. Just because they're sharp operators doesn't give them more human rights than the next person. Their success comes from selling products to all the little people - without the little people, the affluent would be nothing.

So who's getting the free ride, bap?

Not to mention the 'society wives' or 'climbers' as someone else here called them, who want to marry a rich guy regardless oftheir feelings for him, so that they can sit around all day, play social tennis, breed, show off their wealth and plot and dream about status symbols all day long. Their children are sent to exclusive schools and are groomed to take automatic positions high in organisations or government through their connections, or just spend their inheritances holidaying all year long. Would you say they're working hard, or getting a 'free ride', bap? When they're watching the Paris fashion shows and planning to buy the latest Versace dress, doing it with YOUR money? because their rich husbands are merchant bankers, or own an insurance company, or whatever, raking in money from people like you... e.g. Paris Hilton, and dozens of other heirs... would you rather be the hamburger seller on $2 an hour, or the extremely hard-working Paris Hilton, bap?

the new guy starts at $4. This keeps both workers happy. The new guy can see where he can get and the experienced worker has no moral issue from training someone earning a like wage.

yeah, right, so the $4 guy can't even survive, unless he's living at home with mumsy and popsy. this is adolescent paper-round pay. and the private sector keeps pay rates confidential, remember?

sorry, i couldn't resist writing again, it's all so laughable. this is what happens when people are raised in countries where labour unions are weak, and brainwashed by the ruling elite to kick their own asses for themselves so they don't have to pay other people to put you down.

ooh, no, i get it all right. i get how the whole thing works.... or doesn't work...

How do you feel about forced birth control for anyone recieving government aide?

It employs a bunch of people that could not work a real job if needed.

hmm

yes, govt as a huge sheltered workshop, I've seen it all...

Note that JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame was on government aid for about a year, possibly while writing her book - she has a daughter - and now she is literally richer than the queen... so things can change over time, and the market doesn't necessarily reward people fairly...

besides which, those aid recipients vote, and have guns, apart from the human rights issue, and people might be angry...

"A woman is pregnant with her fifth child. She has tuberculosis, and her husband has syphilis. Their first child was born blind, the second child died at birth, the third child was born deaf and dumb, and the fourth child was born with tuberculosis. She is willing to have an abortion, if you think she should. Should she go ahead with the abortion or not? If you chose for her to have an abortion… Congratulations! You have just killed Beethoven."