These double jobbers.

cloptrop

minidazzler wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

Yep ill have to find a way around that . New laws on cohabiting . If you share the cost of the rent you dont need two jobs .

How do you share the cost of rent if one person doesn't have a job?

What if people are just housemates?

These are just minor details . But again we will come up with an idea.
And if two people can afford to rnt two houses . When they move in together they save a thousand a month straight off . Combining this with the lower prices my system would bring its a win win .

Thumby

Cloptrop WTF basically? Let's say for argument sake your brainfart(to quote my son) works, partner b gives up job to stay home and raise kids while partner a supports the "family unit" financially. Couple of years down the line the couple splits up and the stay at home parent finds themselves in a situation where they have no sustainable income with which to pay rent/mortgage, heating leccy etc, all the necessities basically. Where do they end up having to go? Social welfare, now i'm sure in your magnificent depths of wisdom you'll allow said parent to go back to work. In order to do this however they will have to up skill, which means being reliant on welfare until they are qualified to go back to work. In both instances childcare is needed, but wait you've obliterated the need for that service/profession. Back to the drawing board for you me thinks, i'll pop out to the post office now and send you a pack of crayola. Ya never know you might come up with something creative!

Boombastic

Thumby wrote: »

Cloptrop WTF basically? Let's say for argument sake your brainfart(to quote my son) works, partner b gives up job to stay home and raise kids while partner a supports the "family unit" financially. Couple of years down the line the couple splits up and the stay at home parent finds themselves in a situation where they have no sustainable income with which to pay rent/mortgage, heating leccy etc, all the necessities basically. Where do they end up having to go? Social welfare, now i'm sure in your magnificent depths of wisdom you'll allow said parent to go back to work. In order to do this however they will have to up skill, which means being reliant on welfare until they are qualified to go back to work. In both instances childcare is needed, but wait you've obliterated the need for that service/profession. Back to the drawing board for you me thinks, i'll pop out to the post office now and send you a pack of crayola. Ya never know you might come up with something creative!

No social welfare needed, they get back in to the saddle and start selling those baloons:)

optimistic_

cloptrop wrote: »

Baloon prices will fall . I paid a fiver for a balloon a few months ago . This isnt sustainable in my system . Increased traffic in parks across ireland will however allow you to sell more. Decreasing your overheads allowing you to still make a profit .

Decreasing overheads by increasing trade? did you fail this business course in which you "studied" economics?

cloptrop

The father pays for the wife and kids even after divorce . Divorce isnt some kind of midlife responsibility avoidance in my system.

optimistic_

How old are you Cloptrop?

It can't be anything over 20 .. And that's being a bit generous. When you've actually lived in reality for a while you'll abandon your naive ideals. (dangerous as they might be, they're still naive to a jaw dropping level)

Thumby

@boombastic, of course. How silly of me for not thinking like the op! Jaysus i'd make an absolute killing if i could get him to blow up the ballons for me. After all the hot air would dissapate quicker than the helium therefore increasing demand and supply. Now if only i could figure out what to do with the children oh and the former childcare providers turned balloon sellers! After all at least one would have to quit in order to provide me with a job. Any suggestions op?

coolbeans

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

I see what you did there OP. Well played.

sf80

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

Great idea! You can have my job first, or maybe my partners. Just come get it. You might have to spend years in college and then a bunch more years working up experience, but once you do that our jobs are here for your taking.

cloptrop

optimistic_ wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

Baloon prices will fall . I paid a fiver for a balloon a few months ago . This isnt sustainable in my system . Increased traffic in parks across ireland will however allow you to sell more. Decreasing your overheads allowing you to still make a profit .

Decreasing overheads by increasing trade? did you fail this business course in which you "studied" economics?

Yes as a percentage on balloons sold overheads will fall . If it costs you a euro a balloon on overheads when you sell ten a day . It wouldnt cost as much if you sold ten thousand a day . Think how much youd be saving on costs like petrol to the park . Its pretty basic dude.

Thumby

HA! Jaysus op thanks for that last suggestion, i needed the laugh. In the real world that is not logically feasable or practical. People are not just statistics or numbers on a financial report. There are a hundred and one reasons why that won't work, financial being just one of them. Besides which you fail to see my point of them being partners not a married couple. Believe me it makes a hell of a difference in real life.

optimistic_

cloptrop wrote: »

Yes as a percentage on balloons sold overheads will fall . If it costs you a euro a balloon on overheads when you sell ten a day . It wouldnt cost as much if you sold ten thousand a day . Think how much youd be saving on costs like petrol to the park . Its pretty basic dude.

Now I'm not sure you know what an overhead is.

And yes it's very basic, which makes your lack of understanding of it pretty impressive.

cloptrop

sf80 wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

Great idea! You can have my job first, or maybe my partners. Just come get it. You might have to spend years in college and then a bunch more years working up experience, but once you do that our jobs are here for your taking.

I am a stay at home father . My fiance works . But Im sure there is someone at your job who could do what you do . Moving them up and letting a no jobber into their place . Nobody is irreplaceable like .

cloptrop

cloptrop wrote: »

I am a stay at home father .
...
Nobody is irreplaceable like .

Off you go so

cloptrop

optimistic_ wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

Yes as a percentage on balloons sold overheads will fall . If it costs you a euro a balloon on overheads when you sell ten a day . It wouldnt cost as much if you sold ten thousand a day . Think how much youd be saving on costs like petrol to the park . Its pretty basic dude.

Now I'm not sure you know what an overhead is.

And yes it's very basic, which makes your lack of understanding of it pretty impressive.

Ok your failing to see my arguement because of the misuse of a word . Good one dude . My spelling can be bad sometimes too . Use that to prove your next point.

Thumby

@optimistic, i'm not even sure its anywhere near 20 as my 12 year old has a better understanding of not just economics but reality as well.
Than again who are we judge? After we've never lived under the bridge and cannot possibly understand the heirarchy of troll society.

Thumby

To judge*

optimistic_

cloptrop wrote: »

Ok your failing to see my arguement because of the misuse of a word . Good one dude . My spelling can be bad sometimes too . Use that to prove your next point.

It's not even teh misuse of the word. Your sales volume goes up, your overheads go up - You will have increased material costs, storage costs, transport costs - you increase teh voluemt and the fixed costs being absorbed by each balloon will decrease as the volume increases, but your variable costs will increase.

And stop saying "dude", it weakens any points you make.

Boombastic

Thumby wrote: »

.............. Besides which you fail to see my point of them being partners not a married couple. Believe me it makes a hell of a difference in real life.

Easy, another job vacancy in the labour ward, marrying any unmarried couples




*Maternity ward - another good site for selling baloons

It wasn't me!

That nobody is irreplaceable is, on the face of it, true, but it's impossible to replace a skilled professional with years of experience with a person who doesn't fit that profile. Johnny No Qualifications is not going to get a job as a software developer just because under your system, one has to retire because his brain surgeon wife makes more money. Neither is Paul the office coffee guy, so suggesting it'll promote mobility within the organisation is crap too. The reason most people have jobs is because they've got skills, qualifications and experience better than the people who don't have their jobs. Therefore, if they're removed from the workforce, the next person in to replace them isn't going to be as good, leading to an overall drop in standards.

ronan45

Those Double Jerbers took all our JERBZZZ

Thumby

Oooo i may order in supplies so boombastic. I'm sure i can blow up balloons while in the height of labour in five months lol. op would be so proud of me, furthering future generations of the work force while still making a profit. Without selling my baby to those poor dissillusioned couples who only think they don't want children. Happy days :-D

martomcg

i would say this is the most ridiculous thread i've ever seen but this guy is possibly one of the biggest trollers i've ever met.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78578681

Have a little look at some of his threads.

Either the best troll on the internet or he sold all his marbles for a bag of spiders

Honestly i'm lost for words........

cloptrop

optimistic_ wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

Ok your failing to see my arguement because of the misuse of a word . Good one dude . My spelling can be bad sometimes too . Use that to prove your next point.

It's not even teh misuse of the word. Your sales volume goes up, your overheads go up - You will have increased material costs, storage costs, transport costs - you increase teh voluemt and the fixed costs being absorbed by each balloon will decrease as the volume increases, but your variable costs will increase.

And stop saying "dude", it weakens any points you make.

I spend a tenner on petrol driving to the park . I sell ten balloons thats a euro a balloon on petrol. I sell a hundred balloons . Still costs close to a tenner in petrol . Thats now 10 cent a balloon . Are you picking up what Im putting down.

optimistic_

cloptrop wrote: »

I spend a tenner on petrol driving to the park . I sell ten balloons thats a euro a balloon on petrol. I sell a hundred balloons . Still costs close to a tenner in petrol . Thats now 10 cent a balloon . Are you picking up what Im putting down.

Clearly - "the fixed costs being absorbed by each balloon will decrease as the volume increases"
You're missing the point on variable costs though, I suggest you avoid starting a business. And get a refund for your "Business course"

And are these balloons filled with gas already? Will these hundred fit in your current car? Or would an upgraded car be needed to cope with the increased volume, and thereby increasing fixed costs as well?

El Tarangu

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Boombastic

cloptrop wrote: »

I spend a tenner on petrol driving to the park . I sell ten balloons thats a euro a balloon on petrol. I sell a hundred balloons . Still costs close to a tenner in petrol . Thats now 10 cent a balloon . Are you picking up what Im putting down.

You should be walking to the park, if your serious about this venture

cloptrop

optimistic_ wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

I spend a tenner on petrol driving to the park . I sell ten balloons thats a euro a balloon on petrol. I sell a hundred balloons . Still costs close to a tenner in petrol . Thats now 10 cent a balloon . Are you picking up what Im putting down.

Clearly - "the fixed costs being absorbed by each balloon will decrease as the volume increases"
You're missing the point on variable costs though, I suggest you avoid starting a business. And get a refund for your "Business course"

And are these balloons filled with gas already? Will these hundred fit in your current car? Or would an upgraded car be needed to cope with the increased volume, and thereby increasing fixed costs as well?

So I used the wrong word dude its not important . Sorry fixed costs not overheads .

It wasn't me!

cloptrop wrote: »

So I used the wrong word dude its not important . Sorry fixed costs not overheads .

"I just put the figure in the wrong column. Sure *I* knew what I meant..."

Your "system" op is a load of nonsense from start to finish.

Your basically talking about taking people out of the workforce completely for the sake of about 3 years childminding in reality, most people noways take a lot of the first year off on maternity leave and once the child goes to school and especially once they start finishing school a 3 o'clock why on earth should a person have to sit at home alone probably while children are in school, an awful lot of people would go demented being stuck at home like that.

I also think people in general who can afford to live comfortably on one persons wages do it already so that should be opening up plenty of jobs in your "system" already, however your system is terribly flawed as it takes no account for people ability or qualifications. A lot of long term unemployed people, the kind of people I assume you are talking about would be simply unable to even attempt some of the jobs that you would be taking people out of.

As an aside op, whats your major problem with childminders, you appear to be on a crusade against them.

There may be some merit in giving the opportunity to one parent to jobshare (its already an option in some professions) for a few years while children are young so they can spend some time with their children but also still stay in the workforce and keep up on things in their job and then continue on full time once the child starts school.

cloptrop

As rregards the skiiling gap . This is just temporary until peoplle start to chose wife house husband as a trade and train in it . Then people who want to be doctors can train as doctors . People who want to be a house stayer can get good qualifications therefore increasing their chance of getting a good bread winner .

alphabeat

lets also bring in mandatory skangbag sterilisation to drop the dole q

yes, i went there.

It wasn't me!

cloptrop wrote: »

As rregards the skiiling gap . This is just temporary until peoplle start to chose wife house husband as a trade and train in it . Then people who want to be doctors can train as doctors . People who want to be a house stayer can get good qualifications therefore increasing their chance of getting a good bread winner .

Temporary my ass. You're talking about removing skilled personnel from employment because of changes in their domestic circumstances. People don't choose to "train" as stay at home parents from an early age, and if they do, they have no external employment prospects and are obliged to find a breadwinner rather than having any control over their own lives. You're still ignoring couples without children, by the way - if one of them isn't forced to give up work then they multiply their combined income several times over and can still avail of your theoretical reduced costs, providing a substantial disincentive to reproduction and therefore further undermining your system.

cloptrop

Again couples without children are discouraged wih taxesand pension problems for being selfish in my system . Being a housewife will be a respected profession in my system . People will want to train to be a level 5 housewife gaurenteeeing marriage to a good bread winner.
My system does not trick people into thinking they are not cool if they dont work and leave kids at home . My system doesnt want to milk every tax it can from the couple . My system isnt influenced by holywood movies and airbrushing.

Paulzx

"I have studied economics as part of a business course . Im not an economist but Id be in the loop"









Where did you study it?..........In montessori?

CruelCoin

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

Terrible idea....just terrible.

Put a ban on working hard? wut?

You're seriously going to penalise the couple with 4 jobs in favour of the layabouts with nothing?
"How dare you have work ethic!"""

cloptrop

CruelCoin wrote: »

cloptrop wrote: »

So say couple A have no work and are on the dole and couple B have two or more jobs between them and are complaining about taxes and people on the dole.
Surely the most humane thing is make it illegal to have more than 1 full time job . And maybe 1 per couple . Then nobody is on the dole and nobody getting raised in a creche .
Anybody have any views on this ?

Terrible idea....just terrible.

Put a ban on working hard? wut?

You're seriously going to penalise the couple with 4 jobs in favour of the layabouts with nothing?
"How dare you have work ethic!"""

Work hard raising yojr children.

Paulzx

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The working time directive already restricts the hours that certain people can work for just the reason the OP described ie to ensure employment is distributed more equally. Whether this has worked or not is another question as I know of many who are forced to work overtime for zero pay, particularly trainees in the professions which conveniently are not covered by the working time directive. Now if these trainees were included it would force the companies to hire more trainees for admittedly lower wages but it would give alot more people professional skills and qualifications.

What the Op also described is a situation that used to exist in Ireland where the woman on marriage is forced to resign her position (civil service). I don't think anybody would like to see those days back.

As a system it could not work in that people generally (I did say generally here now) marry within their social group. Qualified highly trained people marry other qualified highly trained people, the so called blue bloods marry other blue bloods etc etc. So to tell someone who has worked and studies for 10-15 years that they need to give up their job in favour of their other half is never going to happen.

The working time act has nothing got to do with distributing employment

It's to ensure a safe amount of hours are worked and minimum legal annual leave entitlements are given to employees.

It's not designed as some sort of make jobs scheme

It wasn't me!

cloptrop wrote: »

Again couples without children are discouraged wih taxesand pension problems for being selfish in my system .

What about people who have more than one kid per person (two per couple)? They're keeping your would-be balance in line, but obviously also creating a potential issue for distribution of resources. Also, pension problems? Right now, you'd be insane to be reliant on a state pension. Private pensions would rule the day in your system, and you can't affect those. Taxes? Are these taxes going to be more expensive than halving your gross income and paying to raise a child?

Being a housewife will be a respected profession in my system . People will want to train to be a level 5 housewife gaurenteeeing marriage to a good bread winner.

How does that guarantee anything? If it were that simple, they'd get professional qualifications which would similarly guarantee employment, no? Also, what are they going to learn in your level 5 course? Surely competition is going to ensure that people need to increase their housewifing qualifications? Is there going to be a level 8 degree in it? What about postgraduate housewife studies?

My system does not trick people into thinking they are not cool if they dont work and leave kids at home . My system doesnt want to milk every tax it can from the couple . My system isnt influenced by holywood movies and airbrushing.

1. "not cool"? So people are working and engaging with paid childcare services to be "cool"?
2. Your "system" has plans to tax couples on the basis that they don't reproduce, right?
3. What the fooking fook? You appear to have wobbled right off the edge.

It wasn't me!

cloptrop wrote: »

Work hard raising yojr children.

Or don't have children and enjoy more time and money to yourself. Your system actually provides a substantial disincentive to starting a family. Several of them, in fact.

Boombastic

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Or don't have children and enjoy more time and money to yourself. Your system actually provides a substantial disincentive to starting a family. Several of them, in fact.

Might cut down on the accidental pregnancies

Paulzx

cloptrop wrote: »

Again couples without children are discouraged wih taxesand pension problems for being selfish in my system . Being a housewife will be a respected profession in my system . People will want to train to be a level 5 housewife gaurenteeeing marriage to a good bread winner.
My system does not trick people into thinking they are not cool if they dont work and leave kids at home . My system doesnt want to milk every tax it can from the couple . My system isnt influenced by holywood movies and airbrushing.

I think you're seriously over reaching calling this a "system":D

Thumby

Stay at home parents are already highly valued by society, even if it is only those that their choice directly affects thank you very much op!
As one of the highly skilled and well educated parents of this generation i am extremely horrified at 1 your so called level of education in regards to economics 2 your blatent disregard of those of us who would love nothing more than to be able to go out to work and support ourselves and our children and 3 your lack of basic mathematical logic! I could go on but i won't as i have better things to do, for example ringing my ex (whom i refused to marry btw) and listen to him laugh his ass off when i ask him to take over all of my expenses and support myself and his children. Or should i ask long term partner to take over the care and financial expenses of my ex's children while i go chain myself barefoot and pregnant to within reach of various kitchen appliances?

It wasn't me!

Boombastic wrote: »

Might cut down on the accidental pregnancies

By definition, accidental pregnancies aren't planned, therefore no system or policy can discourage unplanned accidents.

Syllabus

Thumby wrote: »

Cloptrop WTF basically? Let's say for argument sake your brainfart(to quote my son) works, partner b gives up job to stay home and raise kids while partner a supports the "family unit" financially. Couple of years down the line the couple splits up and the stay at home parent finds themselves in a situation where they have no sustainable income with which to pay rent/mortgage, heating leccy etc, all the necessities basically. Where do they end up having to go? Social welfare, now i'm sure in your magnificent depths of wisdom you'll allow said parent to go back to work. In order to do this however they will have to up skill, which means being reliant on welfare until they are qualified to go back to work. In both instances childcare is needed, but wait you've obliterated the need for that service/profession. Back to the drawing board for you me thinks, i'll pop out to the post office now and send you a pack of crayola. Ya never know you might come up with something creative!

this point just reminded me that there has been not talk of single parents in respect of childcare

where do the children of lone parents go when mammy/daddy is working

Boombastic

It wasn't me! wrote: »

By definition, accidental pregnancies aren't planned, therefore no system or policy can discourage unplanned accidents.

yep but you mightn't jump in to bed as quick with someone if the consequences are being forced to marry them and be a stay at parent / to support the stay at home parent

Condatis

cloptrop wrote: »

Maybe if you feel you love your job more than your wife you got the wrong woman.

Well that, is suspect, is a widespread phenomenon.

It wasn't me!

Boombastic wrote: »

yep but you mightn't jump in to bed as quick with someone if the consequences are being forced to marry them and be a stay at parent / to support the stay at home parent

Eh, the prospect of paying maintenance isn't exactly slowing down the zombie horde at the moment, is it?

Paulzx

Boombastic wrote: »

if the consequences are being forced to marry them

John Charles McQuaid!!!!..............Come on down!!!!!!!!:D

Thumby

@syllabus, that's the point i was trying to make to the OP but just like those pretty little cartoon birdies it flew straight over his head!