On females

[Rhyfelwyr]

You do realize that this, besides being in contradiction with every legal and moral norm, is impossible in practice?

I am theorizing, so the practicability of getting it put into practice is not something I am concerned about. I also reject these legal and moral norms and as they are, by their own traditions, in fact illegal and immoral.*

*I am not just being outrageous here. Traditional western schools of thought on the legal acquirement of property through individual labour are entirely out of wack with modern property and labour laws. Equally, the moralisation of labour and women's role in it are entirely modern innovations that diverge hugely from traditional moral thought. I am therefore the last one to respect moral and legal norms; the voice of one crying in the wilderness in a world full of ideologues and fanatics.

How would such a thing account for room-mate situations? I know one person my age who lives alone or has a family or for whatever reason has chosen to no longer live with their parents and pays for it with one income.

This is why you can't social-engineer around the middle-class. The middle-class lives in a perfect balance of circumstances and what works for them doesn't apply to either the rich or the poor. Its like quantum physics and normal physics; the rules just aren't the same.

While I agree that social engineering is of itself something undesirable and generally causes more harm than good, I think that things can also reach a stage where the entire system becomes so engineered and artificial, that it takes equally engineering and artificial measures to dismantle it. I think we reached that stage a long time ago.

And that's the point. The increased variation causes a higher need of more workplaces, while very low variation has only a few very specialized companies. And I've pointed out that the world doesn't run on 1:1 conditions.

Indeed it doesn't, most particularly because it is not individual patterns of spending but collective patterns of spending that are relevant in this regard. But I think this point is so minor that it is not even worth discussing.

"Therefore, to solve this problem I will reduce people to poverty and endless unemployement."

BTW, could you point out the difference of your idea and lowering the retirement age when it comes to the available workforce?

Well with the upcoming pensions crisis lowering retirement age is obviously not an option.

I just want you to acknowledge that there is a trade-off here - women's liberation in the workforce has created opportunity at the expense of workers as a whole, and in particular young and poorly qualified workers - in other words, the most downtrodden and vulnerable.

Last time I checked, unemployed has slightly more variation then gender.

Of course, but something does not have to be the sole factor to be a relevant factor.

So middle class women, desirable because of their economic status aren't having any economic power at all. The aristocracy kept to itself to maintain their power, so upping the importance of strategical marriages would increase the effort to keep status quo.

Right, but in this case the power of the women doesn't derive directly from their economic status, but only the social status that is confers. They have no economic stranglehold over anybody. If men should prefer them for their social status, that is a matter of personal taste and irrelevant for our purposes.