forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#politics


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
770,724 comments by 11,155 registered users, 9 online now: anotheraccount, astronut97, BlueSardine, Blurtman, Booger, freespeak, iwog, PCGyver, storm1
new post
« prev   politics   next »

4

Talk on women and careers

By Dan8267 following x   2017 Sep 19, 4:19pm 1,620 views   76 comments   watch   quote     share  

And largely applies to men well.


"Most people don't have careers. They have jobs."

So true.

"What happens when you double the labor force. You half the value of labor."

Also so true.

"And now we're going into a situation where women will work because men won't."

Probably true.

#politics
#economics

« First    « Previous     Comments 37 - 76 of 76     Last »

37 mell   2017 Sep 20, 1:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
There are infinite number of alternative economic systems, almost all of which are farther from capitalism or communism than either of those two are from each other.


Then the burden is on you to introduce them and demonstrate their superiority or point them out where practiced. There are certainly variations of capitalism that are roughly equally successful (at least what we deem successful), but none of a completely different kind.

Dan8267 says
Lowering the people in the labor force is a shitty way to increase wages because it lowers overall productivity and the overall wealth of the country. Unfortunately, capitalism makes this the ONLY possible solution to the problem.


I think it is a good solution because many jobs have been created that add nothing to the output, in fact it hinders output and throws roadblocks into the path of highly productive people everywhere. A good example is modern HR and other red tape / identity crap. Also working is not healthy unless it comes with physical exercise, so I would aim fro a reduction of people in the offcie workforce, but not just old, also healthy young people, if they can instead use their time and skills to better family life and upbringing.
38 Dan8267   2017 Sep 20, 1:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
jessica says
The points you quoted were interesting but they are byproducts of whatever his main thesis is.


This is true. In my opinion, these by-products are actually more important than his thesis, and they are the reason I posted this video.

As for my opinion on the subject of women and careers, the entire problem is best avoided by getting rid of men and women. We don't need genders or organic bodies or genetic code. We'd be far better off if we copied our brains into virtual neural networks that could be uploaded into robotic bodies, backed up, restored, instantiated in multiple bodies simultaneously, and synchronized among instances. This would solve the problems of death, disease, hunger, pain, and so many more medical problems. Additionally, it would eliminate all sexism and racism. Even better, the vast majority of evils in human history have been the result of selfish individuals trying to get their genes into future generations. Without genetic code, the motivation for almost all evil would simply cease to exist.

Unfortunately dumb ass humans are so attached to their bodies and even self-identify with their bodies. Until people view their bodies as mere peripherals for interacting with the environment, devices that can be easily replaced, they won't be open to the idea of going digital. Personally I never understood why anyone would want an aging and decomposing meat body when you could have a nice, shiny metallic body that is superior to your organic body in every way. Humans have such strange preferences.
39 Dan8267   2017 Sep 20, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
But your point is that if I am very efficient and I worked 90 hours a week


I think you were implying that people who work long hours do so because they are less productive. In my observations this is never the case. The people who work long hours are always the most productive people. There are people who work to live and people who live to work. It's a personal value judgement which is better and only each individual can make that tradeoff for himself or herself.

People would never ridicule a musician, doctor, painter, or athlete who work long, hard hours because those fields have high social status. However, STEM is far more important to humanity than any of those fields. Software development is the most important field as it enhances all other fields and progress is cumulative. Software is built on top of existing software. Houses are not built on top of existing houses. You build a house and it's a one-time payoff. You save a life with surgery it's a one-time payoff. You build software and it pays off continuously for years if not indefinitely. So if people admire hard workers in those high status fields, they should even more so admire hard workers in STEM fields.

jessica says
I'm never going to be Taylor Swift even if I worked 24 hours a day! I think where we disagree is that since I can never be Taylor Swift, is the best way for me to contribute to society to give all my hours to my employer?


It is true that neither of us would be as good as Swift in composing music or singing or performing no matter how much time and effort we put into those activities. However, it is equally true and more important that Swift would not be as good at those things if she didn't work damn hard. It takes both talent and hard work to succeed in any field. Merely having talent is not good enough.

Personally, I would be miserable in any job where I did the minimal necessary. To me, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and if it's not worth doing right, it's not worth doing. I don't have the time to do anything so unimportant that it can be done in a less than stellar manner. There are too many more important things I already don't have the time to do.
40 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 1:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
justme says
Husbands never owned their wives, the wives owned their husbands.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_legal_rights_(other_than_voting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling

justme says
So stop with the flowery language and attempts at misdirection. Pretty much every substantial claim you have made so far is simply false.


Comments like this are unproductive.
41 Dan8267   2017 Sep 20, 1:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
The biggest problem men have with marriage these days is that it's a horrible awful financial deal that we would NEVER enter into with anyone under any circumstances.


Three entire generations of men have experienced or witness men being screwed over in blatantly unjust manners to a ridiculous degree for the past 40 years or more. Regardless of how one feels about the morality of this situation, the indisputable fact is that the primary reason there are damn few men of any quality willing to get married today is that the risk of financial ruin, indentured servitude, and imprisonment for things beyond his control like losing a job in a recession and not being able to pay alimony makes marriage a completely unacceptable proposition no matter how the man wants to be a husband, how much he loves a particular woman, or how monogamous he is.

Furthermore, the social and legal pressures are so great that there is now substantial evolutionary pressure on our species towards producing males that are entirely promiscuous and adverse to any sort of commitment. Evolution can happen in a single generation if the selection is severe. The selection against monogamy and commitment is so great that a few generations will leave a permanent impact on the very evolution of our species, and changing culture after that will be too late. The change will be persisted for millennia.

This is not a value judgement. It is a biological fact.
42 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 1:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
Not acceptable. She's not going to get $100,000 a year to live a nice, work free life with her children. She's going to get hundreds of millions of dollars.

Accepting your premise for a moment, what was her labor worth staying at home so he could work? What would he have to spend to accomplish this through contracts instead of marriage? Likewise what did she do to make any of that money besides freeing up some of his time?


mell says
There should be either no alimony and only child support or at least a maximum that is based on the needs for a low-to-mid income life, i.e. frugal without any frills and extras. Because you marry somebody wealthy and enjoy the perks during the marriage should have no bearing on the payments when the marriage ends.


Doesn't a pre-nup solve all your problems though? Or even a post-nup?
Decide what a woman's labor is worth up front and then re-evaluate as the years go on.

I'll engage a little on the subject of a very successful man and an unsuccessful woman. If he gained his success after they were married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that she did support him in many tangible ways. If he was already successful when they married, then my guess is she has some other trait that is (or was) of value to him, like beauty.
43 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 1:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
I think you were implying that people who work long hours do so because they are less productive. In my observations this is never the case. The people who work long hours are always the most productive people. There are people who work to live and people who live to work. It's a personal value judgement which is better and only each individual can make that tradeoff for himself or herself.


You know, I don't really know anyone that works 90 hours a week. I know people who work 60 though and don't accomplish any more than I do at 40 but they think that being "butt in chair" they will be more favorable to their boss. This is the behavior that I want to change and I think it will solve the time poverty problem that women in the workforce have. I don't disagree with your experience though, it's just that I don't really have any way to validate it and to me, it doesn't seem that common (and i do work in STEM).
44 mell   2017 Sep 20, 2:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
jessica says
Doesn't a pre-nup solve all your problems though? Or even a post-nup?


If only they were iron-clad. Many get thrown out for ridiculous reasons. But they are a good start. Ideally income though could be viewed as separate throughout marriage with one partner benefiting from the other making more money as long as the marriage lasts. Once it's over, the time spent on having/raising children is covered via child support, so why alimony? I would add alimony with removing no-fault marriage, so that the party initiating the divorce will either have to pay alimony (if making more) or forfeit alimony pay (if making less) - unless there's proven domestic abuse, incessant cheating or other rare exceptions. No-fault divorce took out the skin in the game and that never works (gets abused).
45 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 2:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
Doesn't a pre-nup solve all your problems though? Or even a post-nup?


Nope. Prenups are a joke and very rarely hold up in court.

jessica says
Decide what a woman's labor is worth up front and then re-evaluate as the years go on.


There's already an active market for all child care, housecleaning, and education duties. Some ex wives would have you believe the value of these services are a billion dollars but the real value of all these things can't possibly exceed $100,000 per year. I can only presume the remainder of a spousal support order is for sexual services thus marriage is a form of prostitution under current law.
46 justme   2017 Sep 20, 2:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
Comments


The reality of the matter is that men were by law responsible for the actions, including crimes, spending and debts, of their wives, BUT men had no lawful means of keeping their wives from disobeying their instruction or general wishes. Likewise, women had the right to upkeep by their men, but there was no law that said that women had to reciprocate. Hence women owning men.

Those Wikipedia articles contain lots of dishonest and inaccurate characterizations of what really happened throughout history. But one thing Wikipedia got right: The Married Women's Property Act of 1872 (England)

"The Married Women's Property Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.93) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed married women to be the legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property."

That's right. A wife did not have to contribute her wages to the upkeep of her husband. It is the old day version of "what is his is ours and what is mine is mine" (as spoken by a wife). So much for equality.
47 justme   2017 Sep 20, 2:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Persons interested in what was really going on in the 1800s should read some Ernest Belfort Bax. Here is an article/chapter about various aspects of marital rights.

https://ernestbelfortbax.com/2014/01/25/3-matrimonial-privileges-of-women/

Heh, that old book already contains the phrase “All yours is mine, and all mine’s my own.”
48 BayAreaObserver   2017 Sep 20, 2:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan - Not sure what type of "evidence" you "demand" however when a refinery or petro-chem plant has an upset or goes into a "turn around" which is planned maintenance, the operators/technicians/mechanics etc. work 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week until the event is over.

Mangers put in the same hours with the added benefit of having to stay a few hours extra either at the beginning or end of each shift so hitting the 90 hour mark is a no brainer. These are salaried positions as well so there is no increase in weekly pay. There are performance bonuses and other incentives available. Most of these female supervisors and managers are STEM graduates in one discipline or another.

You spent your life in STEM so far and I spent 30 plus years working in Petro-Chem with STEM. I can not get you pay stubs etc. and it really would not make any difference when you are on salary. You go into these salaried positions knowing what is on the table unless you are extremely naïve. Sometimes the hours are less but a 40-48 hour week is kind of rare for "dedicated" field supervisors/managers.

Things may go better with Coke but they don't always go better with STEM especially when they are relatively inexperienced and dismiss the people who work these facilities 24 x 7 who actually know more about them then the elites..
49 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
justme says
"The Married Women's Property Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.93) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed married women to be the legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property."

That's right. A wife did not have to contribute her wages to the upkeep of her husband. It is the old day version of "what is his is ours and what is mine is mine" (as spoken by a wife). So much for equality.


And before this they could not keep the money they earned or the property they inherited. It became the property of the husband only and the husband chose how the money was spent. Which debts are you referring to? Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

iwog says
Nope. Prenups are a joke and very rarely hold up in court.


Really? But that's really the problem then. Not so much the fact that alimony exists but that even if you agreed beforehand to an amount then it is still not upheld in court.
50 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 2:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Karen Straughan publishes on this frequently and is an excellent resource about women in a historical context. She makes a wonderful point about how the average working class man finally got the vote.

He was allowed to participate in democracy because he was expected to fight and die in war. Prior to that landowners were allowed to participate in democracy because they were expected to finance government and wars. Prior to that there was no democracy.

So rich men got the vote through sacrificing wealth and poor men got the right to vote through sacrificing their lives and women got the right to vote because..............nothing.

Women are the only class of individuals in history to get the vote without actually giving up anything.
51 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 2:56pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
jessica says
And before this they could not keep the money they earned or the property they inherited. It became the property of the husband only and the husband chose how the money was spent.


There was an outstanding reason why this was true. Since nearly all productive work was hard labor and since men are stronger and masters of technology, it would have been EXTREMELY reckless to allow married women to retain control over assets. I can picture a married woman who owns a farm telling her husband "Git your ass out there and work my fields!" How many men would marry under those circumstances? I'm guessing none.

Single women have always been allowed to inherit property, work, and pay their own way.
52 BayAreaObserver   2017 Sep 20, 2:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
I'm guessing a male gold digger of which there is no shortage.
53 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 2:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
jessica says
Really? But that's really the problem then. Not so much the fact that alimony exists but that even if you agreed beforehand to an amount then it is still not upheld in court.


All of America's courts are heavily dominated by the feminist agenda. There's an actual legal presumption that men are the abusers and women are the victims. In many states this is EXPLICITLY written into the law using the Duluth model of abuse. You'll notice that he and she and him and her are used liberally throughout this model.

No man should ever trust a prenup. If there is any possible way to breach it and hand an ex-wife all the cash, the court will find it. It could be as simple as a false accusation of abuse.

54 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 3:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
Women are the only class of individuals in history to get the vote without actually giving up anything.


Which takes us to the start of the argument that society doesn't value motherhood.
55 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 3:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
Single women have always been allowed to inherit property, work, and pay their own way.


Then what is the incentive to marry and have children for women?
56 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 3:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
Which takes us to the start of the argument that society doesn't value motherhood.


You're missing the point. Voting is a STATE function, not an individual function. Men were awarded their vote due to contributions to the STATE and not to their own individual achievements. The lines are all blurry now however 200 years ago the concept of government was always seen as something of a necessary evil and a sacrifice to maintain order. Those who gave their lives and wealth to running the state were awarded with control of the state.

Men and women working for their own enrichment including children is not a state interest, at least not directly. You might argue "Well women make the babies which will eventually make the citizens" however men were a huge part of that process also and one could argue they had the more difficult job. So I would ask the question: Should women get the vote just for producing children while men got the vote for producing children AND dying in war?

Lastly the state does not and should not value simple reproduction. Neither should society, especially these days when overpopulation and pollution are severe problems. I get why women want to see childbearing as something valuable that should be rewarded but the simple fact is that it's not. It's easy. It's almost inevitable. A rich man could have 1,000 children if he wanted with little effort and more women would be lining up at his door for more. Having a child is a selfish act in many ways. I'm not attacking it, I have a child myself, but I don't think my wife should be awarded with anything by society because she got knocked up.
57 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 3:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
jessica says
Then what is the incentive to marry and have children for women?


I just told you!

In 1776 a woman without a husband was in crisis. She was on dangerous ground. Imagine a single woman who owned a 40 acre farm and the only way she was going to eat is if she hooked up a heavy plow to a horse and worked 12 hour days during the Spring? You're a woman, you know damn well this is DOA. It isn't going to happen.

That's why women got married. They desperately needed men.

Added: They still do. However modern society has created an illusion that roads and bridges create themselves. That sewers clear themselves. That high tension power lines fix themselves. That fish catch themselves. That cows slaughter themselves. Modern society pretends men aren't needed and that sitting at a desk and answering phones and holding meetings is how our economy functions. I made the point earlier that nearly every house built in American is entirely built by men. Male electricians, male carpenters, male plumbers, male roofers, male concrete pourers, and male landscapers.

Who gets paid the most? The female real estate agent. We are living in a nightmare of unbelievable madness. It's a feminist dystopia.
58 mell   2017 Sep 20, 3:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
iwog says
Single women have always been allowed to inherit property, work, and pay their own way.


Then what is the incentive to marry and have children for women?


Primarily happiness. Biologically a vast majority of women without kids are unhappy. Even worse without kids and marriage. Men largely want the same thing if they get a "fair" marriage.
59 jessica   2017 Sep 20, 3:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
You're missing the point. Voting is a STATE function, not an individual function. Men were awarded their vote due to contributions to the STATE and not to their own individual achievements. The lines are all blurry now however 200 years ago the concept of government was always seen as something of a necessary evil and a sacrifice to maintain order. Those who gave their lives and wealth to running the state were awarded with control of the state.


I understand your point but imagine if women stopped having children. Either you value the progression of society or you don't. I wouldn't call you wrong if you didn't or you wanted to be like Dan with your personality distributed across redundant computers but if women stopped having children and stopped caring for them, there would be serious consequences.

But my point is someone has to raise the children and it doesn't even have to be women! That's equality. And the person that the couple chooses to do it, should be compensated by their spouse even when the marriage ends. A couple should have a pre-nup (& a post-nup) so that they make these important decisions when they still respect each other. And the courts should hold up these agreements.
60 iwog   2017 Sep 20, 3:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
I understand your point but imagine if women stopped having children.


I consider this biologically impossible. Even if 95% of all women stopped having children, the remaining 5% would have such a strong reproductive impulse that in just 1 or 2 generations, the entire population would be breeding like rabbits. I understand you were setting up an argument but this cannot happen in real life.

jessica says
Either you value the progression of society or you don't. I wouldn't call you wrong if you didn't or you wanted to be like Dan with your personality distributed across redundant computers but if women stopped having children and stopped caring for them, there would be serious consequences.


They already have and there already are. Also the progression of society doesn't mean anything to me. If you're talking about a higher and healthier standard of living, I'd argue that every American be limited to one child from now on and couples who have zero children should be rewarded. Children are a PERSONAL enrichment. They are by no measure a societal enrichment.

jessica says
But my point is someone has to raise the children and it doesn't even have to be women! That's equality. And the person that the couple chooses to do it, should be compensated by their spouse even when the marriage ends. A couple should have a pre-nup (& a post-nup) so that they make these important decisions when they still respect each other. And the courts should hold up these agreements.


First pre-schools raise the children.
Then public schools raise the children.
Then television raises the children.
Then computers raise the children.
Sometimes grandparents raise the children.

I had a working mother. She did a horrible, despicable job once she accepted her teaching job around 1974. Being the oldest, I was affected the least. My youngest brother will soon be dead due to drug abuse and his life is in shambles. The feminism that has infected our culture will destroy it.
61 justme   2017 Sep 21, 10:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.


There you go with your lies again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/487lo5/til_that_before_1974_women_couldnt_legally_have_a/d0hrxir/
What really happened was that banks would deny or approve credit cards based on the creditworthiness of the applicant. If a woman was not credit-worthy, she would not get a card, unless perhaps she could get another creditworthy person (cough, the husband, cough) to cosign and be on the hook for any unpaid debt she, the woman, incurred.

Look, jessica, you are just another propagandist parroting the lies spread by feminists, and by women's studies departments at universities, all over the country and the world. There is no substance to most of the claims you make. I doubt you are genuinely interested in truth, but if you are, get skeptical and get educated.
62 Ceffer   2017 Sep 21, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says



What a relief. It doesn't include plywood pillories as abuse.
63 anonymous   2017 Sep 21, 9:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
There is absolutely nothing about capitalism, the control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production, that has even a tenuous relationship with economic productivity or the wealth of most individuals in a society. People who think capitalism is the mechanism responsible for prosperity simply do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT commerce, banking, currency, the creation of corporations or other economic units, payment for services render, trade, investment, enterprise, innovation, or free markets. Absolutely none of those terms have anything to do with capitalism. Hell, free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is one and only one thing: control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production. This is a very specific mechanism. It is not a mechanism necessary for any of those other things I mentioned, not even investment. And it is not a mechanism that maximizes productivity, wealth ...


Dan,

Do you believe in evolution?

Who do you believe own the goods in North Korea? How about the capital goods (goods that can produce consumer goods) in North Korea? "The people" or the dictatorship? Goods are always owned; those who decide on how to utilize capital goods are the real owners of the capital goods.

Since capital goods have many alternative uses . . . do you think individual private owners competing with each for best returns would result in more efficient use of the limited supply of capital goods, or do you think bureaucratic managers making those resource allocation decisions on behalf of a mute "The People" would do better? How about bureaucrats consolidated into a party-state as those bureaucratic monopolies always eventuate?

If you believe in evolution, why do you think economic lives (enterprises) should be designed by committees instead of by individualized owners in charge of discrete chunks of limited resources and competing against each other?
64 Dan8267   2017 Sep 21, 10:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Shut up piggy. Capitalism isn't like evolution. And capitalism is a centralized system, dumb ass. It concentrates power in the hands of the few. Capitalism also eliminates competition.

Furthermore, communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. Those two economic systems are virtually identical to each other.

Now go back to fucking goats, piggy.
65 Reality   2017 Sep 21, 10:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
"Communism" is only a euphemism for Monarchy. Nothing more than that. Marx simply substituted "divine right of king" with "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means a tyrant dictator ruling in the name of the "proletariat" too dumb to realize what's going on or too cowered to speak up.

What Marx called "Capitalism" was actually a relatively free market place (much less centralized than today's "Western Democracies"), where/when people (in the 19th century) had sound money and exercised much more control over their own lives than most of us do today.

What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities (by deciding where to put your own money) but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.
66 iwog   2017 Sep 21, 11:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Reality says
"Communism" is only a euphemism for Monarchy. Nothing more than that.


Not even in the perverted world of Austrian economics is communism a euphemism for monarchy. Words really don't have any meaning to you people do they.

Reality says
Marx simply substituted "divine right of king" with "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means a tyrant dictator ruling in the name of the "proletariat" too dumb to realize what's going on or too cowered to speak up.


That isn't what Marx meant at all. Divine rights of kings has no relevance whatsoever in this analysis since "divine right" is well defined and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you mentioned. Again, you people have never met a word you didn't want to destroy.

Reality says
What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.


This is why everyone laughs at Austrians. What we have today is very similar to plantation slavery. Can we all agree on that? No? Idiocy? Yup that's what I thought.
67 Reality   2017 Sep 21, 11:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
If you're talking about a higher and healthier standard of living, I'd argue that every American be limited to one child from now on and couples who have zero children should be rewarded. Children are a PERSONAL enrichment. They are by no measure a societal enrichment.


If not for the young people of the next generation, who would be working to generate returns for your invested capital? Or, who would be taking care of you in a nursing home if not for younger people?

The problem with too many people/children dragging down standards of living is due to too many dumb people and too many ill-raised people who are not productive enough to generate more output than what they consume.

Raising children is a material cost in the short-run (20yrs if done right) but emotionally rewarding (due to human biological programming thanks to evolution). Children are a disaster to people who can not afford them, but a "blessing" to those who can afford them (without resorting to government subsidies). Parents also gain more experience after raising first kids . . . at the same time, kids helping (in small doses) raising younger siblings also help build up more considerate and more mature personality in the older kids. That's why it actually makes sense to raise economy of scale on child raising into the hands of parents who can afford raising several kids, while absolving those who can not afford from the duty (perhaps giving them "virtual kids" that they can "raise" on their smart phones). A combination of fixed cash incentive for self-sterilization and proportional tax reduction (say 10% reduction in total income tax due for each dependent under 22yo) will go a long way towards raising smarter and more productive next generation.
68 Reality   2017 Sep 21, 11:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Iwog,

In case it's not obvious, practically every country that embraced communism led to a "Paramount Leader" . . . in other words, an autocratic monarch. Russians leaders died too young, but where the leaders lived long enough and had somewhat competent children tended to groom their children as successors. That includes not only the formal communist countries but also many of the fellow-traveler 3rd world former colonies that embraced / inspired-by Russian Communist/socialist revolution; e.g. North Korea, Libya, Arab Baathist states, etc. etc. Marx' "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept served the same ideological function as "divine right of the king" in giving the autocrat unlimited power against his subjects.

It was not a co-incidence that communist/socialist revolutions took place primarily in 3rd world countries where the populations were accustomed to old style autocratic monarchies, instead of western countries with traditions in either constitutional monarchies or constitutional republics.
69 anonymous   2017 Sep 23, 12:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
jessica says
But my point is someone has to raise the children and it doesn't even have to be women! That's equality. And the person that the couple chooses to do it, should be compensated by their spouse even when the marriage ends. A couple should have a pre-nup (& a post-nup) so that they make these important decisions when they still respect each other. And the courts should hold up these agreements.


There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage, so that more women (and children) can benefit from the same men who are highly productive. For example, Bill Gates is worth about $89B today; let's say he can lay out $1B a year over a life time (ignore investment return on capital for now), that's enough to support 10,000 mothers at $100k/yr each. If he can donate his sperm to 5,000 mothers each year over the next 20 years with $100k/yr child-support attached to each birth, he'd be doing humanity a far greater service than distributing immunization shots to IQ-65 populations overseas. Just think, 10,000 mothers whose baby projects can be taken care of, and we as a society getting 10,000 extra IQ130+ kids in the next generation.

I don't agree with IWOG's over-population theory. Our planet/society doesn't have an over-population problem; there is always a problem of too many dumb and unproductive people who consume more resources than they produce. Think about everything we have touched since waking up this morning: hardly anything was directly "natural resource," but almost everything is the output of someone else' labor/ingenuity. What's in short supply are smart and productive people. Too many dumb/unproductive people lead to wars (to make up for the lack of famine and pestilence for thinning the herd); smart and productive however can produce higher standards of living for all. Now that wars are going full-blown nuclear, and becoming unwage-able, the path to smarter and more productive next generation depends on women mating with smart and productive men to produce a next generation that doesn't require the frequent culling by wars like historically carried out.

You can't get blood out of a stone.
70 just_passing_through   2017 Sep 23, 1:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

jessica says

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay.

Here's an idea: Give the kids to the father and get yourself out in the workforce / education system after a divorce. Then when you get laid off you'll find there is a huge diff between severance pay and alimony / palimony.

71 just_passing_through   2017 Sep 23, 1:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

jessica says

Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

And now look at the consumer debt problem we have. Almost every single woman I know needs to go to credit card rehab, but won't admit it to themselves.

72 just_passing_through   2017 Sep 23, 1:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

jessica says

If he gained his success after they were married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that she did support him in many tangible ways

No. That's just a stupid assumption. She could have been a horrible bitch to him for years and he may have become successful nonetheless. This is not rare.

73 just_passing_through   2017 Sep 23, 1:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says

Nope. Prenups are a joke and very rarely hold up in court.

What he said...

74 justme   2017 Sep 24, 6:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,


That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?
75 iwog   2017 Sep 24, 6:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
just_passing_through says

jessica says


Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.


And now look at the consumer debt problem we have. Almost every single woman I know needs to go to credit card rehab, but won't admit it to themselves.


Also the initial statement was a lie. All that happened was women won the right to maintain a credit record in their own name. Single women were always allowed to hold credit cards as were married women. They just combined the credit file with the husband prior to 1974 and since many more men worked than women, building a solid credit profile was much more difficult.

Saying Zsa Zsa Gábor didn't have a credit card in the 1960s is absurd.

Also remember the structure of society until the late 1960s. Men worked and women raised the children. It was extremely rare for a woman to hold a job that paid more than secretary or nurse. A single woman applying for a credit card would have to demonstrate an ability to pay just like any man did but with much more difficulty. This isn't discrimination, this is simply a credit reality.

Women won the right to do anything they want while men were and still are expected to earn money for the family. Men who try to stay home and become house-husbands are ridiculed by society but more importantly ridiculed by women who know damn well that this isn't biologically normal. A household with a house-husband is a household where sex rarely or never occurs. As a result in the huge majority of families, the husband and wife both work or just the husband works. Diluting the labor market with women has allowed corporations to pay everyone less and the falling standard of living was the result.
76 justme   2017 Oct 5, 9:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says
There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,


That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?

« First    « Previous     Comments 37 - 76 of 76     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home