patrick.net

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

Severance pay is determined by the company not by the person giving severance or a court under threat of jail.

lostand confused says

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

Severance pay is determined by the company not by the person giving severance or a court under threat of jail.

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.

mell says

The only countries that show decent wealth in the world are all capitalistic.

And there is the fault in your reasoning. The converse of a true statement is not necessarily a true statement. All cats are animals that have tails does not imply that all animals with tails are cats. All current countries with decent wealth are capitalistic does not imply that all capitalistic countries have decent wealth. A capitalistic country has wealth does not imply that a country must be capitalistic to have wealth or that being capitalistic will ensure the country has wealth.

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 creation, per capita wealth creation, innovation, or even commerce. It is only irrational religious beliefs that cause some people to think capitalism does any of these things.

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.

Furthermore, the criteria of equal pay for equal work (work read as "wealth creation") is, by definition, mutually exclusive with capitalism. The very definition of capitalism is that pay is not determined by work but rather what the owners are willing to pay for labor because the owners distribute the revenue. The owners will never, ever pay according to what labor produces, but rather only what they absolutely have to pay to labor. If they have to pay labor more than labor produces, then productivity simply is cut along with labor and the work just does not get done. Far more commonly, labor produces far more than labor can demand in wages and the owners pay only what labor can demand. In today's economy that's typically less than 25% of what labor produces. We know this because labor produces four times what it did in the 1950s, but real wages have not increased. Even in the 1950s businesses were profitable, so labor was not being paid more than it produced.

mell says

The problem could easily be mitigated by less women

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.

The far better solution is to stop tying income to bargaining power and instead determine income by wealth production. By definition, doing so is abandoning capitalism, but I have observed that the economic religious fanatics only care about the word "capitalism", not the meaning. So we could call the new economic system capitalism even though it isn't and the religious nuts would probably be happy.

I just can't personally bring myself to using deceptive language because I'm an engineer through and through. How the system works matters to me, and explaining that accurately is critical.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, there may be rare exceptions, but I demand proof of such unicorns. You don't get that for free.

My undergrad research advisor - she is single, used to work, and still works 70-90 hrs a week. She is an exception though as I can not immediately think of another woman who works like that, but can think of many of my male colleagues and former coworkers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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"?