[Pants-of-dog]

What the hell are you talking about? The employer selling something for $30?

Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to.

Employers make more profit if they pay their employees less, if all other things are equal.

What does that have to do with what you quoted? Why dont you stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to divert attention to something completely irrelevant to this discussion (my personal life).

As long as we agree that you don't necessarily have to pay for welfare.

You are aware that I dont live in the same country as you right?

You live in Denmark, do you not? I assume that Denmark's tax rate is both progressive and very high, just like where I live, one of the most txed places on the planet.

Taxes and society is arranged the way it is in large part because of the feminist lunatics with their out of control penis envy and desire to be like men, in order for these loons to achieve this they had to force men to pay for government child programs so that tradiotional living was made extremely hard to do and 2 income households were made easier.

This is hilarious. Please tell me more. Can you name specific feminists who were able to secretly control the democratic process?

Did you even read my post earlier? Do you seriously lack the ability to comprehend how much of an uphill struggle that is? I would have to find a woman that would be willing to tolerate serious poverty in order for me to live like that, if the welfare state did not exist she would not have to tolerate any poverty if me and her decided to live like this because the difference in living standard between a working class family with 1 income and a working class family with 2 incomes paying money to have their kids stored somewhere during the day would be roughly the same.
Amazes me that you cannot understand this piece of simple economic theory.

I believe it will be difficult for you to find a wife, yes.

I don't know about you but the welfare state where I live provides pregnancy leave, parental leave, subsidised daycare, and a whole host of other services that make it EASIER for one parent to stay home for the first few years of the child's life. It also subsidises school so that the economic burden of raising kids is lower.

Buuhuu.

Don't ever change.

[work-in-progress]

I don't see the problem with one parent staying at home at least while the kids are not in school (first 3-5 years of life or so).

Aside from Madison Avenue and the other forces behind modern consumer capitalism, I don't think anyone had a problem with it, and it's disingenuous to leave it hanging out there implying that feminists DO have a problem with one parent staying home with the children. Whenever I heard Gloria Steinem or Germaine Greer etc. speak on the subject back in the 70's, the question was specifically phrased as THE MOTHER should stay home with the children and the recession of the early 70's was being caused by women entering the workforce instead of becoming housewives and taking jobs away from men. The only difference today is that the question is couched in gender-neutral language to make it seem less offensive now.

The real issue is WHO has forced all of these women into the workforce over the last half century. Remember, most working mothers are not lawyers or high payed professionals. Most are struggling to help pay the bills because during the time when corporate profits rose much faster than the rate of inflation....as did CEO and top management salaries, wages - especially for blue collar workers, stagnated or declined against inflation. And the other force at work - consumerism - with its transition to more subtle psychological techniques during the 60's designed to go after younger consumers...even children, and turn them into the typical neurotic, unthinking, impulsive consumer men and women who make up the majority today, can never earn enough money to buy all the crap that they think they need to maintain their social status and show off on their facebook pages!

I posted a comment last week...it may have been in another thread...where I quoted John Maynard Keynes's prediction back in 1930 - that within 100 years, the average work week would be 15 hours! Keynes was going by the trends that were in place during his time, and didn't foresee the rise of psychotic all-consuming capitalism that we have to deal with in this day and age! If we could bring in strict legislation to dial back the power of corporations and drastically restrict the techniques they use for mind-warping potential buyers, we could be easily have a 15 hour work week today. And remember, Keynes was making that prediction assuming one breadwinner in the family. Dividing a 15 hour work week between both parents would make this question of stay-at-home parenting a complete non-issue!

[Rei Murasame]

I was of course referring to small children

Taking care of kids under the age of 4-5

Both of you know that we were never talking about that age range.

[work-in-progress]

FUCKING BULLSHIT, the welfare state with its massive budgets for schooling, pensions, welfare etc..etc.. has forced women into the workforce since because of the massive tax rate it is no longer possible for one working class man to provide a comfortable life for his family, the welfare state that you love is directly preventing people like me from living like I want because you force people like me to divert resources from employing a woman at home to employing them at other places in order to earn income for survival.

Speaking of bullshit, the biggest steaming pile is the one served up by libertarians that taxes are the reason we have to work longer hours to hold our place in line today. Nevermind that wages have declined against inflation for most working people...a month ago, I noticed an article on the minimum wage that said the minimum wage of 50 years ago would be $15.00 per hour if adjusted for inflation today. It's primarily because of stagnating wages that most families can't get by on one salary today.

Speaking of that welfare state, it seems that libertarian mind-warpers are letting us know that giving women the right to vote back in 1922 is to blame for having a welfare state today....pensions, unemployment insurance and medicare are policies that were demanded by the new women voters. I first came across this meme usually only discussed among libertarian drones a few years ago when I used to listed to the Cato Institute short podcasts. When I sourced it, it turned out the be from Peter Thiel -- billionaire hedge fund broker, and major heavyweight at Cato. This is part of what he said in the short interview from one of his blog posts from four years ago:

I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.

I hope nobody is surprised or shocked that freedumb-luvin libertarians don't believe in democracy. Democracy gives everyone - rich or poor, man or woman, black or white the same franchise.....at least in theory! That's why libertarians and conservatives are tinkering with the dials of democracy to adjust that voting system to work the way they believe it should: one dollar - one vote, just like it works for shareholders.

Now, when it comes to women and the problems they've created for unbridled capitalism: Thiel says this:

Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the talk I heard, Thiel elaborates in a little more detail about how women ruin the economy and turn them into socialist welfare states.....mostly that prior to women winning the right to vote, taxes and government spending both increased during times of war, and contracted back to normal after the wars were over ( I guess this means that to Thiel, men know that government should only be in the business of sending poor boys off to die and blowing shit up in foreign lands). And....you guessed it...giving women the right to vote, meant that they would shift spending to frivolous things like pensions for the elderly, health care and relief for the unemployed!

Since I went this far, I have to mention his prescription for libertarian men to escape the gynocracy:

The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. Let me briefly speak to three such technological frontiers:

If you want to read about the technological frontiers...which everyone is aware of anyway, go read the article! What's laughable is that here we have a billionaire hedge fund shark crying the blues because a fraction of his money might go to food stamps, and he wants everyone to know that the faults are with democracy - especially extending the democratic franchise to women. And that's why I mentioned before that I have nothing but contempt for the libertarian bitches like Megyn Kelly & other likeminded women. They want ruthless libertarianism to slash spending on everything that they don't need or doesn't affect them personally; but they turn into bra-burning feminists when the boys they help promote and shill for, go directly against their interests as members of the female half of the population!

[ronimacarroni]

I don't necessary think that women are becoming the bread winners
I think they're just more well suited for service sector jobs, which are most jobs nowadays
They're also less likely to ask for a raise, which is something businesses like
So as a whole men are more likely to be unemployed, maybe

[Kman]

Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to.

Employers make more profit if they pay their employees less, if all other things are equal.

The fact that a seller earns more if he can sell whatever he is selling at a higher price has nothing to do with the section of text you quoted.

As long as we agree that you don't necessarily have to pay for welfare.

I dont have to pay for welfare? Wtf? I cannot unsubscribe from the welfare state, it is not a tanning salon or a football club.

You live in Denmark, do you not? I assume that Denmark's tax rate is both progressive and very high, just like where I live, one of the most txed places on the planet.

So what is my tax rate then? You claim that I am lying so obviously you must know the real facts, facts not visible on my paycheck every month.

This is hilarious. Please tell me more. Can you name specific feminists who were able to secretly control the democratic process?

Why would I need to name a specific feminist? Democracy is not based on individuals, it is based on mass action and surely the masses must have supported feminist lunacy to an extent, otherwise these idiotic programs would have never been created.

I believe it will be difficult for you to find a wife, yes.

This has nothing to do with me personally, this is about economic theory and how income diverts incentives.

I don't know about you but the welfare state where I live provides pregnancy leave, parental leave, subsidised daycare, and a whole host of other services that make it EASIER for one parent to stay home for the first few years of the child's life. It also subsidises school so that the economic burden of raising kids is lower.

Pregnancy leave is a temporary solution, raising a child takes 18 years, getting 0.75 off in the start is just a pittance thrown to people like me who would like a wife taking care of the children for all 18 years. Subsidized daycare and government payed schools also do not make life easier for 1 income working class families, they make it HARDER like I just explained since they force working class men like me to employ 0.XX of a woman in each of these institutions, thereby reducing my ability to provide a full job income for my real wife. You still fail to grasp the theory I put up yesterday in my post.

School also does not encourage people to have kids since they are extremely expensive to run so that reduces the ability for working class men like me to have kids, I cannot afford a kid if I have to pay a small fortune every month in taxes in order to support the overly bureaucratic, highly inefficient education system in my town.

[Pants-of-dog]

The fact that a seller earns more if he can sell whatever he is selling at a higher price has nothing to do with the section of text you quoted.

It is the main reason why wages drop. The lower modern wage is not a result of feminism.

I dont have to pay for welfare? Wtf? I cannot unsubscribe from the welfare state, it is not a tanning salon or a football club.

People on welfare don't have to pay for welfare.

So what is my tax rate then? You claim that I am lying so obviously you must know the real facts, facts not visible on my paycheck every month.

Lying? No. More like hyperbole.

Why would I need to name a specific feminist? Democracy is not based on individuals, it is based on mass action and surely the masses must have supported feminist lunacy to an extent, otherwise these idiotic programs would have never been created.

Are you saying that the masses want and support the current situation?

Pregnancy leave is a temporary solution, raising a child takes 18 years, getting 0.75 off in the start is just a pittance thrown to people like me who would like a wife taking care of the children for all 18 years. Subsidized daycare and government payed schools also do not make life easier for 1 income working class families, they make it HARDER like I just explained since they force working class men like me to employ 0.XX of a woman in each of these institutions, thereby reducing my ability to provide a full job income for my real wife. You still fail to grasp the theory I put up yesterday in my post.

You have no evidence for your claim. Why should I pretend you're right?

If you knew more than basic economics, you would know that by sharing the cost of these services, you actually reduce the cost per user. This is called economies of scale. Rather than paying six people to take care of six days each day, you can pay one person to take care of six kids each day.

School also does not encourage people to have kids since they are extremely expensive to run so that reduces the ability for working class men like me to have kids, I cannot afford a kid if I have to pay a small fortune every month in taxes in order to support the overly bureaucratic, highly inefficient education system in my town.

Subsidised school makes it easier because then the parents do not have to pay as much for school.

Listen, if you want to stop being working class, do what I did: use the state subsidised education program, get yourself a set of marketable skills, use your contacts and get a better job.

[Decky]

If such a connection existed, half the middle class children would be in jail right now, yet that is not the case.

You lot have slaves (au pairs, nannies etc) and you have better lawyers and the police don't investigate middle class crime anyway. Burgling a TV gets you prison, stealing the pensions of your workers gets you fuck all.

A capitalist stole the pensions of all the workers in his company including my grandads and he never saw the inside of a prison cell.

[Donna]

dlt