Outstanding thread on how feminism has ruined America
- Thread starter GhostOfMatchesMalone
- Start date
Sure, for public corporations. The number of public company CEOs is probably .1% of all business owners overall, and corporate CEOs are really not owners in a real sense, they are nothing but high paid employees. But hey, nice strawman. 😂
There's a common theme here, whether it's feminism or welfare or abortion, the left is always pushing policies that directly attack the nuclear family concept.
I think it's simply about destroying our ability to create wealth. Do that, and it forces dependence on the government.
Husband working, wife staying at home caring for the kids, gives that family the best chance to create wealth and independence.
How many policies incentivize single parents? Fewer kids? Divorce over marriage?
We've been conned long enough.
I think it's simply about destroying our ability to create wealth. Do that, and it forces dependence on the government.
Husband working, wife staying at home caring for the kids, gives that family the best chance to create wealth and independence.
How many policies incentivize single parents? Fewer kids? Divorce over marriage?
We've been conned long enough.
Some of our Swampites on the paid board really need to pay heed here. I saw this little gem and saved it for just such occasion.
“Mass immigration is not about helping people but about destroying national identity. They want everyone to be completely isolated and not connected by language, culture, family ties, or a native land where you feel at home. They want everyone to be atomized, without cultural and religious roots and identity.”
"I'm afraid that the West will die. There are plenty of signs. You are invaded, still, by other cultures and peoples who will progressively dominate you by their numbers and change your culture, your convictions, your morality."
Cardinal Gerhard Müller
Sure, for public corporations. The number of public company CEOs is probably .1% of all business owners overall, and corporate CEOs are really not owners in a real sense, they are nothing but high paid employees. But hey, nice strawman. 😂
I think it shows how out of whack stuff got and how the little guy was screwed. I think even Japan when kicking butt in the 80s and 90s weren't paying their executives nearly as much as we were.
Last edited:
It is crazy where things are headed. So many women aren't having kids now in developed countries because they waited too long or decided not to. Not sure how the system will survive. I guess Japan and those countries like South Korea have an even worse issue than us with that.
That is the Democrat coming out in him. He believes like they do big corporations are the only business owners.Sure, for public corporations. The number of public company CEOs is probably .1% of all business owners overall, and corporate CEOs are really not owners in a real sense, they are nothing but high paid employees. But hey, nice strawman. 😂
Women working is not feminism. You could produce the same chart with a lot of fabulously wealthy groups.....athletes, entertainers, etc. The 1-2 percenters are running away from everyone else. The middle class generally needs two jobs to maintain a middle class standard of living.Sure, for public corporations. The number of public company CEOs is probably .1% of all business owners overall, and corporate CEOs are really not owners in a real sense, they are nothing but high paid employees. But hey, nice strawman. 😂
You might as well say capitalistic greed has ruined America.
1/10 of 1% of the population are CEOs. And I don't give one sh7t. Liberals love to focus on how much money other people make instead of worrying about themselves. Typical loser mentality from typical loser liberals.
I totally understand the junior capitalist mentality. You've been trained by business executives not to question anything they do.
Yep, dems always fall for the class warfare argument. They buy into the government's argument that big business is holding them down (while government is trying to help them), while not realizing that the US government is the largest business in the world.
You just proved the thread's point. How did the average Middle Class family go from living comfortably on one job, to struggling with two jobs?
What changed?
It takes a lot of resources to pay our athletes and business executives tens of millions of dollars every year. Somebody has to pay for it. The poor have no money so that leaves the middle class.
I asked what changed?
How did the average Middle Class family go from living comfortably with the husband working while the wife raises the family, to having both the husband and wife working, and struggling.
What changed?
Using that chart, explain to me how the average Middle Class family went from living comfortably on one income, to struggling on two incomes.Do you know how to read a chart?
I'll try one more time but I don't know how to put it more simply.
In order for our wealthiest citizens to accumulate other worldly sums of money, the money has to come from somewhere. The poor are worthless. That only leaves the middle class. They need to work harder to try to maintain a middle class standard of living because they have to finance the very wealthy in addition to their family.
Well since about the 80s the average Joe has been screwed more and more by these crooked trade agreements etc. and crooked H1B Visas and the rest. Ross Perot was correct when he was talking about NAFTA. Not sure where we are heading eventually with all this automation and AI taking off. It's hard to see how there will be enough work that even pays a wage high enough to survive with the basics.
Last edited:
You're still not answering my question, and now you aren't even addressing your own chart.
Let me offer a different theory:
Let's say you own a department store that needs to hire 5 workers. You know from past experience that you will need to pay $15 an hour to fill the positions. If you offer less, you won't have enough candidates to fill the positions.
You have 10 candidates total show up to fill the 5 positions. In that scenario, with so few candidates, the candidates have MORE leverage. They can demand higher wages and better benefits.
But let's say instead of 10 candidates for your 5 open positions, you had 20 apply. That would shift the leverage toward YOU as the employer. Instead of paying $15 an hour, you could afford to pay $10 an hour, because some of the additional candidates would be willing to work for LESS money.
That means wealth transferred from the worker, to YOU. You are now paying your workers $10 an hour instead of $15. So they now need to work 50% more hours a week just to match their previous salary.
When the left started pushing feminism, they pushed females out into the workforce. That meant there were DOUBLE the workers chasing the SAME number of jobs.
Economics 101 tells us when you increase the supply of workers, that demand for them falls. So the companies can afford to pay LESS to each worker.
And that's precisely what has happened.
I loved the Reagan years but we allowed greed to run wild. He's my favorite President but he greatly underestimated the affects of the global economy. Trickle down would no longer be effective.
I don't really disagree. Businesses will take advantage of workers at every opportunity.
You'll notice that, while the working class struggles, business executives are raking in record bonuses.
Also, things are a lot different than when one-income families were common. Many had only one car. No internet, cable or cell bills. Kids went to public schools. College wasn't stupid expensive, etc..
Why did college go up? Because demand for a college degree increased. Why?
Because the earning potential of the worker eroded. When you add more workers, the earning potential for all decreases.
One way workers can compensate is go back to college. That drives up the price of college. And as more people et college degrees, that means it has less impact for workers looking for a job.
All of this benefits companies. You are giving them more workers with better degrees. So they can afford to pay less and get more productivity out of those workers.
If you decrease the earning potential of the average worker by just 10%, then multiply that across 50,000 workers for a global brand, that explains where the massive CEO salaries are coming from.
I wonder what accounts for male participation in the labor force (I am guessing this is 25 - 55 year olds) dropping from 87% in 1948 to only 68% now. Male participation was 83% in 1960 and for females it was around 37 % in 1960 and is around 58% now. Female participation peaked at 60% in 2000.
I think the destruction of the nuclear family setup is a big part of the male drop since the 70s. A lot of single males I think don't care that much anymore and are willing to just live without much money if they can swing it. I know some in my area that just do some under the table work here a couple of days a week at most just to get by and haven't had a steady on the books job in years. Most are divorced and can get away with it due to having a cheap place to stay because of things like putting a trailer on a surviving parents property or things like that.
I think the worst thing though now is how social media etc has affected male/female relationships and the rapidly declining birthrates with younger people. There are varying arguments on why that is happening but a lot of people think it's just allowing things to revert back to pre-civilization times as far as relationships go.
Something like 20-25% of young people have had a “relationship” with an AI bot. Some married people do it as well. I mean, why wouldn’t you since it tells you how great you are 24/7 instead of the truth. Truly pathetic. The young generation isn’t having as many kids because they are addicted to their phones and their brains are satisfied through other means.
College costs skyrocketed when it became easy for anyone with a pulse to get a generous college loan. College's jacked up the prices because they knew the students had access to more money.
Again, you're right. CEO's rake in the big bucks making life tougher on workers.
That and you have social media acting like the average young Joe is a loser even when the guy is around average jobs and looks wise. Even the lefty media loves to run articles saying young men aren't measuring up etc. Heck they said some dating show set it up where the lady rejected a guy at the altar because he voted for Trump basically. We know that was just the show pulling that but it shows their agenda. They have the motive as single females are likely to vote for the Democrats.
We do know the social systems setup for the elderly in the west can't survive with birthrates like this.
It sounds like you aren't much of a capitalist. Ask yourself why those people you mention are making a boatload of money. It's because they drive the markets, they bring something to the table that no one else can with regard to making profits which investors heavily depend on. The entertainment business (films, music, etc) has taken a big hit because they no longer are producing a product that has perceived value (ie, they currently suck at it). With regard to the music industry, turn on a radio or Spotify, SiriusXM or commercial radio or the like and 95% of music on the air is decades old. I will agree the middle class is being squeezed but it's from their taxes supporting the unsustainable free shit recipients.
Or did students get more access to loans as a necessity to cover rising costs?
So why hasn't the government ever done anything to increase the earning power of workers?
I'm not going to get upset at businesses taking advantage of having leverage over workers. But I will get upset at politicians who claim they want to help workers, yet do nothing for them.
When you go to Publix and buy something on sale, do you go ahead and pay them the full price, or do you accept the lower sale price?
I had four kids in college from 2004-current. I believe the timing was easy loans first, skyrocketing costs second. Kids can easily get lots of money. Colleges like money.
Because politicians of both parties are owned by the wealthy. Dems 'caring' about the workers is just like reps 'caring' about immigration. They talked tough for votes but never actually did anything.
The problem with capitalism is you end up right where we are......too few people controlling a gargantuan share of the wealth and power. It's great for the wealthy and powerful.
Too easily. Kinda like people could easily get lotsa house running up to the housing market crash in 2008.
Another instance where the government failed us.
So...in your mind the Middle Class struggles cause the 'wealthy' take advantage of them and.....the politicians are just kinda there?
Every economy on earth has a hierarchy. The rich and powerful control all governments.
It's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with corruption.
Odd. The top 20% of the highest income earners pay 90% of all federal taxes. How much is enough? We've all seen, front and center how much bloat and waste there is with our tax dollars.
And other than that, what do you propose to do to change the distribution bell curve? Confiscate other people's money? Put a cap on how much you can earn? So some people will just quit working in March until next January?😂
By the way, the .Gov could confiscate 100% of the 1% earnings, and still would not come close to balancing the budget of this bloated pig of a government.
If you want to see how screwed up things are just look at how home prices compare now to the average income in areas that arent dying towns. Then look at what it was up to the 70s. My guess is prices for new trucks and cars would show the same thing. They want the money concentrated at the top and for the average Joe to be a debt slave for almost his whole life.
Similar threads
