Push for $15 minimum wage

[Spungo]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would full automation happen in Asia where wages are already low but not happen in America "because of downward pressure on wage".

Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can understand why you wouldn't see the natural progression of capitalism. It's something that happens over the span of decades, so it's not immediately obvious how this works.

Step 1) Start with a group of poor people, such as American settlers. After killing Indians, the settlers have land and nothing else. They have no factories, no capital, no automation, not much technology. They don't have infrastructure, established trade routes, or banking systems.
Step 2) These poor Americans work difficult manual labor jobs. Child labor existed. Slavery existed. People were poorly educated.
Step 3) As the economy grows, the country begins to accumulate capital. This capital is deployed in the form of roads, rail, factories, electricity, running water, police, schools, and courts.
Step 4) The increase in capital leads to increases in productivity. Growth of exports relative to imports causes the country's currency to gain value.
Step 5) A strengthening currency makes the middle class wealthier, but it also drives up the cost of labor.
Step 6) If labor is too expensive, capital investment will be made in places with less capital and a lower cost of labor. This is the outsourcing we know today.

China is currently at step 6. China is seeing outsourcing to places like Bangladesh because the poverty in Bangladesh is much worse than the poverty in China. China still has lots of very poor people, but it also has a lot of wealthy people. I think most Americans would be amazed at how modern some of China's cities are. The cost of doing in business in China can be very expensive, depending on location, so they're doing the same outsourcing we did.

On some level, I think people intuitively understanding how currency and capitalism work. Keynesians point to Germany and say Germany is screwing up the rest of Europe because Germany inflates the value of the Euro. That's absolutely true, but think about why it's true. The force of capitalism tends to make things regress to the mean. If a country has a large trade surplus, the currency gains value, this drives up wages, the increased wage cost drives down exports, which makes the currency fall in value. It's a self-correcting cyclical pattern.
Large trade surplus -> strong currency -> rising wages due to strong currency -> smaller trade surplus due to lack of competitiveness -> weaker currency -> falling wages due to weak currency -> larger trade surplus due to competitiveness -> repeat.
The non-Germany parts of Europe have trade deficits, so they should see falling currency values, which leads to falling wages in real terms, which leads to increased competitiveness. The existence of Germany in the EU stops this natural process from happening, so those countries are trapped in the artificially high wages and suppressed demand part of the cycle.

China is doing the opposite. Due to large trade surpluses for the past decade, China's currency should be worth a lot more than it currently is. The Chinese aristocrats might be evil dictators, but they are not idiots, so they try to stay in that capital accumulating part of the cycle. They keep the Chinese currency down by inflating the currency. Instead of wealth going to the people who are getting paid in yuan, the wealth is extracted by bankers in the form of inflation. If capitalism were allowed to work without central bank manipulation, much of China would already be automated and outsourced. They would have a much stronger middle class, and they would likely see the good kind of deflation where the overall cost of living drops relative to wages, and the standard of living soars.

Central banks around the world are trying to copy China by debasing their currencies, but it won't work when everyone is doing the same thing. Countries like Japan have negative interest rates. Are we supposed to have even more negative rates so our currency collapses faster than theirs? What happens when they set it even more negative? Do we just keep doing this until interest rates are -20%, meaning banks give out free money? We're in the monetary twilight zone, so it's difficult to predict where this is headed. Even 5 years ago, the thought of negaitve interest rates was absurd.

 

[glenn1]

These guys keep thinking I'm talking about the next election cycle. I'm not. I'm talking about after capitalism. Once we reach that point where 90% won't be working.

In some demographics you're making good strides towards that number. I guess if you're more likely than not going to be able to find a job at all, then you might as well jump aboard the $15/hour wagon since it's a fantasy scenario either way.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

 

[fskimospy]

I edited those out because you're trying to move the goalposts. Show me one case where a program is specifically designed to get more men into any of those fields, and it discriminates against women to do so. Show me a case where the government wants to increase funding to STEM while decreasing funding to liberal arts (gender studies), and it's not attacked by feminists.
Can you find even 1 case of affirmative action for men? Are there male-only scholarships for petroleum engineering? There are lots of female-only programs to push women into engineering and trades. One guy made a scholarship that is white-only and male-only just to prove a point, and the media proved him right by laughing at it and calling it both racist and sexist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mqu2m9DBCE
There are hundreds of scholarships and programs to get women into trades or to get minorities into trades, but the media never attacks those for being sexist or racist.

And by 'move the goalposts' you mean 'show that you're laughably wrong'. Funny how if the government spends a few million on women's scholarships it's the destruction of men as we know them but it can spend trillions on male dominated fields and that's no big deal.

You want an example? Again, the military. Not only do we as a society spend trillions on a male dominated sector, but women are explicitly barred from joining segments of it.

That was incredibly easy. How do you not know these things?

By the way, I'll assume your second convenient deletion, this time about how you claimed women make more money than men, means you're admitting you didn't bother to check the numbers before babbling about how oppressed men are.

You asked about organized discrimination against men, and I named several with examples and case studies.

What? No. That was just ranting nonsense.

So you're saying you expect a pregnant woman to work a full time job plus overtime up until her water breaks, and you expect her back in the work force immediately after having a baby? Get real. Being pregnant is not the same as being obese or carrying around weights. Being pregnant is different because the body is burning through its reserves for the sake of growing a baby. Being pregnant is like being infected with a parasite or fighting the flu. It's an enormous drain on a woman's energy. You can't seriously expect me to be flying around the world and commissioning engineering projects while pregnant. This is where men are needed. Men need to take care of women when women are incapable of caring for themselves. That's what husbands do. Without a husband, having a baby is a one way trip to poverty for the next couple decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ers-and-poverty-is-not-as-simple-as-it-seems/
Poverty affects roughly 45% of children who don't live with their father.

Wow, society is structured so women can't have a family without male financial support? That actually sounds like horrible discrimination against women, haha. Thanks for proving my point.

Regardless, your complaint is that you require a man who makes as much as you do so that you can have babies and maintain the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed. That's a choice. If you don't like it then maybe you should become a feminist and change it.

Are we doing anything to make men better workers, better fathers, or more respected in society? Nope. Married men are depicted as fools, criminals, pedophiles, and rapists. Even little boys are told that they are pieces of shit just because they will grow up to be men.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html

Lol. A Fox News editorial. Very compelling. Hahaha. This particular quote is good as it shows just how totally insane and irrational your argument is.

Men aren't respected in society? What? Married men are demonized? What? Little boys are told they will be pieces of shit because they are men? This would be hilarious if you didn't seem to believe it.

I'm already part of the red pill community, so there's no need to rejoin it. Society keeps using this weird feminist playbook that assumes men and women are exactly the same, and it simply doesn't work. There's a reason we have stereotypes like depicting cartoon cats as female and cartoon dogs as male. Those are based in reality. Women do have more cat-like behavior, and men have more dog-like behavior. Assuming that men and women are the same has led to a lot of hatred between men and women. By cat standards, men are pieces of shit. By dog standards, women are pieces of shit. The feminist tabula rasa doctrine is how we get serial killers like Elliot Rodger and angry neckbeards like SexyMGTOW.
TL;DR destroying SexyMGTOW's insane philosophy (17 minutes)

lol. Of course you are a member of the red pill. The icing on the cake is blaming feminism for a red pill member being a mass murderer. You are to blame for your own toxic ideology, nobody else is.

For an amazing look at some profoundly mentally ill people I encourage everyone to visit the red pill on Reddit. Spungo might seem insane from this shit she wrote, but she's nowhere near the nuttiest person on there. (The blue pill curates some of the best insanity)

 

[Sonikku]

I can understand why you wouldn't see the natural progression of capitalism. It's something that happens over the span of decades, so it's not immediately obvious how this works.

Step 1) Start with a group of poor people, such as American settlers. After killing Indians, the settlers have land and nothing else. They have no factories, no capital, no automation, not much technology. They don't have infrastructure, established trade routes, or banking systems.
Step 2) These poor Americans work difficult manual labor jobs. Child labor existed. Slavery existed. People were poorly educated.
Step 3) As the economy grows, the country begins to accumulate capital. This capital is deployed in the form of roads, rail, factories, electricity, running water, police, schools, and courts.
Step 4) The increase in capital leads to increases in productivity. Growth of exports relative to imports causes the country's currency to gain value.
Step 5) A strengthening currency makes the middle class wealthier, but it also drives up the cost of labor.
Step 6) If labor is too expensive, capital investment will be made in places with less capital and a lower cost of labor. This is the outsourcing we know today.

China is currently at step 6. China is seeing outsourcing to places like Bangladesh because the poverty in Bangladesh is much worse than the poverty in China. China still has lots of very poor people, but it also has a lot of wealthy people. I think most Americans would be amazed at how modern some of China's cities are. The cost of doing in business in China can be very expensive, depending on location, so they're doing the same outsourcing we did.

On some level, I think people intuitively understanding how currency and capitalism work. Keynesians point to Germany and say Germany is screwing up the rest of Europe because Germany inflates the value of the Euro. That's absolutely true, but think about why it's true. The force of capitalism tends to make things regress to the mean. If a country has a large trade surplus, the currency gains value, this drives up wages, the increased wage cost drives down exports, which makes the currency fall in value. It's a self-correcting cyclical pattern.
Large trade surplus -> strong currency -> rising wages due to strong currency -> smaller trade surplus due to lack of competitiveness -> weaker currency -> falling wages due to weak currency -> larger trade surplus due to competitiveness -> repeat.
The non-Germany parts of Europe have trade deficits, so they should see falling currency values, which leads to falling wages in real terms, which leads to increased competitiveness. The existence of Germany in the EU stops this natural process from happening, so those countries are trapped in the artificially high wages and suppressed demand part of the cycle.

China is doing the opposite. Due to large trade surpluses for the past decade, China's currency should be worth a lot more than it currently is. The Chinese aristocrats might be evil dictators, but they are not idiots, so they try to stay in that capital accumulating part of the cycle. They keep the Chinese currency down by inflating the currency. Instead of wealth going to the people who are getting paid in yuan, the wealth is extracted by bankers in the form of inflation. If capitalism were allowed to work without central bank manipulation, much of China would already be automated and outsourced. They would have a much stronger middle class, and they would likely see the good kind of deflation where the overall cost of living drops relative to wages, and the standard of living soars.

Central banks around the world are trying to copy China by debasing their currencies, but it won't work when everyone is doing the same thing. Countries like Japan have negative interest rates. Are we supposed to have even more negative rates so our currency collapses faster than theirs? What happens when they set it even more negative? Do we just keep doing this until interest rates are -20%, meaning banks give out free money? We're in the monetary twilight zone, so it's difficult to predict where this is headed. Even 5 years ago, the thought of negaitve interest rates was absurd.

Feels like zombie capitalism.

 

[Spungo]

You want an example? Again, the military. Not only do we as a society spend trillions on a male dominated sector, but women are explicitly barred from joining segments of it.

Which parts of the military are discriminating against women? The military is probably the worst example you could give.
Women make terrible soldiers. Solution? Lower the standards to let women in.
If you're a man and you suck, you're told to fuck off, and that's a good thing since this is an important job. If you're a woman and you suck, the government will give you free shit. This is one of the more offensive cases of discrimination because we're talking about the lives of soldiers. If a unit is not as effective as it could be, more people will die. That's just reality. We are risking the lives of men just to offer career options to women, but please continue telling me how men have some kind of advantage in the military.

ow, society is structured so women can't have a family without male financial support? That actually sounds like horrible discrimination against women, haha. Thanks for proving my point.

But what is your solution?

Regardless, your complaint is that you require a man who makes as much as you do so that you can have babies and maintain the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed. That's a choice. If you don't like it then maybe you should become a feminist and change it.

How would feminism change it?

Men aren't respected in society? What? Married men are demonized? What? Little boys are told they will be pieces of shit because they are men? This would be hilarious if you didn't seem to believe it.

This is one link that I actually want you to watch. The amount of man-bashing in the media is astounding.
misandry in the media. The man is never a respected member of the household.

lol. Of course you are a member of the red pill. The icing on the cake is blaming feminism for a red pill member being a mass murderer. You are to blame for your own toxic ideology, nobody else is.

For an amazing look at some profoundly mentally ill people I encourage everyone to visit the red pill on Reddit. Spungo might seem insane from this shit she wrote, but she's nowhere near the nuttiest person on there. (The blue pill curates some of the best insanity)

You think Elliot Rodger was red pill? That's hilarious. He's as blue pill as it gets. Listen to all of the things he said. He didn't understand why women like men who show masculine qualities. That's because he assumes men and women are the same, which is the blue pill philosophy. As a man, he wants a woman who is friendly and nice, which are feminine traits. Since he assumes women are the same as men, he assumes women look for those same qualities in men. Of course, his blue pill mentality doesn't match the reality of any mammalian species we are aware of, so he sees nothing but failure after failure. He finally snaps and kills a bunch of people. He is the monster you created.


I'm guessing you never actually read the blue pill forum on reddit. It's basically a group of people who support relationships where men are abused by women. Here's the thread stickied at the top:
compilation of posts on why TRP is sexist
Let's go through some of these exhibits demonstrating how red pill philosophy is bad.
Exhibit A - man chooses to leave his emotionally abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should stay in this abusive relationship because the relationship is 20 years old. If you're abused for 20 years, that means being abused for 30 or 40 years is even better.
Exhibit B - man chooses to leave his emotionally disconnected wife. The blue pillers think he should double down. He should invest more in the relationship and continue to get nothing in return. Men only exist to please women, after all.
Exhibit C might be a legit complaint. It's written by the wife, so there is no explanation for why the guy left.
Exhibit D - man chooses to leave his financially abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should continue to be objectified by her because vagina. After all, men are just sources of cash. It's not like they are human beings or anything.
Exhibit E - man chooses to leave his emotionally abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should man up and continue being abused. This is the classic victim blaming I have come to expect from blue pillers.
Exhibit F - man leaves wife after she checks out of the relationship and starts dating other men. As always, blue pillers are saying he should just shut up and be a good little cuckold male feminist.
I could continue going through these examples of blue pillers supporting female on male abuse.

Lol. A Fox News editorial. Very compelling. Hahaha. This particular quote is good as it shows just how totally insane and irrational your argument is.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that such a large percentage, possibly a majority, of women are against third wave feminism? The most vocal ones are actually second wave feminists. Christina Hoff Sommers is a second wave feminist who attacks third wave feminism because she sees the damage it is doing to her sons. If I were a little older, I would probably consider myself a second wave feminist since I work in a male-dominated field, and, like Christina, I attack feminism because I have seen several men in my family get victimized by feminist laws and the feminist court system. Karen Straughan is an empowered woman who attacks feminism because she has sons who are targeted by feminist nonsense.

 

[fskimospy]

Which parts of the military are discriminating against women? The military is probably the worst example you could give.
Women make terrible soldiers. Solution? Lower the standards to let women in.
If you're a man and you suck, you're told to fuck off, and that's a good thing since this is an important job. If you're a woman and you suck, the government will give you free shit. This is one of the more offensive cases of discrimination because we're talking about the lives of soldiers. If a unit is not as effective as it could be, more people will die. That's just reality. We are risking the lives of men just to offer career options to women, but please continue telling me how men have some kind of advantage in the military.

Women are disqualified from certain posts and positions purely based on their gender, not based on their qualifications. There's no getting around this, so I don't know why you keep trying.

But what is your solution?

It's not my job to solve your personal problems for you. You complained that men don't make enough money for you despite men making more than women on average in every age group. If you can't find someone even when the deck is stacked in your favor that's your problem.

How would feminism change it?

This has already been discussed in plenty of other threads. I'm pretty sure you participated in them even.

This is one link that I actually want you to watch. The amount of man-bashing in the media is astounding.
misandry in the media. The man is never a respected member of the household.

I'm not watching a youtube link, sorry.

You think Elliot Rodger was red pill? That's hilarious. He's as blue pill as it gets. Listen to all of the things he said. He didn't understand why women like men who show masculine qualities. That's because he assumes men and women are the same, which is the blue pill philosophy. As a man, he wants a woman who is friendly and nice, which are feminine traits. Since he assumes women are the same as men, he assumes women look for those same qualities in men. Of course, his blue pill mentality doesn't match the reality of any mammalian species we are aware of, so he sees nothing but failure after failure. He finally snaps and kills a bunch of people. He is the monster you created.

You are so totally delusional it's not even funny. Look at what he actually said and wrote as opposed to uncritically swallowing whatever the red pill community has told itself in order to try and escape responsibility for the results of their horrible ideology.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/elliot-rodger-puahate-forever-alone-reddit-forums

Beneath some of these forums and subreddits was PUAhate.com, which one user described as “one of the few truly ‘Red Pill’ communities”. Founded to satirise and discredit pick-up artists, it became a place where sexually frustrated men could go to vent and share pseudo-scientific theories about women. In the spring of 2013, Elliot Rodger found it.

On PUAhate, he wrote in his sprawling manifesto, he had discovered “a forum full of men who are starved of sex, just like me”. What he read, he continued, “confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are”.

“There is something mentally wrong with the way [women’s] brains are wired,” he wrote, echoing the Red Pill constitution. “They are incapable of reason or thinking rationally.”

Yeah, so you were saying?

I'm guessing you never actually read the blue pill forum on reddit. It's basically a group of people who support relationships where men are abused by women. Here's the thread stickied at the top:
compilation of posts on why TRP is sexist
Let's go through some of these exhibits demonstrating how red pill philosophy is bad.
Exhibit A - man chooses to leave his emotionally abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should stay in this abusive relationship because the relationship is 20 years old. If you're abused for 20 years, that means being abused for 30 or 40 years is even better.
Exhibit B - man chooses to leave his emotionally disconnected wife. The blue pillers think he should double down. He should invest more in the relationship and continue to get nothing in return. Men only exist to please women, after all.
Exhibit C might be a legit complaint. It's written by the wife, so there is no explanation for why the guy left.
Exhibit D - man chooses to leave his financially abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should continue to be objectified by her because vagina. After all, men are just sources of cash. It's not like they are human beings or anything.
Exhibit E - man chooses to leave his emotionally abusive wife. The blue pillers are saying he should man up and continue being abused. This is the classic victim blaming I have come to expect from blue pillers.
Exhibit F - man leaves wife after she checks out of the relationship and starts dating other men. As always, blue pillers are saying he should just shut up and be a good little cuckold male feminist.
I could continue going through these examples of blue pillers supporting female on male abuse.

Of course I've read it, how else would I know about it? I don't care what members of that community support (or more likely what you delusionally claim they support), I just find it a useful place that curates the more insane things that come out of the red pill because the red pill community is absolutely hilarious. It's a collection of peacocking manbabies all whining about how they are so oppressed. That's pretty awesome.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that such a large percentage, possibly a majority, of women are against third wave feminism? The most vocal ones are actually second wave feminists. Christina Hoff Sommers is a second wave feminist who attacks third wave feminism because she sees the damage it is doing to her sons. If I were a little older, I would probably consider myself a second wave feminist since I work in a male-dominated field, and, like Christina, I attack feminism because I have seen several men in my family get victimized by feminist laws and the feminist court system. Karen Straughan is an empowered woman who attacks feminism because she has sons who are targeted by feminist nonsense.

I couldn't care less, and I sincerely doubt you have any actual empirical evidence to back up your claim.

It all boils down to this: you've said a bunch of things in this thread that turned out to be flatly wrong, illogical, irrational, or downright batshit crazy. I've pointed these out to you and all you do is rage more. I'm not at all convinced that you're able to talk about this rationally and you seem to have unfortunately gotten mixed up in some really hateful and really stupid ideology. I hope for your sake someday you're able to wake up and see this.

 

[Spungo]

Women are disqualified from certain posts and positions purely based on their gender, not based on their qualifications. There's no getting around this, so I don't know why you keep trying.

Despite having those qualifications, numerous studies have concluded that integrated male and female squads of front line soldiers are significantly less effective than all male squads. You're trying to paint a safety issue as a discrimination issue. Making front line squads less effective doesn't benefit anyone. We shouldn't send men and women to their deaths just because it's politically correct to do so.

It's not my job to solve your personal problems for you.

This isn't just my problem. This is a societal problem. Women need the support of men during pregnancy and the early years of child care. This is a biological fact that feminists like to pretend isn't real. The stuff people see on TV is just a fantasy - it's not possible to be a good mother, take care of a toddler, and work full time. Society needs men to step up to the plate and take care of women, but men won't do that if we constantly shit on them and do everything possible to drive them away from marriage. In case you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years, marriage rates have been plunging because men see how screwed up the system is.
Dr. Helen Smith wrote a wildly popular book on this topic called Men on Strike where she goes over the reasons men are choosing not to be husbands and fathers. Other media catchphrases to describe this include The Sexodus and Fempocalypse (lol).

You complained that men don't make enough money for you despite men making more than women on average in every age group. If you can't find someone even when the deck is stacked in your favor that's your problem.

Men are still getting paid more overall, but there is still a clear downtrend in their earnings. We aren't getting closer to gender parity just because women are doing better than before. We're getting closer to parity because men are doing worse. They are checking out of society, not chasing a career, not learning skilled trades. Today's men were raised by women to be like women. They get worthless degrees in gender studies and art history because we told them to embrace their feminine side, and then they work minimum wage jobs and live with their parents until age 35. Women have always been getting worthless degrees and working minimum wage waitress jobs, but it wasn't really a big deal because women eventually drop out of the workforce to raise children, and men support the household financially. What happens when men are not there to provide financial support for those early childhood years? It becomes impossible to have a proper family that doesn't live in poverty.

I'm not watching a youtube link, sorry.

Because you don't want to admit there is a strong anti-male bias in the media.

You are so totally delusional it's not even funny. Look at what he actually said and wrote as opposed to uncritically swallowing whatever the red pill community has told itself in order to try and escape responsibility for the results of their horrible ideology.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/elliot-rodger-puahate-forever-alone-reddit-forums

Fine, I will read your link.

("misc" on bodybuilding forums) was a space given to flamewars and trolling, but they saw Rodger posting things like “Men shouldn't have to look and act like big, animalistic beasts to get women. The fact that women still prioritize brute strength just shows that their minds haven't fully evolved”

This is typical blue pill logic. He's applying male standards to females then concluding that females are shit. This is why the red pill alpha douchebag members of the bodybuilding forum thought he was a nutcase. As red pillers, they thought applying male standards to females was absurd. Like I said before, this is like applying human standards to cats then declaring that cats are asshole creatures. Red pill is about understanding the nature of what you are dealing with. I see this all the time when I deal with men. If I have a problem, they always want to fix it instead of just giving me a hug and telling me everything will be ok. By female standards, those men are just assholes. By male standards, they're actually showing how much they care about me. They want to fix the problem so I feel better.

On PUAhate, he wrote in his sprawling manifesto, he had discovered “a forum full of men who are starved of sex, just like me”. What he read, he continued, “confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are”.

Again, blue pill logic. These angry men are holding women to male standards then saying women are terrible. If he wasn't constantly lied to by feminists about the differences between male and female behavior, he wouldn't be so disappointed.
Red pillers say: That's just the way women are.
Blue pillers say: Why are women not acting like men? Those fucking bitches!

 

[fskimospy]

Despite having those qualifications, numerous studies have concluded that integrated male and female squads of front line soldiers are significantly less effective than all male squads. You're trying to paint a safety issue as a discrimination issue. Making front line squads less effective doesn't benefit anyone. We shouldn't send men and women to their deaths just because it's politically correct to do so.

Of course we shouldn't, but that doesn't mean women should be categorically barred from specific jobs or postings. They should have to meet the same standards as anyone else. Just because the military's attempts at integration have been implemented poorly doesn't change the simple fact that women are denied these opportunities solely based on their gender.

There's no escaping this.

This isn't just my problem. This is a societal problem. Women need the support of men during pregnancy and the early years of child care. This is a biological fact that feminists like to pretend isn't real. The stuff people see on TV is just a fantasy - it's not possible to be a good mother, take care of a toddler, and work full time. Society needs men to step up to the plate and take care of women, but men won't do that if we constantly shit on them and do everything possible to drive them away from marriage. In case you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years, marriage rates have been plunging because men see how screwed up the system is.
Dr. Helen Smith wrote a wildly popular book on this topic called Men on Strike where she goes over the reasons men are choosing not to be husbands and fathers. Other media catchphrases to describe this include The Sexodus and Fempocalypse (lol).

Men are still getting paid more overall, but there is still a clear downtrend in their earnings. We aren't getting closer to gender parity just because women are doing better than before. We're getting closer to parity because men are doing worse. They are checking out of society, not chasing a career, not learning skilled trades. Today's men were raised by women to be like women. They get worthless degrees in gender studies and art history because we told them to embrace their feminine side, and then they work minimum wage jobs and live with their parents until age 35. Women have always been getting worthless degrees and working minimum wage waitress jobs, but it wasn't really a big deal because women eventually drop out of the workforce to raise children, and men support the household financially. What happens when men are not there to provide financial support for those early childhood years? It becomes impossible to have a proper family that doesn't live in poverty.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I think I said this earlier, but it seems like you have some sort of copy/pasted ideas that you try to shoehorn into discussions.

While almost all of this is just fact-free ranting, thank you for at least (tangentially) admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about in terms of earnings by gender. At this point I've lost track of how many either wildly wrong or highly questionable things you've simply stated without any evidence or support.

Because you don't want to admit there is a strong anti-male bias in the media.

Of course not, because it's bullshit.

Fine, I will read your link.

This is typical blue pill logic. He's applying male standards to females then concluding that females are shit. This is why the red pill alpha douchebag members of the bodybuilding forum thought he was a nutcase. As red pillers, they thought applying male standards to females was absurd. Like I said before, this is like applying human standards to cats then declaring that cats are asshole creatures.

Please go read it again, including the specific quotes I mentioned. I can't help but notice that you completely ignored them and the overall point of the article while instead mining it for a single quote you thought supported your position. This is at least the third time you've conveniently deleted contrary information. Stop doing that, please.

Hell, go to the Red Pill today and search through it. Lord only knows how many cases we could find of people saying basically the same things he was saying. Let me guess though: they aren't the true scotsmen, haha.

Red pill is about understanding the nature of what you are dealing with. I see this all the time when I deal with men. If I have a problem, they always want to fix it instead of just giving me a hug and telling me everything will be ok. By female standards, those men are just assholes. By male standards, they're actually showing how much they care about me. They want to fix the problem so I feel better.

They are also showing you that they have no interest in actually making you feel better by the standards that they are well aware of. I guess you think effort matters more than results but not everyone is willing to go so far to excuse other's behavior.

The red pill is about finding excuses for why your failings aren't your fault. Everyone thinks that they are looking at the true nature of reality. (nobody thinks they are irrational)

Again, blue pill logic. These angry men are holding women to male standards then saying women are terrible. If he wasn't constantly lied to by feminists about the differences between male and female behavior, he wouldn't be so disappointed.

I can't help but laugh again at your attempts to blame feminism for a red piller's murder rampage. Take responsibility for your own ideology's failings and stop trying to blame other people. Then again, as mentioned above the red pill is all about finding excuses for why your failings aren't your fault, so this shouldn't be surprising I guess.

Red pillers say: That's just the way women are.
Blue pillers say: Why are women not acting like men? Those fucking bitches!

I strongly encourage anyone who has even the slightest suspicion that this description is not bullshit to go to The Red Pill and read it for a few minutes. Total, delusional horseshit.

Again, I really hope you get out of this toxic community someday. Once you stick your head up and see how the rest of the world really thinks you'll wonder how you ever bought into this nonsense.

 

[Spungo]

They are also showing you that they have no interest in actually making you feel better by the standards that they are well aware of.

But they're not aware of those things. Most people are blue pill - they have no idea what the other gender is thinking. This is why it's still common for women to get mad at their boyfriend for irrational reasons, and the boyfriend doesn't know why she's mad at him. I'm surprised you don't already know this. Author John Grey made millions of dollars with his best selling book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, which was about this very concept. Men and women speak different languages and approach problems differently. That's how a sexually dimorphic species works. Instead of getting angry when your boyfriend doesn't notice your new haircut, try to remember that he doesn't give a shit about your hair, your purse, your wrist watch, etc.
He's looking at your face, your boobs, and your butt.

Of course we shouldn't, but that doesn't mean women should be categorically barred from specific jobs or postings. They should have to meet the same standards as anyone else. Just because the military's attempts at integration have been implemented poorly doesn't change the simple fact that women are denied these opportunities solely based on their gender.

But you're acting as if it's baseless sexism. It's not baseless. Mixed sex squads simply do not work. It doesn't matter if a woman is built like a bodybuilder and can shoot like a pro. Men and women don't work as well together as men working with other men, and two women working together is even worse. It's an observable fact. Anyone who has worked in an office can attest to this.
That's a valuable life lesson everyone learns the hard way. If you have a female boss, find a different job. I just cannot deal with female bosses. They somehow conclude that I'm out to destroy them because .... something. My skirt is shorter - that means I'm trying to destroy her by using sex appeal. My skirt is longer - that means I'm trying to look more professional than her. Good lord.

I love this graph. Men show a slight preference for working with other men. Women show a very strong preference for working with men. I'm sure those women have the same horror stories I have. So much drama. The military would rather not risk dealing with this type of crap. If that means a sausage fest on the front line, so be it. Again, it's all about safety. Having two women fighting about nothing in an office is not a problem, and one can always be fired. Having an entire squad get killed because one link in the chain was weak is not acceptable.

I guess you think effort matters more than results but not everyone is willing to go so far to excuse other's behavior.

And that's why most people are miserable.
"He forgot my blood type! How dare he! He doesn't love me!"
/facepalm

I strongly encourage anyone who has even the slightest suspicion that this description is not bullshit to go to The Red Pill and read it for a few minutes. Total, delusional horseshit.

I'll save everyone a bunch of time by summarizing all the seemingly sexist things said. TRP will have a lot of posts claiming:

-Women care a lot about money and resources. This is obviously true. Women consistently name career and money as key factors when choosing a mate. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. Guys will happily marry a waitress or a woman who works at starbucks. Women, in general, would never consider marrying a guy who makes minimum wage or works part time. It's just not going to happen. No woman says "I want a stay at home husband." A stay at home husband with no income is what happens when every other option has failed.

-Women, in general, are significantly less loyal than men. This is demonstrably true. When asked about cheating an astonishing 25% of women say they would definitely cheat if the right guy came along. In contrast, only 9% of men said they would definitely cheat. Again, this is just a case of common sense and economics. The most effective male reproductive strategy is to mate with every female. The most effective female reproductive strategy is to mate with the absolute best male because a woman can only be pregnant one baby at a time, so it's about quality over quantity.

-Alpha fucks, beta bucks (AFBB). This is the concept of forming social relationships with stable "beta" male providers, but having sex with "alpha" men who may be sexier but not as stable. This relates to the above point. When a better sexual partner comes along, it is in the female's best reproductive interest to have sex with the alpha, but to continue the relationship with the beta. Again, this is common sense. Guys will often cheat with women who are less attractive than their main partner, which seems really weird, but it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. More mates = better male reproductive strategy. Do women cheat on their partner to trade down, and mate with a guy who is fatter or less attractive? Not very damn often. The side guy needs to be better than the main guy otherwise it would be a bad reproductive choice. Again, women focus on quality over quantity. Think of that Donald Sterling case. Donald Sterling is the stable beta providing resources. The black guys she was hanging out with were the alphas. Get sex from one group, get cash from the other group. It might be opportunistic for women to do this, but that's just the reality of it.
This quality versus quantity issue is why men who sleep around are studs, but women who sleep around are sluts. Conversely, a man who divorces his wife because she lost her job would be publicly shamed, but a woman doing the same thing would be "ditching this zero to find herself a hero."

-Hypergamy is a thing. This is just common sense. Women date up, men date down. It's not really a secret that rich men have a lot more sexual opportunities than poor men. When it comes to women and wealth, men don't really care how much money a woman has. The waitress with a beautiful body is a bigger prize than a highly successful female lawyer with a weight problem. This is one thing that Elliot Rodger was shooting for but didn't understand correctly. A woman doesn't care that your shirt is $500. It's the ability to extract wealth from a man that women are attracted to. Women don't want to date a cheap guy like Warren Buffett. Yeah he's worth billions, but there's no way to get that money out of him. We only want to hang out with rich guys if they are willing to share some of that wealth, buy us nice things, take us out for dinner. Flip the roles a little. As a man, would you want to date a super attractive woman who refused to have sex with you? Of course you wouldn't. The whole point of having a hot girlfriend is sex. The whole point of dating a rich guy is to get a share of their resources.


I know you'll just claim that all of these are wrong. You'll say men and women are exactly the same, slut shaming is wrong and has no evolutionary basis, women are not at all concerned about wealth, men are not at all concerned about fertility and physical beauty, women don't have a propensity to trade up when the opportunity comes along or to marry up in the first place, and so on.

 

[nickqt]

But they're not aware of those things. Most people are blue pill - they have no idea what the other gender is thinking. This is why it's still common for women to get mad at their boyfriend for irrational reasons, and the boyfriend doesn't know why she's mad at him. I'm surprised you don't already know this. Author John Grey made millions of dollars with his best selling book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, which was about this very concept. Men and women speak different languages and approach problems differently. That's how a sexually dimorphic species works. Instead of getting angry when your boyfriend doesn't notice your new haircut, try to remember that he doesn't give a shit about your hair, your purse, your wrist watch, etc.
He's looking at your face, your boobs, and your butt.


But you're acting as if it's baseless sexism. It's not baseless. Mixed sex squads simply do not work. It doesn't matter if a woman is built like a bodybuilder and can shoot like a pro. Men and women don't work as well together as men working with other men, and two women working together is even worse. It's an observable fact. Anyone who has worked in an office can attest to this.
That's a valuable life lesson everyone learns the hard way. If you have a female boss, find a different job. I just cannot deal with female bosses. They somehow conclude that I'm out to destroy them because .... something. My skirt is shorter - that means I'm trying to destroy her by using sex appeal. My skirt is longer - that means I'm trying to look more professional than her. Good lord.

I love this graph. Men show a slight preference for working with other men. Women show a very strong preference for working with men. I'm sure those women have the same horror stories I have. So much drama. The military would rather not risk dealing with this type of crap. If that means a sausage fest on the front line, so be it. Again, it's all about safety. Having two women fighting about nothing in an office is not a problem, and one can always be fired. Having an entire squad get killed because one link in the chain was weak is not acceptable.



And that's why most people are miserable.
"He forgot my blood type! How dare he! He doesn't love me!"
/facepalm




I'll save everyone a bunch of time by summarizing all the seemingly sexist things said. TRP will have a lot of posts claiming:

-Women care a lot about money and resources. This is obviously true. Women consistently name career and money as key factors when choosing a mate. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. Guys will happily marry a waitress or a woman who works at starbucks. Women, in general, would never consider marrying a guy who makes minimum wage or works part time. It's just not going to happen. No woman says "I want a stay at home husband." A stay at home husband with no income is what happens when every other option has failed.

-Women, in general, are significantly less loyal than men. This is demonstrably true. When asked about cheating an astonishing 25% of women say they would definitely cheat if the right guy came along. In contrast, only 9% of men said they would definitely cheat. Again, this is just a case of common sense and economics. The most effective male reproductive strategy is to mate with every female. The most effective female reproductive strategy is to mate with the absolute best male because a woman can only be pregnant one baby at a time, so it's about quality over quantity.

-Alpha fucks, beta bucks (AFBB). This is the concept of forming social relationships with stable "beta" male providers, but having sex with "alpha" men who may be sexier but not as stable. This relates to the above point. When a better sexual partner comes along, it is in the female's best reproductive interest to have sex with the alpha, but to continue the relationship with the beta. Again, this is common sense. Guys will often cheat with women who are less attractive than their main partner, which seems really weird, but it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. More mates = better male reproductive strategy. Do women cheat on their partner to trade down, and mate with a guy who is fatter or less attractive? Not very damn often. The side guy needs to be better than the main guy otherwise it would be a bad reproductive choice. Again, women focus on quality over quantity. Think of that Donald Sterling case. Donald Sterling is the stable beta providing resources. The black guys she was hanging out with were the alphas. Get sex from one group, get cash from the other group. It might be opportunistic for women to do this, but that's just the reality of it.
This quality versus quantity issue is why men who sleep around are studs, but women who sleep around are sluts. Conversely, a man who divorces his wife because she lost her job would be publicly shamed, but a woman doing the same thing would be "ditching this zero to find herself a hero."

-Hypergamy is a thing. This is just common sense. Women date up, men date down. It's not really a secret that rich men have a lot more sexual opportunities than poor men. When it comes to women and wealth, men don't really care how much money a woman has. The waitress with a beautiful body is a bigger prize than a highly successful female lawyer with a weight problem. This is one thing that Elliot Rodger was shooting for but didn't understand correctly. A woman doesn't care that your shirt is $500. It's the ability to extract wealth from a man that women are attracted to. Women don't want to date a cheap guy like Warren Buffett. Yeah he's worth billions, but there's no way to get that money out of him. We only want to hang out with rich guys if they are willing to share some of that wealth, buy us nice things, take us out for dinner. Flip the roles a little. As a man, would you want to date a super attractive woman who refused to have sex with you? Of course you wouldn't. The whole point of having a hot girlfriend is sex. The whole point of dating a rich guy is to get a share of their resources.


I know you'll just claim that all of these are wrong. You'll say men and women are exactly the same, slut shaming is wrong and has no evolutionary basis, women are not at all concerned about wealth, men are not at all concerned about fertility and physical beauty, women don't have a propensity to trade up when the opportunity comes along or to marry up in the first place, and so on.

Boys rule girls drool!

 

[fskimospy]

But they're not aware of those things. Most people are blue pill - they have no idea what the other gender is thinking. This is why it's still common for women to get mad at their boyfriend for irrational reasons, and the boyfriend doesn't know why she's mad at him. I'm surprised you don't already know this. Author John Grey made millions of dollars with his best selling book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, which was about this very concept. Men and women speak different languages and approach problems differently. That's how a sexually dimorphic species works. Instead of getting angry when your boyfriend doesn't notice your new haircut, try to remember that he doesn't give a shit about your hair, your purse, your wrist watch, etc.
He's looking at your face, your boobs, and your butt.

Lol. Exactly my point. The difference is that you want to excuse someone not meeting your needs and I think everyone should be responsible for their behavior.

There are millions and millions of men who understand this just fine. The ones that don't have to live with the consequences of their failure. It's all about personal responsibility, which again is what you are all about avoiding.

But you're acting as if it's baseless sexism. It's not baseless. Mixed sex squads simply do not work. It doesn't matter if a woman is built like a bodybuilder and can shoot like a pro. Men and women don't work as well together as men working with other men, and two women working together is even worse. It's an observable fact. Anyone who has worked in an office can attest to this.
That's a valuable life lesson everyone learns the hard way. If you have a female boss, find a different job. I just cannot deal with female bosses. They somehow conclude that I'm out to destroy them because .... something. My skirt is shorter - that means I'm trying to destroy her by using sex appeal. My skirt is longer - that means I'm trying to look more professional than her. Good lord.

I work in an office, my boss is a woman, I like my job, and my office works just fine.

oops.

I love this graph. Men show a slight preference for working with other men. Women show a very strong preference for working with men. I'm sure those women have the same horror stories I have. So much drama. The military would rather not risk dealing with this type of crap. If that means a sausage fest on the front line, so be it. Again, it's all about safety. Having two women fighting about nothing in an office is not a problem, and one can always be fired. Having an entire squad get killed because one link in the chain was weak is not acceptable.

Ah yes, more baseless bullshit. Where do you get this crap from?

And that's why most people are miserable.
"He forgot my blood type! How dare he! He doesn't love me!"
/facepalm

facepalm indeed, haha. Most people are not miserable because they have failed to convince themselves that their partners are incapable of meeting their needs.

This is some weird Stockholm syndrome shit you have going on.

I'll save everyone a bunch of time by summarizing all the seemingly sexist things said. TRP will have a lot of posts claiming:

-Women care a lot about money and resources. This is obviously true. Women consistently name career and money as key factors when choosing a mate. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. Guys will happily marry a waitress or a woman who works at starbucks. Women, in general, would never consider marrying a guy who makes minimum wage or works part time. It's just not going to happen. No woman says "I want a stay at home husband." A stay at home husband with no income is what happens when every other option has failed.

-Women, in general, are significantly less loyal than men. This is demonstrably true. When asked about cheating an astonishing 25% of women say they would definitely cheat if the right guy came along. In contrast, only 9% of men said they would definitely cheat. Again, this is just a case of common sense and economics. The most effective male reproductive strategy is to mate with every female. The most effective female reproductive strategy is to mate with the absolute best male because a woman can only be pregnant one baby at a time, so it's about quality over quantity.

-Alpha fucks, beta bucks (AFBB). This is the concept of forming social relationships with stable "beta" male providers, but having sex with "alpha" men who may be sexier but not as stable. This relates to the above point. When a better sexual partner comes along, it is in the female's best reproductive interest to have sex with the alpha, but to continue the relationship with the beta. Again, this is common sense. Guys will often cheat with women who are less attractive than their main partner, which seems really weird, but it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. More mates = better male reproductive strategy. Do women cheat on their partner to trade down, and mate with a guy who is fatter or less attractive? Not very damn often. The side guy needs to be better than the main guy otherwise it would be a bad reproductive choice. Again, women focus on quality over quantity. Think of that Donald Sterling case. Donald Sterling is the stable beta providing resources. The black guys she was hanging out with were the alphas. Get sex from one group, get cash from the other group. It might be opportunistic for women to do this, but that's just the reality of it.
This quality versus quantity issue is why men who sleep around are studs, but women who sleep around are sluts. Conversely, a man who divorces his wife because she lost her job would be publicly shamed, but a woman doing the same thing would be "ditching this zero to find herself a hero."

-Hypergamy is a thing. This is just common sense. Women date up, men date down. It's not really a secret that rich men have a lot more sexual opportunities than poor men. When it comes to women and wealth, men don't really care how much money a woman has. The waitress with a beautiful body is a bigger prize than a highly successful female lawyer with a weight problem. This is one thing that Elliot Rodger was shooting for but didn't understand correctly. A woman doesn't care that your shirt is $500. It's the ability to extract wealth from a man that women are attracted to. Women don't want to date a cheap guy like Warren Buffett. Yeah he's worth billions, but there's no way to get that money out of him. We only want to hang out with rich guys if they are willing to share some of that wealth, buy us nice things, take us out for dinner. Flip the roles a little. As a man, would you want to date a super attractive woman who refused to have sex with you? Of course you wouldn't. The whole point of having a hot girlfriend is sex. The whole point of dating a rich guy is to get a share of their resources.


I know you'll just claim that all of these are wrong. You'll say men and women are exactly the same, slut shaming is wrong and has no evolutionary basis, women are not at all concerned about wealth, men are not at all concerned about fertility and physical beauty, women don't have a propensity to trade up when the opportunity comes along or to marry up in the first place, and so on.

Nice try. Like I said, people should just go read it for themselves. You're trying to get out in front of it because you know how fucked up that community is. There is nothing I could say to describe the community that is worse than what the community already publicly displays.

I do find the continuing attempts to rebrand your factless emotional ranting as simply being logical though, haha. It would probably be particularly psychologically troubling to the Red Pill community to realize that they are even more emotion driven and irrational than the people they complain about.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This has turned into the strangest minimum wage discussion ever.

 

[Spungo]

This has turned into the strangest minimum wage discussion ever.

I had to go back and check how this tangent started.
It started when I implied that wages are falling because society focuses too much on what women want, and we forgot that men are the cornerstone of the workforce. We don't have guys like Mike Rowe talking about skilled trades in congress because we have too many skilled tradesmen. Society shifted its attention away from conventionally masculine jobs. We now look down on people who work with their hands even if they're getting paid $40/h, which is absurd.

So what is the government solution to a dying labor force, falling wages, and economic stagnation? We need more people in Gender Studies! We should give free university to anyone seeking to waste 4 years of their life learning about feminism and how the patriarchy created jobs like pipefitting and welding. When those people with no skills can't find anything paying better than minimum wage, the solution is to raise minimum wage! Hurrrr, this are so intellijent.

You can't beat capitalism by imposing silly rules. If you have no skills, no government laws are going to make your labor worth something. Instead of paying people more money to do the same work as a part time cashier, why don't we try fixing the root of the problem by getting people into more skilled professions? Sociology is not a skilled profession. History is not a skilled profession. Underwater Basket Weaving is not a skilled profession.

Here is your modern labor force:

Gee, I wonder why he's not making $30/h. What jobs do you think that guy is qualified to do?

Ah yes, more baseless bullshit. Where do you get this crap from?

I like how you forgot to remove the graph before pretending the graph wasn't posted. If you're going to pretend data was not presented, the least you could do is not include the data in your post.
As for WHY women prefer to work with men, it's because men are generally better at what they do.
All male combat units were more effective than mixed units.


I think I'll switch sides and support eski on this one. Instead of focusing on men, the people who are expected to work and never take time off, we should continue focusing on women who will major in gender studies then drop out of the labor force around age 30. If we simply had more gender studies majors, the wages at Walmart would be higher, our trade deficit would shrink, and the economy would grow at a rate of 7.2%.

 

[nickqt]

I had to go back and check how this tangent started.
It started when I implied that wages are falling because society focuses too much on what women want, and we forgot that men are the cornerstone of the workforce. We don't have guys like Mike Rowe talking about skilled trades in congress because we have too many skilled tradesmen. Society shifted its attention away from conventionally masculine jobs. We now look down on people who work with their hands even if they're getting paid $40/h, which is absurd.

So what is the government solution to a dying labor force, falling wages, and economic stagnation? We need more people in Gender Studies! We should give free university to anyone seeking to waste 4 years of their life learning about feminism and how the patriarchy created jobs like pipefitting and welding. When those people with no skills can't find anything paying better than minimum wage, the solution is to raise minimum wage! Hurrrr, this are so intellijent.

You can't beat capitalism by imposing silly rules. If you have no skills, no government laws are going to make your labor worth something. Instead of paying people more money to do the same work as a part time cashier, why don't we try fixing the root of the problem by getting people into more skilled professions? Sociology is not a skilled profession. History is not a skilled profession. Underwater Basket Weaving is not a skilled profession.

Here is your modern labor force:

Gee, I wonder why he's not making $30/h. What jobs do you think that guy is qualified to do?



I like how you forgot to remove the graph before pretending the graph wasn't posted. If you're going to pretend data was not presented, the least you could do is not include the data in your post.
As for WHY women prefer to work with men, it's because men are generally better at what they do.
All male combat units were more effective than mixed units.


I think I'll switch sides and support eski on this one. Instead of focusing on men, the people who are expected to work and never take time off, we should continue focusing on women who will major in gender studies then drop out of the labor force around age 30. If we simply had more gender studies majors, the wages at Walmart would be higher, our trade deficit would shrink, and the economy would grow at a rate of 7.2%.

Yes, that one picture you found represents the average, modern man.

If you're an idiot.

Keep on keepin' on with your delusions, it's very entertaining.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, that one picture you found represents the average, modern man.

If you're an idiot.

Keep on keepin' on with your delusions, it's very entertaining.

Stop harassing Spungo you misogynist shitlord.

 

[JSt0rm]

here is your modern labor force:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

never will happen they said a couple days ago. and then this thing lololol.


watch the whole vid before comment please.

 

[JSt0rm]

now lets assume one of those will cost amazon 50k and 10k a year in maintenance. They buy 5000 of them.

250 million initial 50 million in maintenance per year...

amazon just hired 6000 "new" workers at 11.25 each

thats 140 million in just those 6000 new workers per year. WAGES ONLY. do the numbers for unemployment and whatever else and its higher.

How long until that robot pays for itself? Remember 5000 of those robots take 15000 jobs as they dont need shift breaks.

 

[nickqt]

here is your modern labor force:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

never will happen they said a couple days ago. and then this thing lololol.


watch the whole vid before comment please.

I watched the video.

The best part starts about 1:25 in:

https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY?t=1m25s

Reminds me of the Flesh Fair part of the movie A.I.

I can imagine the guy with the hockey stick thinking to himself "fuck you, buddy".

 

[JSt0rm]

If we dont lower wages companies will create robots to do the job!!!

https://www.amazonrobotics.com/#/

oh. They doin it anyhow.

 

[JSt0rm]

can we embed mp4 here?

http://i.imgur.com/ncAPUUM.mp4

no. We behind the times up in this joint.

 

[Ns1]

let's not forget our elite workforces of the 1970's; no doubt without them the USA would not be where it is today.

But please, let's continue to rail on how millennials/hipsters look.

 

[Spungo]

Yes, that one picture you found represents the average, modern man.

Sadly, it is :'(

I want you to create a female profile on okcupid and look at the straight men available. A lot of them look like that. Maybe not that gay, but they're certainly not masculine. Then look at what their jobs are.

Here are the top 5 people I match with in the city of Spokane. I won't post their names because that crosses the line. I'm not trying to humiliate specific people or bully anyone.

#1 is 38 years old, more sex driven, more kinky, more drug-friendly. Education and job are not listed. I'll translate that for the people who have never done online dating. People who are kinky and drug friendly and look the way this guy looks are not breadwinners. He's probably a very nice person, but he's not a high income type of guy.

#2 is 32 and actually could be a good mate. He's a writer (bad), a college educator (good), and a business professional (good). He also appears to be in good shape. Very nice. It says he's in an open relationship. He doesn't look like a cuckold, so this guy must be laying pipe like it's going out of style.

#3 is a 25 year old hipster stereotype. He actually looks like a butch lesbian, which I find rather amusing. He's studying radiology, so that's a good career. So far 2/3 have good earning potential.

#4 is another hipster stereotype. 31 years old. It says post grad education, but it doesn't say what major, and he doesn't list his job. His clothes look very inexpensive. He's in an open relationship, but the girlfriend is not attractive at all, so I'm guessing he doesn't have a lot of money. This guy isn't laying pipe. He's totally a cuckold. Poor guy. We're at 2/4 with good earning potential.

#5 is black, so that's obviously low earning potential.
*crickets*
Ok, that's a bad joke. He's 23, and his profile is pretty much blank. Of the questions he has answered, it says he is more artsy, more conservative (huh?), but less energetic and less confident. A lot of things here seem low paying. So far 2/5 have good earning potential.

I've only gone through 5 and I'm down to 71% match. That's just sad. When I was in Halifax, there would be dozens of guys with 80-90% match. Halifax is like a whole town of cool people.

let's not forget our elite workforces of the 1970's; no doubt without them the USA would not be where it is today.

The two guys on the left look like they can do at least 5 pullups. They can probably swing a hammer if you show them how.

 

[JSt0rm]

Please stop making fake girl profiles to honey trap men. It doesn't look good for you, friend.

 

[nickqt]

Sadly, it is :'(

I want you to create a female profile on okcupid and look at the straight men available. A lot of them look like that. Maybe not that gay, but they're certainly not masculine. Then look at what their jobs are.

Here are the top 5 people I match with in the city of Spokane. I won't post their names because that crosses the line. I'm not trying to humiliate specific people or bully anyone.

#1 is 38 years old, more sex driven, more kinky, more drug-friendly. Education and job are not listed. I'll translate that for the people who have never done online dating. People who are kinky and drug friendly and look the way this guy looks are not breadwinners. He's probably a very nice person, but he's not a high income type of guy.

#2 is 32 and actually could be a good mate. He's a writer (bad), a college educator (good), and a business professional (good). He also appears to be in good shape. Very nice. It says he's in an open relationship. He doesn't look like a cuckold, so this guy must be laying pipe like it's going out of style.

#3 is a 25 year old hipster stereotype. He actually looks like a butch lesbian, which I find rather amusing. He's studying radiology, so that's a good career. So far 2/3 have good earning potential.

#4 is another hipster stereotype. 31 years old. It says post grad education, but it doesn't say what major, and he doesn't list his job. His clothes look very inexpensive. He's in an open relationship, but the girlfriend is not attractive at all, so I'm guessing he doesn't have a lot of money. This guy isn't laying pipe. He's totally a cuckold. Poor guy. We're at 2/4 with good earning potential.

#5 is black, so that's obviously low earning potential.
*crickets*
Ok, that's a bad joke. He's 23, and his profile is pretty much blank. Of the questions he has answered, it says he is more artsy, more conservative (huh?), but less energetic and less confident. A lot of things here seem low paying. So far 2/5 have good earning potential.

I've only gone through 5 and I'm down to 71% match. That's just sad. When I was in Halifax, there would be dozens of guys with 80-90% match. Halifax is like a whole town of cool people.



The two guys on the left look like they can do at least 5 pullups. They can probably swing a hammer if you show them how.

So, based on that picture and OK Cupid, all men are feminine cuckolds today, because, like, that picture, plus OK Cupid.

Try stepping outside sometime.

 

[OverVolt]

Gender Bender