61–70 of 226 posts
My parents weren't rich, but they had enough that I didn't qualify for the Pell grant. But once married, my parents money didn't count against me. And as a broke college kid, suddenly I did qualify!
It helped me to graduate debt free. (Going to a community college and then a state school, and working the entire time also made a big difference.)
Mostly just economics, is my wager. In a classic agrarian economy, having a spouse and making children works out -- more children = more hands = more work done = more food or more product to market. In a modern "pure" capitalist industrial/service economy, the economic model doesn't pay for the cost of the reproduction of the labour it depends on. So not a surprise when people do the same cost-benefit analysis for th…
Hmm. I wonder if this flows from divorce in the previous generation. If you didn't have a father (or at least not one who was present), you may not have seen a model of how to be a father. When you grow up, you are less likely to see it as something desirable, and less likely to know how to do it.
To avoid misunderstandings and red herrings, let me make some clarifying comments. Yes, I know that a number of those who left would have been lousy fathers if they stayed - even abusive. And that makes for a lousy model. And yes, I know that many of those without fathers present find others who can model fatherhood to them, and even of those who don't, some of them figure it out on their own. I still think that, on an aggregate scale, the absence of fathers a generation ago at least contributes to this trend today.
In beehives, the drones -- correction, workers -- are sterile. This maximizes returns on capital at quarter and even decade timescales.
This doesn't make sense. Governments want children and immigrants because they need a tax base to stay in power.
As for businesses, they want employees doing things that project stability, such as getting a mortgage (a lot of companies give off time to close one), getting married, and having children. People who do that don't rock the boat and don't speak up because they have a life outside of work they need to upkeep with their paychecks; so they stay good worker bees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe people are just aiming too high. Sometimes you have to know your limitations and know where you fit. Not everyone is a high achiever and not everyone thought education was going to deliver a better sociology economic potential for them. It’s unfortunate that society today misleads youth in thinking they can make their own reality and that there are shortcuts to success for all. Some are lucky but most are not.…
You see, your thought processes are part of the problem. > misleads youth in thinking they can make their own reality and that there are shortcuts to success for all. Many people, like myself, are not shooting for "success". We just want to live and hang out with our family and friends. That is success. And the economic structure makes that impossible because everyone else has the idea that success means having to fi…
Your argument regarding the airbnb driving up houses in your area is a valid one but the real issue is a shortage of homes, and the resolution is for someone that wants great financial success to assume risk and build more. Something often forgotten in castigating the rich is that many of them took on a massive amount of risk to succeed and in doing so provided jobs for others.
If the youth are unable to determine what their own version of success looks like then that's on them, you figured out yours, why cant everyone else? Honestly the root cause of your issue is likely globalization, manufacturing and livable blue collar jobs were lost because other countries were willing to do the work for far cheaper. This forced the United States to elevate financial services / software / thought leader style jobs with high salaries concentrated in fewer hands.
Just wait until you see how many of us can't afford houses and will be destitute at 60
marriage makes it possible for some that couldn't afford houses to be able to do so, by pooling resources together.
Marriage is not a requirement for pooling resources.
The chart is just another "wtf happened in 1971" moment. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ What happened in 1971? The Nixon Shock, which is when the dollar stopped being convertible to gold after it became evident that the US did not have the gold it claimed to have.
Turns put he is a crook
Mostly just economics, is my wager. In a classic agrarian economy, having a spouse and making children works out -- more children = more hands = more work done = more food or more product to market. In a modern "pure" capitalist industrial/service economy, the economic model doesn't pay for the cost of the reproduction of the labour it depends on. So not a surprise when people do the same cost-benefit analysis for th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
marriage makes it possible for some that couldn't afford houses to be able to do so, by pooling resources together.
So, what you're saying is that people marry for economic reasons rather than romantic? And when the romantic partnership fails, should people stay together in the economic partnership because they can't afford to split up? That's effectively what we've been doing for the past few decades. And the result is as shown in TFA: a generation of adults who will avoid marriage like the plague, because they've seen how toxic…
I think marriage is overrated. Just a construct of society. You can have kids with a partner, but really no reason to formalize it with “marriage”. I guess there are tax reasons though that make it more logical though.
But there are also subtle but real and pervasive social & community benefits to it. You are often perceived by default as "established," reliable, trustworthy when you are married, in ways you wouldn't be in an unmarried partnership.
"Just a construct of society?" Sure. So is money. Something being a social construct doesn't mean it's fake, or powerless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
marriage makes it possible for some that couldn't afford houses to be able to do so, by pooling resources together.
So, what you're saying is that people marry for economic reasons rather than romantic? And when the romantic partnership fails, should people stay together in the economic partnership because they can't afford to split up? That's effectively what we've been doing for the past few decades. And the result is as shown in TFA: a generation of adults who will avoid marriage like the plague, because they've seen how toxic…