201–210 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t have any support from your parents and are working a minimum wage job then I’m pretty sure you are poor.
Do most college students have no support from parents and work minimum wage jobs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Source? Well, generally men do the proposing, and as far as I am aware, most proposals are successful. So if the number of marriages are declining, then it means men are not proposing—either they are uninterested in getting married, or they are but don’t reach a point in their relationships where they believe a proposal would be successful. Not sure what the distribution of those is.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/middle-class-marriage-is-... Page 82 and on have graphs: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.79
There are a variety of reasons this is happening. Most of which are political suicide to bring up. Se lets all enjoy the descent into a 3rd world state. If you wanna actually find yourself in a relationship, do what I did and travel to other countries. Contrary to the mainstream narrative perpetuated by american propaganda, most women outside america aren't "poor and uneducated and looking for a passport."
What reasons? I'm genuinely curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you wanna actually find yourself in a relationship, do what I did and travel to other countries. A lot of being single is tied pervasive poverty. For folks living paycheck to paycheck, how might they get to another country and then support themselves there?
this might get downvoted but honest truth, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, get yourself out of that situation first. I know its harsh but you have no business contributing to a relationship till you're able to take care of yourself beyond the bare minimum. Not only that but you can take the most risks to change your status quo when you're single. you don't have anyone dependent on you and no one who's time you…
To clarify, you're saying no one earning less than 4x typical wages should be in a relationship. Did you date much in high school?
> if you're living paycheck to paycheck, get yourself out of that situation first.
So married couples who've hit hard times should do what, divorce and send the kids to foster care?
> Basically if you're single and living paycheck to paycheck, suck it up, educate yourself
Is it your opinion that there is an abundance of high paying jobs that accept degrees and certs from the University Of Sucked It Up And Educated Self?
Or are you thinking about non-degree'd high paying jobs? While there are more than zero, non-degree'd typically means the type of specialized skills that lie on the other side of well entrenched gatekeeping. However, one can overcome gatekeeping. All one needs is enough connections, cash, years and luck - the same sort of stuff it takes to get a university degree.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that there are still humans on Earth who live essentially as they would have thousands of years ago in hunter-gatherer or subsistence agricultural societies, you could also say that wealth inequality has only increased throughout human history and every day is worse than the one that has come before it.
If we are going to consider every single person on earth at the same time, then the time of Mansa Musa would have to be the absolutely worse since he was wealthier than any person on Earth today. Heck, even if you combined every billionaire on earth today, Mansa Musa would still be wealthier than all of their combined fortunes by at least an order of magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is this. But its stopped being a Western specific problem decades ago. This is a major world issue that is changing the status quo of goepolitics. Some major players on the world stage will be shells of their former selves very, very quickly.
If by very very quickly, you mean over the course of a couple generations, that doesn’t seem unusual. Which countries are top dog has changed multiple times in the last couple hundred years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if you miss these signs, the worst thing that is going to happen is that you are turned down and they wasted 5 minutes. I'm not at all in the same camp as the other commenter (it's clear where their allegiances lie) but you really are in the wrong here. You have no idea how frequently these seeming-innocuous conversations turn verbally or physically violent when the initiator feels spurned. This is provable! T…
just out of curiosity, where do my allegiances lie? Interested to see how I come off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we are going to consider every single person on earth at the same time, then the time of Mansa Musa would have to be the absolutely worse since he was wealthier than any person on Earth today. Heck, even if you combined every billionaire on earth today, Mansa Musa would still be wealthier than all of their combined fortunes by at least an order of magnitude.
Do you think inequality has any deleterious effects on society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In beehives, the drones 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. Peopl…
What you're saying is true in some older industries, but doesn't match what I see in Tech, which prefers youth. And those (Tech) companies seem to be growing at the expense of everything else. The various forms of collateral you mention (wives, children, mortgages -- the things the Mafia don would ask you about) have a carrying cost which companies would probably rather not pay. And with golden handcuffs (plus restri…
> In Tudor England the ever increasing demand for wool had a dramatic effect on the landscape. The attraction of large profits to be made from wool encouraged manorial lords to enclose common land and convert it from arable to (mainly) sheep pasture. The consequent eviction of commoners or villagers from their homes and loss of their livelihoods became an important political issue for the Tudors.[44] The resulting depopulation was financially disadvantageous to the Crown. The authorities were concerned that many of the people subsequently dispossessed would become vagabonds and thieves. Also the depopulation of villages would produce a weakened workforce and enfeeble the military strength of the state.[44]
From this my mind goes to the Highland Clearances [2] (and to America's Rust Belt and England's North).
In both cases, capitalists were more than happy to replace people with sheep, because that's where the profits lay.
The interesting thing about the quote above, is that it fits the pattern I mentioned, in which the interests of capitalists are not exactly the same as the State's.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure#The_end_of_the_Ope...