MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)
#41
(12-03-2020, 04:50 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: Gee, I wonder why men don't marry...


 
For the record: IMO, 50 years ago, this could've been funny -- a part of the sexes teasing each other, old-school tropes that have some basis in reality and that it's good to make light of and have a laff at (e.g., "men who are messy around the house," "women drivers," "men as babies when they're sick," "women and their shopping," etc.) But this sort of thing is ALL there is, it's all one way only -- and the hypocrisy of it is overwhelming. Imagine such a skit with the sexes reversed.

My guess is that if you were to point this out to a typical female and ask her to do a mental role-reversal with this sketch, she'd go "Hmmm, ya know, like, that's true! Gosh!" -- and then promptly forget all about it when the next bout of man-bashing comes along. Female solipsism is amazing, and especially "funny" in that women consider themselves the "empathetic sex," the sex that "cares" and "nurtures." 

I refuse to watch that, and I also refuse to label it anything but complete garbage.  The day I watch SNL will be the same day I find Willy Wonka’s golden ticket on the sidewalk.

I do believe, and Gallup concurs, that about a quarter of US women are registered Republican, another quarter are independent AKA “I think if I put this down I won’t get selected for jury duty,” and the other half just don’t want to put in the effort to think critically.

If you asked the same 50% if they should be made to sign up for the draft  exactly like men do, though, I don’t think you’d have to guess what the answer would be.
Reply
#42
(12-03-2020, 05:51 PM)Pandora Wrote: I think this is where you keep missing the essence of my argument.  The employer in this example gives the man a raise because that’s what the man’s contributions are worth to the company.  There isn’t a rule stating for each child he shall have at least $10k per annum compensation.  Would the employer be correct in decreasing his compensation $10k per annum once each child turns 18?  Or what about his colleague with 4 children who really outperforms him?  Is he worth $40k per annum, or the $120k he negotiated with the employer?

If that's what the employer wants to do. Salaries should be between employer and employee. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

(12-03-2020, 05:51 PM)Pandora Wrote: We’ve already seen it is bad for business, most employers don’t do it, and it is illegal so as to not burden taxpayers, stakeholders, or negatively affect the economy in general.

It's illegal because it discriminates against women, not because it's bad business. And that's Vox's whole point - it's bad for society to have so many women in the workplace, and to have an economy that forces women to work.

All sorts of things are bad business, but not illegal. Should it be illegal for that business owner to pay his employees $70,000 a year because it's bad for the economy?
Reply
#43
I am No Party Preference because I don't think either party is perfect, not because I think I won't be selected for jury duty (I've been called to jury duty a few times so clearly that doesn't work, not sure where that idea come from, lol). Also, if a party changes its stance on an important issue, I don't want to be tied to it out of strange feelings of loyalty. Earlier this year, I watched an interview with a Mexican-American Catholic whose family and parish always voted Democrat. After doing some research, they all left that party. If they weren't so loyal to the Dems, they probably would have stopped voting for them decades ago because many things Dems stand for are incompatible with their faith.

Regarding my previous post, I don't think qualified people should be denied jobs, I just think it would be nice to form a network of faithful Catholics (those who believe and strive to follow the Church's teachings, they don't necessarily have to belong to a specific group like FSSP or SSPX) to start and grow businesses together. If you have a job opening, try to find a qualified candidate from within the Catholic community before posting on public job boards. Encourage young people to get degrees in things the community needs to maximize the odds of employment after graduation and grow the network. From my understanding, most employment offers these days are from networking and referrals rather than job websites anyway. (Yes, faithful Catholics are few and far between these days and it will be a long time before one can start a fully or even mostly Catholic workplace, but one has to start somewhere.)

This Catholic network can be especially helpful during the coming years when more and more people are "canceled" for not following the latest Leftist decree. Just this last month, I see how horribly whistleblowers are being treated for reporting election irregularities: jobs lost, family members and friends who won't talk to them anymore, cars ruined.

Relating back to MGTOW: Men are more likely to find wives and start families if they have steady jobs. Most women don't want to date/marry someone who is unemployed, plays video games and watches p**n all day, and doesn't shower or brush his teeth. I think being gainfully employed will also give them a more positive outlook on life rather than going MGTOW because women aren't interested in men who don't try.

I understand there are men who have been seriously burned by women (taken half their money, house, child support, alimony, only see their kids a few days a month--assuming the woman doesn't move to another city/state) and laws need to change, but I'm not a fan of young men who give up without ever trying. I remember someone who gave a speech at a college asked the women in the audience how many of them had been asked on a date in the last month and only a few hands went up. Very sad.

The biggest problem of all IMO is that people these days blame "society" for problems instead of focusing on what they can do to become the best person they can be. "Society" will never change if the people don't try.
Reply
#44
(12-03-2020, 09:30 PM)Paul Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 05:51 PM)Pandora Wrote: I think this is where you keep missing the essence of my argument.  The employer in this example gives the man a raise because that’s what the man’s contributions are worth to the company.  There isn’t a rule stating for each child he shall have at least $10k per annum compensation.  Would the employer be correct in decreasing his compensation $10k per annum once each child turns 18?  Or what about his colleague with 4 children who really outperforms him?  Is he worth $40k per annum, or the $120k he negotiated with the employer?

If that's what the employer wants to do. Salaries should be between employer and employee. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it.


Pandora
You keep bringing up the same points over and over again, hoping for different answers or a “gotcha.” The employer does what he wants re compensation, but based on value of employee contributions to the employer.  We reward good performance to encourage good performance. It has nothing to do with family size or lack thereof, or any other characteristic to which the employer might have an affinity.  If we were to move forward with your concept, we’d quickly have card carrying PETA members demanding that $10k for Fido.  It’s their sincerely held belief that Fido is a family member in the exact same way as a child, and must be supported the same.  Would they be successful?  If things keep going the way they’re going, it would be possible in the not too distant future.

To summarize, if Joe with 8 kids negotiates $80k compensation, good for him.  The employer and Joe have come to an agreement about his value to the organization.  Fred with 4 kids has a better mind for strategy, lots of business networking connections, and just landed a $1B, 15 year contract for the organization.  Fred’s a high performer, and he and the employer agree on $120k compensation.  The organization saw performance it liked and wants to encourage, so it rewarded him.  In your concept, Fred has to take $40k and like it, he only has 4 children.  Fred has no incentive to work hard, so why should he bother?  Maybe he’ll leave the company, go to a competitor, and start pulling away business.  Fred has every right to do so.


(12-03-2020, 05:51 PM)Pandora Wrote: We’ve already seen it is bad for business, most employers don’t do it, and it is illegal so as to not burden taxpayers, stakeholders, or negatively affect the economy in general.

It's illegal because it discriminates against women, not because it's bad business. And that's Vox's whole point - it's bad for society to have so many women in the workplace, and to have an economy that forces women to work.

All sorts of things are bad business, but not illegal. Should it be illegal for that business owner to pay his employees $70,000 a year because it's bad for the economy?


Pandora
Businesses run to make money, not to keep society chugging along.  You keep circling back to the point that it’s bad society and makes it difficult for men, but so what? That is not businesses’ concern.  I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “It’s just business, nothing personal.”  It’s your concern, my concern, many other people’s concerns, and it should be the Church’s concern. Mr. Jones and Jones Industries are not the same entities and do not act as they are the same. 

Yes, there is bad business.  Some companies fail due to bad luck, some to bad decisions.  Is a $70k minimum compensation package for all employees a good retention strategy for some companies? Possibly.  If Jones Industries decides to do that, and he employs 80% of the people in town, he’s just incentivized the other businesses in town that service him personally, the employees, and the company to charge more for the same services.  Why not?  They can afford it to pay it, they’re all making at least $70k. If it’s a good or bad business strategy for the servicing businesses is another topic, but historically that is what will happen.  Consequently, many businesses fail, prices are inflated, and that $70 doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.


Retention strategies are strategies, they either accomplish their goals or don’t.  Paying one person more for the exact same job someone else does for less, especially due to sympathy, doesn’t work for many reasons which I’ve hashed and rehashed several times already.  If we want to make businesses pay men more and not employ women, we need to do something to change the environment to make that make business sense.  If all men and women were engaged at 20 and married with with children and in the home exclusively at 22, the world would be different.  If all married and engaged men now said to their ladies, “It’s going to be rough going for a long while, but quit your job and stay home,” only a fool would think that wouldn’t have an effect on the economy.  The problem is that doesn’t happen, not that’s it couldn’t happen.
Reply
#45
(12-03-2020, 04:49 PM)Pandora Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 04:14 PM)Some Guy Wrote: To Pandora:

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/rem...g-now.html

It’s a retention strategy, what are you expecting me to say?  It costs money to find, hire, and train new people.  According to this company’s strategy, a $70k minimum wage was more cost effective.

The base pay is $70k, some employees earn more.  Leaving aside that this base was apparently given to the entire workforce and not applied just to those with or starting families, we don’t know the stipulations. Is it mandatory to be on call at all times?  What are the costs of medical benefits?  How much paid vacation?  Will the company contribute towards a retirement plan?  We don’t know, and those benefits are very important to employees.  We do know that there’s a certain amount of available funds, and something always has to give to ensure profitability.

If we were to give all people a $70k minimum wage, we’d stimulate the market to move in a disastrous direction and quickly tank the economy.

I was sharing it to point out the illusions in your fantasy world of prelude to the intro to micro econ 101. Businesses and markets are far more dynamic than "If I pay ANYONE more than the tiniest bit more than normal, then Ima go out of business."

I'm not going to write a wall of text, but your hyper simplistic view of markets is really not comparable to the real world. For every single business in existence I can show you an example of how they spend their time and money that actually is not profit maximizing. To suggest that a businessman who want to pay his family-men more is dumb, but another is smart for making his base pay at his company 70k is smart because of employee retention is just silly and just shows how you have to make up an excuse any time someone shows you an example that breaks with your ideology.
Ave Christus Rex!
Reply
#46
Quote:It'll take generations for the secularists to disappear from the scene, or be reduced in numbers and strength to a level that large, thriving traditionalist communities can actually fight back and convert the wider society.
 

Carrying on and forming communities -- sort of going Amish or ghetto Jew -- is key, but we have to also engage the larger world, of which we're supposed to be the light and salt. Along the way, as we raise our families and shape trad enclaves, we have to fight hard, like Sword of St. Michael says -- mostly, IMO, by spreading the Faith and by teaching people about what's going on. The idea of abolishing no fault divorce isn't even on most people's radar; they simply do not KNOW how such things have worked to destroy marriage. They truly do not KNOW. Same with contraception. Same with sexual promiscuity or the reasons for the double standard in how society once viewed female promiscuity relative to male promiscuity (both of which being immoral, obviously). They truly do not "get it" and think about such things in terms of individual "rights," egalitarian "fairness," and pleasure.

I wish everyone would spread this URL around on Facebook, Twitter, Gab, Youtube comments, in emails, at dinner tables, etc.: The Garbage Generation: https://tinyurl.com/pjpwjh8 I so wish that URL would go totally viral and get, especially, into the "hands" of young people.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • SeekerofChrist, Sword of St. Michael
Reply
#47
(12-04-2020, 10:44 AM)Some Guy Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 04:49 PM)Pandora Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 04:14 PM)Some Guy Wrote: To Pandora:

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/rem...g-now.html

It’s a retention strategy, what are you expecting me to say?  It costs money to find, hire, and train new people.  According to this company’s strategy, a $70k minimum wage was more cost effective.

The base pay is $70k, some employees earn more.  Leaving aside that this base was apparently given to the entire workforce and not applied just to those with or starting families, we don’t know the stipulations. Is it mandatory to be on call at all times?  What are the costs of medical benefits?  How much paid vacation?  Will the company contribute towards a retirement plan?  We don’t know, and those benefits are very important to employees.  We do know that there’s a certain amount of available funds, and something always has to give to ensure profitability.

If we were to give all people a $70k minimum wage, we’d stimulate the market to move in a disastrous direction and quickly tank the economy.

I was sharing it to point out the illusions in your fantasy world of prelude to the intro to micro econ 101. Businesses and markets are far more dynamic than "If I pay ANYONE more than the tiniest bit more than normal, then Ima go out of business."

I'm not going to write a wall of text, but your hyper simplistic view of markets is really not comparable to the real world. For every single business in existence I can show you an example of how they spend their time and money that actually is not profit maximizing. To suggest that a businessman who want to pay his family-men more is dumb, but another is smart for making his base pay at his company 70k is smart because of employee retention is just silly and just shows how you have to make up an excuse any time someone shows you an example that breaks with your ideology.

Your example was for a $70k base to the entire workforce, not a certain subset of the workforce.

Of course we pay some people more than others.  Sometimes we even strategize that it’s better to employ people at a higher than optimal rate than to allow them to be employed by a competitor.  This still fits with my “ideology” as you put it, without a single contortion in logic.

The essence is we pay certain employees more because they are good at their jobs and create value, not because they have a family or how large that family is.
Reply
#48
(12-04-2020, 11:45 AM)Pandora Wrote: Of course we pay some people more than others.  Sometimes we even strategize that it’s better to employ people at a higher than optimal rate than to allow them to be employed by a competitor.  This still fits with my “ideology” as you put it, without a single contortion in logic.

The essence is we pay certain employees more because they are good at their jobs and create value, not because they have a family or how large that family is.

No, 'we' do no such thing. Individual business owners do that.

I thought you opposed socialism.
Reply
#49
(12-04-2020, 10:44 AM)Some Guy Wrote: To suggest that a businessman who want to pay his family-men more is dumb, but another is smart for making his base pay at his company 70k is smart because of employee retention is just silly and just shows how you have to make up an excuse any time someone shows you an example that breaks with your ideology.

That's not what Pandora said - it's not just dumb, but so harmful to the economy that it must be made illegal.

Of course, it's not illegal because it might be bad business. It's illegal because it's discrimination based on sex and marital status.
Reply
#50
(12-04-2020, 11:45 AM)Pandora Wrote:
(12-04-2020, 10:44 AM)Some Guy Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 04:49 PM)Pandora Wrote:
(12-03-2020, 04:14 PM)Some Guy Wrote: To Pandora:

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/rem...g-now.html

It’s a retention strategy, what are you expecting me to say?  It costs money to find, hire, and train new people.  According to this company’s strategy, a $70k minimum wage was more cost effective.

The base pay is $70k, some employees earn more.  Leaving aside that this base was apparently given to the entire workforce and not applied just to those with or starting families, we don’t know the stipulations. Is it mandatory to be on call at all times?  What are the costs of medical benefits?  How much paid vacation?  Will the company contribute towards a retirement plan?  We don’t know, and those benefits are very important to employees.  We do know that there’s a certain amount of available funds, and something always has to give to ensure profitability.

If we were to give all people a $70k minimum wage, we’d stimulate the market to move in a disastrous direction and quickly tank the economy.

I was sharing it to point out the illusions in your fantasy world of prelude to the intro to micro econ 101. Businesses and markets are far more dynamic than "If I pay ANYONE more than the tiniest bit more than normal, then Ima go out of business."

I'm not going to write a wall of text, but your hyper simplistic view of markets is really not comparable to the real world. For every single business in existence I can show you an example of how they spend their time and money that actually is not profit maximizing. To suggest that a businessman who want to pay his family-men more is dumb, but another is smart for making his base pay at his company 70k is smart because of employee retention is just silly and just shows how you have to make up an excuse any time someone shows you an example that breaks with your ideology.

Your example was for a $70k base to the entire workforce, not a certain subset of the workforce.

Of course we pay some people more than others.  Sometimes we even strategize that it’s better to employ people at a higher than optimal rate than to allow them to be employed by a competitor.  This still fits with my “ideology” as you put it, without a single contortion in logic.

The essence is we pay certain employees more because they are good at their jobs and create value, not because they have a family or how large that family is.

I don't see why paying people equally for the same level of work is such a hot button issue, it seems pretty fair to me. I've talked to boomer liberal women, and while their views annoy me, they can remember a time when it was hard to get ahead even as a smart woman without a lot of derision.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)