What happens when people, especially men, just stop working? That’s an important question. It’s something that you won’t see the talking heads on the new shows talk about, but the consequences are likely to be severe and long term.
What has happened? Well a check of the Dysfunctional Economy posts on my blog will give you some clues, lots of them. The short answer is that the parasitological effects of an overlarge and meddlesome government has created a situation forcing a reset as to how the economy works. And not in a good way.
In manufacturing, for example, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Caterpillar and Navistar (formerly International Harvester) all pay many of their new workers much less. In some of these two-tier structures, the new wage may be as little as half the old one. In addition to this rapid change, the companies also seem to be reducing the ranks of highly paid workers through slow attrition.
Here is another change that might be a broader sign of a pending reset: A heavy burden of adjustment in the overall labor market is being borne by the young. Wages for the typical graduate of a four-year college have dropped more than 7 percent since 2000, and the labor force participation rate of the young has been falling. One consequence is that young people are living at home longer and receiving more aid from their parents. They also seem to be less interested in buying their own homes.
All of these factors could indicate that our economy is evolving into one that will offer far less favorable long-run wage prospects. Much research has shown that the effects of a recession can be pernicious for decades: Earning a lower wage in earlier years is predictive of lower wages through the rest of one’s career. While we are seeing economic problems for the relatively young, they will eventually become dominant earners in the economy and the major force behind broader statistics.
In short, are these economic problems transitory, or are we glimpsing the beginnings of a grimmer future?
If a reset is underway, we might have to accept that public policy cannot reverse it easily. Once unsustainable economic structures begin to fail, it takes a significant improvement to make them viable again. Yet because of the difficulty of making major changes under our current political alignment, most new government policies today are no more than changes at the margin. Perhaps the most basic problem is that it is difficult to be sure when a reset is underway, and it is harder yet to raise public alarm about changes that seem to be gradual and slow.
Men and women make different life decisions. As free individuals they have a right to do so. Different decisions lead to different outcomes. If women choose to spend more time with their children they will most likely have different career paths. If men choose to spend more time at work, they will likely have more responsible positions, but will spend less time with their children.
Life is about trade-offs. It is about free individuals choosing the best way to fulfill their responsibilities. Life is not about conforming to an ideology about how the world should or should not be organized.
Unfortunately, too many ideologues believe that if men and women do not have the same career paths, there is something wrong with the workplace. They insist on exercising control over the labor market in order to make it more female friendly.
Since women suffer a disadvantage when they leave work early to care for their children, the ideologues want to force men to do the same thing.
They do not consider the possibility that the men who are thrown off the job at a specific time might not rush home to change diapers. They might go out with the guys for an evening of debauchery.
According to the ideologues, it’s the fault of the work culture. Men work too many hours, thus getting ahead faster than women. But, shouldn’t people who work longer and harder be rewarded for their efforts?
Work culture is the trendy term that feminists use when they try to rationalize their will to change the way men and women work. One imagines that it’s a stealth attack on the old Protestant work ethic.
Claire Cain Miller has the story in The New York Times:
But some researchers are now arguing that the real problem is not the lack of family-friendly policies for mothers, but the surge in hours worked by both women and men. And companies are not likely to want to adopt the obvious solution.
The pressure of a round-the-clock work culture — in which people are expected to answer emails at 11 p.m. and take cellphone calls on Sunday morning — is particularly acute in highly skilled, highly paid professional services jobs like law, finance, consulting and accounting.
Offering family-friendly policies is too narrow a solution to the problem, recent research argues, and can have unintended consequences. When women cut back at work to cope with long hours, they end up stunting their careers. And men aren’t necessarily happy to be expected to work extreme hours, either.
How can you force men to work less, without depriving them of their freedom? The authors of a new study do not have a very good answer.
Professors Robin Ely and Erin Reed want to undermine what they call the culture of overwork, the tendency of highly successful people to work long hours. Apparently, required long hours exclude women from management tracks and from certain job promotions.
Ely and Reed do not seem to consider that women might not want to have the lives that their husbands have, that they might be perfectly happy not being chief executives.
This underlying assumption, unquestioned, undermines and ultimately discredits their work. Like many modern feminists, they fail to respect women’s free choices.
It is here we must discern between men and women because, after all, we are trying to tie economics to the MANosphere. Additionally, we have to make some assumptions that are not going to apply to every man in the world, but will hold in general. Specifically, we must discern the order or hierarchy in which the average man values the above three – family, friends and loved ones.
In general, the average man is going to love
His wife first. Sometimes TIED with his children for first, which means HIS FAMILY comes first.
His children second
And parental-extented family TIED with friends for third.
This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t lay his life down for his friends. This doesn’t mean he would abandon his friends once he found a woman (though that does happen). This is just ordering these for the sake of intellectual discussion.
Regardless, the point is the single most important thing in a man’s life is his wife and children aka HIS FAMILY (not his parents, cousins, siblings, aunts, etc.)
Third, since a man’s wife and children are the most important things in life for him, how does a man go about getting a family? He has to attract a woman to become his wife. And how does he do that?
He goes out, kicks ass and takes names.
The “kicking ass” and “taking names” primarily manifesting itself in the form of economic production.
This means he goes to school, learns a trade, stays in shape, develops a personality, develops hobbies, invents, creates, innovates, invests, enriches himself and does everything within his power to increase his marketability to attract a woman. In short he becomes the most powerful economically productive unit in all of society.
However, it doesn’t stop there. It’s not like he’s running a marathon, passes the finish line and then quits once he attracts a mate. He must keep going and continue being the powerful economic production unit he is because chances are there will be little kinder that need taking care of.So in short, the majority of economic production in this economy is incented and prompted by a man’s strong psychological and instinctual desire to compete for a woman, secure a mate and then start and maintain a family, resulting in an economic model that looks like this:
However, there are some significant ancillary benefits to having effectively every man in the country working this hard, being this creative and being this productive. Namely pure economic dominance for the US. With all men engaged in the economy, working their best, trying their best, uninhibited by government regulation, taxation or politics, there was no doubt which country was the #1 economic power in the world. Additionally, in being the #1 economic power in the world, the US could afford not just the largest,but the most advanced military in the world ensuring our safety. So while the above model is on the micro-economic level, the macro-economic model looks like this:
Now here is where it gets interesting.
Let’s just say, “hypothetically” you are an enemy of the United States (or any free and successful country). You are a communist psy-ops specialist in the Soviet Union. Or heck, just a communist ideologue from the Frasier School that wants to ruin the US. Whatever your origins, you are a communist that wants to destroy the US. You envy its economic wealth, you envy it’s economic production, you hate how it’s dominant and #1, and it really grinds your gears they did it by letting people be free and do what they want. You know you can’t take on the US militarily, so how do you bring about its demise efficiently, effectively and cheaply?
Well if you look at the two charts you’ll see two bottlenecks or weak spots than can bring the whole thing down.
You target the wife/women or the family. PREFERABLY the wife/women because that’s the first bottleneck before a family is created.
And now your are starting to see why feminism, The Manosphere and economics are related. Since the majority of this country’s (an any other free country’s) economic production is based on a man’s desire to live a happy life by getting married and (sometimes) having children, if you can destroy the quality and caliber of women, let alone the incentive to get married or have children, you can destroy the economic productive capacity of the United States, and thus the country itself. Thus, you see that feminism really isn’t about “helping women.” It is nothing more than an thinly veiled economic and political attack against the US, freedom and capitalism. This is why I call it “Killing the American Muse.”
I didn’t know what a “muse” was, until I read this Sinfest comic and looked it up. A muse is (in societal terms) a woman that instills creativity, innovation and determination in a man. ie-any babe that stirs our souls and we think might be marriage material. You see this all the time where if a hot babe walks by men suck in their guys, puff out their chests and do whatever they can to impress her. However, to be a true muse you must not just be good-looking, but also inspire the man, incentive him to do great things, work hard, etc., which requires you are nice, kind, witty, charming, and supportive. The qualities and characteristics of a woman that makes her a good wife, creating the saying “behind every successful man there is a woman.”
Of course, if you look at what feminism has done and intends to do to our women, you can see it is in COMPLETE opposition to these qualities and traits. You are not supposed to support the man. You are not to help him out. He is the enemy. He is your oppressor, you are not a team. You will co-lead. He will compromise. You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend! You will have a career, ef the family and ef him, you can have it all, test-tube babies, turkey baster babies, career comes first, I’m a cougar, I can date younger, EPL, Sex and the City, 40 is the new 25, I’m a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl. Vote for higher taxes, men should pay more, we’re oppressed, the wage gap, evil patriarchy, free day care, free health care, free education, Obama’s pecks, won’t somebody please think of the children, I have my masters, where’s my cushy 9 months a year government job? Big is beautiful, you’re so shallow for liking skinny girls, you should love me for me, shame on you for liking that type of girl, we’re going to shove fat acceptance down your throats.
Well how the hell is THAT kind of muse going to instill ANYTHING in a guy but sheer disgust?
Simple, it isn’t. Feminism never intended to “improve” the American Muse. Feminism is nothing more than a cover for communists to destroy it and thus destroy your incentive to produce.
The question is, though, are they succeeding? And the answer is sadly yes.
In corrupting and destroying the quality and caliber of the average American woman, these veritable communists have completely disincentived men from participating in getting married, creating families and forming careers. Men are getting married much later, and some, not at all because of the various legal and financial risks involved. Men are having less children not just because they can’t afford it in today’s economic times, but BOTH parents MUST have careers! Children be damned. Worse though, (for the rest of society anyway) is that men are completely abandoning their traditional male roles and checking out of society altogether. Not that they aren’t dating. Not that they aren’t working, but they’re not “manning up” as so many bewildered western women would like them to. They are realizing just how little money it takes to support one man and choosing the path of least resistance. They are living at home, not going to school, not bothering working hard, not trying their best, not inventing vaccines, not becoming doctors and not aiming to “achieve something greater.” They are making just enough money to get by, live their lives, smoke some cigars, drive some motorcycles, service their needs and then die. Thus, the new micro-economy is looking like this:
Pay particular note to several items in the new economic model.
1. The amount of green (economic production) is a lot less. This is in part because the guy no longer has any calling to be a husband or a father. That job has been replaced by the government. The guy no longer has anything to do with the “mom” or the “children” and therefore only needs to produce the amount of economic production that is necessary to support himself.
2. Also note the significant amount of “faux” economic production. Namely the welfare spending of the government and the “make work government jobs” that are disproportionately filled by women. Also, notice such an economy of nothing but teachers, social workers, therapists, counselors, etc. is unsustainable, thereby requiring additional financing by the Chinese (again, not real economic production).
3. Notice the disconnect from the guy. The guy is standing alone, separate from the upper half. This means he is not only alienated from the economy, but also socially alienated. He has no family, he has no children, and if he does, thanks to divorce chances are he is more or less removed from that as well. He may as well be removed from this entire economy and country, and this shows in more and more men looking overseas for not just jobs, but families and lives.
4. I didn’t draw it, but the upper half of the economy will inevitably demand the “guys” below pay more in taxes to support the government-daddy-hubby matrix. More schools, more health care, free day care, etc. etc., just look at what the feminists and communists are clamoring for and you’ll see. Additionally, this only provides further incentive for the guys below to work less, if not, collect a government check themselves, if not consider green pastures in other economies.
The perhaps largest problem our society has and doesn’t seem to want to talk about is how things are rigged against the man “taking names and kicking butt” economically. At least for all too many men not born with silver spoons and groomed from birth to go through the Ivy Covered Snob Factories and run things for the rest of us serfs.
I suppose that the biggest thing this week is that the working people are no longer going to wait for the elites to further their extinction. They have reached the end of the rope with government by experts.
James Carville, the brains behind Bill Clinton’s 1992 win, coined the simple expression, “it’s the economy, stupid” and it became the unofficial slogan of his campaign. And it’s really been the issue ever since.
This election has been about manufacturing.
More specifically, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the vast expanse of flyover America that isn’t plugged into the government/Wall Street/Silicon Valley complex that has made the smartest people in the most expensive cities rich while the critical technological base that actually adds value has fled the country.
Clearly nobody explained to Clinton the cold, hard fact that manufacturing jobs represent the only way that marginally educated, semi-skilled workers can earn enough to enter and stay in the middle class. Those jobs were distributed geographically and generated consumer spending that was the economic rocket fuel that made America preeminent in the last half of the 20th Century.
The belief that working class America is too stupid to vote for it’s own salvation is at the core of both the Republican and Democratic elites and this left a yawning gap big enough to drive a circus wagon through. At the head of that wagon was Donald Trump, and now the brain trusts at the DNC and RNC have to figure out how to convince an increasingly impoverished population that they should accept their Wal-Mart greeter futures as the price of a better, service-driven life for the next generation.
Who knew that the Deplorables would resist their own slow-motion execution?
Clinton has just learned a painful lesson about Americans: mainly that they’re the last people on earth to accept a bad outcome just because somebody rich and powerful told them to.
Americans are tired of a dysfunctional economy that works well for a few Martha’s Vineyard types but somehow doesn’t for the rest of us. Americans are tired of being told that the decline is inevitable. Americans are tired of our factories being sold to foreign companies and shuttered or shipped to Mexico by Wall St types looking for a quick buck. Americans are tired of constantly paying ever higher taxes for a government that always seems to be deeper in debt. Americans are tired and we are not going to take it anymore.