The truth about marriage
All that 'fake love' early in the relationship is gone and you know why? Because true 'love' doesnt really exist in young couples and rarely does it ever exist at all even if you were married 50 years and that's simply because each partner is really only in it for their own self interests whether they realize it or not as it happens on a deep subconscious level. True love only exists from your parents and family, at least the ones who actually arent deadbeats and dont leave you when you're young. If you lost your leg or your arm in the middle of a young relationship maybe 5 years into it, how many of their partners would stay by their side even after all the 'i love you' bullshit they claim? A young 25 year old girl or a young 25 year old man with their whole lives in front of them is going to stick with the other who has no legs or no arm or possibly even without BOTH when they are 10 minutes away from meeting someone else? Im willing to bet 99% of these youngsters would leave their partners even if they had the best relationship ever, the most amazing sex, etc. That's proof there's no true love in a relationship and lust rules all along with self driven egotistical self interests.
Before all the feminists attack me(not that i give a damn), this isn't just the woman's fault. It's also a result of this pathetic society for brainwashing them, as well as on the guy and this is why im the best because Im about to tell you how to have a successful marriage and prevent DIE-vorce since im way ahead of my time and my age group and can forecast basically everything ahead of time so I never get screwed.
Men simply do this to themselves. They let the woman run the relationship and 'control' them even if both of them dont even realize it and it can be done on such a deep subconscious level that none of them even notice. Society has tried to brainwash women to be able to be independent which has led to feminism and them thinking they can be independent. Let me also be clear, im not of the mindset you have to treat women like a ragdoll and have them do as you say, but the way it is now, women need to know their role and this is the main downfall of marriages and why nearly every marriage ends up in divorce or both partners secretly miserable. So here's the key and you can thank me later. It's one thing to know you need to have a 'spine' and not let a woman control you, it's another to actually know how to make it work cause if you go about it the wrong way, it wont matter what you do as they will be completely droned out feminists and just leave if you try that.
The key to a successful marriage is the woman CANNOT have a full time job or at least any job that requires a lot of her time and hard work. Look at ALL the successful marriages out there, it all involves a very similar relationship to how things were done back then where the woman was a caregiver and took care of the house and cleaned. At the very most, the woman needs to have a very limited supply of income and work part time, THAT'S IT, nothing more. The man HAS to be the provider and this is another main problem because 99% of young men are BROKE and in massive debt so as a result you need both partners to WORK and that's the fatal flaw in the puzzle. The key to a successful marriage is you have to go OLD SCHOOl. Society has tried to bring women into the workforce to be able to tax them and all this has done is destroy relationships and marriages. The more a woman works, the HIGHER chance she will be a feminist or at the very least not want to be the old fashioned woman that was around in the 1900s and be too tired to be a housewife and clean, cook, and take care of the children or simply THINK she doesn't have to do any of that(entitlement). When each partner knows their roles, everything works itself out naturally and the marriage is a success.
Thank me later kids. Nice try society, but thats why im the best.
I think a + EV move for you is to find a strong woman that will let you stay at home and take care of the kids.😀
Damn max I typed too many words.
Quote: GWAEGlad I get to be the first to respond. I am very story that you have to live with all of this animosity in your life. I truly hope that one day you find something that makes you happy and you realize being synicle about life is no way to live.
Damn max I typed too many words.
Type a few words then go back and edit.😁😉
If two people honestly don't want kids, then you just have to work out a business deal. Sign the agreement. Get started.
Quote: MaxPenIs this what you tell yourself when you're alone in your apartment at night?
I think a + EV move for you is to find a strong woman that will let you stay at home and take care of the kids.😀
He can’t take care of kids! He won’t vaccinate them!
Quote: ZenKinGI cant stop but laugh at all these young couples who are 'madly in love' and express their 'amazing love' on social media and then 15 years down the line, it all comes crashing down and they die-vorce. Thats right not divorce, but DIE-vorce, thats what really happens. All.that's left is a woman stealing the majority of a mans assets and have him send a check to her every month for child support which she doesnt even use to feed the child. The women suck the guy dry mostly due to the modernization of women and the entitlement that they have also known as FEMINISM.
All that 'fake love' is gone and you know why? Because true 'love' doesnt really exist in young couples and rarely does it ever exist at all even if you were married 50 years and thats simply because each partner is in it for their own interests whether they realize it or not as it happens on a deep subconscious level. True love only exists from your parents, at least the ones who actually arent deadbeats and dont leave you when youre young. If you lost your leg or your arm in the middle of a young relationship maybe 5 years into it, how many women would stay by your side even after all the 'i love you' bullshit they claim? A young 25 year old girl with her whole life in front of her is going to stick with a guy wigh no legs or no arm or possibly even without BOTH? Im willing to bet 99% of these women would leave thr guy even if they had the best relationship ever possible, the most amazing sex, etc. Thats proof theres no true love in a relationship and lust rules all and self driven egotistical self interest.
Before all the feminists attack me(not that i give a damn), this isnt just the woman's fault and thid pathetic society for brainwashing them, this also falls on the guy as well and this is why im the best because Im about to tell you how to have a successful marriage and prevent DIE-vorce since im way ahead of my time and my age group and can forecast basically everything ahead of time so I bever get screwed. Men simply do this to themselves. They let the woman run the relationship and 'control' them even if bpth of them domt even realize it and it can be done on such a deep subconscious level that none of them even notice. Society has tried to brainwash women to be able to be independent which has led to feminism. Let me also.be clear, im not of the mindset you have to treat them lile a ragdoll and do as you say, but the way it is now, women need to know their role and this is the main downfall of marriages and why nearly every marriage ends up in divorce or both partners secretly miserable.
So heres the key and you can thank me later. The key to a successful marriage is the woman CANNOT have a full time job or at least any job that requires a lot of her time and hard work. Look at ALL the successful marriages out there, it all involves a very similar relationship to how things were done back then where the woman was a caregiver and took care of the house and clean. At the very most, the woman needs to have a very limited supply of income and work part time, THAT'S IT, nothing more. The man has to be the provider and this is another main problem because 99% of young men are BROKE and in massive debt so as a result you need both partners to WORK and thats the fatal flaw in the puzzle. The key to a successful marriage is you have to go OLD SCHOOl. Society has tried to bring women into the workforce to be able to tax them and all this has done is destroy relationships and marriages. The more a woman works, the HIGHER chance she will be a feminist or at the very least not want to be the old fashioned woman that was around in the 1900s and be too tired to be a housewife and clean, cook, and take care of the children. When each partner knows their roles, everything works itself out naturally and the marriage is a success.
Thank me later kids. Nice try society, but thats why im the best.
A lot of what you said is laughably wrong, but I happen to agree that the ideal way to raise kids is for one person to work and the other to work even harder at all the home and kid stuff.
It's really obvious you've never had to do any of that.
It's really obvious you've never successfully partnered with anyone in any venture.
But no, there's not a housework gene on the 23rd chromosome. And if salaries for full-time work had kept up with the cost of living over the last 50 years, everybody now could live as well as we did in the 60s and 70s. Dad worked, 4 of us in 4 years+1 day, mom did the cooking, laundry, cleaning (except we all had chores from a very young age, and Dad didn't think she was his personal servant, so he did things, too).
But the REALITY is that there is no state in America NOW where a couple with kids can afford a 2 br apartment on only one salary. It's actually not affordable for a single person to do that. Let alone a house. Let alone have a car. Let alone afford childcare or school activities or....I could write a paragraph longer than most of yours if I just listed what a single salary won't buy any more.
I would think the guy who couldn't afford an apartment for Vegas within the past year, and was even sleeping in his car for a while, would know that.
I'm going to avail myself of that option and I encourage anyone who wants threads that are actually in the interest of building a gambling discussion community to show up at the top of the Forum to join me.
EDIT: The OP, in my opinion, would be perfectly reasonably placed in Miscellaneous Discussion, regardless of my feelings on the content of the OP.
Quote: beachbumbabsA lot of what you said is laughably wrong, but I happen to agree that the ideal way to raise kids is for one person to work and the other to work even harder at all the home and kid stuff.
It's really obvious you've never had to do any of that.
It's really obvious you've never successfully partnered with anyone in any venture.
But no, there's not a housework gene on the 23rd chromosome. And if salaries for full-time work had kept up with the cost of living over the last 50 years, everybody now could live as well as we did in the 60s and 70s. Dad worked, 4 of us in 4 years+1 day, mom did the cooking, laundry, cleaning (except we all had chores from a very young age, and Dad didn't think she was his personal servant, so he did things, too).
But the REALITY is that there is no state in America NOW where a couple with kids can afford a 2 br apartment on only one salary. It's actually not affordable for a single person to do that. Let alone a house. Let alone have a car. Let alone afford childcare or school activities or....I could write a paragraph longer than most of yours if I just listed what a single salary won't buy any more.
I would think the guy who couldn't afford an apartment for Vegas within the past year, and was even sleeping in his car for a while, would know that.
Now you need to figure out why one average income is no longer enough.
Quote: GWAEGlad I get to be the first to respond. I am very story that you have to live with all of this animosity in your life. I truly hope that one day you find something that makes you happy and you realize being synicle about life is no way to live.
Damn max I typed too many words.
Mods, I think Axel needs another suspension. This time, for hacking GWAEs account.
Quote: beachbumbabsA lot of what you said is laughably wrong, but I happen to agree that the ideal way to raise kids is for one person to work and the other to work even harder at all the home and kid stuff.
It's really obvious you've never had to do any of that.
It's really obvious you've never successfully partnered with anyone in any venture.
But no, there's not a housework gene on the 23rd chromosome. And if salaries for full-time work had kept up with the cost of living over the last 50 years, everybody now could live as well as we did in the 60s and 70s. Dad worked, 4 of us in 4 years+1 day, mom did the cooking, laundry, cleaning (except we all had chores from a very young age, and Dad didn't think she was his personal servant, so he did things, too).
But the REALITY is that there is no state in America NOW where a couple with kids can afford a 2 br apartment on only one salary. It's actually not affordable for a single person to do that. Let alone a house. Let alone have a car. Let alone afford childcare or school activities or....I could write a paragraph longer than most of yours if I just listed what a single salary won't buy any more.
I would think the guy who couldn't afford an apartment for Vegas within the past year, and was even sleeping in his car for a while, would know that.
First off, nice try to misconstrue your last paragraph to make it seem like I was broke and sleeping in my car for a 'while' to try and give whatever hogwash youre saying any more strength than it deserves. I had and still do have plenty of money to live in any apartment, but it's called DISCIPLINE and a risk averse mentality, many of which my age dont have either, but that's why im the best. Secondly, i slept in my car for ONE night after i got back from seeing my family and all the apartments and hotels were full due to an electronic expo or whatever january 2018 and i left my previous apartment to avoid paying rent before i headed out to see my family for a month.
Lastly, you basically MADE my point and i even alluded to this in my OP if you actually read it and listened to 'understand' and not listen to 'reply, which is so common in society today. You also even AGREED with me about the way a family hosuehold should be run, but then also say a lot of what i say is laughable wrong, so which one is it cause i didnt stray off into a different subject. I know it's not easy to admit i was RIGHT 'again'. But yea you made my point that everyone IS broke and that's the PROBLEM. One person is not able to care for the family anymore and so the roles of raising a family have been destroyed and has caused relationship problems whether they realize it or not. And why is everyone broke? Cause this whole society is full of droned out robots who keep contributing to the credit card and loan and free handout system scam. See how its all coming full circle with everything i preach? And how everything works together?
married too young. Or didn't know
the other person well enough. Or
the biggie, unrealistic expectations
of what marriage is.
Quote: MaxPenNow you need to figure out why one average income is no longer enough.
I think about this quite a bit.
My grandfather was a security guard at a steel mill for his entire life. By the time he was 35 he had a 5 bedroom house built and went on to put 3 kids through college.
Quote: MaxPenNow you need to figure out why one average income is no longer enough.
As the tax burden on the middle class is less than it was a generation ago, we can eliminate that. Two decades ago, the salary scale of a company was such that CEOs rarely made much more than 20-25 times the lowest paid workers. Now it is 100-1 or worse. Private sector salaries have not kept up. That's part of the equation.
Now lets go back forty years. My father paid for a single telephone, we had a single tv that was free to watch. Had he had to lay out for phones for every family member, had multiple tvs that cost money every month, had to pay for his kids to drink water and buy everybody the latest fashions, he couldn't have done it on one salary.
So for women who get to be lawyers and stuff like that, it might be cool. Kinda sucks for the majority who have to work jobs that they hate.
I suspect there's a strong element of truth there. But also stuff like Bill said. We want our 500 channels, internet, i-phones, eating out all the time, etc.
Had I hacked his account, I would have made up a good story how he got caught with a tranny.Quote: RigondeauxMods, I think Axel needs another suspension. This time, for hacking GWAEs account.
One time I was at Djatc house and he left his laptop out still logged onto WOV while he was away. It took restraint of a saint not to cause some havoc. I knew the Wizard was in a bad mood at the time. I wasn't sure what kinda forum trouble something like that would get me in. I regret not doing it to this day.
Quote: EvenBobMarriages fail for three reasons. Got
married too young. Or didn't know
the other person well enough. Or
the biggie, unrealistic expectations
of what marriage is.
False. Taking women out of their natural role gives them too much confidence and entitled feministic traits. I would love to see the rate of divorces when a woman makes more money than the guy in the relationship. Women lose respect for the guy. People domt realize how much natural inhibition is still alive and well in all of us. Women want to be led, secretly controlled, and have the man as the provider. When that is not the case, problems start to occur. That's further proof of what I say is correct(not that i need further validation).
Also a close 2nd, is men not having a spine and letting them walk all over them. That doesnt mean you treat them like crap like many novices think you have to do. Im sick of hearing, women only want 'assholes'. They dont realize it's not about them being an 'asshole', that's the symptom of their character, they simply just dont give in to the bulls*** and let a girl control them. They live their own life regardless. Make a girl feel as if your life is complete whether she's in it or not and she will stick around forever. Your life needs to be so enjoyable that she wants to be a 'part' of it rather than you being a 'part' of hers. Women want to come 'along' for the ride, not be the ride that completes you. Again, when I say that, i dont mean you ignore her or treat her badly etc, but more so in that you wont let her make decisions for you.
Im honestly too smart, seriously.
In other words.....Quote: ZenKinG
Quote: ZenKinGFalse. Taking women out of their natural role gives them too much confidence and entitled feministic traits. I would love to see the rate of divorces when a woman makes more money than the guy in the relationship. Women lose respect for the guy. People domt realize how much natural inhibition is still alive and well in all of us. Women want to be led, secretly controlled, and have the man as the provider. When that is not the case, problems start to occur. That's further proof of what I say is correct(not that i need further validation).
Also a close 2nd, is men not having a spine and letting them walk all over them. That doesnt mean you treat them like crap like many novices think you have to do. Im sick of hearing, women only want 'assholes'. They dont realize it's not about them being an 'asshole', that's the symptom of their character, they simply just dont give in to the bulls*** and let a girl control them. They live their own life regardless. Make a girl feel as if your life is complete whether she's in it or not and she will stick around forever. Your life needs to be so enjoyable that she wants to be a 'part' of it rather than you being a 'part' of hers. Women want to come 'along' for the ride, not be the ride that completes you. Again, when I say that, i dont mean you ignore her or treat her badly etc, but more so in that you wont let her make decisions for you.
Im honestly too smart, seriously.
Maybe I was a little off base with my previous post. Clearly the +EV move is for you to find a highly competent woman YOU send out to provide for the kids while you raise them and mold them to your superior value system. If she fails in any way you just take care of business with your pimp hand and let her know how it's supposed to work.
After all, you are supplying her with your incredibly superior genetics for her offspring. What more could one person want?
To quote Chris Rock, the decision to marry or not comes down to whether you would rather be lonely or bored. Personally, I'd rather be bored.
Quote: ZenKinGFalse. Taking women out of their natural role gives them too much confidence and entitled feministic traits. I would love to see the rate of divorces when a woman makes more money than the guy in the relationship. Women lose respect for the guy. People domt realize how much natural inhibition is still alive and well in all of us. Women want to be led, secretly controlled, and have the man as the provider. When that is not the case, problems start to occur. That's further proof of what I say is correct(not that i need further validation).
Also a close 2nd, is men not having a spine and letting them walk all over them. That doesnt mean you treat them like crap like many novices think you have to do. Im sick of hearing, women only want 'assholes'. They dont realize it's not about them being an 'asshole', that's the symptom of their character, they simply just dont give in to the bulls*** and let a girl control them. They live their own life regardless. Make a girl feel as if your life is complete whether she's in it or not and she will stick around forever. Your life needs to be so enjoyable that she wants to be a 'part' of it rather than you being a 'part' of hers. Women want to come 'along' for the ride, not be the ride that completes you. Again, when I say that, i dont mean you ignore her or treat her badly etc, but more so in that you wont let her make decisions for you.
Im honestly too smart, seriously.
Are these all the reasons you haven't had a successful marriage, or is it something else?
Quote: MaxpenNow you need to figure out why one average income is no longer enough.
Quote: billryanAs the tax burden on the middle class is less than it was a generation ago, we can eliminate that. Two decades ago, the salary scale of a company was such that CEOs rarely made much more than 20-25 times the lowest paid workers. Now it is 100-1 or worse. Private sector salaries have not kept up. That's part of the equation.
Now lets go back forty years. My father paid for a single telephone, we had a single tv that was free to watch. Had he had to lay out for phones for every family member, had multiple tvs that cost money every month, had to pay for his kids to drink water and buy everybody the latest fashions, he couldn't have done it on one salary.
I'm going to contribute here only because MaxPen managed to take a thread that is, in my opinion, complete trash and turn it around by proposing an interesting question. If I wanted to hear about how ZenKing is the best in the world at everything he does and how everyone else in the country, perhaps even the world, are droned out zombies...I could read literally almost any other ZenKing thread which is why this should not be a thread (could add the OP to Miscellaneous, virtually any political thread, some other thread of ZenKing's)....
Anyway, the answer is something that I imagine neither political party would particularly like...
The first thing that BillRyan points out is the wage gap disparity between the highest and the lowest paid people, and I agree with his position on this matter 100%. I also partially agree with the spending habits of today's American consumer, though I would throw a few minor caveats in there. For one, technological access is a prerequisite (at this point) for being properly educated as early as the upper-elementary school levels. Simply put, own a computer in the household (at a minimum) or you're screwed.
Anyway, this discussion can get pretty deep, but I will add a few contributing factors as I see them and briefly (by my standards) extrapolate on same.
Manufacturing Jobs
The first thing that you have is the fact that there are fewer manufacturing jobs in the United States than there once were, particularly relative to the population and that itself exists as a result of a few different factors. The first of these factors is the fact that the combined labor/manufacture/transportation costs for certain items are less than if those same items were produced here. Furthermore, in a growing world economy, in many cases, the primary customer base isn't even necessarily located in the United States...though it often still is since we're more well off than many other countries.
The second reason for the decline in these sorts of jobs is the automation of mechanical processes which is done, once again, for the purpose of saving money. Naturally, the goal of any business and responsibility of the board of directors is to maximize profits, so this sort of thing is the result that you are going to get.
The third reason may be that the average wages for these types of jobs, as you will soon see is true of the minimum wage, may not have kept up with the actual spending power (read: inflation) in all cases. So, even though many people still have manufacturing jobs, they don't pay as much in terms of relative earnings as they once did.
The fourth reason, which comes as a result of the first three is that we are increasingly moving into what is often called a, "Tertiary Economy," which is a fancy way of saying, "Service-oriented." These jobs, for whatever reason, are often not as highly regarded as manufacturing jobs (though often the same level of education--virtually none--is required for each) and therefore pay less. At some businesses and in some areas, these jobs pay the Federal Minimum Wage, which we will take a look at shortly.
Because these tertiary jobs pay less and that they are the readily available jobs, in many cases, people seek out education in order to find a better job than that. Unfortunately, education costs have increased DRAMATICALLY both in actual dollars and in costs relative to inflation. In other words, if education were a physical product, more money (indexed to the year) would be required to get the same amount of the product. Academic textbooks are a product, they certainly cost more relative to inflation than they once did. This also partially goes back to the lack of manufacturing jobs and the fact that the tertiary economy is a greater percentage of all economic activity...people desire to make more money, jobs that make it are less accessible, more people choose to go to school, the influx of people is demand which drives up the cost.
Minimum Wage (as an example) and Wages
This brings us to look at minimum wage and wages in general. The first thing that we will do is take a look at this table which shows the minimum wage changes over the years:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
The second thing we will do is take a look at this inflation calculator:
https://westegg.com/inflation/
The current Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25/hour, so let's go through and look at the value of that $7.25 relative to other years, MW started on the way out of the Depression, but we'll start in 1950.
YEAR---MW---VALUE in 2017
1950---$0.75---$7.77
1956---$1.00---$9.17
1961---$1.15---$9.58
1963---$1.25---$10.18
1967---$1.40---$10.45
1968---$1.60---$11.46
1974---$2.00---$10.11
1975---$2.10---$9.73
1976---$2.30---$10.07
1978---$2.65---$10.12
1979---$2.90---$9.94
1980---$3.10---$9.36
1981---$3.35---$9.17
(Despite this decline, now Reagan is in office, so we can skip a few years with no increases to...)
1990---$3.80---$7.23 (In 1989, the $3.35 MW had the spending power of $6.72 in 2017, thanks Reagan/Bush!)
1991---$4.25---$7.76
1996---$4.75---$7.55
1997---$5.15---$8.05
(Bush/Cheney with a Republican Congress is coming soon, so we can skip to)
2007-$5.85---$7.10 (In 2006, the $5.15 had the spending power of $6.43 in 2017)
2008-$6.55---$7.66
2009-$7.25---$8.52
2017---$7.25---$7.25
What we can see is that the Minimum Wage carried a spending power value (adjusted for inflation) of greater than $9.00 in 2017 money for over 25 years. However, in 2017 money, the MW only exceeded $8.00 for a handful of years in the thirty-some combined years after that. The only reason it did so that long is because one of the MW increases came in the midst of a recession, so there was little to no inflation for a few years, as I'm sure you guys recall. In fact, 2012 was the year the spending power (in 2017 money) would drop below $8.00 in value given the MW.
At this point, many will point out that few workers actually make MW, and this is true, but this has also always been the case. While very few workers make EXACTLY minimum wage, many of them make pretty close to it. In fact, the main selling point at the telemarketing place where I was a supervisor for the TSR's was, "Hey, it beats working at Burger King for minimum wage." Not by much, mind you, but it beat it.
1967 also included provisions that would allow, "Exempt," workers to make less, which was primarily farm workers at the time. In 1978, this was expanded to include tipped employees, who are also subject to a lower wage, on direct, from the employer.
----------
Anyway, it is for this reason that the Left is increasingly backing an increase to minimum wage up to $15.00/hour, which is borderline insane and will be potentially devastating to certain local economies (Microeconomics) that it is not taking into consideration in anyway whatsoever and who will have to dramatically increase prices on base goods to make happen. Many places in these Microeconomies who rely on people who make MW (or close to it) will go out of business due to the inability to pay workers and still make a profit.
Of course, this happened because any time there is a Republican President with a Republican Congress, the uneducated worker gets S*** all over with no increases to MW whatsoever. It happened in the 80's and it happened during W's Administration.
By the time the Left does get an increase, it still fails to get the spending power up to where it was in 1981, much less does it get it to the relative spending power in the 1960's and 1970's. Therefore, the EXTREME measure of increasing it to $15.00 is probably just The Left saying, "Okay, at some point the Right will be in control again and they aren't going to do anything for the uneducated or lower-class worker who, ironically enough, comprise a large percentage of their voters. As a result, we're going to have to make MW like, just stupid high, so by the time we go several years without an increase again people can at least have THE SAME spending power that they have right now, which is still less than the 60's and 70's."
These facts are also expressed in the historical Consumer Price Index if you want to take a look at that. This post is already pretty long and anyone is capable of looking for themselves, if they choose.
Anyway, you essentially have Republicans screwing over a huge voting bloc of theirs, the undereducated, and not only keeping them poor but making them poorer every time they are in complete control. The numbers don't lie on this one, sorry. African-American voters are either directly or indirectly keenly aware of this fact and tend to favor The Left in pretty dramatic numbers. Again, just a fact, sorry if that offends.
Anyway, the short answer is that money buys less than it once did...but people spending on non-essentials is certainly also a factor. If money buys less than it once did, then one wage (as opposed to both parents working) provides less than it once did.
As far as divorces, child support and all that jazz is concerned. Moneywise, it's often the best decision for the mother and the kids, so what do you want her to do? She gets the Government benefits of various kinds that bring her up to the amount of money that the couple made combined, (and certainly more than just ONE wage-earner would make) if not more than that and then she gets the child support on top of it. The couple (as a unit) may not have qualified for these sorts of benefits when both were working, despite the fact that it would take one of them working full-time at MW and another one working part-time at MW to equal the spending power of one full-time MW job in the seventies. Now, you have both parents working and the mother getting benefits to which she and the kids may not have been entitled when the two were a couple...and she can date another guy in the meantime still, of course. I mean, it's pretty obvious what is best for the kids financially, whether you like it or not.
People say, "Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to sustain a family." That may be true, but there was a time when they came a hell of a lot closer to doing that than they do now.
I hope this all gets moved to one of the political threads. This is way too good a post to languish in a thread that begins with this opening post.
In my opinion, the simple answer would have been to, at some point, throw in the caveat that the MW would change every year in the event of an inflationary increase and be indexed accordingly. That's what they do with Social Security with the further caveat that the amount cannot go down. That way, if the intent was to have roughly $10 of spending power per hour (at whatever time) it would continue to be indexed to be worth roughly $10 per hour relative to the time that the $10/hour took effect.
Arguably, it's possible you would never need to make any further changes to the Legislation if this were done. The spending power of the MW would remain consistent, increasing only during a deflationary period...which doesn't occur very often.
Quote: WizardIf marriage is so bad, why do most people remarry after a divorce?
To quote Chris Rock, the decision to marry or not comes down to whether you would rather be lonely or bored. Personally, I'd rather be bored.
Never said it's bad in 'general', but that the majority of people go about it the wrong way and end up getting screwed over with feminist type women and i should have mentioned gold diggers as well.
Im not sure ill ever get married unfortunately, unless i go to Europe and find an old scool type of girl that has the right values as it should be and bas some level of intelligence and her priority doesnt revolve around celebrity garbage.
Quote: Mission146I forgot one thing, so please excuse me as I don't want to add an Edit in case anyone already started reading that post:
In my opinion, the simple answer would have been to, at some point, throw in the caveat that the MW would change every year in the event of an inflationary increase and be indexed accordingly. That's what they do with Social Security with the further caveat that the amount cannot go down. That way, if the intent was to have roughly $10 of spending power per hour (at whatever time) it would continue to be indexed to be worth roughly $10 per hour relative to the time that the $10/hour took effect.
Arguably, it's possible you would never need to make any further changes to the Legislation if this were done. The spending power of the MW would remain consistent, increasing only during a deflationary period...which doesn't occur very often.
Big problems occur when you remove and or change the items in the index because you're not happy with what the results reveal.
Quote: ZenKinGNever said it's bad in 'general', but that the majority of people go about it the wrong way and end up getting screwed over with feminist type women and i should have mentioned gold diggers as well.
Im not sure ill ever get married unfortunately, unless i go to Europe and find an old scool type of girl that has the right values as it should be and bas some level of intelligence and her priority doesnt revolve around celebrity garbage.
Pretty sure you have to go 3rd world to meet that criteria. Good luck in Europe though.
Quote: MaxPenBig problems occur when you remove and or change the items in the index because you're not happy with what the results reveal.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this, would you be kind enough to please rephrase or expand on the statement?
He also had this to say about marriage.Quote: WizardIf marriage is so bad, why do most people remarry after a divorce?
To quote Chris Rock, the decision to marry or not comes down to whether you would rather be lonely or bored. Personally, I'd rather be bored.
Warning Foul language.
Now you went way to far.Quote: DRichHopefully someday ZenKing will meet someone and really fall in love. He is missing out on probably the greatest joy in life.
Quote: AxelWolfHe also had this to say about marriage.
I still haven't been invited to that contest.
Quote: Mission146I don't quite understand what you mean by this, would you be kind enough to please rephrase or expand on the statement?
Cost of health insurance increases 20% and you say it is no longer a factor in measuring inflation.
Cost of 60" TVs decreases 40% and you add it to the index and create anothher similar category to give the similar results additional weight.
The CPI today is not the CPI of 20 years ago.
Just like when people talk about the DOW, QQQQ, S&P, etc.. You really have to understand what you are looking at.
People taking things literally is what allows for theft by deception.
edited.Quote: Mission146I forgot one thing, so please excuse me as I don't want to add an Edit in case anyone already started reading that post:
In my opinion, the simple answer would have been to, at some point, throw in the caveat that the MW would change every year in the event of an inflationary increase and be indexed accordingly. That's what they do with Social Security with the further caveat that the amount cannot go down. That way, if the intent was to have roughly $10 of spending power per hour (at whatever time) it would continue to be indexed to be worth roughly $10 per hour relative to the time that the $10/hour took effect.
Arguably, it's possible you would never need to make any further changes to the Legislation if this were done. The spending power of the MW would remain consistent, increasing only during a deflationary period...which doesn't occur very often.
You missed a bit, but the post was to long for me to respond to. Didn't say much about 64 and the start of welfare. That changed a lot about the need to work. I've read lately that a single parent with a child makes about the equivalent of someone earning about 55k per year. That destroyed an incentive for many.
Although I'm pro labor, labor laws in the 70's and forward prevented kids from learning a work ethic. Now we have HS grads that have zero skills. Now kids can't mow lawns, or even have lemonade stands.
Guaranteed Pell Grant loans for everyone allowed colleges to pay professors ever increasing wages.
As far as not having a computer in the home rules a kid out I agree, but my plumber charges around 80 dollars per hour, and I don't believe he has a degree. Trades still pay better than many occupations that require degrees.
MW was never intended to support a family. It is for tertiary incomes.
Spending for perpetual war has added trillions to the national debt, now over 22 trillion dollars, the interest on that debt is now over one billion dollars per day. A debt that can't be paid won't be. And so on.
In case you ever do, DON'T SHOW UP ON YOUR UNICYCLE.Quote: WizardI still haven't been invited to that contest.
You had them at hello, but you lost them at unicycle and rubrics cubes.
Quote: AxelWolfIn case you ever do, DON'T SHOW UP ON YOUR UNICYCLE.
You had them at hello, but you lost them at unicycle and rubrics cubes.
Is rubric's cubes a metaphor for some sort of secret desire of yours.😉
Personally, I am all for marriage, and even more for divorce.
"When the loving stops, the screwing starts."
Ka-ching!
1) Spend less than you make.
2) Rinse and Repeat.
Too many people complain that they cannot afford to live while they have $200 per month cable bills, eat out at restaurants daily, have several televisions, iphones, etc.
People are driving cars that have mortgage sized payments. Why?
Oh yeah, and the biggest thing people spend money on.... Credit Card Interest.
It can be done. I did it for 10 years. My wife did not work, nor did she need to. I am not rich, I was making slightly more than the average bear, but not a lot. I have a son. We lived comfortably in a house, in a nice area.
You need to prioritize your spending.
Quote: ZenKinGNever said it's bad in 'general', but that the majority of people go about it the wrong way and end up getting screwed over with feminist type women and i should have mentioned gold diggers as well.
Im not sure ill ever get married unfortunately, unless i go to Europe and find an old scool type of girl that has the right values as it should be and bas some level of intelligence and her priority doesnt revolve around celebrity garbage.
There are many many women who would enjoy the life you're suggesting is theirs by gender destiny. However, I can't think of one who would agree that your current values and lifestyle makes you good marriage material.
You will find the women you are looking for in the churches and small towns of the South and Midwest. Many of them are teaching or nursing to support themselves while waiting to meet a man who will provide for them and give them children. Others are still at home. All of them would be glad to not work at a job, and do the married/kids/housewife life.
They do not gamble. They do not travel. They do not go to bars. They do not smoke or drink. They want to live in the middle of a small community of family and friends and ignore the larger world.
My sister is one. Two of my 3 nieces there are. So I'm not just making stuff up.
Everything they do revolves around their family in all generations and their immediate circle of friends. If you grow up with it, either you love that tight community or you get out. There's very few in-betweeners.
I don't see that working for you. But I don't know you well, either. Perhaps your continual dissatisfaction and anger is because you're rootless and alone, and being assimilated would bring you deep satisfaction. You're the only one who would know, if anyone.
Quote: ZenKinGThe key to a successful marriage is the woman CANNOT have a full time job or at least any job that requires a lot of her time and hard work. Look at ALL the successful marriages out there, it all involves a very similar relationship to how things were done back then where the woman was a caregiver and took care of the house and cleaned. At the very most, the woman needs to have a very limited supply of income and work part time, THAT'S IT, nothing more. The man HAS to be the provider...
I've been doing it all wrong. I want desperately to stay home and have the woman in my life be the provider. Ha!
Quote: MaxPenNow you need to figure out why one average income is no longer enough.
My simple theory is this...
Once upon a time there were one income families, they were happy.
Once upon a time a family became a two income family, they were happy and bought a bunch of stuff, relatively inexpensive.
More and more one income families became envious of the stuff, so they became two income families.
The makers of the stuff saw the extra money available and raised prices.
Now families 'must' have two incomes to by the basic stuff, which has become more expensive.
Side note: what drives me crazy is the price of cell phones. Frankly, cell phones are no longer a luxury item, needed only by folks with disposable income. Cell/smart phone have become a necessity in our society. Yet they costs $450 and up. Way up. Now, some folks will argue that they are not a necessity, and some of those may not have a smart phone, but I doubt it. The price of phones is yet another barrier folks have to jump over to break the cycle of poverty/struggling.
Quote: IndyJeffreyMy simple theory is this...
Once upon a time there were one income families, they were happy.
Once upon a time a family became a two income family, they were happy and bought a bunch of stuff, relatively inexpensive.
More and more one income families became envious of the stuff, so they became two income families.
The makers of the stuff saw the extra money available and raised prices.
Now families 'must' have two incomes to by the basic stuff, which has become more expensive.
Side note: what drives me crazy is the price of cell phones. Frankly, cell phones are no longer a luxury item, needed only by folks with disposable income. Cell/smart phone have become a necessity in our society. Yet they costs $450 and up. Way up. Now, some folks will argue that they are not a necessity, and some of those may not have a smart phone, but I doubt it. The price of phones is yet another barrier folks have to jump over to break the cycle of poverty/struggling.
Let me correct your first paragraph. Once upon a time, there were happy one income families. Once upon a time that family became a 'an unhappy and secretly miserable' family with two incomes because the parent's roles have been destroyed.
Quote: MaxPenCost of health insurance increases 20% and you say it is no longer a factor in measuring inflation.
Cost of 60" TVs decreases 40% and you add it to the index and create anothher similar category to give the similar results additional weight.
The CPI today is not the CPI of 20 years ago.
Just like when people talk about the DOW, QQQQ, S&P, etc.. You really have to understand what you are looking at.
People taking things literally is what allows for theft by deception.
Well, my base instrument in my main post was inflation, not CPI. I was just saying a person could use CPI and would see the same general trends. I don't know when I said the cost in health insurance is not a factor in measuring inflation.
TV's are pretty selective anyway. I'm thinking base goods such as food staples relative to income relative to spending power. It's all there. Feel free to look it up, I'm not going to handpick the best items to support my argument. Some foodstuffs are actually lower than certain previous years, but that's mostly due to (relatively) cheaper storage, mass production and supply channels.
Either way, it'll all point to the 60's and 70's being the best time for relative spending power, particularly for those making at or close to minimum wage.
Quote: petroglyph
You missed a bit, but the post was to long for me to respond to. Didn't say much about 64 and the start of welfare. That changed a lot about the need to work. I've read lately that a single parent with a child makes about the equivalent of someone earning about 55k per year. That destroyed an incentive for many.
In that event, you had minimum wage in the 60's and 70's that yielded a better dollar value than it does today AND welfare programs. All at the same time, no less. Today it seems like a one or the other thing, doesn't it?
I would love to see how that 55k per year figure is justified. I guess it's probably factoring in welfare benefits as well as insurance benefits for the kids (provided as social safety net) as being part of the 55k. Hardly surprising since my ex-wife is employed as a nurse and it costs (through her insurance, I pay half of all medical related expenses for the kids) about $10,000, per child, in direct expenses with her insurance, every year.
So, you take two kids, and there's $20,000 of that, I assume. Most jobs would cost more for equivalent insurance than it does for my ex-wife, so the assumed number there is probably even higher.
I made $19.25 per hour at the distribution center, at peak, when I worked there. At 40 hours per week (we didn't get that many hours...liars) that's $40,040 per year pre tax. Had I went with their insurance, it would have cost me $19,924/year to cover the four of us, but that's before I even start paying co-pays, deductible and the insurance did not include dental or vision. Real nice. Over half of my yearly take from the place going directly to insurance on a, "Good, decent paying job."
Anyway, I've seen some public housing areas around here and I've known some people, many with kids, who live there. I go there, look around, and I sure as hell don't see what looks anything like 55k/year to me.
I also know that some such studies also factor in the kids receiving free lunch at school. Laughable.
Quote:Although I'm pro labor, labor laws in the 70's and forward prevented kids from learning a work ethic. Now we have HS grads that have zero skills. Now kids can't mow lawns, or even have lemonade stands.
Why can't they? I was born in the 80's and I certainly mowed lawns, raked leaves, washed cars and shovelled snow. I had to if I wanted to have more than exactly zero dollars for myself...lol
Quote:Guaranteed Pell Grant loans for everyone allowed colleges to pay professors ever increasing wages.
Should they be paid the same wages they were paid in 1950?
Quote:As far as not having a computer in the home rules a kid out I agree, but my plumber charges around 80 dollars per hour, and I don't believe he has a degree. Trades still pay better than many occupations that require degrees.
Yeah, and if you have a computer, you need to have Internet. There's $47/month for the minimum package, at least around here. I've always had a better package, the minimum package is (intentionally) slow as Hell. I tried it once.
I do not necessarily disagree with you on trades. What we need is a town that requires about 100x as many plumbers and has enough people doing other things to pay those plumbers the $80/hour...then everything will be alright. (/light sarcasm)
Honestly, though, some people talk about trade jobs as if they are an infinite resource requiring only the desire to do them.
Quote:MW was never intended to support a family. It is for tertiary incomes.
I stated as much. I simply stated that it came a lot closer to supporting a family than it does now, because the value of the money relative to inflation was some 140% of buying power indexed to now. Certainly one person could have a full-time job AND a part-time job, both being minimum wage and at least come close to supporting a family...once upon a time.
Quote: ZenKinGI cant stop but laugh at all these young couples who are 'madly in love' and express their 'amazing love' on social media and then 15 years down the line, it all comes crashing down and they die-vorce. That's right NOT divorce, but DIE-vorce, that's how you really pronounce it and that's what really happens. All that's left is a woman stealing the majority of a man's assets and have him send a check to her every month for child support, which she doesnt even use to feed the child, but instead goes shopping. The women suck the guy dry mostly due to the modernization of women and the entitlement that they have also known as FEMINISM.
All that 'fake love' early in the relationship is gone and you know why? Because true 'love' doesnt really exist in young couples and rarely does it ever exist at all even if you were married 50 years and that's simply because each partner is really only in it for their own self interests whether they realize it or not as it happens on a deep subconscious level. True love only exists from your parents and family, at least the ones who actually arent deadbeats and dont leave you when you're young. If you lost your leg or your arm in the middle of a young relationship maybe 5 years into it, how many of their partners would stay by their side even after all the 'i love you' bullshit they claim? A young 25 year old girl or a young 25 year old man with their whole lives in front of them is going to stick with the other who has no legs or no arm or possibly even without BOTH when they are 10 minutes away from meeting someone else? Im willing to bet 99% of these youngsters would leave their partners even if they had the best relationship ever, the most amazing sex, etc. That's proof there's no true love in a relationship and lust rules all along with self driven egotistical self interests.
Before all the feminists attack me(not that i give a damn), this isn't just the woman's fault. It's also a result of this pathetic society for brainwashing them, as well as on the guy and this is why im the best because Im about to tell you how to have a successful marriage and prevent DIE-vorce since im way ahead of my time and my age group and can forecast basically everything ahead of time so I never get screwed.
Men simply do this to themselves. They let the woman run the relationship and 'control' them even if both of them dont even realize it and it can be done on such a deep subconscious level that none of them even notice. Society has tried to brainwash women to be able to be independent which has led to feminism and them thinking they can be independent. Let me also be clear, im not of the mindset you have to treat women like a ragdoll and have them do as you say, but the way it is now, women need to know their role and this is the main downfall of marriages and why nearly every marriage ends up in divorce or both partners secretly miserable. So here's the key and you can thank me later. It's one thing to know you need to have a 'spine' and not let a woman control you, it's another to actually know how to make it work cause if you go about it the wrong way, it wont matter what you do as they will be completely droned out feminists and just leave if you try that.
The key to a successful marriage is the woman CANNOT have a full time job or at least any job that requires a lot of her time and hard work. Look at ALL the successful marriages out there, it all involves a very similar relationship to how things were done back then where the woman was a caregiver and took care of the house and cleaned. At the very most, the woman needs to have a very limited supply of income and work part time, THAT'S IT, nothing more. The man HAS to be the provider and this is another main problem because 99% of young men are BROKE and in massive debt so as a result you need both partners to WORK and that's the fatal flaw in the puzzle. The key to a successful marriage is you have to go OLD SCHOOl. Society has tried to bring women into the workforce to be able to tax them and all this has done is destroy relationships and marriages. The more a woman works, the HIGHER chance she will be a feminist or at the very least not want to be the old fashioned woman that was around in the 1900s and be too tired to be a housewife and clean, cook, and take care of the children or simply THINK she doesn't have to do any of that(entitlement). When each partner knows their roles, everything works itself out naturally and the marriage is a success.
Thank me later kids. Nice try society, but thats why im the best.
You do know that most women make more than you right? Actually, many teens do as well. You can only hope to find a lady that will put up with your chosen "profession" and conspiracy theories, while more than doubling your household income.
ZCore13
Quote: beachbumbabs
You will find the women you are looking for in the churches and small towns of the South and Midwest. Many of them are teaching or nursing to support themselves while waiting to meet a man who will provide for them and give them children. Others are still at home. All of them would be glad to not work at a job, and do the married/kids/housewife life.
They do not gamble. They do not travel. They do not go to bars. They do not smoke or drink. They want to live in the middle of a small community of family and friends and ignore the larger world.
Clearly you've never been to a small midwestern town. All they do is smoke, drink, go to bars, do meth, and eat ranch dressing on everything. I've lived it for 40 years.
