[Exactaking]

Buffett writes another one of his santimonious op-eds, where its quite obvious with some critical thought he's really talking about. The whole article basically supports the whole feminism=cheap labor theory.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/leadersh...index.html

Quote:

No manager operates his or her plants at 80% efficiency when steps could be taken that would increase output. And no CEO wants male employees to be underutilized when improved training or working conditions would boost productivity. So take it one step further: If obvious benefits flow from helping the male component of the workforce achieve its potential, why in the world wouldn't you want to include its counterpart?

Fellow males, get onboard. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We've seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you'll join me as an unbridled optimist about America's future.

Also funny since he admits most businesswoman are little bitches deep down:

Quote:

I'm happy to say that funhouse mirrors are becoming less common among the women I meet. Try putting one in front of my daughter. She'll just laugh and smash it. Women should never forget that it is common for powerful and seemingly self-assured males to have more than a bit of the Wizard of Oz in them. Pull the curtain aside, and you'll often discover they are not supermen after all. (Just ask their wives!)

Also talks about his weird ass relationship with Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham (who seems like some sort of mothering figure to him). He comes across as real omega (reading the Snowball book about him, learned most of his relationships involve women mothering him, he's like a dorky teen made good). No game, but obviously knows the economic value of women

[n0000]

I really find it hard to believe that Buffet, a guy whose career has involved being intimate with market processes fails to see the downside of employing 100% of people as worker drones. Off the top of my head some very real economics costs include:

1. Massive healthcare costs due to lower quality of food because the mom isn't home to cook for the family.
2. Lower iq due to poor nutrition means less innovation, more crime.
3. Single parent families cause increased crime, poverty.
4. Weaker families due to kids spending less time around parents.
5. A culture focused on instant consumption instead of saving for the future. The availability of capital allows for a higher standard of living in the future.

Women going into the workforce comes with significant costs. You can only be in one place at one time. The opportunity cost of working is raising high quality, happy, healthy kids and focusing your efforts on improving your community. Women traditionally have been employed in teaching their children, taking care of them when they are sick, supporting their husbands by doing secretary-like work and advancing his husbands career by networking. When they go to work they mostly choose work in these exact same fields, except instead of working for the benefits of their families they do so for strangers in exchange for a paycheck.

Women also play a very important role as enforces of the social orthodoxy. In sane times this means the widespread use of social pressure to ensure that people behave in the ways that they are suppose to or face social repercussions. It serves as guidance for proper male and female behavior. In the modern age this has been twisted and women collectively enforce things that are detrimental to society as a whole.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Buffett is like an autistic kid whose special ability is capitalism. The man knows how to make money for himself better than anyone else in the world.

Examine Buffett through the lens of his autism and everything he does/says makes sense.

[Hades]

Like a lot of people he does not give much of a shit about laborers, only that by increasing the labor pool it makes labor cheaper. Spot on.

[BLarsen]

why should anyone, man or woman, give their max effort to help Warren Buffett and his managers get even more rich???

[Exactaking]

No doubt on the whole autistic thing. Read in this bio about him how much is was obsessed with compound interest. He was better back when all he did was obsess over that and make 20% compounded for decades, now his attempts as posterity are annoying, everybody acts like he's America's rich uncle.

[MikeCF]

(05-02-2013 12:07 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Like a lot of people he does not give much of a shit about laborers, only that by increasing the labor pool it makes labor cheaper. Spot on.

Yep. He is Captial and women are Labor.

Same reason Zuckerberg and Bill Gates want more computer programmers from India. There is no morality. It's all about giving less to Labor.

Say what you will about Marx, but his view on Capital's relationship with Labor is more true today than in several decades.

[MikeCF]

(05-02-2013 11:40 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

I really find it hard to believe that Buffet, a guy whose career has involved being intimate with market processes fails to see the downside of employing 100% of people as worker drones. Off the top of my head some very real economics costs include:

1. Massive healthcare costs due to lower quality of food because the mom isn't home to cook for the family.
2. Lower iq due to poor nutrition means less innovation, more crime.
3. Single parent families cause increased crime, poverty.
4. Weaker families due to kids spending less time around parents.
5. A culture focused on instant consumption instead of saving for the future. The availability of capital allows for a higher standard of living in the future.

Women going into the workforce comes with significant costs. You can only be in one place at one time. The opportunity cost of working is raising high quality, happy, healthy kids and focusing your efforts on improving your community. Women traditionally have been employed in teaching their children, taking care of them when they are sick, supporting their husbands by doing secretary-like work and advancing his husbands career by networking. When they go to work they mostly choose work in these exact same fields, except instead of working for the benefits of their families they do so for strangers in exchange for a paycheck.

Women also play a very important role as enforces of the social orthodoxy. In sane times this means the widespread use of social pressure to ensure that people behave in the ways that they are suppose to or face social repercussions. It serves as guidance for proper male and female behavior. In the modern age this has been twisted and women collectively enforce things that are detrimental to society as a whole.

All true but they don't care. Money insulates the rich. Or so they think. "Let them eat cake" only lasts for so long before heads get taken.

But the rich have done a great job stopping a rebellion.

Make people fat. Drug them. Entertain them.

Plus, it's men who lead revolutions. Destroy masculinity and create quieter slaves.

Feminism has been Capital's greatest co-conspirator.

[TheRookie]

The crony capitalists are pushing for more women in the workforce to push down labor costs. More women competing for jobs leads to depressed wages. Uncle Sam raised taxes, especially the payroll taxes, forcing more women into the workforce and increasing their tax revenues - a win win for crony business and government.

The cost of this falls on regular, working people. They have broken homes, latchkey children, dwindling savings and assets as their paychecks and property are taxed at increasing rates.

The kids grow up with no role models and bad nutrition (mom was off working instead of cooking good meals). They are broken with no skills in the job market and worthless degrees (dad never pushed them in school to do well in hard STEM subjects).

Big business and government doesn't care. They push for open borders and can easily import low-skilled and skilled workers (Mexicans), and white collar workers (Asia, Eastern Europe).

The welfare system is unsustainable, but the technocrats can weasel people out of their welfare and reduce the amount of bread and circuses they give to the hapless masses (inflating away purchasing power, means-testing social security, stealing bank deposits a la Cyprus, a thousand cuts of surtaxes, VAT)

[kdolo]

undefined

[TheSlayer]

(05-02-2013 02:56 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Say what you will about Marx, but his view on Capital's relationship with Labor is more true today than in several decades.

Agreed, 100%.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(05-02-2013 04:18 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

The crony capitalists are pushing for more women in the workforce to push down labor costs. More women competing for jobs leads to depressed wages. Uncle Sam raised taxes, especially the payroll taxes, forcing more women into the workforce and increasing their tax revenues - a win win for crony business and government.

The cost of this falls on regular, working people. They have broken homes, latchkey children, dwindling savings and assets as their paychecks and property are taxed at increasing rates.

The kids grow up with no role models and bad nutrition (mom was off working instead of cooking good meals). They are broken with no skills in the job market and worthless degrees (dad never pushed them in school to do well in hard STEM subjects).

Big business and government doesn't care. They push for open borders and can easily import low-skilled and skilled workers (Mexicans), and white collar workers (Asia, Eastern Europe).

The welfare system is unsustainable, but the technocrats can weasel people out of their welfare and reduce the amount of bread and circuses they give to the hapless masses (inflating away purchasing power, means-testing social security, stealing bank deposits a la Cyprus, a thousand cuts of surtaxes, VAT)

I want to second the above, but add in that Buffett is also always trying to drum up business by getting people to buy shares in his stocks. His pandering to women is probably so he can get more women to buy shares of his "hot" one, BRK-B. I have an aunt who loves the guy and buys his stocks, and this is probably why. What's ridiculous about this is that saying you support women is like saying you support fresh air -- it's the safest thing in the world to say and nobody's going to criticize you for it.

[STLMO]

If that man lives past the days of the coming masculine revolution, he should be relegated to gizz mopping at the legalized rub and tug big box outlets.

[NY Digital]

I see the men in our society and I'm appalled at how generations of conquerors, revolutionaries, thinkers, and builders that have built everything we see today, and yet this has all but led up to pussified, estrogen filled betas that have a complete lack of masculinity.

[MidniteSpecial]

(05-02-2013 02:59 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 11:40 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

I really find it hard to believe that Buffet, a guy whose career has involved being intimate with market processes fails to see the downside of employing 100% of people as worker drones. Off the top of my head some very real economics costs include:

1. Massive healthcare costs due to lower quality of food because the mom isn't home to cook for the family.
2. Lower iq due to poor nutrition means less innovation, more crime.
3. Single parent families cause increased crime, poverty.
4. Weaker families due to kids spending less time around parents.
5. A culture focused on instant consumption instead of saving for the future. The availability of capital allows for a higher standard of living in the future.

Women going into the workforce comes with significant costs. You can only be in one place at one time. The opportunity cost of working is raising high quality, happy, healthy kids and focusing your efforts on improving your community. Women traditionally have been employed in teaching their children, taking care of them when they are sick, supporting their husbands by doing secretary-like work and advancing his husbands career by networking. When they go to work they mostly choose work in these exact same fields, except instead of working for the benefits of their families they do so for strangers in exchange for a paycheck.

Women also play a very important role as enforces of the social orthodoxy. In sane times this means the widespread use of social pressure to ensure that people behave in the ways that they are suppose to or face social repercussions. It serves as guidance for proper male and female behavior. In the modern age this has been twisted and women collectively enforce things that are detrimental to society as a whole.

All true but they don't care. Money insulates the rich. Or so they think. "Let them eat cake" only lasts for so long before heads get taken.

But the rich have done a great job stopping a rebellion.

Make people fat. Drug them. Entertain them.

Plus, it's men who lead revolutions. Destroy masculinity and create quieter slaves.

Feminism has been Capital's greatest co-conspirator.

Realist few lines I have read all day Mike CF.

[Kabal]

You guys are giving him too much credit if you think that Buffett wrote this puff piece to increase the supply of female labor in order to push down wages and drive up profits to line his pockets.

I could only applaud Buffett if he were coolly manipulating the naivete of women and the PC-feminist complex to his own financial benefit.

But no, the impact of his article on the female labor supply will be infinitesimal, much less material enough to increase the profits of his companies or affect his immense personal wealth in any detectable way.

Buffett is writing this article to suckle the teat of the PC-feminist complex in order to score feel-good brownie points.

Buffett, in his old age, has a penchant for these feel-good platitudes, for example: "investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ."

I'm sure Jim Simons would find that chuckle-worthy in between cigar puffs.

[WestCoast]

Everything MikeCF said. Even works for Wall Street people. Take the best and the brightest from top schools, make them work 80 hours a week, vitamin D deficiency, forced poor social skills, life turns into nothing but a money chase. Have to logically rationalize the insane damage you are doing to your body, so you do this by saying "but if I only get another $50K!".

Wall Street for 99% of people who enter, is white collar slavery.

You need work game.

You have to go for the jugular in a hard corporate environment, you know the vast majority have sex life/social issues, fix it for them, you work less, they rely on you more, you get promoted... Break the rules or get broken down by the hours, no one can work 80 hours a week regularly and be healthy socially and physically.

This is the case for all jobs that pay real money (2 handle or above) at a young age. They want to work you to death to make you servant to the $ bill.

(05-02-2013 02:59 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 11:40 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

I really find it hard to believe that Buffet, a guy whose career has involved being intimate with market processes fails to see the downside of employing 100% of people as worker drones. Off the top of my head some very real economics costs include:

1. Massive healthcare costs due to lower quality of food because the mom isn't home to cook for the family.
2. Lower iq due to poor nutrition means less innovation, more crime.
3. Single parent families cause increased crime, poverty.
4. Weaker families due to kids spending less time around parents.
5. A culture focused on instant consumption instead of saving for the future. The availability of capital allows for a higher standard of living in the future.

Women going into the workforce comes with significant costs. You can only be in one place at one time. The opportunity cost of working is raising high quality, happy, healthy kids and focusing your efforts on improving your community. Women traditionally have been employed in teaching their children, taking care of them when they are sick, supporting their husbands by doing secretary-like work and advancing his husbands career by networking. When they go to work they mostly choose work in these exact same fields, except instead of working for the benefits of their families they do so for strangers in exchange for a paycheck.

Women also play a very important role as enforces of the social orthodoxy. In sane times this means the widespread use of social pressure to ensure that people behave in the ways that they are suppose to or face social repercussions. It serves as guidance for proper male and female behavior. In the modern age this has been twisted and women collectively enforce things that are detrimental to society as a whole.

All true but they don't care. Money insulates the rich. Or so they think. "Let them eat cake" only lasts for so long before heads get taken.

But the rich have done a great job stopping a rebellion.

Make people fat. Drug them. Entertain them.

Plus, it's men who lead revolutions. Destroy masculinity and create quieter slaves.

Feminism has been Capital's greatest co-conspirator.

[iknowexactly]

(05-02-2013 11:40 AM)n0000 Wrote:  

I really find it hard to believe that Buffet, a guy whose career has involved being intimate with market processes fails to see the downside of employing 100% of people as worker drones.

I quite disagree, although I think neither of us has enough data to win a debate.

I would point at the Arab nations where women don't work, their non-oil GDP is, I speculate, far lower than the more developed nations. However, Japan might be a counterexample.

From an efficiency POV, specialization is the hallmark of the capitalist system

If you can have a kindergarten teacher taking care of 20 kids, and therefore 19 mothers out working for the Bilderbergers or whoever it is that owns everything, if I was a Bilderberger I'd tell those bitches "Get your kids into Kindergarten and get to WORK!"

[TheRookie]

(05-02-2013 09:02 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

You guys are giving him too much credit if you think that Buffett wrote this puff piece to increase the supply of female labor in order to push down wages and drive up profits to line his pockets.

I could only applaud Buffett if he were coolly manipulating the naivete of women and the PC-feminist complex to his own financial benefit.

I agree with you. The issue is not so much the buffonery of Buffett as it is - why is this such a safe, politically correct view? Why is it being pushed by the media as the correct way of thinking? Why has this way of thinking been pushed at us for 50 years, so that it is second nature for a titan of industry to mouth the platitudes?

[Kabal]

(05-02-2013 10:35 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 09:02 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

You guys are giving him too much credit if you think that Buffett wrote this puff piece to increase the supply of female labor in order to push down wages and drive up profits to line his pockets.

I could only applaud Buffett if he were coolly manipulating the naivete of women and the PC-feminist complex to his own financial benefit.

I agree with you. The issue is not so much the buffonery of Buffett as it is - why is this such a safe, politically correct view? Why is it being pushed by the media as the correct way of thinking? Why has this way of thinking been pushed at us for 50 years, so that it is second nature for a titan of industry to mouth the platitudes?

I do agree with the general notion that it is plausible that corporate America, being the oligopoly it is, is colluding to bring in more women to the workforce in order to increase the labor supply and lower wages--and additionally, to drive up consumer spending.

Men only spend money to compete with other men for women, but women are much more profligate in spending their own or their husbands' incomes on shiny trinkets, as is commonly known.

All you would need are the C-suite across a critical mass of companies to function as a de facto oligarchy, or a cabal, if you will, for their minions and their minions' minions to follow suit.

However, where they would be erring is assuming the male labor supply is relatively inelastic. As women earn more and value men less for their wealth, men will react to the shifting incentives and care less about climbing the corporate ladder.

[iknowexactly]

(05-02-2013 11:06 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

However, where they would be erring is assuming the male labor supply is relatively inelastic. As women earn more and value men less for their wealth, men will react to the shifting incentives and care less about climbing the corporate ladder.

I did this to some extent. Had a 110k job during recession (gubmint, strict 40 hours max plus vacation, sick time and pension) and still couldn't get a date. Why bother busting ass? I MGTOWed.