[Suits]

(03-12-2015 10:32 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

What would you rather have?

1. Be a millionaire, have an amazing house, several cars, pool etc, but an average wife to share it with.

2. Live in a modest home, share a car, and a beautiful wife/amazing sex, and she's constantly caring/cooking for you.

I don't think either of these would make me happy all on their own (happiness is largely a choice), but if I had to chose one, I'd go with (2). I'm more about good relationships and avoiding unnecessarily stressful situations.

Plus great sex for life with an attractive wife? Yes, please.

Having a mansion isn't much when you're tied down to a wife you got bored of years ago.

However, option three is better. "None of the above."

[WestIndianArchie]

(03-12-2015 01:37 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

I went to Colombia, I saw poor families with 4, 5 kids and they seemed relatively happy.

[WestIndianArchie]

This explains why non-player men don't have jobs.

But how does this affect working women?

WIA

(03-12-2015 08:36 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:55 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:34 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

I'm 30 and only a couple of my friends from HS are married. Many have kids and long term girlfriends, but don't seem to be in a hurry to get married.

I'd say most guys from HS don't have particularly well paying jobs, even the college educated ones. Most don't own homes and mostly seem to living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, most of us come from lower-middle class families whose parents struggled their whole lives also. So there isn't much family money or connections. The ones I see doing best career wise seem to be firefighters. They make decent cash, but throw in a wife, baby and mortgage and they are basically living paycheck to paycheck also I think.

From what I see, it seems more difficult for people now to get a job that pays enough to live that American dream that leads to marriage, having kids, buying homes, etc.

My grandpa is 76. He got out of the army, went to work for PG&E for 30 years, got married, raised a family, bought a home, and got a very good retirement. Maybe it's just the area I'm from, but I don't really see that happening much anymore.

Combine all of that with divorce and custody laws and I think men my age just don't want to get married. I also think they see how miserable their parents are and don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

This. I really do feel that economic stability is at the heart of this. From studies I've seen, most young men DO actually want to get married and have families. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this 70% are a bunch of red pill players with who are having too much fun to get married. The truth is far from that. Most men will sleep with less than 10 women in their life. And what that article said about college is a joke. That men are controlling the terms of relationships and women can't find guys. Bullshit. Most dudes in college actually aren't getting laid much. It's the jocks and top frats that getting laid the most. A lot of guys graduate from college with little sexual experience. I don't remember the number right now but I read a sizable number of guys graduate college without losing their virginity.

The cost of rent and housing as a percentage of your income is steadily rising. As is the cost of an education, and day care if you want kids. And since public schools in many cities are shit, you may have to shell out extra for private school if you want a good education for your kids. And then you have to put something away for their future education which will be even more expensive than yours, and still try to sock something away for your own retirement.

My whole theory behind this is that laissez-faire capitalism and rising inequality is destroying our social fabric. All the gains of our productivity and GDP go straight to the top 10%. The average person hasn't seen a pay increase in many decades adjusted for inflation. Yet everything is getting more expensive. An apartment I rented for $1150 a month several years ago now lists for $1600. My health insurance plan like rent goes up every year and never goes down. Ultimately responsible people want to plan their families and give their kids the best chance. They don't want to start a family under unstable conditions where you are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Many will opt to just stay single and not have kids than have to endure that kind of stress. And now that there's no stigma to perpetual bachelorhood, there's no pressure to dive into marriage when you're not ready.

You're 100% right that this is an economic issue more than anything else. However, I disagree that laissez-faire capitalism is the problem. In a later post you clarified that it was more post 80s deregulation that was the culprit, but I've never bought that explanation either. It's been the reasoning of people who think that the 1950s were the good ol' days and everything was fine until Reagan came along and fucked everything up.

The 50s didn't come out of nowhere, it came from being the last power standing after WWII, which in turn came from being the preeminent economic and industrial power in the first place. That ultimately had its foundations in the economic boom that took place between the Civil War and WWI, which was based on perhaps the closest system to textbook laissez-faire capitalism that has existed, certainly during the Industrial era.

Of course it wasn't perfect, and not everything that happened should be emulated, but having access to history, we should be able to note what worked and what didn't and mix in the good elements with the modern advancements to propel ourselves even further. Unfortunately, things like minimal regulation, no federal income tax, and stable money in the shape of a gold standard were deemed unworthy of making the cut.

Closer to the topic, the elimination of the classical gold standard, over a period of 60 years from WWI to 1971, has probably done more than anything else to create the economic disparities you describe. One of the features of a gold standard is to limit the amount of debt that can be realistically created, not only by governments, but by bankers.

By 1971 the GS had already been bastardized, and only lip service was paid to it. The reason it was formally ended was political. Over the prior 10 years, the US expanded its money supply massively to pay for the new welfare state and Vietnam. Other countries who held the dollar as reserves (particularly France) noticed this and wanted to cash its dollar chips for gold, which it had the right to do under the GS. Nixon's response was a gigantic middle finger, and he announced that the dollar was no longer redeemable for gold, thus removing any restrictions on the US to keep its financial house in order, and in turn removing any restrictions on the banking system in general to do the same.

Ever since then, we've been on an exponential track with respect to outstanding credit levels. Look at any historical chart relating to outstanding credit and you'll see a clear line in the sand around 1971. Before that date, credit expansion was more or less flat, with a bias to a steady rise over time. After that date, it's been exponential to the present day. Case in point:



Generally, when the economy as a whole takes on more debt than it can handle, a crisis is around the corner. We've seen that multiple times in the last 15 years. The problem, in this post gold-standard era, is that we have the illusion of a get out of jail free card - more debt. The proliferation of debt makes it seem like we can keep on spending, which keeps driving prices higher and higher, until the point where we can't afford it any more and must start paying down debt and accepting lower prices.

But this sobering reality is untenable for mainstream economics phd's and central bankers, so the 'solution' is even more debt, to an even greater degree than before, because otherwise prices won't rise. All of this is impossible under a gold standard because you can't create gold out of thin air in unlimited quantities. So from time to time, the economy was forced to 'revert to the mean,' flush out the bad, keep the good and build again. To be sure, this was a painful process for those who were on the wrong side of it, but completely necessary for overall progress.

Today, we never have to revert to the mean, at least on the surface. We can seemingly take on debt in perpetuity, which enables the continued accumulation of material goods, which builds a false sense of abundance. But all we've really done is pledged our future labor for the right to consume in the present.

It is this illusion of abundance that allows feminism/cultural Marxism/SJWism/r-selection to flourish. It's no coincidence that those trends have grown in concert over the last 50 years with the cessation of the GS, as the loss of economic discipline basically financed the loss of social discipline. Some have argued that we need a war or some other catastrophe to keep women and SJWs in line, but I'd argue that the return of economic discipline is more than enough to do the job.

Upthread Phoenix had a nice post describing essentially what was The 'American Dream.' Roughly speaking it is a sort of life plan that looks like this:

Go to school > Get a Job > Get married > Buy a house > Have 2 kids + dog > Move up in the company and settle in at middle management > Retire at 60-65

An average person starting on this track in 2015 is plunged into debt slavery literally from the first step. Owing to some of the economic forces I've already described, tuition has risen to the point that 18 year olds are on the hook for crippling debt, where they once could have paid their way through school waiting tables over the summers.

Assuming you get an adequate job, and find a girl worth marrying (lol), all you've really done there is sign on to pay for your wife's student loans as well as yours. On top of that you need a car, so there's auto loans. Buying a house? Prepare to plunge even deeper into debt, as the powers that be are deathly afraid of home prices dropping, even though all economic fundamentals suggest home prices should be nowhere this high (recall what I said about endless credit allowing us never to face reality). Then there's rising maintenance costs, rising utility costs and of course taxes.

All of that means that you're not retiring at 65. Along the way, the fact that prices keep rising means that on top of your debt, you might have to turn to credit cards, or your wife has to work, which means a suboptimal environment for your children. Saving for your retirement, or for your children's inheritance is almost out of the question.

Virtually the only way to avoid some version of this fate is to be rich already, or to own assets that continue to appreciate along with the inflation driven by this continued credit expansion. Therein lies the inequality we're seeing now, because with most people drowning in debt of some sort, it is only a few who have the means to own income producing assets, in addition to those who are already rich.

In addition to that, the way out is to avoid the 'American Dream' track as I wrote it. Constant self improvement, side hustles, being reliant on yourself and not a corporation necessarily. Understanding women, and children/family life by extension. All things that are discussed regularly on this forum. But outside of this forum, how many are attuned to these sort of issues?

Most will hop on that American Dream track because it's what they were told to do by their parents, guidance counselors at school, etc. This article suggests that they're beginning to see the flaws and starting to back out before its too late. For me, that track will never be viable again until the economics change.

[Phoenix]

Lol I just read the comments section of the original article. Absolute gold. Brutal onslaught of anti-feminist excoriation.

Guys with greater online clout should try and spread the link, maybe make an ROK article too. At the very least we should take a copy of the comments unless they are taken down.

[Tex Pro]

Surprised it is not higher than 70% not married for 20-34.

The 30% of 20-34 men who are married are probably religious types.

[N°6]

The question is, how much is this due to MGTOW and how much is this due to women's increased hypergamous 'pickiness' stalling the marriage market in the same sense that overvalued UK homes have stalled the British market.

It could be that a debt-based, unproductive economy has inflated women's values out of reach from the majority in the same sense that it has with houses.

[Tex Pro]

(03-13-2015 01:06 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

The question is, how much is this due to MGTOW and how much is this due to women's increased hypergamous 'pickiness' stalling the marriage market in the same sense that overvalued UK homes have stalled the British market.

It could be that a debt-based, unproductive economy has inflated women's values out of reach from the majority in the same sense that it has with houses.

Like most things, it is probably a combination of things: The economy, feminism, student loan debt, MGTOW, etc...

[N°6]

¨^True

Also what's all this 60% of degrees are earned by women = 60% of CEOs should be women all about?

[N°6]

The comments under the article are worth reading.

[jariel]

(03-13-2015 01:04 AM)Tex Pro Wrote:  

The 30% of 20-34 men who are married are probably religious types.

The religious types engage in a lifelong mind-fucking of themselves.

"I have free-will, yet there are all these rules that someone else made that I'm supposed to follow so that I'm not viewed as a bad person. There's no reason to think, even though I've been given the power to do that and more, I'll just take my programming which protects me from having to think and make my own decisions, and just do what the good book, wifey, mom and dad, and the good, rich pastor tell me what to do. Now I can die in peace one day and know it was all worth it, I played by the rules and I was a good slave who made everyone else happy while I made sacrifices."

These types of men like to find their women in church, where they know they can easily find damaged women who need Captain Save-A-Hoes to get on the right track or women who enable them to lead boring, safe lives. Ultimately, both of them resent each other for life, but they relish in the thought that other people look at them as a good Christian family, meanwhile behind closed curtains, he develops a drinking problem, and the only errand she puts effort in is sneaking off to fuck the pastor on the regular.

Jesus wept.

[puckerman]

(03-12-2015 11:55 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

My whole theory behind this is that laissez-faire capitalism and rising inequality is destroying our social fabric.

What the hell are you smoking? Just where is the laissez-faire capitalism in this overtaxed and over-regulated godforsaken country called America? Just look at all the handouts given to corporations. Look at how government steals people's homes to give to Walmart, for example.

[Sooth]

We just gotta keep these unmarried men occupied in improvement and away from the pleasure excesses then we shall make civilization 2.0!

[puckerman]

(03-12-2015 08:36 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

You're 100% right that this is an economic issue more than anything else. However, I disagree that laissez-faire capitalism is the problem. In a later post you clarified that it was more post 80s deregulation that was the culprit, but I've never bought that explanation either. It's been the reasoning of people who think that the 1950s were the good ol' days and everything was fine until Reagan came along and fucked everything up.

What exactly did Reagan deregulate? I want specifics. The only regulation I can think of was the 55-mph speed limit.

Quote:

The 50s didn't come out of nowhere, it came from being the last power standing after WWII, which in turn came from being the preeminent economic and industrial power in the first place. That ultimately had its foundations in the economic boom that took place between the Civil War and WWI, which was based on perhaps the closest system to textbook laissez-faire capitalism that has existed, certainly during the Industrial era.

I actually think the period in the North from Jackson kiling the bank to the Civil War was better, but we had clearly built a lot of capital. It was already being undermined around 1900.

Quote:

Unfortunately, things like minimal regulation, no federal income tax, and stable money in the shape of a gold standard were deemed unworthy of making the cut.

It was deemed unworthy by many "intellectuals." They sold out America, while the public still largely understood what had worked.

Quote:

Closer to the topic, the elimination of the classical gold standard, over a period of 60 years from WWI to 1971, has probably done more than anything else to create the economic disparities you describe. One of the features of a gold standard is to limit the amount of debt that can be realistically created, not only by governments, but by bankers.

It also meant that we had produce something of value. Now, America just sends worthless paper all around the world. When Nixon killed gold, we had trade surpluses and factories.

Quote:

But this sobering reality is untenable for mainstream economics phd's and central bankers, so the 'solution' is even more debt, to an even greater degree than before, because otherwise prices won't rise. All of this is impossible under a gold standard because you can't create gold out of thin air in unlimited quantities.

The "problem" is that laissez-faire capitalism gives those "parasites in subsidized classrooms" no power whatsoever.

You forgot one thing. Thanks almost solely to government, we've had skyrocketing health-care costs. Many people go into bankruptcy nowadays just because of one catastrophic illness or some other major expense.

[Akula]

(03-13-2015 12:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Lol I just read the comments section of the original article. Absolute gold. Brutal onslaught of anti-feminist excoriation.

Guys with greater online clout should try and spread the link, maybe make an ROK article too. At the very least we should take a copy of the comments unless they are taken down.

I'll 2nd that! Comments are pure gold. I don't see any of us in there commenting so many of 'em seem to be from your "average guy" who's seen and had enough.

[Saweeep]

I keep saying this here but the answer is staring every one of us in the face:

Do everything in your power to be in the 1%.

Nothing else matters in the world as we know it.

[It_is_my_time]

(03-13-2015 04:59 AM)Akula Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Lol I just read the comments section of the original article. Absolute gold. Brutal onslaught of anti-feminist excoriation.

Guys with greater online clout should try and spread the link, maybe make an ROK article too. At the very least we should take a copy of the comments unless they are taken down.

I'll 2nd that! Comments are pure gold. I don't see any of us in there commenting so many of 'em seem to be from your "average guy" who's seen and had enough.

The comments are excellent and it appears almost all of them are 100% supportive of our views here.

And one comment that is the most correct is that there is no way to fix this without removing women's rights to vote. Because even if we do fix the issues, the women will vote the same shit back into place.

[iknowexactly]

(03-12-2015 12:15 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 12:01 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Sorry, I gotta ask this and I don't mean to derail the thread: what alternate reality version of America are you living in that actually has laissez-faire capitalism? The right and the left in this country are running a gigantic con. Corporatism is what we have here and they like to blame socialism or capitalism for its (and their) failures. It's complete nonsense.

Maybe a poor choice of term on my part. But let's just say the deregulation that has taken place since the early 80s that has led to a rapid rise in inequality and a struggling middle class.

Whatever the diagnosis is, as far as the prescription goes--as long as we keep electing connected multimillionaires whose kids all go to the same schools together, we deserve the scraps most of us get.

[DarkTriad]

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  

This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Actually, what will happen is what already happened in one Province of Canada...they'll start drafting people. Thousands woke one morning to discover that they had been married overnight against their will by an act of court.

[It_is_my_time]

(03-13-2015 07:23 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:07 AM)RIslander Wrote:  

This will lead to an effort to destroy the bachelor.

Bachelor taxes
Implementation of 'common law' spouses
Bachelor shaming

The government will be forced by the future feminist agenda to pressure bachelors into marriage. The other option is to make marriage attractive again and a worthwhile investment. Which path do you think will be chosen?

Actually, what will happen is what already happened in one Province of Canada...they'll start drafting people. Thousands woke one morning to discover that they had been married overnight against their will by an act of court.

Married to whom?

A live in partner?
A long time girl friend that doesn't live with them?
A once in a while hook up?
A long past hook up?
Just a random single woman they don't even know?

Just wondering how far the govt. is trying to push this.

[RockHard]

(03-13-2015 03:26 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

You forgot one thing. Thanks almost solely to government, we've had skyrocketing health-care costs. Many people go into bankruptcy nowadays just because of one catastrophic illness or some other major expense.

Nixon policies were also responsible for creating the health insurance system. Nobody remembers now, but in 1970 there was an effort to create a national health insurance system that failed, but that led us down the path we're on today. Nixon most notably extended Medicare to disability benefits and created CHIP.

Interesting read, Nixon speech on health care in 1974:
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/nixon-proposal/

[StrikeBack]

They talk about men's reluctance to man up and get in the marriage prison, but I don't see any woman rushing to get married until she almost has no attractiveness and fertility left to offer a future husband. Sheesh forget marriage, I don't see any young <25 woman even interested in serious relationships.

Men have never tried to pursue marriage on their own, even in the past when the laws and society were very supportive of men. It's women's job to do so, as it's in their best interest.

Just had a quick glance at the comments. My favourite:

Quote:

Dubai • a day ago
Where have all the good women gone?

[scorpion]

(03-13-2015 05:05 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

I keep saying this here but the answer is staring every one of us in the face:

Do everything in your power to be in the 1%.

Nothing else matters in the world as we know it.

This is the game equivalent of saying, "Do everything in your power to be 6'5", with an 8 inch dick and good looks, and born into a wealthy family with connections."

Not everyone can be in the 1%, so the advice is useless from a societal perspective, especially considering we're discussing something as fundamental as marriage and children here. If only the top 1% of men can expect to have secure marriages with attractive, supportive women, then society is completely and utterly fucked. It's not like the average man is asking for a lot - most would be satisfied with an average-looking woman who won't get fat, has a pleasant personality and who won't divorce rape him in the courts and take his children away. If something so fundamental to society and historically normal as marriage is suddenly out of reach for the common man, we're in serious trouble.

[Akula]

(03-13-2015 07:49 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

They talk about men's reluctance to man up and get in the marriage prison, but I don't see any woman rushing to get married until she almost has no attractiveness and fertility left to offer a future husband. Sheesh forget marriage, I don't see any young <25 woman even interested in serious relationships.

Men have never tried to pursue marriage on their own, even in the past when the laws and society were very supportive of men. It's women's job to do so, as it's in their best interest.

^^ well put.

I was talking to a younger forum member a few months ago who was doing well but said "you know, I think I'm #7, 8 or 9 on the average 20-something's list". These women aren't looking for relationships but rather are 100% into their careers and own little narcissistic & selfish reality - whethe it be YOLO and the carousel or instagram & FB selfies and "deep thoughts" posts.

To blame it mostly on the men and say they are living in extended adolescence is really disingenuous.

Some of the comments are just too good:

"What business is it of anyone, much less any WOMAN, what any man does with his life, if he isn't breaking the law or being a drain on society?"

"This is just entitle females trying to shame men into wife-ing up women who aren't worth marrying."

"Yep, they think that they're "owed" commitment and marriage from the same guys that they treated like dirt and crapped on, all while they rode the Alpha carousel and played "work day" at their make-believe government-legislated 'jobs' for ten years."

"Now that their 'career' is no longer any 'fun' anymore, and they have hit "The Wall" and been pushed off the carousel by all the younger, prettier women, they demand that men "man up".

[CH-Toronto]

(03-13-2015 08:29 AM)Akula Wrote:  

I was talking to a younger forum member a few months ago who was doing well but said "you know, I think I'm #7, 8 or 9 on the average 20-something's list". These women aren't looking for relationships but rather are 100% into their careers and own little narcissistic & selfish reality - whethe it be YOLO and the carousel or instagram & FB selfies and "deep thoughts" posts.

To blame it mostly on the men and say they are living in extended adolescence is really disingenuous.

The North American quality in women is so low. I highly doubt this "70%" is in South America as well. It's also one thing for quality to be low--- but it gets compounded when THEIR standard/demand is so high. Is it hyperbole to say that 80% of relationships (in North America) have guys dating down?(and not realizing it)

[lemko]

(03-12-2015 10:00 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:34 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

I'm 30 and only a couple of my friends from HS are married. Many have kids and long term girlfriends, but don't seem to be in a hurry to get married.

I'd say most guys from HS don't have particularly well paying jobs, even the college educated ones. Most don't own homes and mostly seem to living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, most of us come from lower-middle class families whose parents struggled their whole lives also. So there isn't much family money or connections. The ones I see doing best career wise seem to be firefighters. They make decent cash, but throw in a wife, baby and mortgage and they are basically living paycheck to paycheck also I think.

From what I see, it seems more difficult for people now to get a job that pays enough to live that American dream that leads to marriage, having kids, buying homes, etc.

My grandpa is 76. He got out of the army, went to work for PG&E for 30 years, got married, raised a family, bought a home, and got a very good retirement. Maybe it's just the area I'm from, but I don't really see that happening much anymore.

Combine all of that with divorce and custody laws and I think men my age just don't want to get married. I also think they see how miserable their parents are and don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

I'm guessing you are originally from the US. I have observed the same thing in the UK.

Basically, a typical family, with one wage, used to be able to save for a mortgage, and buy a house. When the parents got older, they could sell their house, buy a smaller one, and live comfortably on the remaining money. That is not possible now. In the UK, most people who want to get on the property ladder will have to have to wages coming in. That is not good for developing a family and suits the feminist agenda.

So what we've observed is more of a socio-economic change, than a cultural change(ie: influenced by feminism), but it is a change that suits the feminist agenda(no social stigma for women who chose to not be mothers at home etc).

The "Ward and June Cleaver" lifestyle is a thing of the past. To do the same thing today, Ward better be a multi-millionaire and super-alpha.