The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Siphonaptera
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A letter to the editor in the New York Times:

Wealth Gap for Families
May 31, 2018

To the Editor:

Re “The Wealth Gap Hits Families Hardest

NYT headline writers are just trolling us now.

(Sunday Review, May 20): Christina Gibson-Davis and Christine Percheski’s essay about the decline of wealth in families with children should be alarming to anyone concerned with the well-being of future generations.

Although they mentioned several variables that have an effect on the wealth of such families (mortgage debt and education debt), there is one they did not explore.

The cost of child care has been rising, eating away at any raises in wages parents might receive. According to Taryn Morrissey of American University, the average cost of child care nationally exceeds $8,600 a year. …

Moreover, workers who provide such care, often parents themselves, are frequently underpaid and unable to accumulate wealth.

AMY LAIKEN, CHICAGO

The solution is clearly to let in lots more impoverished parent immigrants to take care of the children of people already here. And since splitting up families is the worst thing ever, the child care workers’ children must be brought in to. And so even poorer immigrant parents must be admitted to look after the children of the poor immigrant child care providers, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

 
Hide 106 CommentsLeave a Comment
106 Comments to "Siphonaptera"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. donut says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. eric says:

    child care costs too much, but many parents are child care workers, so we just pay the child care workers more to lower the cost of child care. Makes perfect sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Couldn't these idlers make up the difference by taking in each other's washing? And breaking a few windows on the way home after delivering it? Soon have the local micro-economy going gangbusters.
    , @TheJester
    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of "daycare" on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes ... with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, "Whoever wills the end wills the means". Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most ... their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Here in New York, we have a tradition of employing West Indian ladies, legal and illegal, to take care of the children Upper West Side ladies don’t want to take care of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    Amazed that you daily see Park Slope, UWS and UES parents in essence having Caribbean women raising their children, rolling strollers around with white kids. Even see it among some Orthodox Jewish families. Will never understand it. And yet they look down their noses at outer borough and suburban typical middle class white people who have older relatives or the childrens' moms do the actual job.
    , @Forbes
    The number of brown women pushing strollers with/minding white children in Manhattan is astonishing. And the truly silly part is that only a fraction of the white mothers are working. Having a nanny, and/or a housekeeper to collect the kids from school, is part of the status signaling game.
    , @donut
    In the 90's the Upper West side was my area . I noticed it even then up by Colombia U. I never liked that part of town , for me it was just the run down , large apts. of the elderly reeking of age and loneliness . Time capsules , picture from the 30's . And Bill the dachshund .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.
     
    Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood?

    I am not at all sure there's not a chicken and egg question here. Does affluence promote marriage, or is it a precondition of marriage?

    How do we know, for example that the statistics you cite aren't at least partially a result of working-class abandonment of marriage, which really is just "a piece of paper" now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Five children and none of them ever paid me for raising them. Well, there were nice ties at Father’s Day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    Ben Franklin's son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing . His son was the loyalist Governor of N.J. He moved to Canada after the war .

    See : "A Little Revenge: Benjamin Franklin and His Son" . By Willard Sterne Randall .
    , @dr kill
    Four for us, including a BS at the school of their choice. I only wish we had gone for six. If you don't have children, you don't know shit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. It’s a classic pyramid scheme. They never seem to work out very well at all in the long run. If you’re gonna be part of this one, you want to be one of those New Yorkers getting in on the top floor.

    Perhaps, like Communism, it’s just that nobody’s implemented Pyramidism right …. except the Egyptians, of course. The Mayans, nah, they needed lots more large-grit sandpaper to make those things smoother.

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @ic1000
    Back in the Seventies, First Wave feminists struggled with the Kid Problem, i.e. June Cleaver chained in the kitchen rather than smashing glass ceilings a la Hillary!. I recall some conversations that presage this NYT thumbsucker, along the lines of, "every* woman deserves domestic help".

    * every Seven Sisters alumna living on the Upper West Side whose NOW dues are paid-up.

    I wonder if there are actual quotes that could illustrate this quaint, yet charmingly Current Year, mindset?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Bugg says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Here in New York, we have a tradition of employing West Indian ladies, legal and illegal, to take care of the children Upper West Side ladies don't want to take care of.

    Amazed that you daily see Park Slope, UWS and UES parents in essence having Caribbean women raising their children, rolling strollers around with white kids. Even see it among some Orthodox Jewish families. Will never understand it. And yet they look down their noses at outer borough and suburban typical middle class white people who have older relatives or the childrens’ moms do the actual job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Bugg:

    Note as in Comment #3 that it is Caribbean black women, not native American black women.

    I wonder why?

    , @Anne Lid
    I was a weekend nanny for such a family fifteen years ago. They started out with a lady from the West Indies, who chatted so animatedly with her friends that the baby crawled away and was nearly run over by a car. After that they had Hungarian nannies ( we arrived with tourist visas). The housekeeper was a sweet Brazilian woman, who was a teacher back in. I have fond memories of the kids. The parents were decent people, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. donut says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Five children and none of them ever paid me for raising them. Well, there were nice ties at Father's Day.

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing . His son was the loyalist Governor of N.J. He moved to Canada after the war .

    See : “A Little Revenge: Benjamin Franklin and His Son” . By Willard Sterne Randall .

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing .
     
    How much did Ben pay his parents for the cost of his upbringing?
    , @Buffalo Joe
    donut, thank you my friend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. The parenting Americans just won’t do. The children left rotting on the vines.

    Read More
    • LOL: Mishra
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Rosie says:
    @The Practical Conservative
    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents' median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.

    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.

    Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood?

    I am not at all sure there’s not a chicken and egg question here. Does affluence promote marriage, or is it a precondition of marriage?

    How do we know, for example that the statistics you cite aren’t at least partially a result of working-class abandonment of marriage, which really is just “a piece of paper” now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    The point is that the NYT would rather flatten the distinctions in family structure so people really think a bunch of married parents are super poor when that's no longer the norm.

    It's definitely at least partial, we've traded letting white noncollege women have children in marriage for Hispanic nonhighschool and noncollege women doing so half the time and we've gotten a boost in nerdy white women who love completing multiple degrees having kids in marriage. Needless to say, the trade hasn't increased total fertility.
    , @Flip
    Charles Murray's solution to single motherhood was for the government not to pay for illegitimate children. It would pay for abortions or orphanages. If a woman couldn't support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.
    , @Forbes
    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it? Affluence is the result of wealth creation--which is neither the condition of the median (20-something) couple getting married, or the median (40-something) household.

    Marriage promotes stability and responsibility. Marriage viewed as just a piece of paper will be counter-productive.

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together--don't get pregnant unless you're married. Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @donut
    Ben Franklin's son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing . His son was the loyalist Governor of N.J. He moved to Canada after the war .

    See : "A Little Revenge: Benjamin Franklin and His Son" . By Willard Sterne Randall .

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing .

    How much did Ben pay his parents for the cost of his upbringing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    You're a soft bastard Sailer . Soup from the top .
    , @donut
    How the f++k would I know ?
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    When still a teenager, Benjamin Franklin left an apprenticeship at his brother's printing shop in Boston, moved to Philadelphia, set up his own printing business, and went on to become the prototype American and one of the greatest human beings who have ever lived.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. donut says:

    “Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood? ” Neuter those bitches .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Dr. X says:

    The cost of child care has been rising, eating away at any raises in wages parents might receive. According to Taryn Morrissey of American University, the average cost of child care nationally exceeds $8,600 a year. …

    Moreover, workers who provide such care, often parents themselves, are frequently underpaid and unable to accumulate wealth.

    I raised my own kid. (Valedictorian and got an appointment to a service academy, BTW).

    My wife had a better job than I did so I raised my own kid. Best thing I ever did, by far. A LOT of day-care workers are white trash, Mexicans, or blacks making minimum wage. Far too often, not quality people at all (all exceptions duly noted).

    I couldn’t fathom dumping my kid off on such people — and paying for it with money I really didn’t have anyway.

    The main reason I tried (unsuccessfully) to get into the education racket was that my schedule was largely synchronized with my kid’s.

    I never did — and still don’t — have much of a career. I couldn’t afford a new car until my kid joined the military — and it was a base model at that. But I don’t regret one single second I spent with my kid, who is now very successful and very well-adjusted.

    The “whole work-your-ass-off-so-you-can pay-daycare-to-have-morons-raise-your-kids-while-you’re-kissing-your-asshole-boss’s-ass-and-then-your-kid-turns-out-to-be-a-drug-addict-who-hates-you” rat race is a losing game.

    Don’t play.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Anon
    I agree totally. I also think people shouldn’t work unless their net income after payroll deductions & commuting expenses is double the income of a single parent and 2 kids in their state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. donut says:
    @ben tillman

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing .
     
    How much did Ben pay his parents for the cost of his upbringing?

    You’re a soft bastard Sailer . Soup from the top .

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Hey donut, what would you say gets a comment through moderation here?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. donut says:
    @ben tillman

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing .
     
    How much did Ben pay his parents for the cost of his upbringing?

    How the f++k would I know ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Happy National Donut Day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSvNhxKJJyU
    , @AndrewR
    You are one grumpy troll.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Happy National Donut Day!

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/47/d6/24/47d62463243e6afd6434392f35580abe.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. donut says:

    And now for something completely different .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Tiny Duck says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Dan Hayes says:
    @Bugg
    Amazed that you daily see Park Slope, UWS and UES parents in essence having Caribbean women raising their children, rolling strollers around with white kids. Even see it among some Orthodox Jewish families. Will never understand it. And yet they look down their noses at outer borough and suburban typical middle class white people who have older relatives or the childrens' moms do the actual job.

    Bugg:

    Note as in Comment #3 that it is Caribbean black women, not native American black women.

    I wonder why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. donut says:

    Phoebe Cates .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. donut says:

    You’re a soft bastard Sailer . Soup from the top .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. donut says:

    “up up to da sky .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:

    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180531/visa-woes-have-summer-businesses-looking-to-puerto-ricans

    Frustrated by red tape and visa limits on foreign workers, tourism businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans who are fleeing a shattered economy and devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.
    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired a half-dozen Puerto Ricans last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff. This summer he is doubling the number, and he would like to hire even more.
    Louis Morales, 50, of Comerio, Puerto Rico, is happy to be here because he makes double the salary he would back home, where jobs are scarce.

    Almost like we never needed the foreign workers, as if the sole purpose was to reduce wages…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra

    businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans
     
    Oh the humanity!
    , @AndrewR
    I'm not here to dispute your claim, and I'm not exactly an expert on PR, but it's worth noting that the population of PR is only about 1% of the US population, and I don't think there has ever been as much of a push-factor for Puerto Ricans to migrate to the mainland in the last century as last year's hurricane was.
    , @Forbes
    Seasonal tourism workers doing housekeeping (cleaning), landscaping (lawn mowing) and kitchen (dishwasher) work--summer jobs formerly filled by high school and college kids. Summer jobs that filled students with the experience of paid work, some sweat and effort, showing up on time, learning to take instructions/follow orders, and other on-the-job experiences that will serve them well in their working years ahead.

    A 50-year old man taking (unskilled) seasonal work at a rate double his home rate tells you all you need to know about his (third world) standard of living at home.
    , @bomag

    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired (non locals) last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff.
     
    If the local labor force can't supply these needs, that community is probably better off with fewer resorts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. J.Ross says: • Website
    @donut
    You're a soft bastard Sailer . Soup from the top .

    Hey donut, what would you say gets a comment through moderation here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Donating to Sailer's tin cup.
    , @Anonym
    I wonder what the rest of the donut post iceberg looks like.
    , @donut
    Sailers whim and common sense .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Rosie

    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.
     
    Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood?

    I am not at all sure there's not a chicken and egg question here. Does affluence promote marriage, or is it a precondition of marriage?

    How do we know, for example that the statistics you cite aren't at least partially a result of working-class abandonment of marriage, which really is just "a piece of paper" now?

    The point is that the NYT would rather flatten the distinctions in family structure so people really think a bunch of married parents are super poor when that’s no longer the norm.

    It’s definitely at least partial, we’ve traded letting white noncollege women have children in marriage for Hispanic nonhighschool and noncollege women doing so half the time and we’ve gotten a boost in nerdy white women who love completing multiple degrees having kids in marriage. Needless to say, the trade hasn’t increased total fertility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    This country would be far far far better if is the population went down to 200 million Whites.

    Only slumlords and sweatshop owners welcome increase in population because it increases the number of desperate workers and tenants
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:

    In a world with no welfare, no public schools, no income taxes, no advanced medical technology, it made no difference if 80 IQ people bred. In fact they were a societal benefit to the ten percent of people who were not common peasants, because they were the food providers.

    But this is not Galt’s Gulch, nor is it Anarcholibertaria.

    And it never will be..

    Stupid featherless bipeds will have some claim on the productive efforts of societally functional ones simply because they are “Human Beings”. And they will take up space and they will be difficult or impossible for the rest of us to live amongst.

    There are solutions, just not ones most people now find palatable.

    The least bad solution to me seems to make accomodations for them to live their lives out, while keeping them from reproducing and from having an effective voice in the polity, e.g., voting.

    Contemplate amongst yourselves.

    In the meantime, consider that in racially homogenous and self directed Japan, they have “Owl Cafes” where you can have a cup of coffee and look at, even pet the owls. Very kawaii.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Thursday is trash day in my area. After a major holiday like Memorial Day, the waste always gets picked up on Friday, unsurprisingly. It's been this way for years. And of course, the local government has printed and online calendars of waste pickup in case you want to be sure.

    I noticed yesterday that a solid 1/3 of my neighbors put their waste out yesterday, 100% of whom, I presume, thought that the waste would get picked up yesterday. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the waste pickup procedure has been the same for years. Waste workers have been getting holidays off my entire adult life and probably longer.

    All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the simplest, and fairest, way of determining who may and may not vote would be the "not putting your waste out on the normal day of the week after Memorial Day" test. People who fail it should definitely not be allowed to vote, and they probably shouldn't be allowed to breed. Case in point: I was out for a walk yesterday and some idiot backed out of his driveway in his pickup truck, which he likely has no need for, and hit his own recycling bin, which shouldn't have been out there to begin with.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Berty says:

    Trump truly angers and baffles me. He betrays his base on immigration and Syria constantly, yet is willing to oppose his party and engage in a trade war that might end up hurting his party and the economy in general.

    Fucking madness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. donut says:

    Our resistance is haphazard and rudderless . When we find a “leader” we will be unstoppable .

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Who better than you to lead us?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT WHITHER CANADA
    The successful introduction of Somali and Jamaican culture to Toronto prompts Canadians to discuss their country.

    Tory calls Toronto shootings ‘shocking’ amid wave of gun deaths
    By JENNA MOONStaff Reporter
    Thu., May 31, 2018
    Mayor John Tory has issued a statement condemning the rash of shootings across Toronto in recent days.

    “The incidents of gun violence we have seen in our city in the past few days are shocking and can in no way be accepted or brushed aside,” Tory said. “As mayor, I am troubled by every act of violence in our city regardless of where it happens.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/31/tory-calls-toronto-shootings-shocking-amid-wave-of-gun-deaths.html

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/173647708

    Yorkdale is now all upper class asian ladies from richmond hill walking around on 9 inch stiletto heels its hilarious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Canada really seems to be stuffed with liberal idiots who complain about racism if one gets disturbed by white girls being caught in the dindu crossfire. Astonishing.

    See:

    Jane Creba

    Vivi Lemonis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. donut says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @donut
    How the f++k would I know ?

    Happy National Donut Day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    You beat me to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:

    Yep.

    Something that so-called ‘progressives’ are very quiet about is that the ultimate burden of the great ‘childcare’ racket is paid by *the children* ie the most vulnerable and blameless of those at the very bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid, which in the modern USA more or less coincides with new third world immigrants.
    The upshot is that the present system – pushed hard by the diversity, feminist, Democrat, Economist lobbies – more or less institutionalizes the vicious exploitation of marginalized women – who are obligated to abandon and neglect caring for their *own* children – in order to care for *other* women’s children – women of higher socioeconomic status.

    A peculiarly vicious and exploitative system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Mishra says:
    @Anon
    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180531/visa-woes-have-summer-businesses-looking-to-puerto-ricans

    Frustrated by red tape and visa limits on foreign workers, tourism businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans who are fleeing a shattered economy and devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.
    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired a half-dozen Puerto Ricans last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff. This summer he is doubling the number, and he would like to hire even more.
    Louis Morales, 50, of Comerio, Puerto Rico, is happy to be here because he makes double the salary he would back home, where jobs are scarce.
     
    Almost like we never needed the foreign workers, as if the sole purpose was to reduce wages...

    businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans

    Oh the humanity!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. AndrewR says:
    @donut
    How the f++k would I know ?

    You are one grumpy troll.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @eric
    child care costs too much, but many parents are child care workers, so we just pay the child care workers more to lower the cost of child care. Makes perfect sense.

    Couldn’t these idlers make up the difference by taking in each other’s washing? And breaking a few windows on the way home after delivering it? Soon have the local micro-economy going gangbusters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @J.Ross
    Hey donut, what would you say gets a comment through moderation here?

    Donating to Sailer’s tin cup.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. AndrewR says:
    @Anon
    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180531/visa-woes-have-summer-businesses-looking-to-puerto-ricans

    Frustrated by red tape and visa limits on foreign workers, tourism businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans who are fleeing a shattered economy and devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.
    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired a half-dozen Puerto Ricans last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff. This summer he is doubling the number, and he would like to hire even more.
    Louis Morales, 50, of Comerio, Puerto Rico, is happy to be here because he makes double the salary he would back home, where jobs are scarce.
     
    Almost like we never needed the foreign workers, as if the sole purpose was to reduce wages...

    I’m not here to dispute your claim, and I’m not exactly an expert on PR, but it’s worth noting that the population of PR is only about 1% of the US population, and I don’t think there has ever been as much of a push-factor for Puerto Ricans to migrate to the mainland in the last century as last year’s hurricane was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. AndrewR says:
    @donut
    Our resistance is haphazard and rudderless . When we find a "leader" we will be unstoppable .

    Who better than you to lead us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    https://youtu.be/Fm71Khu5-Lk
    , @donut
    Why would you say that ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    In a world with no welfare, no public schools, no income taxes, no advanced medical technology, it made no difference if 80 IQ people bred. In fact they were a societal benefit to the ten percent of people who were not common peasants, because they were the food providers.

    But this is not Galt's Gulch, nor is it Anarcholibertaria.

    And it never will be..

    Stupid featherless bipeds will have some claim on the productive efforts of societally functional ones simply because they are "Human Beings". And they will take up space and they will be difficult or impossible for the rest of us to live amongst.

    There are solutions, just not ones most people now find palatable.

    The least bad solution to me seems to make accomodations for them to live their lives out, while keeping them from reproducing and from having an effective voice in the polity, e.g., voting.

    Contemplate amongst yourselves.

    In the meantime, consider that in racially homogenous and self directed Japan, they have "Owl Cafes" where you can have a cup of coffee and look at, even pet the owls. Very kawaii.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqDksXAWA0s

    Thursday is trash day in my area. After a major holiday like Memorial Day, the waste always gets picked up on Friday, unsurprisingly. It’s been this way for years. And of course, the local government has printed and online calendars of waste pickup in case you want to be sure.

    I noticed yesterday that a solid 1/3 of my neighbors put their waste out yesterday, 100% of whom, I presume, thought that the waste would get picked up yesterday. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the waste pickup procedure has been the same for years. Waste workers have been getting holidays off my entire adult life and probably longer.

    All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the simplest, and fairest, way of determining who may and may not vote would be the “not putting your waste out on the normal day of the week after Memorial Day” test. People who fail it should definitely not be allowed to vote, and they probably shouldn’t be allowed to breed. Case in point: I was out for a walk yesterday and some idiot backed out of his driveway in his pickup truck, which he likely has no need for, and hit his own recycling bin, which shouldn’t have been out there to begin with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elsewhere
    Hey! I resemble this comment. Some of us have a weekly alarm on our phones to remind us to take out the garbage, and obviously it doesn't make exceptions for Monday holidays. It's easy to fail to remember in the evening that there was a holiday several days ago. What's the big deal with a garbage can and recycling bin staying out front for a whole extra 24 hours?

    I do wonder if we live near each other, though probably many municipalities have the same policy.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Oh please. We have the same thing where I live. You sound like one of these guys:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bchnLOT7ic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. And so even poorer immigrant parents must be admitted to look after the children of the poor immigrant child care providers, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

    Hey that sounds like a growth strategy! Our economic problems are solved.

    It fits right into globalist thinking. Open borders plus The Most Important Graph in the World™ both make sense now.

    Everything is going to be fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Anonym says:
    @J.Ross
    Hey donut, what would you say gets a comment through moderation here?

    I wonder what the rest of the donut post iceberg looks like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anonym says:
    @AndrewR
    Who better than you to lead us?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. dr kill says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Five children and none of them ever paid me for raising them. Well, there were nice ties at Father's Day.

    Four for us, including a BS at the school of their choice. I only wish we had gone for six. If you don’t have children, you don’t know shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I know plenty of parents who don't know shit, and it seems like the average parent knows less and less with each passing year.

    I'm not talking about all those wonderful "pet parents" (gag).
    , @Buffalo Joe
    dr kill, there is no bigger accomplishment in life than raising successful children. NONE!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. TheJester says:
    @eric
    child care costs too much, but many parents are child care workers, so we just pay the child care workers more to lower the cost of child care. Makes perfect sense.

    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of “daycare” on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes … with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, “Whoever wills the end wills the means”. Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most … their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eric
    Taoism, Judaism, and Christianity emphasize the will (aka heart) as the key to one's essence, as this defines what you really want. But clearly there are intellectuals who think that massive redistribution will minimize suffering or maximize happiness, and when it becomes a nightmare I can see how they are responsible, but I'm not convinced they all necessarily wanted the means (eg, killing kulaks).

    Perhaps it's better to characterize it as "any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end," in that if you think you'll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns--the latest thousand-year Reich--there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.
    , @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    Well stated.
    , @Forbes
    This deserves a gold border to highlight--if they're still in use.
    , @Anon
    You must be able to support your wife and 2 or 3 children in middle class comfort. The rest of us are not so lucky and the wives have to work.

    The whole feminazi send all the middle class wives to work was a successful Rockefeller / Ford Foundation effort to lower wages by increasing the work force.

    And it worked
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Bill B. says:
    @J.Ross
    OT WHITHER CANADA
    The successful introduction of Somali and Jamaican culture to Toronto prompts Canadians to discuss their country.

    Tory calls Toronto shootings ‘shocking’ amid wave of gun deaths
    By JENNA MOONStaff Reporter
    Thu., May 31, 2018
    Mayor John Tory has issued a statement condemning the rash of shootings across Toronto in recent days.

    “The incidents of gun violence we have seen in our city in the past few days are shocking and can in no way be accepted or brushed aside,” Tory said. “As mayor, I am troubled by every act of violence in our city regardless of where it happens.
     
    https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/31/tory-calls-toronto-shootings-shocking-amid-wave-of-gun-deaths.html

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/173647708

    Yorkdale is now all upper class asian ladies from richmond hill walking around on 9 inch stiletto heels its hilarious.
     

    Canada really seems to be stuffed with liberal idiots who complain about racism if one gets disturbed by white girls being caught in the dindu crossfire. Astonishing.

    See:

    Jane Creba

    Vivi Lemonis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anne Lid says:
    @Bugg
    Amazed that you daily see Park Slope, UWS and UES parents in essence having Caribbean women raising their children, rolling strollers around with white kids. Even see it among some Orthodox Jewish families. Will never understand it. And yet they look down their noses at outer borough and suburban typical middle class white people who have older relatives or the childrens' moms do the actual job.

    I was a weekend nanny for such a family fifteen years ago. They started out with a lady from the West Indies, who chatted so animatedly with her friends that the baby crawled away and was nearly run over by a car. After that they had Hungarian nannies ( we arrived with tourist visas). The housekeeper was a sweet Brazilian woman, who was a teacher back in. I have fond memories of the kids. The parents were decent people, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. ic1000 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    It's a classic pyramid scheme. They never seem to work out very well at all in the long run. If you're gonna be part of this one, you want to be one of those New Yorkers getting in on the top floor.

    Perhaps, like Communism, it's just that nobody's implemented Pyramidism right .... except the Egyptians, of course. The Mayans, nah, they needed lots more large-grit sandpaper to make those things smoother.

    Back in the Seventies, First Wave feminists struggled with the Kid Problem, i.e. June Cleaver chained in the kitchen rather than smashing glass ceilings a la Hillary!. I recall some conversations that presage this NYT thumbsucker, along the lines of, “every* woman deserves domestic help”.

    * every Seven Sisters alumna living on the Upper West Side whose NOW dues are paid-up.

    I wonder if there are actual quotes that could illustrate this quaint, yet charmingly Current Year, mindset?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I thought those feminists were the 2nd wave, IC, but it's hard to keep track... probably best to avoid all the breakers by staying beyond the dunes, i.e. across the river in New Jersey.

    You could find some quotes, I'm sure, to prove your point. Anyway, The Jester above explained how socially evil the pushing of females into the full-time workforce was very well just above.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. eric says:
    @TheJester
    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of "daycare" on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes ... with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, "Whoever wills the end wills the means". Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most ... their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.

    Taoism, Judaism, and Christianity emphasize the will (aka heart) as the key to one’s essence, as this defines what you really want. But clearly there are intellectuals who think that massive redistribution will minimize suffering or maximize happiness, and when it becomes a nightmare I can see how they are responsible, but I’m not convinced they all necessarily wanted the means (eg, killing kulaks).

    Perhaps it’s better to characterize it as “any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end,” in that if you think you’ll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns–the latest thousand-year Reich–there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester

    Perhaps it’s better to characterize it as “any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end,” in that if you think you’ll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns–the latest thousand-year Reich–there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.
     
    Are you being sarcastic ... or do you mean it? If you mean it, you have company. The end justifies the means! Indeed, there were many prominent Nazis who in good faith voiced that, "Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let's get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible ... and, well, we'll get there."

    Come to think of it, the Communists had the same moral sense. The combined death toll on both their consciences was about 130,000,000 people ... and neither of their ideologies successfully made the bloody transition to utopia.

    Modern feminism is nothing more than the Cultural Marxist or social component of Communism. "Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let's get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible ..." We're in the ugly stuff. The ugly stuff involves replacing Christianity with atheism and destroying the traditional family and its values.

    A quick look at Western Civilization, especially the EU and the East and Left Coasts of the United States, and things are not going well. The EU is in worse condition than the United States. At the end of WWII, when it looked like France, Germany, and Italy might go communist, the establishment made a fatal concordat with the Left. The capitalists could keep their factories ... and the bankers could keep their banks. However, the social portfolios would be given to the socialists and Communists. Today, the EU is an authoritarian bureaucracy in which the capitalists have their factories, the bankers have their banks, and the Cultural Marxists control the schools and welfare apparatus.

    Wherever the EU goes, the cultural rot follows. Ireland it the latest victim. We just got back from a 10-day vacation in Ireland. Our tour guide commented that one has to be skeptical when anyone, especially young people, tells you they're married; they are more likely "partners". It was also interesting to see young women reveling in the streets when the abortion referendum recently passed ... celebrating the fact that women in the Irish Republic just won the right to kill their babies. The Irish also had previously passed a referendum approving same-sex marriage. The current Prime Minister is a homosexual.

    As an addendum to the newly minted Irish Cultural Marxism, the Irish will tell you how they revel in cash that the EU has thrown at them to motivate them to buy into the Cultural Marxist agenda. Get with the program ... or, the cash flow will stop. The EU and its subsidies are the best things that ever happened to Ireland.

    Gabrielle Kuby has an excellent book, "The Global Sexual Revolution - The Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom," that documents how the EU bureaucracy systematically goes about imposing its Cultural Marxist agenda on member states.

    https://www.amazon.com/Global-Sexual-Revolution-Destruction-Freedom-ebook/dp/B01I0QX7D2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1527888332&sr=1-1&keywords=the+global+sexual+revolution

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @ben tillman

    Ben Franklin’s son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing .
     
    How much did Ben pay his parents for the cost of his upbringing?

    When still a teenager, Benjamin Franklin left an apprenticeship at his brother’s printing shop in Boston, moved to Philadelphia, set up his own printing business, and went on to become the prototype American and one of the greatest human beings who have ever lived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Happy National Donut Day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSvNhxKJJyU

    You beat me to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Elsewhere says:
    @AndrewR
    Thursday is trash day in my area. After a major holiday like Memorial Day, the waste always gets picked up on Friday, unsurprisingly. It's been this way for years. And of course, the local government has printed and online calendars of waste pickup in case you want to be sure.

    I noticed yesterday that a solid 1/3 of my neighbors put their waste out yesterday, 100% of whom, I presume, thought that the waste would get picked up yesterday. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the waste pickup procedure has been the same for years. Waste workers have been getting holidays off my entire adult life and probably longer.

    All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the simplest, and fairest, way of determining who may and may not vote would be the "not putting your waste out on the normal day of the week after Memorial Day" test. People who fail it should definitely not be allowed to vote, and they probably shouldn't be allowed to breed. Case in point: I was out for a walk yesterday and some idiot backed out of his driveway in his pickup truck, which he likely has no need for, and hit his own recycling bin, which shouldn't have been out there to begin with.

    Hey! I resemble this comment. Some of us have a weekly alarm on our phones to remind us to take out the garbage, and obviously it doesn’t make exceptions for Monday holidays. It’s easy to fail to remember in the evening that there was a holiday several days ago. What’s the big deal with a garbage can and recycling bin staying out front for a whole extra 24 hours?

    I do wonder if we live near each other, though probably many municipalities have the same policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @donut
    How the f++k would I know ?

    Happy National Donut Day!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. JimB says:

    Yes, and having fewer children at greater cost means white yuppie parents expect big returns on their investment, so a child has no alternative but to kill herself when she doesn’t get into Princeton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s the Asians who kill them selves when they don’t get into Princeton. One of the mostly Asian ultra ultra private high schools in San Francisco has so many of these suicides it’s been nicknamed Saint Suicide.

    The Whites have the money to send their kids on one of those 10 day $10,000 airfare not included trips to Africa to “help” Africans build their mud and straw huts. That makes up for the stigma of checking the White box on the application

    What a hoot, kids who’ve never even washed the car or mowed the lawn or even loaded the dishwasher pretending to build huts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Brutusale says:
    @dr kill
    Four for us, including a BS at the school of their choice. I only wish we had gone for six. If you don't have children, you don't know shit.

    I know plenty of parents who don’t know shit, and it seems like the average parent knows less and less with each passing year.

    I’m not talking about all those wonderful “pet parents” (gag).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @ic1000
    Back in the Seventies, First Wave feminists struggled with the Kid Problem, i.e. June Cleaver chained in the kitchen rather than smashing glass ceilings a la Hillary!. I recall some conversations that presage this NYT thumbsucker, along the lines of, "every* woman deserves domestic help".

    * every Seven Sisters alumna living on the Upper West Side whose NOW dues are paid-up.

    I wonder if there are actual quotes that could illustrate this quaint, yet charmingly Current Year, mindset?

    I thought those feminists were the 2nd wave, IC, but it’s hard to keep track… probably best to avoid all the breakers by staying beyond the dunes, i.e. across the river in New Jersey.

    You could find some quotes, I’m sure, to prove your point. Anyway, The Jester above explained how socially evil the pushing of females into the full-time workforce was very well just above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Flip says:
    @Rosie

    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.
     
    Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood?

    I am not at all sure there's not a chicken and egg question here. Does affluence promote marriage, or is it a precondition of marriage?

    How do we know, for example that the statistics you cite aren't at least partially a result of working-class abandonment of marriage, which really is just "a piece of paper" now?

    Charles Murray’s solution to single motherhood was for the government not to pay for illegitimate children. It would pay for abortions or orphanages. If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.
     
    In other words, let the fathers off the hook. That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor's prison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Forbes says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Here in New York, we have a tradition of employing West Indian ladies, legal and illegal, to take care of the children Upper West Side ladies don't want to take care of.

    The number of brown women pushing strollers with/minding white children in Manhattan is astonishing. And the truly silly part is that only a fraction of the white mothers are working. Having a nanny, and/or a housekeeper to collect the kids from school, is part of the status signaling game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Forbes says:
    @Rosie

    Married parents have median household incomes that are 3.5x or so of what single parents’ median is. That is, two married parents are working hard enough to make as much money as 3.5 single parent (mom) households do. But this math is never going to make it into the NYT.
     
    Suppose it did. What is the solution to single motherhood?

    I am not at all sure there's not a chicken and egg question here. Does affluence promote marriage, or is it a precondition of marriage?

    How do we know, for example that the statistics you cite aren't at least partially a result of working-class abandonment of marriage, which really is just "a piece of paper" now?

    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it? Affluence is the result of wealth creation–which is neither the condition of the median (20-something) couple getting married, or the median (40-something) household.

    Marriage promotes stability and responsibility. Marriage viewed as just a piece of paper will be counter-productive.

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together–don’t get pregnant unless you’re married. Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together–don’t get pregnant unless you’re married.
     
    Nonsense. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is nothing new, and it will never go away. What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.
    , @Rosie

    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it?
     
    If nobody has any money, legal marriage is an inconsequential formality under a no-fault system. I suspect working class people know this and just aren't bothering. I don't think marriage promotes stability anymore, either. Without a supportive culture, the law doesn't matter.
    , @Rosie

    Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control…
     
    So girls can ride the dreaded "cock carousel," I suppose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Forbes says:
    @Anon
    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180531/visa-woes-have-summer-businesses-looking-to-puerto-ricans

    Frustrated by red tape and visa limits on foreign workers, tourism businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans who are fleeing a shattered economy and devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.
    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired a half-dozen Puerto Ricans last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff. This summer he is doubling the number, and he would like to hire even more.
    Louis Morales, 50, of Comerio, Puerto Rico, is happy to be here because he makes double the salary he would back home, where jobs are scarce.
     
    Almost like we never needed the foreign workers, as if the sole purpose was to reduce wages...

    Seasonal tourism workers doing housekeeping (cleaning), landscaping (lawn mowing) and kitchen (dishwasher) work–summer jobs formerly filled by high school and college kids. Summer jobs that filled students with the experience of paid work, some sweat and effort, showing up on time, learning to take instructions/follow orders, and other on-the-job experiences that will serve them well in their working years ahead.

    A 50-year old man taking (unskilled) seasonal work at a rate double his home rate tells you all you need to know about his (third world) standard of living at home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. JamesG says: • Website

    Conservatives have failed to denounce the importation of this European emphasis on disparity, gap or whatever phrase refers to differences.

    No the “wealth gap” does not hit families.

    What hits (some) families is the absence of wealth.

    The notion that the absence of wealth implies that some families have “too much” wealth is simple unadulterated envy. You know, the mother-ideology behind communism and naziism .

    Envy is a Europeand disease. Leave it there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. bomag says:
    @Anon
    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20180531/visa-woes-have-summer-businesses-looking-to-puerto-ricans

    Frustrated by red tape and visa limits on foreign workers, tourism businesses from Maine to Missouri are turning to Puerto Ricans who are fleeing a shattered economy and devastation caused by Hurricane Maria.
    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired a half-dozen Puerto Ricans last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff. This summer he is doubling the number, and he would like to hire even more.
    Louis Morales, 50, of Comerio, Puerto Rico, is happy to be here because he makes double the salary he would back home, where jobs are scarce.
     
    Almost like we never needed the foreign workers, as if the sole purpose was to reduce wages...

    Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phippsburg, hired (non locals) last summer for housekeeping, landscaping and kitchen work, providing relief to his overworked staff.

    If the local labor force can’t supply these needs, that community is probably better off with fewer resorts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @TheJester
    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of "daycare" on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes ... with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, "Whoever wills the end wills the means". Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most ... their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.

    Well stated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @dr kill
    Four for us, including a BS at the school of their choice. I only wish we had gone for six. If you don't have children, you don't know shit.

    dr kill, there is no bigger accomplishment in life than raising successful children. NONE!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @donut
    Ben Franklin's son . Ben hounded him into his adulthood for the cost of his upbringing . His son was the loyalist Governor of N.J. He moved to Canada after the war .

    See : "A Little Revenge: Benjamin Franklin and His Son" . By Willard Sterne Randall .

    donut, thank you my friend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. TheJester says:
    @eric
    Taoism, Judaism, and Christianity emphasize the will (aka heart) as the key to one's essence, as this defines what you really want. But clearly there are intellectuals who think that massive redistribution will minimize suffering or maximize happiness, and when it becomes a nightmare I can see how they are responsible, but I'm not convinced they all necessarily wanted the means (eg, killing kulaks).

    Perhaps it's better to characterize it as "any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end," in that if you think you'll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns--the latest thousand-year Reich--there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.

    Perhaps it’s better to characterize it as “any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end,” in that if you think you’ll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns–the latest thousand-year Reich–there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.

    Are you being sarcastic … or do you mean it? If you mean it, you have company. The end justifies the means! Indeed, there were many prominent Nazis who in good faith voiced that, “Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let’s get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible … and, well, we’ll get there.”

    Come to think of it, the Communists had the same moral sense. The combined death toll on both their consciences was about 130,000,000 people … and neither of their ideologies successfully made the bloody transition to utopia.

    Modern feminism is nothing more than the Cultural Marxist or social component of Communism. “Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let’s get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible …” We’re in the ugly stuff. The ugly stuff involves replacing Christianity with atheism and destroying the traditional family and its values.

    A quick look at Western Civilization, especially the EU and the East and Left Coasts of the United States, and things are not going well. The EU is in worse condition than the United States. At the end of WWII, when it looked like France, Germany, and Italy might go communist, the establishment made a fatal concordat with the Left. The capitalists could keep their factories … and the bankers could keep their banks. However, the social portfolios would be given to the socialists and Communists. Today, the EU is an authoritarian bureaucracy in which the capitalists have their factories, the bankers have their banks, and the Cultural Marxists control the schools and welfare apparatus.

    Wherever the EU goes, the cultural rot follows. Ireland it the latest victim. We just got back from a 10-day vacation in Ireland. Our tour guide commented that one has to be skeptical when anyone, especially young people, tells you they’re married; they are more likely “partners”. It was also interesting to see young women reveling in the streets when the abortion referendum recently passed … celebrating the fact that women in the Irish Republic just won the right to kill their babies. The Irish also had previously passed a referendum approving same-sex marriage. The current Prime Minister is a homosexual.

    As an addendum to the newly minted Irish Cultural Marxism, the Irish will tell you how they revel in cash that the EU has thrown at them to motivate them to buy into the Cultural Marxist agenda. Get with the program … or, the cash flow will stop. The EU and its subsidies are the best things that ever happened to Ireland.

    Gabrielle Kuby has an excellent book, “The Global Sexual Revolution – The Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom,” that documents how the EU bureaucracy systematically goes about imposing its Cultural Marxist agenda on member states.

    https://www.amazon.com/Global-Sexual-Revolution-Destruction-Freedom-ebook/dp/B01I0QX7D2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1527888332&sr=1-1&keywords=the+global+sexual+revolution

    Read More
    • Replies: @eric
    I can't prove one should one be a Christian, but I think any ethic derived from another end can be shown to be demonstrable immoral, precisely because it will violate justice (Plato's each according to his due) for an end that is not feasible. It's not an accident that Christian assumptions lead to optimal social policy. Amongst atheists libertarians do the least damage, and I think Christians should be libertarian, letting people sin if they want as long as they don't hurt others. For example, morally overweening Puritans are annoying, but they exist today as SJWs, not Christians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Forbes says:
    @TheJester
    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of "daycare" on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes ... with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, "Whoever wills the end wills the means". Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most ... their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.

    This deserves a gold border to highlight–if they’re still in use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rosie says:
    @Flip
    Charles Murray's solution to single motherhood was for the government not to pay for illegitimate children. It would pay for abortions or orphanages. If a woman couldn't support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.

    In other words, let the fathers off the hook. That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor’s prison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FPD72
    The child support for single mothers solution would only exacerbate the pathologies associated with children raised in fatherless homes. Offer paternal cash and prizes in addition to government benefits and you’ll get even more bastards growing up to be thugs.

    Murray’s approach would be bitter medicine but the long term effects would be positive. You want to have kids? Get married first. Have a baby without first getting married? That’s on you. Don’t ask taxpayers to take care of you. That’s taxation without copulation.
    , @Autochthon
    Do you mind if I ask whether you are an unmarried mother? I don't ask it to make any personal insult; I am seeking to understand potential motivations for certain of your positions.
    , @AnotherDad

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first. In other words, let the fathers off the hook.

    That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor’s prison.
     

     
    Rosie, you complain about the attitudes toward women you read from some alt-righters. But give a thought to what your comment suggests: Women should have total choice and their choice and/or irresponsibility is … the man's problem! Total female mentality--total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.

    What we were "promised"--i.e. the feminist marketing--back in the early 70s was women wanted "liberation"--"our bodies ourselves"--but were then going to join us in being responsible for themselves. The "liberation" happened, the responsibility has yet to show up.

    A man enjoying some woman's charms, non-martially, in birth control and feminist era, naturally assumes a woman engaging in such activity is actually responsible for her fertility. But he has no control over whether she's taking her pills or putting in her diaphragm, or has an IUD--and it's officially "none of his damn business". He has no say in any sort of ex-post-facto "i'm not ready to have a kid", "it would be too inconvenient to have a kid" decision to have an abortion--again officially "none of his damn business". The claim of "our bodies, ourselves" is that a woman is responsible for her body. Free to have sex outside of marriage, but responsible to regulate her body so it isn't randomly popping out children. But it turns out to mean women have complete sexual freedom of choice for themselves--sex with or without motherhood--while getting the right to commit fraud upon men--selling "casual sex", but if they feel like it or are just lazy, delivering fatherhood and financial responsibly.


    A legal paradigm that would actual reinforce traditional monogamy in the birth control era would be that women are actually fully responsible for their bodies. If they want a man to raise a child with them, be upfront about it. Convince him to get married. Or barring that, get him to sign a written contract that he is aware she isn't suppressing her fertility and agrees to be financially responsible for any child. Maybe some fines and public humiliation--the stocks!--for women and men who have children outside. Make women actually start to be the responsible adults we were promised. Remind them that there isn't some sort of entitlement to male support. That if they want it, they should find a quality man, and demand marriage in return for sex, companionship, homemaking, children.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and--reasonably--assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Rosie says:
    @Forbes
    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it? Affluence is the result of wealth creation--which is neither the condition of the median (20-something) couple getting married, or the median (40-something) household.

    Marriage promotes stability and responsibility. Marriage viewed as just a piece of paper will be counter-productive.

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together--don't get pregnant unless you're married. Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control...

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together–don’t get pregnant unless you’re married.

    Nonsense. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is nothing new, and it will never go away. What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.
     
    Seriously? That's your analysis of the post-1960 changes in sexual mores?

    No, what changed is birth control and many women being willing to have sexual relations with no prospect or expectation of marriage.

    I'm sorry, but women--not men--control "the price" of sex in the sexual marketplace. Men are basically ready to go all the time, but not ready to sign up to give away their paycheck ... unless they absolutely have to to enjoy a go. Women determine whether sex is cheap or expensive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Rosie says:
    @Forbes
    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it? Affluence is the result of wealth creation--which is neither the condition of the median (20-something) couple getting married, or the median (40-something) household.

    Marriage promotes stability and responsibility. Marriage viewed as just a piece of paper will be counter-productive.

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together--don't get pregnant unless you're married. Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control...

    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it?

    If nobody has any money, legal marriage is an inconsequential formality under a no-fault system. I suspect working class people know this and just aren’t bothering. I don’t think marriage promotes stability anymore, either. Without a supportive culture, the law doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Rosie says:
    @Forbes
    Affluence neither promotes, nor is a precondition, of marriage. How could it? Affluence is the result of wealth creation--which is neither the condition of the median (20-something) couple getting married, or the median (40-something) household.

    Marriage promotes stability and responsibility. Marriage viewed as just a piece of paper will be counter-productive.

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together--don't get pregnant unless you're married. Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control...

    Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control…

    So girls can ride the dreaded “cock carousel,” I suppose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    And something you need to understand: Girls don't use BC, because they don't plan on going out and having sex. Often, they are resolved not to do so. Then, on the pretext of "having dinner" or "watching a movie" or "seeing pictures of my childhood," a girl winds up at her boyfriend's place and gets guilt-tripped, lied, intimidated, or even forced into having sex against her better judgment.

    If you can think of a solution to this problem that doesn't involve either arranged marriage or teaching girls to hate and fear men, I'll be glad to hear it.
    , @Anon
    I’ve always wondered where almost the 90 year old male old fart codgers learned the expression cock carousel.

    It’s probably the title of their favorite porn movie, Cathy Climbs on the Cock Carousel.

    It’s easy to tell which men aren’t getting any. It’s the ones obsessed with the sex lives of women they’ve never met and never will meet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control…
     
    So girls can ride the dreaded "cock carousel," I suppose.

    And something you need to understand: Girls don’t use BC, because they don’t plan on going out and having sex. Often, they are resolved not to do so. Then, on the pretext of “having dinner” or “watching a movie” or “seeing pictures of my childhood,” a girl winds up at her boyfriend’s place and gets guilt-tripped, lied, intimidated, or even forced into having sex against her better judgment.

    If you can think of a solution to this problem that doesn’t involve either arranged marriage or teaching girls to hate and fear men, I’ll be glad to hear it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    If women are so weak, segregation of the sexes is the obvious solution. Women weren’t so weak in my day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @AndrewR
    Thursday is trash day in my area. After a major holiday like Memorial Day, the waste always gets picked up on Friday, unsurprisingly. It's been this way for years. And of course, the local government has printed and online calendars of waste pickup in case you want to be sure.

    I noticed yesterday that a solid 1/3 of my neighbors put their waste out yesterday, 100% of whom, I presume, thought that the waste would get picked up yesterday. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the waste pickup procedure has been the same for years. Waste workers have been getting holidays off my entire adult life and probably longer.

    All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the simplest, and fairest, way of determining who may and may not vote would be the "not putting your waste out on the normal day of the week after Memorial Day" test. People who fail it should definitely not be allowed to vote, and they probably shouldn't be allowed to breed. Case in point: I was out for a walk yesterday and some idiot backed out of his driveway in his pickup truck, which he likely has no need for, and hit his own recycling bin, which shouldn't have been out there to begin with.

    Oh please. We have the same thing where I live. You sound like one of these guys:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    The cost of child care has been rising, eating away at any raises in wages parents might receive. According to Taryn Morrissey of American University, the average cost of child care nationally exceeds $8,600 a year. …

    Moreover, workers who provide such care, often parents themselves, are frequently underpaid and unable to accumulate wealth.
     

    I raised my own kid. (Valedictorian and got an appointment to a service academy, BTW).

    My wife had a better job than I did so I raised my own kid. Best thing I ever did, by far. A LOT of day-care workers are white trash, Mexicans, or blacks making minimum wage. Far too often, not quality people at all (all exceptions duly noted).

    I couldn't fathom dumping my kid off on such people -- and paying for it with money I really didn't have anyway.

    The main reason I tried (unsuccessfully) to get into the education racket was that my schedule was largely synchronized with my kid's.

    I never did -- and still don't -- have much of a career. I couldn't afford a new car until my kid joined the military -- and it was a base model at that. But I don't regret one single second I spent with my kid, who is now very successful and very well-adjusted.

    The "whole work-your-ass-off-so-you-can pay-daycare-to-have-morons-raise-your-kids-while-you're-kissing-your-asshole-boss's-ass-and-then-your-kid-turns-out-to-be-a-drug-addict-who-hates-you" rat race is a losing game.

    Don't play.

    I agree totally. I also think people shouldn’t work unless their net income after payroll deductions & commuting expenses is double the income of a single parent and 2 kids in their state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Practical Conservative
    The point is that the NYT would rather flatten the distinctions in family structure so people really think a bunch of married parents are super poor when that's no longer the norm.

    It's definitely at least partial, we've traded letting white noncollege women have children in marriage for Hispanic nonhighschool and noncollege women doing so half the time and we've gotten a boost in nerdy white women who love completing multiple degrees having kids in marriage. Needless to say, the trade hasn't increased total fertility.

    This country would be far far far better if is the population went down to 200 million Whites.

    Only slumlords and sweatshop owners welcome increase in population because it increases the number of desperate workers and tenants

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheJester
    The crux of the issue with feminism is that feminists believe that passing maternal responsibilities from the cradle to low-paid immigrant female labor is evidence of their enlightenment, independence, and equality, while at the same time ignoring the impact of "daycare" on their children and society at large. The typical daycare centers in the Western world should be more appropriately called what they are: Day Orphanages.

    Feminists also religiously fail to notice that in feminized cultures the population typically implodes ... with the potential to destroy society, especially if it has morphed into a social welfare state as has happened in most of the states collectively known as Western Civilization.

    The philosopher Immanuel Kant is famous for his ethical aphorism, "Whoever wills the end wills the means". Hence, for women to will their independence and faux equality at the expense of their children and society is the epitome of selfishness. It is an anti-social movement. It is the systematic failure on the part of adherents to include the impacts and consequences of their sacralized choices and behaviors on others, including those they should care about the most ... their children.

    Feminists also fail to notice that movements to incorporate women into the workforce (while at the same time importing female immigrant labor to care for the children) are cheap ploys on the part of power brokers to lower wages. (This also occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution until the union movement reversed the trend.) The consequence is to impair the prospect for effective family formation in large parts of the population.

    You must be able to support your wife and 2 or 3 children in middle class comfort. The rest of us are not so lucky and the wives have to work.

    The whole feminazi send all the middle class wives to work was a successful Rockefeller / Ford Foundation effort to lower wages by increasing the work force.

    And it worked

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't disagree with your speculation on the causes (Big-Gov wants the tax money, but also Big-Gov/Big-Ed branch wants your kids at an earlier stage for indoctrination, and, yes, Big-Biz wants to pay the lower wages.)

    However, as far a "the rest of us are not so lucky", that is a "keep up with the Jones problem" lots of the time, not an existential problem for the family (again, MOST times). People don't want to give up some things in their lives that are not needs, but wants. Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn't have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.

    You can also think of all the taxes, car payment, daycare (what the post was about, yeahhh, on topic here) and all manner of things that would save money were the woman not working. It's been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again. Most don't want to sacrifice what they THINK is just a basic lifestyle for the reward of parent-raised kids.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @JimB
    Yes, and having fewer children at greater cost means white yuppie parents expect big returns on their investment, so a child has no alternative but to kill herself when she doesn’t get into Princeton.

    It’s the Asians who kill them selves when they don’t get into Princeton. One of the mostly Asian ultra ultra private high schools in San Francisco has so many of these suicides it’s been nicknamed Saint Suicide.

    The Whites have the money to send their kids on one of those 10 day $10,000 airfare not included trips to Africa to “help” Africans build their mud and straw huts. That makes up for the stigma of checking the White box on the application

    What a hoot, kids who’ve never even washed the car or mowed the lawn or even loaded the dishwasher pretending to build huts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Pray tell, what was/is the point of birth control…
     
    So girls can ride the dreaded "cock carousel," I suppose.

    I’ve always wondered where almost the 90 year old male old fart codgers learned the expression cock carousel.

    It’s probably the title of their favorite porn movie, Cathy Climbs on the Cock Carousel.

    It’s easy to tell which men aren’t getting any. It’s the ones obsessed with the sex lives of women they’ve never met and never will meet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    the ones obsessed with the sex lives of women they’ve never met and never will meet.
     
    It's been pointed out before that EVERYONE is obsessed with the sex lives of young women because that determines what kind of future we have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. eric says:
    @TheJester

    Perhaps it’s better to characterize it as “any means, no matter how costly, is tolerable with a sufficiently noble end,” in that if you think you’ll create a new world of rainbows and unicorns–the latest thousand-year Reich–there will be so much goodness it will be worth it.
     
    Are you being sarcastic ... or do you mean it? If you mean it, you have company. The end justifies the means! Indeed, there were many prominent Nazis who in good faith voiced that, "Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let's get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible ... and, well, we'll get there."

    Come to think of it, the Communists had the same moral sense. The combined death toll on both their consciences was about 130,000,000 people ... and neither of their ideologies successfully made the bloody transition to utopia.

    Modern feminism is nothing more than the Cultural Marxist or social component of Communism. "Utopia is just around the corner. One has to crack eggs to make omelets. Let's get through the ugly stuff as quickly as possible ..." We're in the ugly stuff. The ugly stuff involves replacing Christianity with atheism and destroying the traditional family and its values.

    A quick look at Western Civilization, especially the EU and the East and Left Coasts of the United States, and things are not going well. The EU is in worse condition than the United States. At the end of WWII, when it looked like France, Germany, and Italy might go communist, the establishment made a fatal concordat with the Left. The capitalists could keep their factories ... and the bankers could keep their banks. However, the social portfolios would be given to the socialists and Communists. Today, the EU is an authoritarian bureaucracy in which the capitalists have their factories, the bankers have their banks, and the Cultural Marxists control the schools and welfare apparatus.

    Wherever the EU goes, the cultural rot follows. Ireland it the latest victim. We just got back from a 10-day vacation in Ireland. Our tour guide commented that one has to be skeptical when anyone, especially young people, tells you they're married; they are more likely "partners". It was also interesting to see young women reveling in the streets when the abortion referendum recently passed ... celebrating the fact that women in the Irish Republic just won the right to kill their babies. The Irish also had previously passed a referendum approving same-sex marriage. The current Prime Minister is a homosexual.

    As an addendum to the newly minted Irish Cultural Marxism, the Irish will tell you how they revel in cash that the EU has thrown at them to motivate them to buy into the Cultural Marxist agenda. Get with the program ... or, the cash flow will stop. The EU and its subsidies are the best things that ever happened to Ireland.

    Gabrielle Kuby has an excellent book, "The Global Sexual Revolution - The Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom," that documents how the EU bureaucracy systematically goes about imposing its Cultural Marxist agenda on member states.

    https://www.amazon.com/Global-Sexual-Revolution-Destruction-Freedom-ebook/dp/B01I0QX7D2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1527888332&sr=1-1&keywords=the+global+sexual+revolution

    I can’t prove one should one be a Christian, but I think any ethic derived from another end can be shown to be demonstrable immoral, precisely because it will violate justice (Plato’s each according to his due) for an end that is not feasible. It’s not an accident that Christian assumptions lead to optimal social policy. Amongst atheists libertarians do the least damage, and I think Christians should be libertarian, letting people sin if they want as long as they don’t hurt others. For example, morally overweening Puritans are annoying, but they exist today as SJWs, not Christians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    It’s not an accident that Christian assumptions lead to optimal social policy.
     
    Christianity seemed to work better when it had some martial stress. Now it it stressing "turn the other cheek; turn over your cloak" until it is being pummeled and robbed into oblivion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anon
    You must be able to support your wife and 2 or 3 children in middle class comfort. The rest of us are not so lucky and the wives have to work.

    The whole feminazi send all the middle class wives to work was a successful Rockefeller / Ford Foundation effort to lower wages by increasing the work force.

    And it worked

    I don’t disagree with your speculation on the causes (Big-Gov wants the tax money, but also Big-Gov/Big-Ed branch wants your kids at an earlier stage for indoctrination, and, yes, Big-Biz wants to pay the lower wages.)

    However, as far a “the rest of us are not so lucky”, that is a “keep up with the Jones problem” lots of the time, not an existential problem for the family (again, MOST times). People don’t want to give up some things in their lives that are not needs, but wants. Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.

    You can also think of all the taxes, car payment, daycare (what the post was about, yeahhh, on topic here) and all manner of things that would save money were the woman not working. It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again. Most don’t want to sacrifice what they THINK is just a basic lifestyle for the reward of parent-raised kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.
     
    This is not correct, Ahmed. Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Women are driven by a desire for safety and security, as in, a house in a White neighborhood. I mean, "good schools."

    This is also incorrect:

    It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again.
     
    What could feasibly be done before cannot so easily be done now. You are correct that women's entry into the workforce has harmed wage growth, which of course means that our husbands do not earn what they would have if women had never entered the workforce en masse. At the same time, DINKs have bid up the price of housing in desirable (White) neighborhoods.

    I have said before that what is needed is a probreadwinner tax policy that would restrain the ability of dual-income couples to price single-income families out of a middle-class (safe and secure) standard of living. Women shouldn't be forced into marriage, and they shouldn't be forced to be homemakers if they do marry. On the other hand, women who prefer a traditional lifestyle shouldn't be forced into paid work outside the home by inflationary pressures created by a DINK overclass, either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't disagree with your speculation on the causes (Big-Gov wants the tax money, but also Big-Gov/Big-Ed branch wants your kids at an earlier stage for indoctrination, and, yes, Big-Biz wants to pay the lower wages.)

    However, as far a "the rest of us are not so lucky", that is a "keep up with the Jones problem" lots of the time, not an existential problem for the family (again, MOST times). People don't want to give up some things in their lives that are not needs, but wants. Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn't have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.

    You can also think of all the taxes, car payment, daycare (what the post was about, yeahhh, on topic here) and all manner of things that would save money were the woman not working. It's been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again. Most don't want to sacrifice what they THINK is just a basic lifestyle for the reward of parent-raised kids.

    Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.

    This is not correct, Ahmed. Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Women are driven by a desire for safety and security, as in, a house in a White neighborhood. I mean, “good schools.”

    This is also incorrect:

    It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again.

    What could feasibly be done before cannot so easily be done now. You are correct that women’s entry into the workforce has harmed wage growth, which of course means that our husbands do not earn what they would have if women had never entered the workforce en masse. At the same time, DINKs have bid up the price of housing in desirable (White) neighborhoods.

    I have said before that what is needed is a probreadwinner tax policy that would restrain the ability of dual-income couples to price single-income families out of a middle-class (safe and secure) standard of living. Women shouldn’t be forced into marriage, and they shouldn’t be forced to be homemakers if they do marry. On the other hand, women who prefer a traditional lifestyle shouldn’t be forced into paid work outside the home by inflationary pressures created by a DINK overclass, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    That’s a problem I’m familiar with. My scenario was hubby and father of two small children bailed.

    I did get a couple of years as stay-at-home mother. It was just barely affordable in greater Vancouver in the late 1970s.

    What’s driven up prices in Vancouver is foreign wealth in great quantity. Of course, home owners who bought before the influx made a tidy profit (I had already sold the house and left the city permanently before then.)

    Foreign wealth is a major problem in many other cities. Or benefit, depending on your situation.

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me. But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.
     
    Maybe the kind of men most women marry, but that sounds like the usual bad-decision-making personal problem that is not my problem. I know plenty of single guys that aren't spendthrifts but were forced to become spendthrifts by wives who value status more than solvency and won't listen to reason from their husbands.

    I could have gone for 10 years without working or even selling any big asset when I was single (no, I wasn't even close to rich). I had a few vehicles that could be called beaters, but they ran, and I could take care of them. The wife, though fairly understanding for a while, couldn't stand that. Maybe you don't make the payments on the car, or the property tax, or the insurance, yourself, Rosie, but that stuff adds up to a lot. I see women driving nothing but crossovers and more likely the big 15 mpg SUVs now. They don't need 'em. A ten y/o minivan works fine even for a large family like yours.

    The incessant remodeling of the house is the same thing. Guys don't need any of that crap. A woman is a HUGE burden expense wise, and she'd better be worth it. I'd say churning out 6 little ones AND teaching them at home is very much worth it, as that is admirable as I written, the homeschooling especially. Speaking of that, how in the hell COULD you have been working during this time? (I figure not, just sayin')

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I tend to get long with these comments, so I'll write a few. I meant to add this too, with the previous comment about women working without an absolute need for that.

    Do you understand what "on the margin" means, with regard to income tax? If not completely "officially" indigent, your husband's yearly pay puts your household in some bracket for Feral income tax and (for most states, though not FL, TX, TN, WA ... others?) at some tax rate that is usually levied after the first only 10 grand or so for the state. I don't want to give exact numbers, so but being reasonable (meaning, for one thing, NOT IN CALIFORNIA!), let's say 25% Feds and 8 % state. That is the money your family will lose on EVERY EXTRA DOLLAR YOU TRIED TO EARN! Got it? That's your marginal rate.

    Wait, wait, I'm not done yet. I forgot SS and Medicare. If you think that money is going to some nice safe account for you, please don't even write back on that. Not just that, but I don't plan on EVER seeing that money in any form. Granted, after $105,000 or so, this tax (yes, that's what it is - the money goes into the big FERAL spendthrift pot) quits getting stolen, but that's already pretty good money.

    Let me lay this out then: If you go out and make $12 hourly, your family only gets to keep $8 of that, if you are not making so much that SS/Medicare is no longer taken out. If it is, you are keeping more like $7. How much does child-care cost again??

    It's a losing game for the most part, Rosie, at least at the mid-income level. For young people working at coffee shops and the like, sure, they'd both better work just to stay afloat and be able to hang out at MORE coffee shops.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Rosie

    Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.
     
    This is not correct, Ahmed. Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Women are driven by a desire for safety and security, as in, a house in a White neighborhood. I mean, "good schools."

    This is also incorrect:

    It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again.
     
    What could feasibly be done before cannot so easily be done now. You are correct that women's entry into the workforce has harmed wage growth, which of course means that our husbands do not earn what they would have if women had never entered the workforce en masse. At the same time, DINKs have bid up the price of housing in desirable (White) neighborhoods.

    I have said before that what is needed is a probreadwinner tax policy that would restrain the ability of dual-income couples to price single-income families out of a middle-class (safe and secure) standard of living. Women shouldn't be forced into marriage, and they shouldn't be forced to be homemakers if they do marry. On the other hand, women who prefer a traditional lifestyle shouldn't be forced into paid work outside the home by inflationary pressures created by a DINK overclass, either.

    That’s a problem I’m familiar with. My scenario was hubby and father of two small children bailed.

    I did get a couple of years as stay-at-home mother. It was just barely affordable in greater Vancouver in the late 1970s.

    What’s driven up prices in Vancouver is foreign wealth in great quantity. Of course, home owners who bought before the influx made a tidy profit (I had already sold the house and left the city permanently before then.)

    Foreign wealth is a major problem in many other cities. Or benefit, depending on your situation.

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me. But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Those cities on the west coast undergoing Housing Bubble 2.0* are a special case, although almost any university town/city in America (I'd guess Canada too) is also being flooded with the usually-ill-gained Chinese money.

    Vancouver was the worst of it, until, as I'd read, the large imposed tax on (can't recall) either purchases of property by foreigners or was it property tax(?) . I read that this deflated this bubble just a tad, but if you are there, you could tell me. In reply to this, Frau Katz, I'd say at some point you've just got to get out. There is no easy fighting that big money. Even if one were lucky enough to have kept the house since the prices were reasonable, property taxes alone can make it hard to afford to live there. It's hard to leave your home since the '70's though, so ...

    I understand the problem with the foreign money. Personally, I don't think foreigners ought to be allowed to buy land or anything that includes the land underneath or above it. Now, plenty of other countries are sane enough to have these policies.

    It's still too bad your kids' families need both parents working. Only the parents can teach the children well (Hey, it's in a song, right? From the 1960's, it's gotta be right! ;-}

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuBGEoxbFN4


    * More here in Viola, an American Dream - I hope you like the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band - good old 1970's music!
    , @Rosie

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.
     
    You are correct. I overstated the case.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me.
     

    But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.
     
    Good for you, and them!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. FPD72 says:
    @Rosie

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.
     
    In other words, let the fathers off the hook. That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor's prison.

    The child support for single mothers solution would only exacerbate the pathologies associated with children raised in fatherless homes. Offer paternal cash and prizes in addition to government benefits and you’ll get even more bastards growing up to be thugs.

    Murray’s approach would be bitter medicine but the long term effects would be positive. You want to have kids? Get married first. Have a baby without first getting married? That’s on you. Don’t ask taxpayers to take care of you. That’s taxation without copulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Murray’s approach would be bitter medicine but the long term effects would be positive. You want to have kids? Get married first. Have a baby without first getting married? That’s on you. Don’t ask taxpayers to take care of you. That’s taxation without copulation.
     
    You want to have sex? Get married first. Have sex without getting married? That's on you. Show up, pay up, or go to prison. No consequence-free sex for predators.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Frau Katze
    That’s a problem I’m familiar with. My scenario was hubby and father of two small children bailed.

    I did get a couple of years as stay-at-home mother. It was just barely affordable in greater Vancouver in the late 1970s.

    What’s driven up prices in Vancouver is foreign wealth in great quantity. Of course, home owners who bought before the influx made a tidy profit (I had already sold the house and left the city permanently before then.)

    Foreign wealth is a major problem in many other cities. Or benefit, depending on your situation.

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me. But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.

    Those cities on the west coast undergoing Housing Bubble 2.0* are a special case, although almost any university town/city in America (I’d guess Canada too) is also being flooded with the usually-ill-gained Chinese money.

    Vancouver was the worst of it, until, as I’d read, the large imposed tax on (can’t recall) either purchases of property by foreigners or was it property tax(?) . I read that this deflated this bubble just a tad, but if you are there, you could tell me. In reply to this, Frau Katz, I’d say at some point you’ve just got to get out. There is no easy fighting that big money. Even if one were lucky enough to have kept the house since the prices were reasonable, property taxes alone can make it hard to afford to live there. It’s hard to leave your home since the ’70′s though, so …

    I understand the problem with the foreign money. Personally, I don’t think foreigners ought to be allowed to buy land or anything that includes the land underneath or above it. Now, plenty of other countries are sane enough to have these policies.

    It’s still too bad your kids’ families need both parents working. Only the parents can teach the children well (Hey, it’s in a song, right? From the 1960′s, it’s gotta be right! ;-}

    * More here in Viola, an American Dream – I hope you like the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band – good old 1970′s music!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    I left Vancouver before it started. I haven’t lived there since 1983 or so.

    My sister left even earlier (in the 70s) after marrying a forester.

    Of our six combined kids only one of her sons live there.

    There is a tax but I don’t know well it’s working.

    We have a Grade A idiot for a prime minister, wants to load on Muslim “refugees”.

    It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money if my daughter (a general surgeon) didn’t practice, after a long education and residency. She’s now in Edmonton, Alberta.

    My son’s wife runs a daycare in their home so that’s a bit better.

    I live in Victoria, BC now, along with my son. The foreigners are strongly discouraged by the long ferry ride. It’s still a Whitetopia, for now anyway.

    *love Nitty Gritty, I have that song on one of my iTunes’s playlists.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Rosie

    Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.
     
    This is not correct, Ahmed. Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Women are driven by a desire for safety and security, as in, a house in a White neighborhood. I mean, "good schools."

    This is also incorrect:

    It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again.
     
    What could feasibly be done before cannot so easily be done now. You are correct that women's entry into the workforce has harmed wage growth, which of course means that our husbands do not earn what they would have if women had never entered the workforce en masse. At the same time, DINKs have bid up the price of housing in desirable (White) neighborhoods.

    I have said before that what is needed is a probreadwinner tax policy that would restrain the ability of dual-income couples to price single-income families out of a middle-class (safe and secure) standard of living. Women shouldn't be forced into marriage, and they shouldn't be forced to be homemakers if they do marry. On the other hand, women who prefer a traditional lifestyle shouldn't be forced into paid work outside the home by inflationary pressures created by a DINK overclass, either.

    Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Maybe the kind of men most women marry, but that sounds like the usual bad-decision-making personal problem that is not my problem. I know plenty of single guys that aren’t spendthrifts but were forced to become spendthrifts by wives who value status more than solvency and won’t listen to reason from their husbands.

    I could have gone for 10 years without working or even selling any big asset when I was single (no, I wasn’t even close to rich). I had a few vehicles that could be called beaters, but they ran, and I could take care of them. The wife, though fairly understanding for a while, couldn’t stand that. Maybe you don’t make the payments on the car, or the property tax, or the insurance, yourself, Rosie, but that stuff adds up to a lot. I see women driving nothing but crossovers and more likely the big 15 mpg SUVs now. They don’t need ‘em. A ten y/o minivan works fine even for a large family like yours.

    The incessant remodeling of the house is the same thing. Guys don’t need any of that crap. A woman is a HUGE burden expense wise, and she’d better be worth it. I’d say churning out 6 little ones AND teaching them at home is very much worth it, as that is admirable as I written, the homeschooling especially. Speaking of that, how in the hell COULD you have been working during this time? (I figure not, just sayin’)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I see women driving nothing but crossovers and more likely the big 15 mpg SUVs now. They don’t need ‘em. A ten y/o minivan works fine even for a large family like yours.
     
    I drive a minivan. We have thought about getting an SUV for one reason: a minivan won't tow an RV. Unfortunately, we just can't justify the cost. You might as well get a hotel room. Even if you need two hotel rooms like us, it's still cheaper than a huge car payment and insurance on an upgraded towing vehicle every single month.

    The incessant remodeling of the house is the same thing.
     
    I'll cop to this one. In my defense, I prefer small homes, where upgrades are less expensive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Rosie

    Many would not want those things, if everyone else around didn’t have them, and this is ESPECIALLY a women status-consciousness effect.
     
    This is not correct, Ahmed. Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.

    Women are driven by a desire for safety and security, as in, a house in a White neighborhood. I mean, "good schools."

    This is also incorrect:

    It’s been done before, living on one salary, and it could be done again.
     
    What could feasibly be done before cannot so easily be done now. You are correct that women's entry into the workforce has harmed wage growth, which of course means that our husbands do not earn what they would have if women had never entered the workforce en masse. At the same time, DINKs have bid up the price of housing in desirable (White) neighborhoods.

    I have said before that what is needed is a probreadwinner tax policy that would restrain the ability of dual-income couples to price single-income families out of a middle-class (safe and secure) standard of living. Women shouldn't be forced into marriage, and they shouldn't be forced to be homemakers if they do marry. On the other hand, women who prefer a traditional lifestyle shouldn't be forced into paid work outside the home by inflationary pressures created by a DINK overclass, either.

    I tend to get long with these comments, so I’ll write a few. I meant to add this too, with the previous comment about women working without an absolute need for that.

    Do you understand what “on the margin” means, with regard to income tax? If not completely “officially” indigent, your husband’s yearly pay puts your household in some bracket for Feral income tax and (for most states, though not FL, TX, TN, WA … others?) at some tax rate that is usually levied after the first only 10 grand or so for the state. I don’t want to give exact numbers, so but being reasonable (meaning, for one thing, NOT IN CALIFORNIA!), let’s say 25% Feds and 8 % state. That is the money your family will lose on EVERY EXTRA DOLLAR YOU TRIED TO EARN! Got it? That’s your marginal rate.

    Wait, wait, I’m not done yet. I forgot SS and Medicare. If you think that money is going to some nice safe account for you, please don’t even write back on that. Not just that, but I don’t plan on EVER seeing that money in any form. Granted, after $105,000 or so, this tax (yes, that’s what it is – the money goes into the big FERAL spendthrift pot) quits getting stolen, but that’s already pretty good money.

    Let me lay this out then: If you go out and make $12 hourly, your family only gets to keep $8 of that, if you are not making so much that SS/Medicare is no longer taken out. If it is, you are keeping more like $7. How much does child-care cost again??

    It’s a losing game for the most part, Rosie, at least at the mid-income level. For young people working at coffee shops and the like, sure, they’d both better work just to stay afloat and be able to hang out at MORE coffee shops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Let me lay this out then: If you go out and make $12 hourly, your family only gets to keep $8 of that, if you are not making so much that SS/Medicare is no longer taken out. If it is, you are keeping more like $7. How much does child-care cost again??
     
    I get it. Believe me. Moreover, I think your manner of arguing for SAH motherhood is very much to the point, and a great deal more likely to win women over than going on about how incompetent we are.;)

    The trouble is this: Even if mom is actually only earning two bucks an hour after daycare, families are so close to the brink of ruin that they can't make do without that little bit of extra money. It's a sad state of affairs, really.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Rosie

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.
     
    In other words, let the fathers off the hook. That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor's prison.

    Do you mind if I ask whether you are an unmarried mother? I don’t ask it to make any personal insult; I am seeking to understand potential motivations for certain of your positions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you mind if I ask whether you are an unmarried mother? I don’t ask it to make any personal insult; I am seeking to understand potential motivations for certain of your positions.
     
    My personal motivations shouldn't really matter, but no, I'm not an unmarried mother, but my mom was, and I don't much like it when people say the government should have taken me away from her, or worse, paid her to kill me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Rosie says:
    @Frau Katze
    That’s a problem I’m familiar with. My scenario was hubby and father of two small children bailed.

    I did get a couple of years as stay-at-home mother. It was just barely affordable in greater Vancouver in the late 1970s.

    What’s driven up prices in Vancouver is foreign wealth in great quantity. Of course, home owners who bought before the influx made a tidy profit (I had already sold the house and left the city permanently before then.)

    Foreign wealth is a major problem in many other cities. Or benefit, depending on your situation.

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me. But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.

    The DINK phenomenon does occur, but is far overshadowed by the foreign money.

    You are correct. I overstated the case.

    Still, single parenting is awful — at least it was for me.

    But the kids finally grew up they’re both double-income, 2 kids.

    Good for you, and them!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Rosie says:
    @FPD72
    The child support for single mothers solution would only exacerbate the pathologies associated with children raised in fatherless homes. Offer paternal cash and prizes in addition to government benefits and you’ll get even more bastards growing up to be thugs.

    Murray’s approach would be bitter medicine but the long term effects would be positive. You want to have kids? Get married first. Have a baby without first getting married? That’s on you. Don’t ask taxpayers to take care of you. That’s taxation without copulation.

    Murray’s approach would be bitter medicine but the long term effects would be positive. You want to have kids? Get married first. Have a baby without first getting married? That’s on you. Don’t ask taxpayers to take care of you. That’s taxation without copulation.

    You want to have sex? Get married first. Have sex without getting married? That’s on you. Show up, pay up, or go to prison. No consequence-free sex for predators.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Achmed E. Newman
    Those cities on the west coast undergoing Housing Bubble 2.0* are a special case, although almost any university town/city in America (I'd guess Canada too) is also being flooded with the usually-ill-gained Chinese money.

    Vancouver was the worst of it, until, as I'd read, the large imposed tax on (can't recall) either purchases of property by foreigners or was it property tax(?) . I read that this deflated this bubble just a tad, but if you are there, you could tell me. In reply to this, Frau Katz, I'd say at some point you've just got to get out. There is no easy fighting that big money. Even if one were lucky enough to have kept the house since the prices were reasonable, property taxes alone can make it hard to afford to live there. It's hard to leave your home since the '70's though, so ...

    I understand the problem with the foreign money. Personally, I don't think foreigners ought to be allowed to buy land or anything that includes the land underneath or above it. Now, plenty of other countries are sane enough to have these policies.

    It's still too bad your kids' families need both parents working. Only the parents can teach the children well (Hey, it's in a song, right? From the 1960's, it's gotta be right! ;-}

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuBGEoxbFN4


    * More here in Viola, an American Dream - I hope you like the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band - good old 1970's music!

    I left Vancouver before it started. I haven’t lived there since 1983 or so.

    My sister left even earlier (in the 70s) after marrying a forester.

    Of our six combined kids only one of her sons live there.

    There is a tax but I don’t know well it’s working.

    We have a Grade A idiot for a prime minister, wants to load on Muslim “refugees”.

    It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money if my daughter (a general surgeon) didn’t practice, after a long education and residency. She’s now in Edmonton, Alberta.

    My son’s wife runs a daycare in their home so that’s a bit better.

    I live in Victoria, BC now, along with my son. The foreigners are strongly discouraged by the long ferry ride. It’s still a Whitetopia, for now anyway.

    *love Nitty Gritty, I have that song on one of my iTunes’s playlists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Frau Katz,

    I am familiar with all the areas of which you write. It's very nice territory, too!

    I was remiss in not asking you to read over Peak Stupidity's takes on "Housing Bubble 2.0 - West coast, university towns, minorities, to be hardest hit!" (caution: year-old data) and "Selling out the Country - Aussie and Canook style".

    BTW, wrt the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, the song goes "Voila, an American dream .." not "Viola...". Oops, funny mistake, but I at least understand it's a French word, and don't write "Wah-laa!", like some ignorant keyboard jockies!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. bomag says:
    @eric
    I can't prove one should one be a Christian, but I think any ethic derived from another end can be shown to be demonstrable immoral, precisely because it will violate justice (Plato's each according to his due) for an end that is not feasible. It's not an accident that Christian assumptions lead to optimal social policy. Amongst atheists libertarians do the least damage, and I think Christians should be libertarian, letting people sin if they want as long as they don't hurt others. For example, morally overweening Puritans are annoying, but they exist today as SJWs, not Christians.

    It’s not an accident that Christian assumptions lead to optimal social policy.

    Christianity seemed to work better when it had some martial stress. Now it it stressing “turn the other cheek; turn over your cloak” until it is being pummeled and robbed into oblivion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. bomag says:
    @Anon
    I’ve always wondered where almost the 90 year old male old fart codgers learned the expression cock carousel.

    It’s probably the title of their favorite porn movie, Cathy Climbs on the Cock Carousel.

    It’s easy to tell which men aren’t getting any. It’s the ones obsessed with the sex lives of women they’ve never met and never will meet.

    the ones obsessed with the sex lives of women they’ve never met and never will meet.

    It’s been pointed out before that EVERYONE is obsessed with the sex lives of young women because that determines what kind of future we have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Rosie

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first.
     
    In other words, let the fathers off the hook. That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor's prison.

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first. In other words, let the fathers off the hook.

    That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor’s prison.

    Rosie, you complain about the attitudes toward women you read from some alt-righters. But give a thought to what your comment suggests: Women should have total choice and their choice and/or irresponsibility is … the man’s problem! Total female mentality–total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.

    What we were “promised”–i.e. the feminist marketing–back in the early 70s was women wanted “liberation”–”our bodies ourselves”–but were then going to join us in being responsible for themselves. The “liberation” happened, the responsibility has yet to show up.

    A man enjoying some woman’s charms, non-martially, in birth control and feminist era, naturally assumes a woman engaging in such activity is actually responsible for her fertility. But he has no control over whether she’s taking her pills or putting in her diaphragm, or has an IUD–and it’s officially “none of his damn business”. He has no say in any sort of ex-post-facto “i’m not ready to have a kid”, “it would be too inconvenient to have a kid” decision to have an abortion–again officially “none of his damn business”. The claim of “our bodies, ourselves” is that a woman is responsible for her body. Free to have sex outside of marriage, but responsible to regulate her body so it isn’t randomly popping out children. But it turns out to mean women have complete sexual freedom of choice for themselves–sex with or without motherhood–while getting the right to commit fraud upon men–selling “casual sex”, but if they feel like it or are just lazy, delivering fatherhood and financial responsibly.

    A legal paradigm that would actual reinforce traditional monogamy in the birth control era would be that women are actually fully responsible for their bodies. If they want a man to raise a child with them, be upfront about it. Convince him to get married. Or barring that, get him to sign a written contract that he is aware she isn’t suppressing her fertility and agrees to be financially responsible for any child. Maybe some fines and public humiliation–the stocks!–for women and men who have children outside. Make women actually start to be the responsible adults we were promised. Remind them that there isn’t some sort of entitlement to male support. That if they want it, they should find a quality man, and demand marriage in return for sex, companionship, homemaking, children.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and–reasonably–assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Murray's proposal was to make marriage the lynchpin of childbearing. If a man doesn't marry the mother of a child, he has no rights at all to the child and no financial obligations. Likewise a woman gets no support from the state for illegitimate children and the child will be take away and put up for adoption if she can't support it. The idea is that a single mother household should not be a viable economic entity through government subsidies.
    , @Rosie

    Total female mentality–total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.
     
    This kind of thing is really obnoxious. If you disagree with me, and you think I'm being obnoxious, you're free to tell me so, but you don't need to insult all of womankind in the process. Now, on to the merits.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and–reasonably–assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.
     
    Am I correct in understanding that you don't have a problem with the Sexual Revolution, but rather just think that it should go further and actually abolish the natural law obligations that a man has to his own offspring?

    You are not entitled to assume that women are on birth control. The f a woman deliberately lies and tells you she is using birth control when she is not, that is another matter. You can, of course, protect yourself from all of this by getting married before you have sex. I have a great deal of sympathy for White men for various reasons, but I must admit, access to risk-free casual sex is not your easiest sell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Rosie

    The solution to single motherhood is for women to keep their knees together–don’t get pregnant unless you’re married.
     
    Nonsense. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is nothing new, and it will never go away. What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.

    What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.

    Seriously? That’s your analysis of the post-1960 changes in sexual mores?

    No, what changed is birth control and many women being willing to have sexual relations with no prospect or expectation of marriage.

    I’m sorry, but women–not men–control “the price” of sex in the sexual marketplace. Men are basically ready to go all the time, but not ready to sign up to give away their paycheck … unless they absolutely have to to enjoy a go. Women determine whether sex is cheap or expensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Women determine whether sex is cheap or expensive.
     
    That may be true, but we are not perfect, which is why the "keep your knees together solution" has never worked 100% of the time. Moreover, I don't think draconian "medicine" is necessary. Is there any evidence whatsoever that White women have children out of wedlock because of government subsidies? I think a lot of what is going on is that welfare state policies that would work fine in a White state are ruinous in the not-so-United States of Diversity.

    This is not an opinion that is peculiar to the welfare issue either. When a young man makes a mistake and commits a crime, my instinct is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. Again, this is a policy that works fine in White societies, and I resent having to punish Whites unnecessarily.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Flip says:
    @AnotherDad

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first. In other words, let the fathers off the hook.

    That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor’s prison.
     

     
    Rosie, you complain about the attitudes toward women you read from some alt-righters. But give a thought to what your comment suggests: Women should have total choice and their choice and/or irresponsibility is … the man's problem! Total female mentality--total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.

    What we were "promised"--i.e. the feminist marketing--back in the early 70s was women wanted "liberation"--"our bodies ourselves"--but were then going to join us in being responsible for themselves. The "liberation" happened, the responsibility has yet to show up.

    A man enjoying some woman's charms, non-martially, in birth control and feminist era, naturally assumes a woman engaging in such activity is actually responsible for her fertility. But he has no control over whether she's taking her pills or putting in her diaphragm, or has an IUD--and it's officially "none of his damn business". He has no say in any sort of ex-post-facto "i'm not ready to have a kid", "it would be too inconvenient to have a kid" decision to have an abortion--again officially "none of his damn business". The claim of "our bodies, ourselves" is that a woman is responsible for her body. Free to have sex outside of marriage, but responsible to regulate her body so it isn't randomly popping out children. But it turns out to mean women have complete sexual freedom of choice for themselves--sex with or without motherhood--while getting the right to commit fraud upon men--selling "casual sex", but if they feel like it or are just lazy, delivering fatherhood and financial responsibly.


    A legal paradigm that would actual reinforce traditional monogamy in the birth control era would be that women are actually fully responsible for their bodies. If they want a man to raise a child with them, be upfront about it. Convince him to get married. Or barring that, get him to sign a written contract that he is aware she isn't suppressing her fertility and agrees to be financially responsible for any child. Maybe some fines and public humiliation--the stocks!--for women and men who have children outside. Make women actually start to be the responsible adults we were promised. Remind them that there isn't some sort of entitlement to male support. That if they want it, they should find a quality man, and demand marriage in return for sex, companionship, homemaking, children.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and--reasonably--assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.

    Murray’s proposal was to make marriage the lynchpin of childbearing. If a man doesn’t marry the mother of a child, he has no rights at all to the child and no financial obligations. Likewise a woman gets no support from the state for illegitimate children and the child will be take away and put up for adoption if she can’t support it. The idea is that a single mother household should not be a viable economic entity through government subsidies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. donut says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Here in New York, we have a tradition of employing West Indian ladies, legal and illegal, to take care of the children Upper West Side ladies don't want to take care of.

    In the 90′s the Upper West side was my area . I noticed it even then up by Colombia U. I never liked that part of town , for me it was just the run down , large apts. of the elderly reeking of age and loneliness . Time capsules , picture from the 30′s . And Bill the dachshund .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Oh yes, we have them take care of our elderly family members, too, our parents and grandparents that nobody 'has the time' to look after. Then we act surprised and appalled when we see the cases of elder abuse on the news.

    We must accept the blame for much of this situation if we are going to address it. I see an old lady being pushed around in a wheelchair on the UWS by a West Indian woman and I think, well, at least she talks to the old gal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. donut says:
    @J.Ross
    Hey donut, what would you say gets a comment through moderation here?

    Sailers whim and common sense .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. donut says:
    @AndrewR
    Who better than you to lead us?

    Why would you say that ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I tend to get long with these comments, so I'll write a few. I meant to add this too, with the previous comment about women working without an absolute need for that.

    Do you understand what "on the margin" means, with regard to income tax? If not completely "officially" indigent, your husband's yearly pay puts your household in some bracket for Feral income tax and (for most states, though not FL, TX, TN, WA ... others?) at some tax rate that is usually levied after the first only 10 grand or so for the state. I don't want to give exact numbers, so but being reasonable (meaning, for one thing, NOT IN CALIFORNIA!), let's say 25% Feds and 8 % state. That is the money your family will lose on EVERY EXTRA DOLLAR YOU TRIED TO EARN! Got it? That's your marginal rate.

    Wait, wait, I'm not done yet. I forgot SS and Medicare. If you think that money is going to some nice safe account for you, please don't even write back on that. Not just that, but I don't plan on EVER seeing that money in any form. Granted, after $105,000 or so, this tax (yes, that's what it is - the money goes into the big FERAL spendthrift pot) quits getting stolen, but that's already pretty good money.

    Let me lay this out then: If you go out and make $12 hourly, your family only gets to keep $8 of that, if you are not making so much that SS/Medicare is no longer taken out. If it is, you are keeping more like $7. How much does child-care cost again??

    It's a losing game for the most part, Rosie, at least at the mid-income level. For young people working at coffee shops and the like, sure, they'd both better work just to stay afloat and be able to hang out at MORE coffee shops.

    Let me lay this out then: If you go out and make $12 hourly, your family only gets to keep $8 of that, if you are not making so much that SS/Medicare is no longer taken out. If it is, you are keeping more like $7. How much does child-care cost again??

    I get it. Believe me. Moreover, I think your manner of arguing for SAH motherhood is very much to the point, and a great deal more likely to win women over than going on about how incompetent we are.;)

    The trouble is this: Even if mom is actually only earning two bucks an hour after daycare, families are so close to the brink of ruin that they can’t make do without that little bit of extra money. It’s a sad state of affairs, really.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Men are every bit as prone to spending big to show off as women, if not more so. They want a bigger house, bigger car, bigger everything.
     
    Maybe the kind of men most women marry, but that sounds like the usual bad-decision-making personal problem that is not my problem. I know plenty of single guys that aren't spendthrifts but were forced to become spendthrifts by wives who value status more than solvency and won't listen to reason from their husbands.

    I could have gone for 10 years without working or even selling any big asset when I was single (no, I wasn't even close to rich). I had a few vehicles that could be called beaters, but they ran, and I could take care of them. The wife, though fairly understanding for a while, couldn't stand that. Maybe you don't make the payments on the car, or the property tax, or the insurance, yourself, Rosie, but that stuff adds up to a lot. I see women driving nothing but crossovers and more likely the big 15 mpg SUVs now. They don't need 'em. A ten y/o minivan works fine even for a large family like yours.

    The incessant remodeling of the house is the same thing. Guys don't need any of that crap. A woman is a HUGE burden expense wise, and she'd better be worth it. I'd say churning out 6 little ones AND teaching them at home is very much worth it, as that is admirable as I written, the homeschooling especially. Speaking of that, how in the hell COULD you have been working during this time? (I figure not, just sayin')

    I see women driving nothing but crossovers and more likely the big 15 mpg SUVs now. They don’t need ‘em. A ten y/o minivan works fine even for a large family like yours.

    I drive a minivan. We have thought about getting an SUV for one reason: a minivan won’t tow an RV. Unfortunately, we just can’t justify the cost. You might as well get a hotel room. Even if you need two hotel rooms like us, it’s still cheaper than a huge car payment and insurance on an upgraded towing vehicle every single month.

    The incessant remodeling of the house is the same thing.

    I’ll cop to this one. In my defense, I prefer small homes, where upgrades are less expensive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    What is new is men not taking responsibility and marrying girls they get pregnant.
     
    Seriously? That's your analysis of the post-1960 changes in sexual mores?

    No, what changed is birth control and many women being willing to have sexual relations with no prospect or expectation of marriage.

    I'm sorry, but women--not men--control "the price" of sex in the sexual marketplace. Men are basically ready to go all the time, but not ready to sign up to give away their paycheck ... unless they absolutely have to to enjoy a go. Women determine whether sex is cheap or expensive.

    Women determine whether sex is cheap or expensive.

    That may be true, but we are not perfect, which is why the “keep your knees together solution” has never worked 100% of the time. Moreover, I don’t think draconian “medicine” is necessary. Is there any evidence whatsoever that White women have children out of wedlock because of government subsidies? I think a lot of what is going on is that welfare state policies that would work fine in a White state are ruinous in the not-so-United States of Diversity.

    This is not an opinion that is peculiar to the welfare issue either. When a young man makes a mistake and commits a crime, my instinct is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. Again, this is a policy that works fine in White societies, and I resent having to punish Whites unnecessarily.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    If a woman couldn’t support herself and children, she would be more likely to find a husband first. In other words, let the fathers off the hook.

    That may have made some sort of sense before DNA testing, but now this approach is indefensible. Sire a child out out of wedlock and you should have three choices: marriage, child support, or debtor’s prison.
     

     
    Rosie, you complain about the attitudes toward women you read from some alt-righters. But give a thought to what your comment suggests: Women should have total choice and their choice and/or irresponsibility is … the man's problem! Total female mentality--total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.

    What we were "promised"--i.e. the feminist marketing--back in the early 70s was women wanted "liberation"--"our bodies ourselves"--but were then going to join us in being responsible for themselves. The "liberation" happened, the responsibility has yet to show up.

    A man enjoying some woman's charms, non-martially, in birth control and feminist era, naturally assumes a woman engaging in such activity is actually responsible for her fertility. But he has no control over whether she's taking her pills or putting in her diaphragm, or has an IUD--and it's officially "none of his damn business". He has no say in any sort of ex-post-facto "i'm not ready to have a kid", "it would be too inconvenient to have a kid" decision to have an abortion--again officially "none of his damn business". The claim of "our bodies, ourselves" is that a woman is responsible for her body. Free to have sex outside of marriage, but responsible to regulate her body so it isn't randomly popping out children. But it turns out to mean women have complete sexual freedom of choice for themselves--sex with or without motherhood--while getting the right to commit fraud upon men--selling "casual sex", but if they feel like it or are just lazy, delivering fatherhood and financial responsibly.


    A legal paradigm that would actual reinforce traditional monogamy in the birth control era would be that women are actually fully responsible for their bodies. If they want a man to raise a child with them, be upfront about it. Convince him to get married. Or barring that, get him to sign a written contract that he is aware she isn't suppressing her fertility and agrees to be financially responsible for any child. Maybe some fines and public humiliation--the stocks!--for women and men who have children outside. Make women actually start to be the responsible adults we were promised. Remind them that there isn't some sort of entitlement to male support. That if they want it, they should find a quality man, and demand marriage in return for sex, companionship, homemaking, children.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and--reasonably--assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.

    Total female mentality–total self-absorption, no concept of any concept of fairness, nor of incentives.

    This kind of thing is really obnoxious. If you disagree with me, and you think I’m being obnoxious, you’re free to tell me so, but you don’t need to insult all of womankind in the process. Now, on to the merits.

    The current paradigm where women can gain paternal support on a whim with bait and switch and men are forced to support children that they did not want and–reasonably–assumed the woman was preventing, does nothing to promote marriage, but rather promotes sexual sloppiness and cultural degeneration.

    Am I correct in understanding that you don’t have a problem with the Sexual Revolution, but rather just think that it should go further and actually abolish the natural law obligations that a man has to his own offspring?

    You are not entitled to assume that women are on birth control. The f a woman deliberately lies and tells you she is using birth control when she is not, that is another matter. You can, of course, protect yourself from all of this by getting married before you have sex. I have a great deal of sympathy for White men for various reasons, but I must admit, access to risk-free casual sex is not your easiest sell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon
    Do you mind if I ask whether you are an unmarried mother? I don't ask it to make any personal insult; I am seeking to understand potential motivations for certain of your positions.

    Do you mind if I ask whether you are an unmarried mother? I don’t ask it to make any personal insult; I am seeking to understand potential motivations for certain of your positions.

    My personal motivations shouldn’t really matter, but no, I’m not an unmarried mother, but my mom was, and I don’t much like it when people say the government should have taken me away from her, or worse, paid her to kill me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Frau Katze
    I left Vancouver before it started. I haven’t lived there since 1983 or so.

    My sister left even earlier (in the 70s) after marrying a forester.

    Of our six combined kids only one of her sons live there.

    There is a tax but I don’t know well it’s working.

    We have a Grade A idiot for a prime minister, wants to load on Muslim “refugees”.

    It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money if my daughter (a general surgeon) didn’t practice, after a long education and residency. She’s now in Edmonton, Alberta.

    My son’s wife runs a daycare in their home so that’s a bit better.

    I live in Victoria, BC now, along with my son. The foreigners are strongly discouraged by the long ferry ride. It’s still a Whitetopia, for now anyway.

    *love Nitty Gritty, I have that song on one of my iTunes’s playlists.

    Frau Katz,

    I am familiar with all the areas of which you write. It’s very nice territory, too!

    I was remiss in not asking you to read over Peak Stupidity’s takes on “Housing Bubble 2.0 – West coast, university towns, minorities, to be hardest hit!” (caution: year-old data) and “Selling out the Country – Aussie and Canook style”.

    BTW, wrt the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, the song goes “Voila, an American dream ..” not “Viola…”. Oops, funny mistake, but I at least understand it’s a French word, and don’t write “Wah-laa!”, like some ignorant keyboard jockies!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    The entire West Coast seems to be very scenic and attracts all sorts of people.

    It’s all on the Pacific Ring of Fire however and earth tremors are common. “Big Ones” are a constant possibility.

    Washington and Oregon have a chain of active volcanoes too. They look very scenic but could cause problems. I was still living on the outskirts of Vancouver when Mt St. Helens went off. The shock wave reached our house, the windows rattled and it sounded like a huge explosion.

    It’s doesn’t seem to stop many from living there or aspiring to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Achmed E. Newman
    Frau Katz,

    I am familiar with all the areas of which you write. It's very nice territory, too!

    I was remiss in not asking you to read over Peak Stupidity's takes on "Housing Bubble 2.0 - West coast, university towns, minorities, to be hardest hit!" (caution: year-old data) and "Selling out the Country - Aussie and Canook style".

    BTW, wrt the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, the song goes "Voila, an American dream .." not "Viola...". Oops, funny mistake, but I at least understand it's a French word, and don't write "Wah-laa!", like some ignorant keyboard jockies!

    The entire West Coast seems to be very scenic and attracts all sorts of people.

    It’s all on the Pacific Ring of Fire however and earth tremors are common. “Big Ones” are a constant possibility.

    Washington and Oregon have a chain of active volcanoes too. They look very scenic but could cause problems. I was still living on the outskirts of Vancouver when Mt St. Helens went off. The shock wave reached our house, the windows rattled and it sounded like a huge explosion.

    It’s doesn’t seem to stop many from living there or aspiring to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @donut
    In the 90's the Upper West side was my area . I noticed it even then up by Colombia U. I never liked that part of town , for me it was just the run down , large apts. of the elderly reeking of age and loneliness . Time capsules , picture from the 30's . And Bill the dachshund .

    Oh yes, we have them take care of our elderly family members, too, our parents and grandparents that nobody ‘has the time’ to look after. Then we act surprised and appalled when we see the cases of elder abuse on the news.

    We must accept the blame for much of this situation if we are going to address it. I see an old lady being pushed around in a wheelchair on the UWS by a West Indian woman and I think, well, at least she talks to the old gal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. donut says:

    Cradle to grave . A bad bargain .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. MBlanc46 says:
    @Rosie
    And something you need to understand: Girls don't use BC, because they don't plan on going out and having sex. Often, they are resolved not to do so. Then, on the pretext of "having dinner" or "watching a movie" or "seeing pictures of my childhood," a girl winds up at her boyfriend's place and gets guilt-tripped, lied, intimidated, or even forced into having sex against her better judgment.

    If you can think of a solution to this problem that doesn't involve either arranged marriage or teaching girls to hate and fear men, I'll be glad to hear it.

    If women are so weak, segregation of the sexes is the obvious solution. Women weren’t so weak in my day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?