The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Let's Complain About the Happy Couple
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Women Did Everything Right. Then Work Got ‘Greedy.’
How America’s obsession with long hours has widened the gender gap.

By Claire Cain Miller
April 26, 2019

Daniela Jampel and Matthew Schneid met in college at Cornell, and both later earned law degrees. They both got jobs at big law firms, the kind that reward people who make partner with seven-figure pay packages.

One marriage and 10 years later, she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City, a job that enables her to spend two days a week at home with their children, ages 5 and 1, and to shuffle her hours if something urgent comes up. He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”

American women of working age are the most educated ever. Yet it’s the most educated women who face the biggest gender gaps in seniority and pay: At the top of their fields, they represent just 5 percent of big company chief executives and a quarter of the top 10 percent of earners in the United States.

Adam Smith pointed out in 1776 that the basis for economic growth is the division of labor. The oldest division of labor is between the sexes into hunters and gatherers. This couple appears to have achieved a near ideal division of labor. Why is this a problem?

Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is. “No one explains this to you when you’re 21, but in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school, she said.

It sounds like she’s saying she shouldn’t have listened to the feminist conventional wisdom and instead married her husband at a younger age, but Claire Cain Miller will never figure that out.

 
Hide 455 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Yes, and when the law school tallies up its graduates’ earnings profiles, guess what? The “mommy track” and “freelance author” and “scrapbooking blog” grads prove….gender pay gap! For which the only solution is…. commissar committees taking from Peter to pay Becky.

    • Replies: @bomag

    commissar committees taking from Peter to pay Becky
     
    And mandate that all children be raised in gov't run institutions -- For the Equality!

    Or all girls sterilized at birth to avoid the pesky child thing -- For the Equality!
  2. I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    I'd frankly rather have that than have them in the workforce.
    , @Peripatetic Commenter
    That might actually be the best solution.

    Russia is paying women to have children and their abortion rates are down.

    Maybe that was the Russian Collusion the Democrats were afraid of.
    , @stillCARealist
    Homemaker.

    It's a much better term since no one is married to a house.

    And I agree that this couple has a pretty good thing going. If grandparents were helping, they could have three or four kids no problem.

    As Tucker Carlson says, "If babies are not the most important thing, what is?"
    , @L Woods
    They prefer “stay at home mom,” since “housewife” would imply obligations as a wife (ie, to the husband) and not merely as a mother.
    , @S. Anonyia
    That's actually not a bad idea if you truly want to make raising children more attractive and affordable for the college-educated middle class on up.

    It would motivate people to marry/start families earlier too.

    But it should be the same sum no matter how many children-otherwise it will encourage irresponsibility among the underclass.

  3. she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City

    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position? Sure, “he earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year”, but what if he earns a million or more a year? Hell, what if he makes a mere $400,000?

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is

    They want to be paid, or at least fêted, for raising their own freakin’ children? The words I want to say right now, even Satan would blush.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Discordiax
    Datum: Husband is a partner at a law firm where partners get "seven figure pay packages."
    Datum: Wife is a part-time lawyer for NYC, working 21 hours a week.
    Datum: Husband earns from 4 to 6 times what wife does, depending on the year.
    Algebra. Husband earns seven figures, $1,000,000 base, increasing to $1,500,000 in some years.
    Conclusion: Wife earns $250,000 per year at her job. At 50 weeks per year, 20 hours per week (I'm simplifying the math, if you don't like it get a calculator and do it yourself) = 1000 hours /year

    So Wife has hard data valuing her time at $250 an hour. (That's a minimum--she's a lawyer, I'm sure she's fully capable of constructing arguments valuing her time at par with her husband's higher hourly rate based on comparisons from law school and pre-pregnancy lawyering).

    She's doing work that she COULD outsource to immigrant housekeeper/nanny/staff, but the family chooses not to (although there is some amount of outsourcing--someone's watching the 1 year old and 5 year old while mommy is off lawyering.)

    That's not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.
    , @Abe

    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position?
     
    Toxic princessity.
    , @ivvenalis
    What she wants (though she doesn't notice) is to be high status. In her social milieu, taking care of the kids is low status. Really, she needs to find a new social circle. Of course, she can't, because she's a SWPL supremacist.

    Basically, she's part of a dysfunctional culture. It sucks to suck.
    , @Forbes

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving taking care of her own children isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    Is she sure it's not valued? Maybe she should ask her children. Maybe she should ask her husband. It sounds like they live on at least $500,000 per year--yet she bitches about her life choices.

    Life is full of trade-offs. Apparently, some of these most educated women cannot comprehend that many trade-offs (choices, decisions, preferences) don't involve the quantitative reckoning of dollars and cents.

    I'll wager that if the NYT checks back in 10 years, our happy couple will be divorced.
  4. Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I have a friend who is a Big Law partner in New York City. Back in his 24-7 associate days, he and his wife talked about him switching to firm at a nice, mid-sized city such as Nashville or Tampa. The hours would less, the competition for making partner would be less and they'd be able to live better than do on the East Coast.

    Obviously, they decided against it. The wife - a lawyer who quit working to stay at home with the kids (and who never shut up about the career and money she gave up) - grew up in Bethesda, a close-in, very nice suburb of DC, and couldn't imagine living in the provinces. My friend, who grew up in the provinces, had no issue with that; however, he and his fellow East Coast lawyers considered province attorneys to be second rate. He couldn't bring himself to voluntarily drop from the majors to the minors.

    They stayed in the NYC area and, naturally, got divorced.
    , @davosbane
    They're Jewish.
    , @SFG
    Money, ambition, or parentheses.

    Not mutually exclusive, of course.
    , @FLgeezer
    >Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC

    Jampel and Schneid? Not to worry, they will soon move to Boca Raton.
  5. Falsely-framed argument. Stay home and bake a turkey pot pie, Becky.

  6. And who can you blame for those long hours? The Patriarchy aka stale white males. Those slave drivers.

  7. @Curious Person
    Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC?

    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered? I bet 500k goes a lot further in Tulsa than a mil goes in Manhattan.
    , @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year
    , @Pirelli
    From the article it sounds like they both started working (as associates) at BigLaw firms that pay partners more than $1 million, but now he’s a partner at a “mid-size” firm. My guess is she makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80k and he makes $300-450k depending on the year.
    , @Polynikes
    The article says big time partners make that. Unless they are in a very elite medium sized firm dealing with high finance or high level litigation, he probably doesn't make 7 figures at a 30 person firm. It's possible, but I'm sure the nyt is embellishing here.
    , @Realist

    What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?
     
    What's the cost of living in Tulsa? In Tulsa you don't have to live in an overcrowded shit hole with nasty ass people and a god damn, dumbass, commie mayor.
    , @donut
    Remember Sherman going broke on a million dollars a year in the 80's ? "hemorrhaging money"
    , @Forbes
    NYC is not for everyone. I've been here 32 years, and managed to scrape by on less than half-a-million per year.

    I grew up in the suburbs (not NYC suburbs), green grass, basketball hoop in the driveway, BBQ, etc. I had little idea what I was in for when I moved here, it was an opportunity. I had friends encouraging me to come, "You'll love it!"

    It's a completely different lifestyle than the rest of America--except, perhaps LA and Chicago, which have their own uniqueness. A couple other large cities might fit the bill, e.g. Philly, Houston.

    Most places you can work in the city and be back home in the suburbs in 30 minutes--or you visit the city for a night out, a ball game, some entertainment, and are back home in 30 minutes. Not NYC.

    The trade-offs are many--and so are the attractions, hi-brow, lo-brow, and everything in between. NYC attracts freaks, workaholics, and a lot of superstars in their own profession/avocation, and a lot of wannabes and thinks-they-are, in the same.

    I thought I'd give it a try for 5 years, and I'm still here. Maybe it's the water...
    , @Icy Blast
    In Tulsa this happy family has much greater physical safety. The danger of being physically assaulted, raped, or murdered are greatly reduced by a move to a place like Tulsa. That's got to be worth something - at least to sane people.
  8. It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”

    Well, if she were a 300 lb. lesbian, or she had exercised her “constitutional right to choose” and aborted her kids, she wouldn’t have such terrible problems. Sounds like Cornell failed to sufficiently indoctrinate her.

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is

    …valued by whom? I’m sure her husband and kids value her time quite a bit.

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

    I smell a divorce coming…

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    This is one of the many problems with women going into debt for law or med school. It traps them into the high-earning/long hours careers just to pay off the debts. They'll discover later on that they really would like to take time off for kids, but they can't.

    There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, Enough!
    the grave, the barren womb....

    Prov. 30:15-16
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "…valued by whom?"

    Well she (and her husband) obviously value the time she spends caring for their children very highly indeed - and quite rightly so. It just can't be measured in money, not all things can.

    If she valued the money she could be earning more highly than the time she spends raising her kids, she'd be out earning it, and paying some other, poorer woman to raise them, as so many women do.

    She just wants to vent about it, that's all - and here's a nice, disinterested journalist to vent to.

    As Sayyid Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, rightly puts it (he may have been a heathen but he's describing our modern world pretty well for a guy who was killed in 1966).


    "If ... free sexual relationships and illegitimate children become the basis of a society, and if the relationship between man and woman is based on lust, passion and impulse, and the division of work is not based on family responsibility and natural gifts; if woman's role is merely to be attractive, sexy and flirtatious, and if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children; and if, on her own or under social demand, she prefers to become a hostess or a stewardess in a hotel or ship or air company, thus spending her ability for material productivity rather than in the training of human beings, because material production is considered to be more important, more valuable and more honorable than the development of human character, then such a civilization is `backward` from the human point of view"
     
    (the edit function is back - and fair play, Desiderius!)
    , @Daniel H
    I smell a divorce coming…

    What a troublemaker Betty Friedan was.
    , @Alden
    What year is this? 2019? Or 1974? More and more the same old POC gay and feminazi causes of 50 years ago repeat themselves.
  9. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered? I bet 500k goes a lot further in Tulsa than a mil goes in Manhattan.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    , @Truth

    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered?
     
    Yes.
  10. Partners at mid size firms in dying rust belt cities make 100-200 a year. There are three large regional firms in our city, but the partners there are taking steps to make sure only they stay on top and have been for 20 years, making everyone else is a second class partner– and the people running things are in their 60s/70s.

    Lots of girl lawyers passed the bar in the 90s, from good schools, working hard until they met and married the neurologist finishing his residency or the engineer who just got promoted to team lead. Now they work 20 hour weeks job sharing, or doing document review, while he makes the money, and they complain about about sexism in law.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Partners at mid size firms in dying rust belt cities make 100-200 a year. There are three large regional firms in our city, but the partners there are taking steps to make sure only they stay on top and have been for 20 years, making everyone else is a second class partner– and the people running things are in their 60s/70s.
     
    The compensation structure is different but this is essentially the state of the legal profession nearly everywhere.

    Baby Boomers are under the impression that they invented the law, and don't seem to want to understand that baby attorneys have $200K in debt rather than the $15K they spent soup to nuts.

    Where they are in a judicial role in my jurisdiction, they brought suit in both State and Federal Court in order to invalidate the state Constitution's mandatory retirement age for Judges.

    They're going to take it all with them, and leave a bunch of Gen Xers holding the bag.
  11. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered? I bet 500k goes a lot further in Tulsa than a mil goes in Manhattan.

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don’t be oblivious to the obvious.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?
    , @Jon
    But being a partner at a midsize firm (that apparently only requires 60 hours a week) isn't really making it big in New York. If he wanted to make the lifestyle choice, might as well go all in and move to Tulsa -- at least you can have a single-family house and a big yard.
    , @Cloudbuster
    I've lived and worked in highly competitive urban areas, and you couldn't pay me enough to move away from Appalachia now.

    Our popular culture has sick priorities.
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Depends what you want, I reckon. Recall Caesar's remark while passing thru some crummy Gaulish village on his way to conquer Omnia Gallia: he told a colleague he'd rather be the supreme high chieftain of this little sh!thole, than just some mid-level schmo in Rome. I bet there are some steakhouses and strip joints in Tulsa worth owning.

    Also, the lady in the story didn't take her husband's name, so: fake marriage. Her lawyer skills will come in handy when she decides to divorce-rape him, and she will.

    Also, (why do I even still bother?)...

    "by Claire Miller"

    No further questions, your honor.
    , @F. Arbuckle
    Lol, when you make it all about economics and maximizing wealth (to what end?) don’t you feel hypocritical when bitching about the importation of cheap third-world labor?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.
     
    Tony Randall and Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought so.
    , @Realist

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.
     
    Quality of life is what counts.
    , @Anonymous
    That's true, but "making it" in NYC these days means being a celebrity, a top figure in media/entertainment, or a hedge fund billionaire. Being partner at a law firm in NYC was a big deal back when hedge funds and finance were not as big, and those firms back then were insular venues largely open to well connected WASPs.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Was making it "big" your priority when you switched to journalism?
    , @Ed
    Exactly right. NYC is the number #1 city for billionaires in the world, not merely the USA. I watch CNBC in the AM and Kernan is always going on about how NY/NJ/CA have taxed their residents so high and the wealthy will flee. Only thing is they don’t flee. Now middle class, I wouldn’t consider a partner in a law firm middle class, do flee.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/09/the-cities-with-the-most-billionaires/
  12. “met in college at Cornell… ” “in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school”

    These days you need to go to University and probably to Law School to meet your Lawyer future-husband. So Cornell at least was certainly a good investment for her. I strongly suspect Law School was too – if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Now that is an interesting point, Simon. You think she needed to stay in school and in this career long enough to find the high-earning husband she wanted. If it's just a matter of meeting the right guys, wouldn't there be some better (LESS EXPENSIVE) way, though?

    It's not like her knowledge of the law is something the future husband would give a dang about. Whether she met him while they were working their butts off trying to pass John Houseman's class or just at a party around town, while she worked part-time at a gym or something, what'd matter to the guy (like any) is her face and body. Then, they could talk. She's obviously smart and could be engaging in that way too.

    , @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

  13. Nobody asks what two-lawyer families do to income inequality statistics. “Sexism” is more egalitarian, it appears.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @GermanReader2
    About a decade ago, I read a long article in one of the most leftist German newspapers, that was about this phenomenon. Whereas in earlier times the doctor married a nurse (who then stayed home and raised the kids), you now have married couples where both husband and wife have an extremely well-paid job. Since the male low-wage earner marries a woman with an equally low wage (or probably not marries at all, just has some illegitimate kids), the gaps between the income of households widens. The author concluded, that this was one of the bad things about feminism. I do not think, that such a blanced article would still be published in this newspaper today.
  14. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they’d be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    Few would move to Tulsa.

    Many would move to Austin.

    For that reason I'd take Tulsa.
    , @Desiderius
    Some of the ones with roots in Tulsa already have. Making it truly big is a multi-generational endeavor.
    , @Barnard
    The percentage has to be pretty low. They want the NYC lifestyle and the ability to tell people they live in the city. Like the lyrics to New York, New York say, they think if they can make there they can make it anywhere. If they ever have or want to leave and go to a place like Tulsa, they figure they can easily do that.
    , @Realist

    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they’d be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?
     
    There's no accounting for stupidity.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    (Two times peanuts wasn't much, but it was better. I could finally begin to live like a man with a career.)

    Even though I preferred the environment back home, I stayed here because more promotions and opportunities kept happening, and because even a schmo like me gets paid more and has access to more of everything in general.

    I've met people here who had offers out West and turned them down because of the low pay scales. Maybe that has changed. The Denver area has grown a lot in business and opportunities during the past quarter century, and I sometimes wish I had just stayed, but it is too late now.

  15. Does the husband always come home at night?

    Does he pay for most things on time without complaint?

    Is he involved as best as he can be with the children?

    Does he fully engage with her immediate and extended family during holidays, etc.?

    If so, sounds like Ms. Jampel is pretty goddamn valued.

  16. @Simon in London
    "met in college at Cornell... " "in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school"

    These days you need to go to University and probably to Law School to meet your Lawyer future-husband. So Cornell at least was certainly a good investment for her. I strongly suspect Law School was too - if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.
     
    If you mean a drop-out degree, i tend to agree.

    But if you mean "get your husband lined up" then i disagree for the really smarts. In today's world most of the really smarts do some sort of professional track--grad, law, med, biz--post-bachelors education, and my observation is that it's generally the last education you do where people lock down their spouse and often their lifelong friends.

    So i agree with the Simon's last point:

    I strongly suspect Law School was too – if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    Now is this in some sense stupid and wasteful--sure. One could argue the old method of having the girl learn to play the piano, dance, engage in delightful conversation and learn French was more reasonable and certainly more pleasant for most women's tastes.

    But there's no doubt that graduating law school was great signalling for her. Matthew Schneid read it as "this girl has the genes and skills to be the mother of my children".
  17. OT but reviewing video evidence it seems Fairfax/Nine journos along with NSW police got the assault wrong.

    https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/photographer-hurt-in-scuffle-at-fraser-anning-press-conference-20190426-p51hig.html

    The media union later stated: “It is unacceptable in a democracy for journalists to be physically threatened or assaulted in the course of doing their job.”

    I think the greatest of modern misconceptions is that “the media” and its “journalists” sit outside the theatre and only comment on it. Everyone knows the media is owned by the state.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I think the greatest of modern misconceptions is that “the media” and its “journalists” sit outside the theatre and only comment on it. Everyone knows the media is owned by the state.
     
    Or vice versa.
  18. @Simon in London
    "met in college at Cornell... " "in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school"

    These days you need to go to University and probably to Law School to meet your Lawyer future-husband. So Cornell at least was certainly a good investment for her. I strongly suspect Law School was too - if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    Now that is an interesting point, Simon. You think she needed to stay in school and in this career long enough to find the high-earning husband she wanted. If it’s just a matter of meeting the right guys, wouldn’t there be some better (LESS EXPENSIVE) way, though?

    It’s not like her knowledge of the law is something the future husband would give a dang about. Whether she met him while they were working their butts off trying to pass John Houseman’s class or just at a party around town, while she worked part-time at a gym or something, what’d matter to the guy (like any) is her face and body. Then, they could talk. She’s obviously smart and could be engaging in that way too.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    It's wasteful, but it makes good sense for both parties. The husband can't have a wife who says at dinner parties "I work at a gym".
  19. The Pareto Distribution means that income flows disproportionately to those with more input.

    So her husband’s 3x hours at work translates not to 3x the income, but rather to 4x to 6x.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

    Also known as the Matthew Principle.

    “For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

  20. Here’s another thing that I would put GOOD MONEY on: At this point, I really wonder if this lady is making ANY money for the family vs. staying at home and raising the 2 kids herself, even homeschooling (she could teach them how to lie in court and chase ambulances, you know, stuff like that*). Presidential hopeful Chief Warren wrote a book about this exact thing, The 2-Income Trap, that she probably hopes amazon takes down before more voters see it.

    I’m guessing that the husband pays for everything – the nice condo, the vehicles, the kids’ expensive schools, the expensive nannies, etc. The wife most likely gets to use her money as she sees fit. I really doubt this modern lawyer woman has the trust in her husband to let him handle the finances completely. What it then comes down to (the thing I’d bet on) is that this high-earning husband probably wishes his wife would just stay home with/for the family.

    Not only would it be much less stressful for EVERYONE in the family, but for every hour the wife works, Cha-Ching!, there goes $50 to $100 straight out of this man’s pocket at the 37% tax rate on the margin. Not fun – “sick today? I’m sorry, honey …” (thinks about that $500 he just made and makes plans for a fancy dinner date when she gets well – OK, I’m being generous, maybe he figures he’ll get that Harley next week).

    .

    * Sorry, Jack D., it’s not all of them. It’s just the 99% of lawyers that give all the others a bad name.

  21. So she thinks her city government sinecure should pay as much as a high pressure job with 3-4 times the work hours. Female narcissism is truly something to behold. Even after all these years, it can still take me aback.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    In her mind her job is public service, his private greed. She undoubtedly would feel she deserves to be making 4 times what he is were they not married. Since they are she just wants a raise.
  22. @jim jones
    I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    I’d frankly rather have that than have them in the workforce.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’d frankly rather have that than have them in the workforce.
     
    Yep. Paying women for housework/childrearing isn't ideal but definitely the lesser of two evils.
  23. This part-time lawyer arrangement is new and a response to complaints that not enough women are working at elite firms. It used to be that most women worked their way into big firms and decided they hated it or could never become a partner or could not possibly juggle it with being a mother, so had two or three kids while using the firms’ generous paid six-month leave plans and then left the firm for government or in-house corporate work. Woke capitalism kept complaining that there were no women partners, so firms began to offer women part-time work, hoping they would stick around until after their child-bearing years or would be available to attend client meetings. Some of them even make partner as part-timers, which is great for the morale of the men working 100 hours a week.

    I know two women lawyers who sat in a women’s group meeting in their first year at a big firm, during which two of the firm’s very few women partners shared how to balance work and life. One partner commented that her rule was to make sure she ate dinner with her family at least once a week, suggesting this was a good rule for the aspiring partners. They were stunned.

    • Agree: DCThrowback
  24. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    But being a partner at a midsize firm (that apparently only requires 60 hours a week) isn’t really making it big in New York. If he wanted to make the lifestyle choice, might as well go all in and move to Tulsa — at least you can have a single-family house and a big yard.

  25. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year
     
    Wow... you mean lawyers earn money?
    , @peterike

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

     

    You don't understand New York apartment kitchens. That kitchen looks huge. And that looks like a Viking stove or something similarly high-end. It might cost as much as a used car.
    , @Walsh2
    Cornell law degree notwithstanding, he's a fucking idiot. Women at Cornell are notoriously ugly and she appears to live down to that standard. Additionally, it appears as if she's a whiny pain in the ass. Get that degree and move to any decent sized burgeoning city in the South, i.e. Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, Austin, etc, etc and he's pulling in a shade less than he's making now in NYC, has less of a tax burden, and his kitchen opens to a veranda overlooking the 16th green at a local country club. Moreover, he is surrounded by beautiful single women looking to start a family with a decent wage earner. I'm not saying the beautiful southern women won't be a whiny pains in the ass, especially after the wedding but I'd rather have a hot whiny wife and big ass house than and ugly whiny wife and cramped apartment.
    , @scrivener3
    Where did we get a million dollars salary, the average partner in a NYC law firm is 200K or so and the high end is 400K.
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Damn, she's ugly.
    , @SFG
    Welcome to Manhattan.
    , @Lot
    I don’t think I’ve seen such a perfectly circular bald spot outside of a tonsured monk.

    At least it is a gas stove, I’ll take a rusting 1960s gas stove over a new $2000 electric one.
  26. @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    Few would move to Tulsa.

    Many would move to Austin.

    For that reason I’d take Tulsa.

    • Agree: donut
    • Replies: @dr kill
    I've never been to Tulsa, but lots of singers dig it. I hate hate HATE attorneys, except for the four I use.
    When your ass is in a crack, my pro tip is to use $650 an hour guys. They do make it rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlnE2vNqpTw
  27. I was at a group outing where several women with high-powered careers were commiserating over how difficult it is for them and their husbands to juggle professional and children responsibilities.

    I suggested they divide labor. “Why not have your husband stay at home while you earn the big bux?”

    They let out a collective gasp and clutched their pearls.

    Mein gott! The thought of being with a man who earned less than they do! Icky!

    I had to break out the smelling salts.

    Yes, hypergamy is a thing.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.

    • Replies: @anon

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.
     
    On Earth Day, Denis Hayes of the Bullit Fdn spoke about Overpopulation:

    The human population has more than tripled in my lifetime. If there is an effect of living in a round planet, you cannot grow forever. With regard to most species, there is a state of equilibrium where the population will continue at that level because it is held in control by starvation, by disease, by predators. Humans have overcome a series of blows and we have continued to grow.
    We would rather not be held in check by disease, predators and starvation. We are a ticking animal and we should be be able to think our way through this.
    It turns out that what is by far the most important leverage is women. If you can provide women with a higher degree of personal control over their lives, and over their reproductive lives -- give them education, give them ways to have power and a sense of personal satisfaction in something other than having children, then suddenly you see birthrates begin to stabilize and even decline.
    In several industrial countries. in fact in the United States, we would be declining today, but for immigration.
    This will not be an easy one, because you don't have birthrates, people have babies. Even those of us concerned about birthrates like babies.
    But I hope we are smart enough to recognize that they are really the same thing.
     
    nb. res @ 130: "Any suggestions for better management of 50 year time-spans? And how to instill that idea in people?"


    Looks like we're going the wrong direction.
    However, we can gain this insight: government and all its tools, especially media, function to shape our lives in ways that are very real, but that we know nothing about. That was true in an earlier generation and even more the reality today.
    What we can do is to make ourselves and those we care about keenly aware of those shapers-of-the-cognitive-map, so that they can examine their own operating systems and discern/decide for themselves how best to form their own best selves.

    We can also remind them, and gubmint and all its minions, what the makers of margarine used to know: You can't fool Mother Nature. Giving a million girls an MBA is not going to look as swell an idea 45 childless years down the road.

    As to "instill that idea in people" -- I am going to become rich and famous by writing a book,
    "NOT Reading the Bible in a Year." It will be a collection of the wisdom of the Greeks, the great novelists, the myths and epics of the nations -- anything but worn-out distorted, "freakish, querulous fads" plucked from the Hebrew and Christian testaments.
    What if Mr. and Mrs. Lawyer spent a week reading Antigone -- how would they handle Creon's position? Would their love for their disgraced and dead child lead them to do what Euridice did?

    Does Mrs. Lawyer see a bit of herself in Medea? Is she so pissed with having given Jason the best years of her life, garnering for him the Golden Fleece while all she got was floppy breasts and no Social Security, that she would off their progeny?

    , @Rich
    "Satisfied women"? Come now sir, surely you jest. The female of the species is insatiable, whether married to a laborer or a titan of business. With age, they may settle, but they will never be "satisfied". Never.
    , @Hail

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.
     

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.
     
    And, by extension, did Western Civilization a disservice. Perhaps intentionally.
  28. Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is.

    The only “payment” is a happy, healthy child. Not like you can take a picture of that and make other women jealous on Twitter. You know how many interesting breakfasts in exotic places you could have instead of one family Christmas?

    • Replies: @SFG
    You *can* make other women jealous on Twitter with that, just not the sort of women who actually want to live in NYC.
  29. @HammerJack
    Yes, and when the law school tallies up its graduates' earnings profiles, guess what? The "mommy track" and "freelance author" and "scrapbooking blog" grads prove....gender pay gap! For which the only solution is.... commissar committees taking from Peter to pay Becky.

    commissar committees taking from Peter to pay Becky

    And mandate that all children be raised in gov’t run institutions — For the Equality!

    Or all girls sterilized at birth to avoid the pesky child thing — For the Equality!

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Reminds me of a hilarious line from the new season of Veep, where uber careerist shrike Amy is pregnant and mulling over the idea of an abortion and her boss, played by Julia Louise Dreyfuss, tells her, regarding keeping the baby, that "I did not fight for your right to choose for you to choose THIS" :))))
  30. Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is. “No one explains this to you when you’re 21, but in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school, she said.

    It’s almost as if feminism had lied to her.

    Given that her paid work is being a lawyer for New York City, I don’t value that.

    • Replies: @Toño Bungay
    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I'm thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?
  31. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    I’ve lived and worked in highly competitive urban areas, and you couldn’t pay me enough to move away from Appalachia now.

    Our popular culture has sick priorities.

    • Replies: @Sunshine
    Same here. Family is from Appalachia but I grew up in the DC suburbs. I fled as soon as I found my husband and we live in a rural area in the Deep South. We often consider moving to Appalachia, and we hope one day to maybe get back there. There is no amount of money in this universe to get me within a hundred miles of DC.

    We don't consume pop culture at all, it's vile filth and is designed to make people miserable and stupid consumers, all in competition with each other. It's funny though, you can always spot the ones that make it their life and identity. They are like aliens to us, we stare at them, they stare at us, they can't seem to process seeing an actual traditional family that isn't aligned with anything at all. There are traditional types here but they're generally holy rollers, and we aren't. We aren't anything, really, and that really seems to confuse people and make them uncomfortable. You can only be acceptable (even if you're vile) if you belong to some type of subculture or media generated/created/hyped group.

    I feel so badly for those people. They don't know who they really are, inside. I think they're scared to confront what is (or isn't) in there. I think most of them are utterly empty, honestly.
  32. Of all the New York Times articles in the world, this one’s gotta be the New York Timesiest.

  33. @Curious Person
    Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC?

    I have a friend who is a Big Law partner in New York City. Back in his 24-7 associate days, he and his wife talked about him switching to firm at a nice, mid-sized city such as Nashville or Tampa. The hours would less, the competition for making partner would be less and they’d be able to live better than do on the East Coast.

    Obviously, they decided against it. The wife – a lawyer who quit working to stay at home with the kids (and who never shut up about the career and money she gave up) – grew up in Bethesda, a close-in, very nice suburb of DC, and couldn’t imagine living in the provinces. My friend, who grew up in the provinces, had no issue with that; however, he and his fellow East Coast lawyers considered province attorneys to be second rate. He couldn’t bring himself to voluntarily drop from the majors to the minors.

    They stayed in the NYC area and, naturally, got divorced.

    • Replies: @Hail
    You don't mention whether they had children.
  34. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Depends what you want, I reckon. Recall Caesar’s remark while passing thru some crummy Gaulish village on his way to conquer Omnia Gallia: he told a colleague he’d rather be the supreme high chieftain of this little sh!thole, than just some mid-level schmo in Rome. I bet there are some steakhouses and strip joints in Tulsa worth owning.

    Also, the lady in the story didn’t take her husband’s name, so: fake marriage. Her lawyer skills will come in handy when she decides to divorce-rape him, and she will.

    Also, (why do I even still bother?)…

    “by Claire Miller”

    No further questions, your honor.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.
  35. Isn’t this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They’re smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.

    The problem is that the women don’t realize that they’re signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn’t. Everyone knows – especially the few successful women lawyers – that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.

    American women (and men) need to grow up. American women willfully believe childish things, and American men aren’t man enough to tell them the truth.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Isn’t this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They’re smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.
     
    At the same time, though, they're not smart enough to signal the same thing without wasting a huge amount of money. Most men can tell whether a woman is smart simply by talking to her.

    The problem is that the women don’t realize that they’re signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn’t. Everyone knows – especially the few successful women lawyers – that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.
     
    You're right about that.
    , @Anon
    Women want to be lawyers because of the money and social status.

    Most male lawyers aren't cut for the partner track either. That's okay, as lots of lawyers end up making a couple hundred grand a year as corporate counsels.
  36. It’s almost like feminism is just a way to make everyone miserable. Sigh. If only people obeyed the natural order.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  37. Can you imagine the mind-set of someone who reads the NY Times every day, and takes all this stuff seriously?

  38. @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    Some of the ones with roots in Tulsa already have. Making it truly big is a multi-generational endeavor.

  39. Steve Sailer is behaving much like the late football player Lyle Alzado during a fit of roid rage regarding women writers and their many complaints and gripes.

    What was Lyle Alzado late for. A meeting or film session? Friday fun.

    This guy Sailer is very well aware that the late Mr. Lyle Alzado, during what can only be imagined to be a roid rage incident, ripped the helmet off a large Black football player, I believe it was Chris Ward, because Mr. Alzado did not like the way he was blocked on a mere 4 or 5 yard running play gain by the team Mr. Ward was blocking for.

    Why is Steve Sailer going bananas about these upper middle class broads and their pissant sniffling complaints about their extraordinarily privileged lives in the USA?

    Once again I will calmly and reasonably explain that White broads of the Claire Miller type are to be considered electoral non-entities who are mere professional Bolshevik nation-wreckers. Leave out the third name on these broads to piss them off!

    I love White women who understand that mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and multiculturalism and globalization are destroying the United States, and I will not hesitate — like DeNiro in that diner scene with Pacino — to rhetorically point out to our White Core American lady voters that some of these upper middle class White women with college degrees, or law degrees, are the enemy of both the USA and patriotic White Core American ladies who want the foreigners to be removed from the USA and the mass legal immigration and illegal immigration to be stopped.

    Sailer got me riled up to the point where I got serious at the end of this comment.

    Lots of leaves in New England, Winter is over!

    God Bless White Core American Women!

  40. @Reg Cæsar
    Nobody asks what two-lawyer families do to income inequality statistics. "Sexism" is more egalitarian, it appears.

    About a decade ago, I read a long article in one of the most leftist German newspapers, that was about this phenomenon. Whereas in earlier times the doctor married a nurse (who then stayed home and raised the kids), you now have married couples where both husband and wife have an extremely well-paid job. Since the male low-wage earner marries a woman with an equally low wage (or probably not marries at all, just has some illegitimate kids), the gaps between the income of households widens. The author concluded, that this was one of the bad things about feminism. I do not think, that such a blanced article would still be published in this newspaper today.

  41. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/tulsa-attorney-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IM871_KO6,14.htm

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000, High salary = $176,000

    Let’s take a more reasonable comparison, presuming that one or both grew up in Oklahoma, (otherwise why Tulsa?) the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex would be a reasonable place to move.

    Not much better–$123,000 average, $187,000 High.

    • Replies: @GermanReader2
    I bet that the taxes and the cost of living is higher in New York. If you manage to get your kids into an acceptable public school district (which due to public housing is difficult to come by in NYC) you miay have a higher standard of living in Tulsa.
    , @ben tillman

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000
     
    LOL.

    Not even close.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager
    Your own link says the average is $116,000, which is quite a bit lower than $160,000.
  42. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Lol, when you make it all about economics and maximizing wealth (to what end?) don’t you feel hypocritical when bitching about the importation of cheap third-world labor?

    • Replies: @Hail

    make it all about economics and maximizing wealth (to what end?)
     
    "Growth, for the sake of growth, is the ideology of the cancer cell."
    --Edward Abbey
  43. @Oleaginous Outrager

    she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City
     
    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position? Sure, "he earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year", but what if he earns a million or more a year? Hell, what if he makes a mere $400,000?

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    They want to be paid, or at least fêted, for raising their own freakin' children? The words I want to say right now, even Satan would blush.

    Datum: Husband is a partner at a law firm where partners get “seven figure pay packages.”
    Datum: Wife is a part-time lawyer for NYC, working 21 hours a week.
    Datum: Husband earns from 4 to 6 times what wife does, depending on the year.
    Algebra. Husband earns seven figures, $1,000,000 base, increasing to $1,500,000 in some years.
    Conclusion: Wife earns $250,000 per year at her job. At 50 weeks per year, 20 hours per week (I’m simplifying the math, if you don’t like it get a calculator and do it yourself) = 1000 hours /year

    So Wife has hard data valuing her time at $250 an hour. (That’s a minimum–she’s a lawyer, I’m sure she’s fully capable of constructing arguments valuing her time at par with her husband’s higher hourly rate based on comparisons from law school and pre-pregnancy lawyering).

    She’s doing work that she COULD outsource to immigrant housekeeper/nanny/staff, but the family chooses not to (although there is some amount of outsourcing–someone’s watching the 1 year old and 5 year old while mommy is off lawyering.)

    That’s not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.

    • Replies: @Lugash

    That’s not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.
     
    no... This couple has the very, very pleasant option to have the wife take care of the kids. This option used too be available to working class stiffs who took a side job or put in OT at the plant. Now it's limited to partners at NYC law firms. An unpleasant option is dad selling blood plasma before hitting his third job at 7-11 on Sunday.
    , @Polynikes
    She's not earning 250k as a part time Gov lawyer.
    , @anon
    The law firms where partners make 7 figs is referencing Big Law. The husband is a partner at a mid-sized firm, which likely isn't going to pay near as much.

    And that's a very typical career path. The Big Law model is to take top law school grads, pay them well for long hours doing what is relatively grunt work (it's currently $180k for a first year associate). After a handful of years the vast majority leave, while a privileged few get onto partner track.

    , @hhsiii
    Nope. Partners make that. Doesn’t say he’s a partner. You can find her salary on-line since she works for the government. A full-time city lawyer, non-managerial, makes about $130k with seniority (and can retire after 30 years with a pension at about 60% of that plus health care). I imagine she makes $80k and he makes 300-500.

    And her childcare IS highly valued. It’s why he slaves away doing dull corporate deals 9 until 9 (and Im sure at times 24 hours+ straight) often 7 days a week. I’ve worked both these jobs. Government lawyer is a better deal.

  44. @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    The percentage has to be pretty low. They want the NYC lifestyle and the ability to tell people they live in the city. Like the lyrics to New York, New York say, they think if they can make there they can make it anywhere. If they ever have or want to leave and go to a place like Tulsa, they figure they can easily do that.

  45. appears going to Cornell actually paid off for her. She married a fellow student and can live off his significant income while she raises their children. If she had not spent the money to attend Cornell she would never have met her future husband. Women gain more status from their husbands than via their careers. We see it all the time at the private school my kids attend. The wives with the wealthiest husbands all stay home to raise the kids and the wives who work are envious. The working mothers would gladly ditch their careers if their husbands were earning $950,000 per year, so they could spend more time with their kids, or have another child. The most miserable wives have good careers with husbands who earn far less. One of them just got divorced, she was upset seeing her husband playing golf every week, spending money on his toys, as she was working 80 hour weeks and he was barely working.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    ... she was upset seeing her husband playing golf every week, spending money on his toys, as she was working 80 hour weeks and he was barely working.
     
    Women's Lib! You've come a long way, baby!

    Instead of selling you cigarettes, this time you're probably gonna need something stonger.
  46. Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.

    Good high paying jobs for women are things like dentistry, vetrinary medicine and dermatology. Those have 9 to 5 hours and they can join group practices where they don’t have to work every day. Well veterinary medicine can involve more variable hours but it tends to give such high job satisfaction that women are fine with it. Women who work in those fields also tend to like those jobs, unlike law.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    To succeed in law you have to be a jerk. Very few women are natural jerks so they find themselves stressed out over the arguing and egotism. Those women who can put aside all feelings for the sake of winning do quite well in law. Of course, they tend not to keep husbands or even have any children at all. I say this as the relative of a childless, successful female lawyer, who, unfortunately, had a husband who left for another woman.
    , @Daniel H
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off.

    In Big Law, as an associate, you have to work 60-80 hours/week simply to not get fired or let go after 3-5 years. As a partner you have to work 60-80 hours/week to not get fired as a partner. Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.
    , @ben tillman

    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.
     
    No, it really doesn't rely on that.
  47. Feminism went all in on the concept that for women to maximize their happiness and potential they basically needed to be able to have just as much consequence-free sex with a series of short term relationships and work the same high pressure/high hour jobs. Turns out that’s not really what most women want at all, but you’ll never see them walk that back.

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let’s say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you’d see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.

    • Agree: Cortes
    • Replies: @Canadian Observer
    Has Andrew Yang hinted at doing something like this? Can only a non-white advocate the return of the sane and financially healthy two-parent family?
    , @Eagle Eye

    Turns out that’s not really what most women want at all, but you’ll never see them walk that back.
     
    "Feminism" as (mostly) presented in public "discourse" (i.e., media propaganda) was never about what women really want. It was always one stratagem to lull more naive status-seekers into the Cult-Marxist religious cult.

    The real aim of the Cult-Marxist cult (going back to Marx himself in the mid-19th century) was always to subvert the traditional family and Christian religion both of which are obstacles to totalitarian state control.

    None of this means that women did not have real reasons to complain about societal arrangements. Feminism like many religious cults before it simply instrumentalizes perceived grievances for its own aims. Remember when Leftists claimed to be concerned with the fate of the "honest working man"? That charade was quietly put aside some 30 years ago.
    , @AnotherDad

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let’s say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you’d see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.
     
    I'm opposed to that. I do not wan to see a huge subsidy going out to net tax eaters--helping them eat even more. Nor do i think welfare is good for the character of an individual or society.

    But a huge child deduction, would be great. Huge--taking a bunch of married with children families off the tax rolls and encouraging precisely the high-quality folks with their stuff together to have more children.

  48. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    YouTube recommended this song after I watched “Peace, Love, and Understanding.” The artist is a BBC-approved singer songwriter, Sam Fender. But this song (“White Privilelge”) seems ever so slightly un-PC in an “I’m not taking sides, just asking questions” way to my ear:

    Everybody’s offended, the joke that just keeps on giving
    I’m not entirely sure the nitpicking can count as progression
    I’m chewing popcorn, sitting in the back row
    Watching while the whole dumb thing implodes
    Nobody talks to each other for fear of different opinions
    They call the bigots dumb for buying into fear of the papers
    Smug liberal arrogance, working class don’t fuck with it
    It’s all just ammunition for the right-wing press
    The patriarchy is real, the proof is here in my song
    [?] mind’s playing every detail of the things it does wrong
    ‘Cause I’m a white male, full of shame
    My ancestry is evil, and their evil is still not gone

    [Verse 1]
    Start up my motor, you drink some burgers and cola
    Feed my addictions and vices, oh, how my iPhone entices
    My echo chamber media, regurgitated trivia
    Befall the left and the right, catered for privileged whites
    Signing online petitions, thinking I’m making a difference
    Don’t wanna hear about Brexit, them [?] fucked up our exit
    My generation was doomed, the youthful left out the loop
    Lies on both sides of the fence left me completely bereft
    My bio reads public figure, [?] check out my figure
    Don’t even know why they’re famous
    But God, they’re so entertaining
    I wanna copy what you eat, how you look, who you fuck
    Wanna be anybody but me

    [Refrain]
    I wanna be anybody but me
    Wanna be anybody but me
    Wanna be anybody but me
    Wanna be anybody but me

    [Verse 2]
    Everybody’s offended, the joke that just keeps on giving
    I’m not entirely sure the nitpicking can count as progression
    I’m chewing popcorn, sitting in the back row
    Watching while the whole dumb thing implodes
    Nobody talks to each other for fear of different opinions
    They call the bigots dumb for buying into fear of the papers
    Smug liberal arrogance, working class don’t fuck with it
    It’s all just ammunition for the right-wing press
    The patriarchy is real, the proof is here in my song
    [?] mind’s playing every detail of the things it does wrong
    ‘Cause I’m a white male, full of shame
    My ancestry is evil, and their evil is still not gone

    [Refrain]
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone
    Their evil is still not gone

    [Outro]
    Yeah, yeah, yeah
    Yeah, yeah, yeah
    Yeah

  49. @Discordiax
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/tulsa-attorney-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IM871_KO6,14.htm

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000, High salary = $176,000

    Let's take a more reasonable comparison, presuming that one or both grew up in Oklahoma, (otherwise why Tulsa?) the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex would be a reasonable place to move.

    Not much better--$123,000 average, $187,000 High.

    I bet that the taxes and the cost of living is higher in New York. If you manage to get your kids into an acceptable public school district (which due to public housing is difficult to come by in NYC) you miay have a higher standard of living in Tulsa.

  50. Jampel feeling unfairly devalued is tragi-comic-ironic since she is, in essence, complaining about how other WOMEN view her contribution to the marriage.

    (Of course, an obtuse NYT reporter would never pick up on that.)

    Her husband is, of course, well-aware of the arrangement and no doubt, values his ability to go out, do what needs to be done (work at work, networking+glad-handing+client dinners after work etc etc) and grow his demanding career and provide for his family mostly unhindered as best as he can. He certainly gets division of labor.

    But it is the modern status-signaling amongst women that bothers Jampel! Because they don’t give a flying fuck about division of labor and her professional mom peer group doesn’t respect Jampel unless Jampel bullies her husband into doing more low status house-work/childcare in ADDITION to his career!

    This jealous and inconsistent part of the feminne psyche has been hijacked by modern
    feminists:

    “You must value my contribution as much as yours even though you have to do more stressful, high value work and are judged on harsh objective-ish metrics while I am not and you have the entire family sustenance on your back. But I am just as good as you, but don’t ask me to pull together a killer pitch in an all night session and then grovel in front of a demanding client b/c I don’t do that shit.”

    I know of more than a few well-off suburban families where the wife has bullied the husband into allowing her to work (where net-net after childcare expenses, it is barely “profitable” + making it harder for him to work unhindered) just so the wife can signal her feminist cred to her peer group ie “I am a super mom AND I work part-time. What’s that? You only mom? You suck.”

    That’s literally modern professional mommy “feminism”.

    Some of the moms in my neighborhood are waking up to the fact that “feminism” is their enemy since it devalues their greatest gift, talent, contribution and ability to derive a meaningful life: raising children in a loving home while their husband takes the brunt of the stress and the blows.

    They feel that idea in their bones, but social media and the global homo complex and their easily manipulated mommy friends all tell her otherwise: you are not a good and successful person unless work in a crazy demanding career — this goes 100x if you decide to mom some kids.

    Which would be great — except it doesn’t tend to work well for 95% of the people who try that. It is just too hard and too stressful to all involved, mom, dad and kids.

    To be fair, there are 5% super-human mommy professionals who somehow pull it off.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    They pull it off with the hired help.
  51. @jim jones
    I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    That might actually be the best solution.

    Russia is paying women to have children and their abortion rates are down.

    Maybe that was the Russian Collusion the Democrats were afraid of.

  52. Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Neotony.
    , @Anon7
    Who contributes more calories, and certainly more balanced calories, men or women? Except for the Inuit, probably women, the gatherers.

    I heard an interesting lecture about present-day primitive African tribes. You would think that the men would organize their big hunts when food was scarce, but the opposite is true. Women gather berries, nuts and bugs - a balanced diet of carbs, fat and protein. That’s when the men organized their big hunts.

    This allows men to go off and hunt, because like most game meats they are very low in fat - they’re just protein. White big game hunters noticed that even though they could kill many times what they could eat, and they gorged themselves, they still lost weight like crazy on safari. Why? Because they were effectively on the Atkins diet.

    So, you could argue that among primitive humans, women are the main providers. Maybe not so different.

    , @Spangel
    Maybe because humans don’t really need big game to survive. It’s a treat. In hunter gatherer societies, women do hunt, but they just hunt small game like nearby rodents or fish. Mostly they gather and they tend to produce enough to sustain themselves and their children this way. They are not dependent on successful big game hunts by men for daily survival. But when men bring big game back, it’s extra protein and a treat.

    Maybe big game hunting was something men did primarily to help them get laid?
    , @International Jew
    Let's think about other species where the male is bigger and stronger.

    Lions. One male lion might be able to outhunt one female, but lions hunt in packs. And male lions can't form packs because they live in territories that contain that one adult male and multiple adult females. Fortunately, female lions are plenty big enough to hunt effectively.

    Elephant seals. Males are ten times as big as females. But they all hunt alone, and don't live in families or groups of any kind (except for the mating and birthing season, when they're on land and they don't eat anyway). Moreover, their prey is much smaller than they are, making cooperative hunting unnecessary.

    The fact that, unlike lions, male humans do hunt in packs, poses a problem for any females that might go out to hunt as a pack: males from other tribes would grab them and take them back to be their mates. Hunt over. Hunting by packs of human females would only be practical if males didn't hunt.

    , @Curious Person
    Females have bigger hips to accommodate bigger heads, which makes running awkward (and probably impedes other physical activities)
    , @AnotherDad

    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?
     
    One issue is as humans developed bigger brains, the female pelvis had to grow wider to give birth to bigger brained babies. Human females became more specifically adapted to birthing and less skilled at running.

    In general, as humans developed and depended upon bigger brains, both human gestation and childhood extended and basic mothering required more of a woman's time.

    In short, in a a more intelligent and civilized species, there is longer developmental phase, more child care required--and for us mamals that means more need for females to do "mothering".

    This--more developed/intelligent/civilized means more mothering, high sex-role dimorphism--is incredibly obvious ... and yet somehow eludes all the great and the good.
    , @Bill P
    It's a primate thing. Chimps also hunt in packs of males. Lots of primates utilize groups of males for defense as well.

    The general tendency for human males to act aggressively in groups goes way back to before modern humans evolved. Probably more than 10 million years, and certainly more than 5 million, so it's doubtful that modern human female physical limitations have much to do with it.
  53. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    From the article it sounds like they both started working (as associates) at BigLaw firms that pay partners more than $1 million, but now he’s a partner at a “mid-size” firm. My guess is she makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80k and he makes $300-450k depending on the year.

  54. @Arclight
    Feminism went all in on the concept that for women to maximize their happiness and potential they basically needed to be able to have just as much consequence-free sex with a series of short term relationships and work the same high pressure/high hour jobs. Turns out that's not really what most women want at all, but you'll never see them walk that back.

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let's say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you'd see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.

    Has Andrew Yang hinted at doing something like this? Can only a non-white advocate the return of the sane and financially healthy two-parent family?

    • Replies: @Arclight
    No, but it seems like the kind of thing he would...I just picked $30K as a number that isn't a ton of money or a substitute for a career, but enough that a working mom might find attractive enough to stay at home and take care of the kids without feeling like she's losing a lot. Obviously a national program like this would be hugely expensive.

    Anyway, you are right in that part of the attack from the left would be that it would help a ton of white women, and we can't have that.
  55. She said she feels lucky that she’s found substantive, interesting part-time work. He feels lucky that he found a firm that doesn’t require him to do all his hours at the office. But if they could rewrite their lives? They wish they could have had better options.

    More.

    It doesn’t matter what liberals have or how dramatically things have changed due to liberal ideology, they want more. Always more. It can’t be that the ideology is wrong, or that we all simply realize that life is difficult.

    These two people were born in a time and place where they and others like them, arguably, had more and better options than any persons in the history of mankind. Ivy league undergraduates, both attorneys, who conceivably had their choice of career, spouse, where to live, etc. And yet, they should have had better options. They system needs changing, still.

    See, we are not liberal enough. We’re not doing it right. More. More. More.

  56. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    Tony Randall and Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought so.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    So did Tulsa native Henry Kravis, arguably the greatest private equity investor.
  57. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Neotony.

  58. Well, we’re not very closely related to lions. Chimpanzee hunting parties are said to be overwhelmingly male.

    On average, 90% of the hunting parties are male chimpanzees, either full-grown or adolescents.

    https://owlcation.com/stem/How-Do-Chimps-Hunt

  59. @Oleaginous Outrager

    she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City
     
    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position? Sure, "he earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year", but what if he earns a million or more a year? Hell, what if he makes a mere $400,000?

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    They want to be paid, or at least fêted, for raising their own freakin' children? The words I want to say right now, even Satan would blush.

    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position?

    Toxic princessity.

  60. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Who contributes more calories, and certainly more balanced calories, men or women? Except for the Inuit, probably women, the gatherers.

    I heard an interesting lecture about present-day primitive African tribes. You would think that the men would organize their big hunts when food was scarce, but the opposite is true. Women gather berries, nuts and bugs – a balanced diet of carbs, fat and protein. That’s when the men organized their big hunts.

    This allows men to go off and hunt, because like most game meats they are very low in fat – they’re just protein. White big game hunters noticed that even though they could kill many times what they could eat, and they gorged themselves, they still lost weight like crazy on safari. Why? Because they were effectively on the Atkins diet.

    So, you could argue that among primitive humans, women are the main providers. Maybe not so different.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Who contributes more calories, and certainly more balanced calories, men or women? Except for the Inuit, probably women, the gatherers.
     
    Female humans can combine gathering and child-rearing. They can't combine hunting and child-rearing since rearing a human child is much more demanding than rearing a baby animal - human infants are so complete helpless.
  61. @jim jones
    I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    Homemaker.

    It’s a much better term since no one is married to a house.

    And I agree that this couple has a pretty good thing going. If grandparents were helping, they could have three or four kids no problem.

    As Tucker Carlson says, “If babies are not the most important thing, what is?”

    • Replies: @Anon
    Money.
    , @guest
    That term offers no advantage, because they don't make homes. They're not builders or carpenters.

    Housewife is known to be a wife who stays in the house, not a woman who is married to her house. There's no general confusion on that point.
  62. Highly paid moms in professional fields don’t want to sacrifice time away from kids for a career, but also don’t want to sacrifice the career for their kids.

    Moms must “have it all” without the sacrifices.

    In the bottom half of the bottom 80%, that means moms must have an independent household financed by Uncle Sam without bothering to close a marriage deal or to put up with the faults of the man who fathered their children. In the top 20%, it means that married moms must have a high-ranking career without sacrificing the time away from kids.

    That is a 19th century womb-productivity pedestal that couldn’t be less feminist. It is a Womb Productivity Spoils System.

    The unfairness is not to the mom in a professional field, a womb-privileged worker who gets to hold onto a good-paying, steady, non-churn job with benefits, even if she is not rewarded with boatloads of money when working only part-time by choice to pursue something else that enhances her life.

    The unfairness is to the armies of law school grads of either sex—the people who are just as qualified as the part-time-working mom, but with no second income from a highly paid spouse to ensure an upper-middle-class / wealthy lifestyle.

    Job seekers have less access to rent-covering jobs when so many moms are willing to work part-time, giving employers a way to get cheaper labor or a way to commit less frequently to hiring full-time employees.

    Since housing costs have doubled in some areas and are sky-high compared to wages everywhere, many job seekers can no longer pursue an independent household due to all of the willing part-time / gig workers, able to work part time for less pay due to the unearned, womb-productivity-related income covering their major household bills.

    This gets far more brutal, the farther down the female-dominated office-job food chain that you go, with managers staffing most lower level positions in smaller offices and big corporations by bypassing female college grads and those with legally required licenses (in cases where that applies) in favor of non-degree-holding, unlicensed moms who are able to work for low wages due to their multi-layered, womb-productivity-based welfare platter: free EBT food, reduced-cost rent, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash.

    Just like the many moms with spousal income, working part time for keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ money, many unmarried moms do not need pay that is high enough to cover their major monthly bills because of their unearned income from Uncle Sam. Nor do they need full-time hours.

    The job is not full time, or the job is a just high-turnover gig that will not be there to cover your full lease agreement.

    No problem, say the moms.

    They can go off of welfare if the wages in a temp / gig job are slightly higher, claiming womb-productivity-based benefits after the temp / part time / churn-gig ends, rinsing and repeating, doing this all throughout the year, with a big cherry on top: up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash for the mommies to spend as they please, even on mom-pampering things.

    [MORE]

    The more the temp churn-gig pays, the fewer months a welfare-qualified, single-breadwinner mom has to work to get the same combination of earned & unearned income per year.

    Non-womb-productive, non-welfare-eligible, single workers with no rent-covering child support do not have that option. They have to cover rent and all other household bills between churn jobs on earned-only income. And they have to wade through the land mines of scam jobs with zero pay (and expenses), plus the many 90% minority-staffed workplaces and the 98% mom-gang jobs, all of which require a lot of hoop-jumping and often rude game-playing despite the low pay, short duration and the futility.

    Many have opted out of an impossible system that caters mostly to moms with unearned income.

    Low-wage churn jobs are *expensive* when government or a spouse does not provide back-up income

    After going through this many times, many job seekers decide it’s not even worth the hiring process charade—a rude-cubed, multi-hoop-jumping process that rewards mostly frequently absentee moms in back-watching absenteeism gangs, the “culture fits.” Most everyday, all-day, quota-meeting hard work that helps crony-parent managers keep their numbers up goes unrewarded, even in terms of job longevity, in that managers can just churn more hard workers while keeping fellow absentee parents for crony-absentee collusion purposes.

    The many corporate managers who hire almost all moms for low-wage positions are well aware that the single-breadwinner moms need low wages and part-time hours to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs. They are well aware that other moms have spousal income.

    It is discussed openly in interviews for “voted-best-for-moms” office jobs. The discrimination-conscious “diversity” generation is incredibly bold when discriminating in favor of moms who have “somethin’ comin’ in.”

    Never has there been so much womb-productivity-based discrimination, and while men only care about how it affects men, politicians on both sides do not address the issue at all since part-time-working moms with unearned income are one of the ways that their corporate donors avoid providing quality jobs, thereby saving money on labor.

    It is the most brutal in traditionally low paying, female-dominated jobs, specifically for single, childless women and single moms with kids over 18 who have no second income and no access to government-issued wage supplements. These are the jobs where most women have always worked. These are the jobs where the majority of women still work.

    The few high-paying jobs at the top, like those in high-rolling law firms: those are the only ones that matter to elites on both sides of the political fence since they want to snag two per household for themselves, for their spouses, for their kids, for their kids’ spouses and for their friends’ kids in the crony-parent job network.

    It is not just men who could work the high-wage, professional-grade office jobs that provide highly paid moms with the consolation of libertine absenteeism privileges in exchange for lesser pay packages or part-time hours.

    There are plenty of single, highly educated, childless women able to work the long hours. Those women need the income due to having no other household income.

    More of them would have a chance to enter various high-paying fields, particularly the non-technical fields where employers aren’t searching for scarce female applicants per EEOC requirements, if so many moms with high income from a spouse or an ex spouse weren’t clinging to jobs, while taking off a ton of time after they have kids.

    The solution from fake feminists is equal womb-productivity-based absenteeism privileges for the dads. The feminists want to keep wealth as concentrated as possible, with top 20%er households keeping two high-paying jobs under one roof, no matter how much time off both parents take.

    They want to keep doing it, even though it has halved the size of the college-educated middle class, concentrating the wealth from salaried jobs under fewer roofs without creating jobs for other Americans. The corrupt cronyism is causing many of these dual-earner parents trouble once their kiddos grow out of the show-off-baby stage, and they find out that what sprang from their loins doesn’t always land one of the few rent-covering jobs.

    At retirement, the dual-high-earner parents who enjoyed libertine absenteeism privileges during their working years due to 1) the crony-parent job network and 2) the personal-life decision to have kids have two streams of SS per household and two bigly 401ks in the case of two corporate high earners.

    Or, in the case of the moms in safe, mom-dominated government jobs with lots of time off for kids in the summer, like teaching, married to corporate high earners, the couples have two SS streams per household, plus one big corporate 401k for the dad and one government pension for the mom.

    The dual-earner, retired parents also have a paid-off house in a housing-bubble / asset-bubble economy that protects the static, non-job-creating wealth of the top 20% of dual-earner parents.

    Most of the single, childless women who worked their cans off for low wages, with zero leniency for even 5 minutes of absenteeism, have $1,300 per month in one stream of SS-retirement income only, with rent at $900 for a one-room s********e apartment.

    While covering unaffordable rent and all other bills on one stream of low earned-only income, very few of the single, childless employees had money left over to save for retirement, even without ever going on a family vacation, unlike these dual-earner parents who take multiple and lengthy vacations every year, plus indulging in tons of smaller luxuries, like eating out in expensive restaurants constantly—all while covering a posh-zip-code mortgage.

    It is hard to be a parent. Dual earners need another doubling of the non-refundable child tax credit.

    Most single, childless earners wont even have the $1,300 per month in SS income since that is what the average retiree gets, and most single, childless women are on the bottom end of the wage scale, never holding a high-wage job for 5 years or more, which is what is required to get the bigger SS-retirement checks that both dual-high-earner parents get at retirement.

    Mommas sure can hold onto those high-paying jobs for 5 years or more, even though they frequently take off whole mornings, whole afternoons and whole weeks from work, year after year, way beyond just their pregnancy leave(s) and their PTO.

    There may be a few with irreplaceable skills.

    But in most cases, the reason is simple: corrupt womb-based cronyism, a good ol’ girls’ network based on mutual womb productivity that rivals any male cronyism in the days when workplaces were mostly male-dominated.

    Fake feminists hate no group more than the single, childless women who historically worked because 1) more of them were willing to make the sacrifice of time to pursue careers in demanding fields or sustenance in low-paying fields and 2) because they had no spousal income to fall back on.

    Today, work is a mom thing.

    At the high and the low end of the labor market, the practical reason why work can even be a mom thing is computers that do more and more of the mom cronies’ work for them, enabling all of that crony absenteeism. A secondary reason is the low-wage NannyCam-surveilled babysitters, the low-wage daycare workers and the at-their-beck-and-call grandparents who accommodate dual-earner parents, doing the work of raising their kids for them while both parents work and enjoy lengthy and frequent respites from work, like the many expensive global vacations for busy-working parents.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    I showed your post to Robert Reich, who said you're a sexist who hates women.
  63. @Discordiax
    Datum: Husband is a partner at a law firm where partners get "seven figure pay packages."
    Datum: Wife is a part-time lawyer for NYC, working 21 hours a week.
    Datum: Husband earns from 4 to 6 times what wife does, depending on the year.
    Algebra. Husband earns seven figures, $1,000,000 base, increasing to $1,500,000 in some years.
    Conclusion: Wife earns $250,000 per year at her job. At 50 weeks per year, 20 hours per week (I'm simplifying the math, if you don't like it get a calculator and do it yourself) = 1000 hours /year

    So Wife has hard data valuing her time at $250 an hour. (That's a minimum--she's a lawyer, I'm sure she's fully capable of constructing arguments valuing her time at par with her husband's higher hourly rate based on comparisons from law school and pre-pregnancy lawyering).

    She's doing work that she COULD outsource to immigrant housekeeper/nanny/staff, but the family chooses not to (although there is some amount of outsourcing--someone's watching the 1 year old and 5 year old while mommy is off lawyering.)

    That's not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.

    That’s not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.

    no… This couple has the very, very pleasant option to have the wife take care of the kids. This option used too be available to working class stiffs who took a side job or put in OT at the plant. Now it’s limited to partners at NYC law firms. An unpleasant option is dad selling blood plasma before hitting his third job at 7-11 on Sunday.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I’m taking care of the kids (21 month old twins) and of course most everything else while my wife works. We make under $100K combined and are doing well in Trump’s America. He’s given us a big bump in disposable income which has mostly gone into our house.

    It’s doable if you watch the expense side and don’t care about making it “big.”
  64. @Dr. X

    It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”
     
    Well, if she were a 300 lb. lesbian, or she had exercised her "constitutional right to choose" and aborted her kids, she wouldn't have such terrible problems. Sounds like Cornell failed to sufficiently indoctrinate her.

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    ...valued by whom? I'm sure her husband and kids value her time quite a bit.

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

     

    I smell a divorce coming...

    This is one of the many problems with women going into debt for law or med school. It traps them into the high-earning/long hours careers just to pay off the debts. They’ll discover later on that they really would like to take time off for kids, but they can’t.

    There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, Enough!
    the grave, the barren womb….

    Prov. 30:15-16

  65. It must be Joe Jackson Day. Two about the subject.

    Those happy loving couples ain’t no friends of mine.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    https://youtu.be/Fu81-fWaI_M
    , @Charles Pewitt
    https://youtu.be/7suIlXplyhg
  66. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:

    Article says wife was laid off from her firm during the recession. Hmmm. She doesn’t sound like NY law firm partner material to me. Good associates make money for the partners and are not let go that easily.

    There may have been a marginal anti female bias if they thought she’d eventually quit or want to go part time. If so, it wasn’t really bias, since that’s exactly what she did.

    • Replies: @sabril
    One of the dirty little secrets about professional services firms is that they are very much biased in favor of women. A female associate -- especially if she is remotely attractive -- is much more likely to be taken under the wing of a partner and spared layoff during hard times.
  67. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered? I bet 500k goes a lot further in Tulsa than a mil goes in Manhattan.

    Is the income difference that big when cost of living is considered?

    Yes.

  68. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    Most of it? More like all of it - or more than all of it.

    She works 21 hours for the city. Not sure exactly how to put a number on the value of that legal work.

    But his flexibility - working far more than 60 hours when needed, and being available pretty much whenever - means that his firm can meet the needs of demanding, well-paying clients.

    If you were to calculate their pay not based on hours worked but on value added, or % of the value of the work they perform that they get to keep, his pay is probably lower, meaning a wage gap in her favor.
    , @Anonymous

    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.
     
    From the post:

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends.
     
    Pro tip: DON'T be the client that ends up paying for the 79th and 80th weekly hour "worked" by this insomniac. The work product of such workaholics is often (predictably) crappy. As a partner, he should be able to direct a team to work on a transaction.
  69. It’s almost like she’d rather be happy than help close a statistical pay gap.

    Also, why does the concept of community property earnings never get considered?

    She’s legally earning half of his salary. So any pay gap attomatically disappears when the husband and wife are in a legal “community.”

    It’s like socialism, so you’d think the NYT could get the concept.

    • Agree: ic1000
  70. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Maybe because humans don’t really need big game to survive. It’s a treat. In hunter gatherer societies, women do hunt, but they just hunt small game like nearby rodents or fish. Mostly they gather and they tend to produce enough to sustain themselves and their children this way. They are not dependent on successful big game hunts by men for daily survival. But when men bring big game back, it’s extra protein and a treat.

    Maybe big game hunting was something men did primarily to help them get laid?

    • Replies: @anon

    Maybe big game hunting was something men did primarily to help them get laid?
     
    Everything men did was to help get them laid.
  71. she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City, a job that enables her to spend two days a week at home with their children, ages 5 and 1, and to shuffle her hours if something urgent comes up. He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

    So at minimum he works three times as much as she does – probably closer to four times as much as she does. And he’s available at random times if they really need him, which means he can take on big important clients that pay a whole lot more. And he makes…four times what she does.

    Math is hard.

    This couple sounds like they have a great thing going. She gets to spend a lot of time with her small children. He makes bank. They get to live in one of the greatest, most expensive cities in the world, which is important to a lot of people.

    The biggest problem with feminism is that it tells women that their relationships with the men in their lives shouldn’t be symbiotic, but parasitic and antagonistic. If this couple divorced it would probably clear up one or two annoyances in her life but would create about 30 new ones for her, and for him, and for their children. Modern politics is stupid.

    • Replies: @Anon
    The reason she's complaining is because she probably made 150K/yr before she had children. Now she makes one-fifth that.

    It's as simple as that.

    Especially when your family's combined income is only 200K/yr, that doesn't go far in NYC.
  72. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”

    And the benefit for her is that she never has to worry about how the bills are getting paid. This is single-entry bookkeeping. She sees what’s going “out” (her time raising the children), but none of what’s coming “in” (him paying for what is probably a very nice lifestyle, her getting to raise the kids rather than dropping them off at some dumbass babysitter, etc.). She recognizes how her own flexibility contributes to their lifestyle but not how his flexibility (in his case, for his employer) contributes to it.

    She has a great thing going. Her gig with New York City probably at least comes with a good retirement package, if nothing else. I’m extremely jealous of them.

    I hope she ruins it.

    • Replies: @sabril

    She recognizes how her own flexibility contributes to their lifestyle but not how his flexibility (in his case, for his employer) contributes to it.
     
    Not only that, it's pretty likely that the vast majority of her husband's big salary goes to things which she wants more than him. Fancier vacations, expensive private schools for the kids, etc. And even if not, she's reaping the benefits of that salary big time.

    And on top of that, she probably doesn't appreciate just how much sacrifice is involved in working a high paying professional job and reaching a high level position.

    It's funny because women are supposed to be the empathetic gender but they really don't have much empathy or appreciation for the difficulties men go through to make their lives comfortable.
  73. @Lurker

    He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.
     
    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    Most of it? More like all of it – or more than all of it.

    She works 21 hours for the city. Not sure exactly how to put a number on the value of that legal work.

    But his flexibility – working far more than 60 hours when needed, and being available pretty much whenever – means that his firm can meet the needs of demanding, well-paying clients.

    If you were to calculate their pay not based on hours worked but on value added, or % of the value of the work they perform that they get to keep, his pay is probably lower, meaning a wage gap in her favor.

  74. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Let’s think about other species where the male is bigger and stronger.

    Lions. One male lion might be able to outhunt one female, but lions hunt in packs. And male lions can’t form packs because they live in territories that contain that one adult male and multiple adult females. Fortunately, female lions are plenty big enough to hunt effectively.

    Elephant seals. Males are ten times as big as females. But they all hunt alone, and don’t live in families or groups of any kind (except for the mating and birthing season, when they’re on land and they don’t eat anyway). Moreover, their prey is much smaller than they are, making cooperative hunting unnecessary.

    The fact that, unlike lions, male humans do hunt in packs, poses a problem for any females that might go out to hunt as a pack: males from other tribes would grab them and take them back to be their mates. Hunt over. Hunting by packs of human females would only be practical if males didn’t hunt.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    That doesn’t make much sense. It’s probably easier for men from other tribes to take women while the menfolk are away hunting. It would be better to have the women stay with the men from that perspective. Normally in mammals, the male is larger but pack hunters still hunt in coed packs. Don’t wolves and dogs hunt this way?

    I think one of the things we forget as modern people is that in prehistoric times, people got a lot of their day to day protein from insects, which women can gather.

    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group. As for why they don’t, probably because it’s risky and prone to injury or death and they don’t actually need to do it to live. They can just catch some locusts.
    , @Anonymous
    Those lion and elephant seals aren't like human hunter gatherers. They're more like human agriculturalists.

    Human hunter gatherers tend to be more egalitarian and monogamous. The women tend to be unable to hunt and acquire enough calories themselves. So they need reliable, longer term mates. The male hunters on the other tend not to be wealthy enough to support multiple mates and children.

    Among human agriculturalists, in some environments women are able to acquire enough food for themselves and children on their own through simple farming, like female lions, and thus the male lions don't really work and live polygynous lifestyles where they dominate a pride of female lions. In other agricultural societies, there's an agricultural surplus that's produced that men are able to tax or collect rent on, and this introduces wealth inequality and polygynous behavior.
  75. It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”

    From a Google image search, most Jampel’s look South Asian. So the Schneid-Jampels are a mixed marriage of sorts. An interesting phenomenon of mixed marriage is that one parent usually has a greater affinity for the children than the other. I suspect Matthew Schneid J.D. is none to concerned about having quality time with his third world kids. Jampel might secretly resent her white male husband’s privilege and racism.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    From a Google image search, most Jampel’s look South Asian. So the Schneid-Jampels are a mixed marriage of sorts. An interesting phenomenon of mixed marriage is that one parent usually has a greater affinity for the children than the other. I suspect Matthew Schneid J.D. is none to concerned about having quality time with his third world kids. Jampel might secretly resent her white male husband’s privilege and racism.
     
    About Daniela Jampel......There are two photos of her via Bing images and Linkedin. She doesn't look at all South Asian. She looks white.
    , @Anon
    Both of them are Jewish.
  76. In my experience, the concept of a labor market and the inevitable trade offs involved in finding one’s place in said market are extremely hazy notions, even to relatively well-educated women. A few observations:

    Their concept of fair pay is enough pay to live comfortably. Their concept of “comfortably” is based on entirely subjective expectations, but whatever those expectations entail, to not be paid accordingly is unfair.

    Despite such expectations, a similar standard is never applied to those they employ. They do not believe that they have any obligation to pay their cook, housekeeper, nanny, gutter cleaner, leaf blower, or any other member of the peon class anything higher than the minimum going rate. If that isn’t sufficient for the servants to live comfortably, the government should step in to redress the imbalance.

    Women often believe that compensation should be tied to expenditure of effort, or “trying hard.” The idea that one employee can achieve an equal or higher level of performance while expending less time and effort than another, and that the first employee is thus of greater benefit to the employer than the latter, seems to them devious and unjust.

    Expenditure of effort can be measured by the number of hours at work. So, hitting the internet for social media and online shopping, chatting with co-workers for an hour at a time, coffee breaks, gossip sessions, and business meetings — most of which resemble garden club gatherings — all fall under the heading of “work,” and should be compensated accordingly.

    Meeting the requirements of one’s job should result in almost endlessly flowing expressions of appreciation. Salary and benefits notwithstanding, women tend to construe work as a form of personal sacrifice, and expect to be praised, acknowledged, and recognized for their tireless efforts. Evidence of this can be found in the cloyingly sweet emails they exchange with one another, in which their most routine efforts and pedestrian productions are lauded as “amazing,” “incredible,” “awesome,” and “brilliant,” all followed by at least one and sometimes three or four !!!!’s.

    On the bright side, managers who are keyed into this reality understand that it can be used to motivate women into doing more work without any promise of a forthcoming salary increase or bonus. This may seem to contradict much of what I’ve written above, but women really, really crave acknowledgement and will jump through any number of hoops in pursuit of it. So there is an upside. You just have to be shamelessly insincere to exploit it.

    • Agree: jim jones
  77. @International Jew
    Let's think about other species where the male is bigger and stronger.

    Lions. One male lion might be able to outhunt one female, but lions hunt in packs. And male lions can't form packs because they live in territories that contain that one adult male and multiple adult females. Fortunately, female lions are plenty big enough to hunt effectively.

    Elephant seals. Males are ten times as big as females. But they all hunt alone, and don't live in families or groups of any kind (except for the mating and birthing season, when they're on land and they don't eat anyway). Moreover, their prey is much smaller than they are, making cooperative hunting unnecessary.

    The fact that, unlike lions, male humans do hunt in packs, poses a problem for any females that might go out to hunt as a pack: males from other tribes would grab them and take them back to be their mates. Hunt over. Hunting by packs of human females would only be practical if males didn't hunt.

    That doesn’t make much sense. It’s probably easier for men from other tribes to take women while the menfolk are away hunting. It would be better to have the women stay with the men from that perspective. Normally in mammals, the male is larger but pack hunters still hunt in coed packs. Don’t wolves and dogs hunt this way?

    I think one of the things we forget as modern people is that in prehistoric times, people got a lot of their day to day protein from insects, which women can gather.

    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group. As for why they don’t, probably because it’s risky and prone to injury or death and they don’t actually need to do it to live. They can just catch some locusts.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group.

    Pygmies are able to hunt elephants because of their small stature. Elephant hides are thick enough to make the animals largely invulnerable to spears and arrows, except for one small spot in the groin area, not much larger than a human hand, where there is a major blood vessel very close to the surface. A pygmy hunter can run under a standing elephant at full speed and thrust a short spear into this vulnerable area without ever breaking stride. If done correctly the elephant will drop from blood loss within a few minutes. If pygmies were of normal human height they'd have to crouch down as they ran under the elephant, which would make the precise spear placement more difficult and would make it more likely that the fast-reacting elephant would trample the hunter.
  78. I’ve repeated this on the internet many times but here goes again.

    When I was born in 1957 my parents took the following career choices:
    Dad went to work 3-11 at TWA for more money.
    Mom quit working as head OB nurse at a hospital to go to work for the county for less money, so she could be home evenings when I started school.

    There’s your whole M/F pay gap right there. Repeat it millions of times and that’s how you get your different labor supply curves for men and women.

    • Agree: Prodigal son
  79. We’ve set up a system where people have to incur six figures of student loans simply to ensure that they are part of the right social circle in which to meet a spouse.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It may not be long til those taking that route are seen as ill-suited.
  80. @Discordiax
    Datum: Husband is a partner at a law firm where partners get "seven figure pay packages."
    Datum: Wife is a part-time lawyer for NYC, working 21 hours a week.
    Datum: Husband earns from 4 to 6 times what wife does, depending on the year.
    Algebra. Husband earns seven figures, $1,000,000 base, increasing to $1,500,000 in some years.
    Conclusion: Wife earns $250,000 per year at her job. At 50 weeks per year, 20 hours per week (I'm simplifying the math, if you don't like it get a calculator and do it yourself) = 1000 hours /year

    So Wife has hard data valuing her time at $250 an hour. (That's a minimum--she's a lawyer, I'm sure she's fully capable of constructing arguments valuing her time at par with her husband's higher hourly rate based on comparisons from law school and pre-pregnancy lawyering).

    She's doing work that she COULD outsource to immigrant housekeeper/nanny/staff, but the family chooses not to (although there is some amount of outsourcing--someone's watching the 1 year old and 5 year old while mommy is off lawyering.)

    That's not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.

    She’s not earning 250k as a part time Gov lawyer.

    • Replies: @keypusher
    Yes, this. And he is not earning $1m-$1.5m a year, either. Much more senior partners than he is, maybe.
  81. @Lugash

    That’s not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.
     
    no... This couple has the very, very pleasant option to have the wife take care of the kids. This option used too be available to working class stiffs who took a side job or put in OT at the plant. Now it's limited to partners at NYC law firms. An unpleasant option is dad selling blood plasma before hitting his third job at 7-11 on Sunday.

    I’m taking care of the kids (21 month old twins) and of course most everything else while my wife works. We make under $100K combined and are doing well in Trump’s America. He’s given us a big bump in disposable income which has mostly gone into our house.

    It’s doable if you watch the expense side and don’t care about making it “big.”

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Cortes
    Agreed on making it “big.”

    Around a decade ago when I still had a TV, I watched a BBC programme about the influx of people to the UK from the new wave of EU countries formerly part of the COMECON Bloc. One tale was ludicrous in the extreme as snippets of interviews of the thrusting young guy making tons of overtime as a cleaner at Heathrow Airport were cut with his dad back in the mixed farm in Transylvania. The dad was cash-poor, certainly, and like most farmers worked almost all the time but at a measured pace. The inter generational dissing was terrific.
  82. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    The article says big time partners make that. Unless they are in a very elite medium sized firm dealing with high finance or high level litigation, he probably doesn’t make 7 figures at a 30 person firm. It’s possible, but I’m sure the nyt is embellishing here.

  83. @Reg Cæsar
    It must be Joe Jackson Day. Two about the subject.

    Those happy loving couples ain't no friends of mine.





    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P3DnubUvRdU




    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=080M6-VWRZU

  84. @Oleaginous Outrager

    she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City
     
    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position? Sure, "he earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year", but what if he earns a million or more a year? Hell, what if he makes a mere $400,000?

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    They want to be paid, or at least fêted, for raising their own freakin' children? The words I want to say right now, even Satan would blush.

    What she wants (though she doesn’t notice) is to be high status. In her social milieu, taking care of the kids is low status. Really, she needs to find a new social circle. Of course, she can’t, because she’s a SWPL supremacist.

    Basically, she’s part of a dysfunctional culture. It sucks to suck.

    • Agree: Hail, Clyde
    • Replies: @Anon
    Taking care of kids isn't low status.

    Taking care of kids without a nanny, cleaner, driver, and butler is low status.

    This has nothing to do with SWPL or SJW or whatever. It's because she belongs to the elite upper crust of NYC, a group that includes people like Ivanka Trump. If you don't have endless amounts of money to spend on hired help, you are a loser in their eyes.

    If she started hanging out with middle class SWPLs (graphics designers, academics, teachers, etc), she wouldn't be a loser. However, she's too snobbish to hang out with plebians.
    , @Romanian
    I remembered this article

    https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ultimate-status-symbol-is-a-big-family-2015-5


    The ultimate status symbol, according to Wednesday Martin, Ph.D., author of the newly released memoir "Primates of Park Avenue," is a whole mess of kids.

    "I quickly became desensitized to massive families — they were everywhere," writes Martin, who moved from the West Village to the Upper East Side to raise her family.

    "Three was the new two, something you just did in this habitat. Four was the new three — previously conversation stopping, but now nothing unusual. Five was no longer crazy or religious — it just meant you were rich. And six was apparently the new town house — or Gulfstream."
     
  85. One man’s takeaway from your story is to never marry an attorney. They have six ways to Sunday to make you pay for that.

    • Replies: @SFG
    My dad always told me that one. Really, it's common sense. They know the law, which they will use against you in a divorce...
  86. White women are encouraged to complain about anything and everything because the powers-that-be want them to self-identify as a political class. For instance, I know a couple of Asian female lawyers who married rich, hardworking white guys and left the legal industry completely. I never hear these ladies make a peep about how lousy their new lives are. They love it!

    At the big private law firms, the longer-serving female partners tend to be either lesbians, bitter divorced harpies or hard-nosed Jewish broads. The men fear them and the normal heterosexual women over time learn that it’s best for their spiritual health not to spend too much time around them. These white heterosexual white women are now gravitating to government and not-for-profit work where they are starting to create an exclusive niche for themselves. This niche has been made at the exclusion of white men of course, but no one seems to make a stink about that.

    Go visit any governmental legal department in the U.S. or Canada. They’re all staffed with white women, gay men and their token racialized lackeys. It’s an added reason not to respect the government.

    And who wouldn’t want to make $100,000 a year working 20 hours a week in downtown Manhattan? Most of the commenters on this board have more intellectual prowess than this particular white broad, but you sure won’t get the job. Having a lawyer job with the City of New York is a class-marker reserved for upper middle-class Good Whites.

  87. she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City, a job that enables her to spend two days a week at home with their children,

    So, wifey works three 7-hour days (or 4 hours after lunch, coffee break, and office gossip).

  88. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    What’s the cost of living in Tulsa? In Tulsa you don’t have to live in an overcrowded shit hole with nasty ass people and a god damn, dumbass, commie mayor.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's a lot less than living in or around NYC, for sure.

    But if you can make half a million a year in New York and a hundred-fifty in Tulsa, if you play the tax laws right you can probably squirrel away a spare fifty grand a year in NYC even after paying for the ridiculous housing costs. Clothes, cars, all that other stuff costs the same in both places. In twenty years you can probably build a two or three million dollar nest egg over and above what you could do in Tulsa.

    Plus, if you're a randy sort you can probably get away with a lot more in New York.

    Then again, if NYC real estate takes a shit-which would happen if we ever had a real conservative President and some support from a non cucked Congressional GOP delegation from the hinterlands-that brownstone just became a millstone. Just like the once vaunted NYC cab medallions...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/nyregion/new-york-taxi-medallions-uber.html

    A true conservative platform would make cutting New York City down to size a major part of its platform.
  89. @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they’d be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    There’s no accounting for stupidity.

  90. @Reg Cæsar

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.
     
    Tony Randall and Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought so.

    So did Tulsa native Henry Kravis, arguably the greatest private equity investor.

  91. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    Quality of life is what counts.

    • Replies: @SFG
    You mean having hundreds of museums to go to, being able to eat food and watch movies from anywhere in the world, and never having to drive?

    Oh, I'm sorry, you mean having plenty of space, access to the outdoors, and room to raise a big family.

    One man's meat is another man's poison.

  92. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Females have bigger hips to accommodate bigger heads, which makes running awkward (and probably impedes other physical activities)

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @prosa123
    Running speed would be of relatively little importance to human hunter-gatherers because most game animals readily outrun any human. As a result, the fact that women don't run quite as fast as men is of limited importance. What matters is endurance, humans are able to outrun many seemingly much faster animals over distances because animals don't always have much endurance. This greater importance ascribed to endurance will not disadvantage women, as women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running.
  93. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    Remember Sherman going broke on a million dollars a year in the 80’s ? “hemorrhaging money”

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @OFWHAP
    And that was before he needed attorneys for the mess that Maria got him into.
  94. @Desiderius
    I’m taking care of the kids (21 month old twins) and of course most everything else while my wife works. We make under $100K combined and are doing well in Trump’s America. He’s given us a big bump in disposable income which has mostly gone into our house.

    It’s doable if you watch the expense side and don’t care about making it “big.”

    Agreed on making it “big.”

    Around a decade ago when I still had a TV, I watched a BBC programme about the influx of people to the UK from the new wave of EU countries formerly part of the COMECON Bloc. One tale was ludicrous in the extreme as snippets of interviews of the thrusting young guy making tons of overtime as a cleaner at Heathrow Airport were cut with his dad back in the mixed farm in Transylvania. The dad was cash-poor, certainly, and like most farmers worked almost all the time but at a measured pace. The inter generational dissing was terrific.

  95. @Dr. X

    It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”
     
    Well, if she were a 300 lb. lesbian, or she had exercised her "constitutional right to choose" and aborted her kids, she wouldn't have such terrible problems. Sounds like Cornell failed to sufficiently indoctrinate her.

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    ...valued by whom? I'm sure her husband and kids value her time quite a bit.

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

     

    I smell a divorce coming...

    “…valued by whom?”

    Well she (and her husband) obviously value the time she spends caring for their children very highly indeed – and quite rightly so. It just can’t be measured in money, not all things can.

    If she valued the money she could be earning more highly than the time she spends raising her kids, she’d be out earning it, and paying some other, poorer woman to raise them, as so many women do.

    She just wants to vent about it, that’s all – and here’s a nice, disinterested journalist to vent to.

    As Sayyid Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, rightly puts it (he may have been a heathen but he’s describing our modern world pretty well for a guy who was killed in 1966).

    “If … free sexual relationships and illegitimate children become the basis of a society, and if the relationship between man and woman is based on lust, passion and impulse, and the division of work is not based on family responsibility and natural gifts; if woman’s role is merely to be attractive, sexy and flirtatious, and if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children; and if, on her own or under social demand, she prefers to become a hostess or a stewardess in a hotel or ship or air company, thus spending her ability for material productivity rather than in the training of human beings, because material production is considered to be more important, more valuable and more honorable than the development of human character, then such a civilization is `backward` from the human point of view

    (the edit function is back – and fair play, Desiderius!)

  96. “No one explains this to you when you’re 21, but in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school, she said.

    I assumed verbal reasoning was the biggest part of the LSAT.

    Unless Matthew Schneid is a complete putz (or perhaps not putz enough to really strum her guitar?), Miss Jampel’s decision to go to law school is the best damn decision she could have made.

    Law school allowed her to leverage her assets into becoming Mrs. Schneid. And as Mrs. Schneid, Daniela gets to enjoy at least a high six figure income and all the extremely cushy amenities that offers while staying home with her kids. Plus, for distraction–and a little office politics to bitch about–toying with an extremely well paid part time job.

    Talk about winning!

  97. I love Steve’s snarky, smart ass use of “lets talk” when in reality he means a whiny woman wants to talk about whatever the topic is.

  98. This story is an excellent life lesson for young, professional men. One day after the inevitable divorce Mr. Schneid is going to regret his decision to marry and father children with Ms. Jampel. D0 not marry a young woman who will not take your name. Make no exceptions.

    I’ve been practicing law for over 25 years and have seen this story replayed dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. They are bound together now by the joint responsibilities of rearing young children, but they will be functionally estranged by the time the kids are in middle school. Ms Jampel is already bitter and will grow (even more) resentful of his career. She will compensate by throwing herself into her kids until they are grown and then probably some crazy charitable work about voting rights for women in Uganda. She will let herself go physically, and she’s no beauty queen now.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Schneid will be the best absentee father he can, but sacrifices must and will be made and his family relationships will suffer. He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals at the firm will greet him every morning, take care of his work needs, and focus their attention on making his life easier. These young women can smell male mid-life crisis like sharks can smell blood in the water. Things happen, and they will. Mr. Schneid will lose between 75% and 90% of his assets in the divorce and will pay 50% to 75% of his future income in child support and maintenance payments to Ms. Jampel, who conveniently won’t have to change her name back to her maiden name.

    I would estimate that 5% of the law firm partners I know are still in their first marriage, and of those in second marriages approximately 50% are married to former secretaries or paralegals. The current associative mating trend is a disaster for young professional men who want a family. Family life is all about managing time and voluntarily making personal sacrifices for the collective good of the family, and that go-getter female law school classmate or work colleague who intrigues you now is uniquely ill-suited for the task. My advice to young, professional men is to bypass the first marriage and go straight to the second marriage to the young, non-professional woman.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @JMcG
    I’m going to have my kids read this entire thread, but this comment needs a Gold Box.
    , @Lot
    “He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”
    , @Anon
    The young hot non-professional woman might marry you for your money, but she'll divorce rape you too. Also, she'll probably bang a hot Chad male on the side, exposing you to the risk of STDs and false paternity.

    Especially in a place like NYC, the cost of living is high. A lot of these minimum-wage secretaries do prostitution/escorting on the side. Keep that in mind before you put a ring on it.

    Marry a hot young gold digger at your own peril. This isn't the 1920s, when young secretaries married the boss, went home, and played house for decades. Today's women are different and the risk of cuckery is very high.

    Also, many of these secretaries are dumb bimbos. So your kids will grow up to be dumb and unambitious.

    FYI, secretaries get old too. So the bangability will fall off by within a few years of her marrying you, having kids, and getting fat.

    The older professional woman is usually a better bet. She has better genes, so smarter children. She parents better. Cheats a lot less. More earning power. The only disadvantage is that she's not that hot, so sex is worse.

    The older professional women are status chasers and into the whole "power couple" arrangement. So they typically don't divorce a high earning and successful husband, unless he's banging the secretary.
    , @SFG
    The catch is alimony. It's assessed in most cases from the difference of the couple's earning power, so a professional woman is actually *less* dangerous in this regard as long as she actually makes a good salary.

    My parents had similar salaries (now retired) and have been married for over 40 years. Still, n=1.

  99. He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekend

    Big deal. What kind of a life is that, sitting on your arse doin’ deals all day long. I call it selling your soul, but that assumes you have a soul in the first place. Is this anyone’s idea of a healthy culture? I would disown my children if this is what they aspired to.

    • Replies: @Boomer the Dog
    Having spent the past five years as an associate in BigLaw, I can attest that the "life" you describe is truly a ghastly one. Unless you can carve out a niche in one of the more specialized "support" practices--the tax and ERISA guys always seemed to have it pretty good, in my view--you can say goodbye to just about any chance of having a normal, balanced family existence. M&A and leveraged finance are particularly bad. Just about any plans you might make with loved ones will be dashed, often on laughably short warning (I would usually find out at around 5:30 on Friday afternoon before a long weekend that I'd be working all weekend--complete with violent fits of rage at the Wi-Fi on the plane, train, jitney, whatever). Vacations are spent chained to one's laptop in the hotel room (or, if you're lucky, the poolside chaise longue). I can recall stretches of six or eight weeks in which I never intentionally went to bed; I'd just work as late into the night as I could until passing out at 3 a.m. at my desk, or on the couch, before jolting myself awake and feverishly reading through the 20-30 emails I'd missed.

    The money was very good, enough to keep me in the game as long as our family was only two. But the prospect of not knowing my children, and probably getting divorced at some point, would never have been worth it. Luckily I was able to find an in-house gig with a slight pay cut, and now I get to spend mornings, evenings and weekends with my wife and our five-month-old.

    Sad that the legal profession has reached such a state.

    , @stillCARealist
    Thank you.

    There's a time and a place for working your butt off, but if it's non-stop while you have a young family, you need to quit and do something else.

    Where did I read "the division of labor is the meaning of life"? Was it here or somewhere else? I told it to my daughter and she became quite contemplative.
  100. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker

    He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.
     
    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    But when you factor in the hours he does most of the dreaded pay gap goes away.

    From the post:

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends.

    Pro tip: DON’T be the client that ends up paying for the 79th and 80th weekly hour “worked” by this insomniac. The work product of such workaholics is often (predictably) crappy. As a partner, he should be able to direct a team to work on a transaction.

  101. @Curious Person
    Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC?

    They’re Jewish.

    • Replies: @Anon
    We have a winner.
  102. @Buzz Mohawk
    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.

    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.

    If you mean a drop-out degree, i tend to agree.

    But if you mean “get your husband lined up” then i disagree for the really smarts. In today’s world most of the really smarts do some sort of professional track–grad, law, med, biz–post-bachelors education, and my observation is that it’s generally the last education you do where people lock down their spouse and often their lifelong friends.

    So i agree with the Simon’s last point:

    I strongly suspect Law School was too – if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    Now is this in some sense stupid and wasteful–sure. One could argue the old method of having the girl learn to play the piano, dance, engage in delightful conversation and learn French was more reasonable and certainly more pleasant for most women’s tastes.

    But there’s no doubt that graduating law school was great signalling for her. Matthew Schneid read it as “this girl has the genes and skills to be the mother of my children”.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I am now from another era. Every field, even MRS, has moved on to graduate level. Pharmacists now get "doctorate" degrees so they can fill bottles with pills. Everything is even more of a puffed-up, rent-seeking scam than it was already.

    You are correct. That is a sign of the times.

    I vote for piano lessons for the girls -- and welding apprenticeships for the boys.
    , @Lot
    “Law degree” signals other things for a woman though, like “$200,000 student loans” and “ball buster.” On net it is negative, just easy to miss because law schools suck in so much good human capital to begin with.

    She could have gone to a respectable college, worked as a biglaw paralegal for $70,000 a year at 22, and been even more attractive to young biglaw associates.

    Professional school for Mrs is just not a good strategy, even if it often works out most of the time. For one thing, the men there are mostly around 22-28 and a large share are in extended adolescence and not in the mood to settle down. Many will be nerds who did poorly with dating in HS and college starting to see their prospects rapidly rise. And the more traditional ones will have easy access to the undergrads.

  103. Ed says:

    It used be career driven women knew enough that having kids wasn’t wise. My first boss was such a lady. She was in her mid-50s and worked her way up to the cusp of the C-suite. Then suddenly she soured on the rat race. When I announced I was leaving she confided that she regretted not having a family. She later demoted herself to a less demanding position.

    I don’t know why this woman in the article is angry about her fate. She cannot be a high powered attorney, working 80 hours a week with two small children.

    • Replies: @sabril

    I don’t know why this woman in the article is angry about her fate
     
    I think it's because (1) she's too childish to fully appreciate the sacrifices necessary to become a successful attorney in New York; and (2) she feels it's unfair that her husband has direct control over the household income which they both contribute towards.
  104. @The Last Real Calvinist
    How many upper-middle-class people from the Acela corridor would be willing to move to Tulsa even if they knew they'd be a big shot in OK, vs being just a run-of-the-mill wage earner in NYC?

    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    (Two times peanuts wasn’t much, but it was better. I could finally begin to live like a man with a career.)

    Even though I preferred the environment back home, I stayed here because more promotions and opportunities kept happening, and because even a schmo like me gets paid more and has access to more of everything in general.

    I’ve met people here who had offers out West and turned them down because of the low pay scales. Maybe that has changed. The Denver area has grown a lot in business and opportunities during the past quarter century, and I sometimes wish I had just stayed, but it is too late now.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    I did sort of the opposite. Thirty years ago, just a couple of years out of undergrad, I left a good-paying software job near Boston for 25% less money in S. Florida. My career and wage growth has never recovered, but I've enjoyed great winter weather, got in on some early waterfront real estate appreciation, and enjoyed some exotic Cuban women.
    , @Lot
    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:

    https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019.04_top10_5yr-1024x741.png
  105. @Reg Cæsar
    It must be Joe Jackson Day. Two about the subject.

    Those happy loving couples ain't no friends of mine.





    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P3DnubUvRdU




    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=080M6-VWRZU

  106. @L Woods
    So she thinks her city government sinecure should pay as much as a high pressure job with 3-4 times the work hours. Female narcissism is truly something to behold. Even after all these years, it can still take me aback.

    In her mind her job is public service, his private greed. She undoubtedly would feel she deserves to be making 4 times what he is were they not married. Since they are she just wants a raise.

  107. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    That’s true, but “making it” in NYC these days means being a celebrity, a top figure in media/entertainment, or a hedge fund billionaire. Being partner at a law firm in NYC was a big deal back when hedge funds and finance were not as big, and those firms back then were insular venues largely open to well connected WASPs.

  108. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    One issue is as humans developed bigger brains, the female pelvis had to grow wider to give birth to bigger brained babies. Human females became more specifically adapted to birthing and less skilled at running.

    In general, as humans developed and depended upon bigger brains, both human gestation and childhood extended and basic mothering required more of a woman’s time.

    In short, in a a more intelligent and civilized species, there is longer developmental phase, more child care required–and for us mamals that means more need for females to do “mothering”.

    This–more developed/intelligent/civilized means more mothering, high sex-role dimorphism–is incredibly obvious … and yet somehow eludes all the great and the good.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    It’s true that gestation and nursing time and the extreme physical immaturity of small children also limit a woman’s ability to hunt big game. If women hunt giraffe, who will mind the toddlers?

    But even with slower speed and wider pelvises, full grown women can probably hunt big game since humans were historically persistence hunters who hunted by running down their prey to the point of exhaustion, sometimes running for 10 hours at a time after the same animal.

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to. They don’t because they dont have to in order to live and because they need to carry their children around or mind their troublesome toddlers.
  109. anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon in London
    "met in college at Cornell... " "in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school"

    These days you need to go to University and probably to Law School to meet your Lawyer future-husband. So Cornell at least was certainly a good investment for her. I strongly suspect Law School was too - if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I’m a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He’s white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I’m Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE ‘earned’ big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn’t. I did not feel I’d ever had a payday, never “made partner,” never felt I’d achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children’s accomplishments were their own — they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you’re right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won’t be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won’t have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will — there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first “first-husband” in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America’s white, deep-roots elites.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    Thanks, anon[202]. You write well.
    , @res
    Thank you for a thoughtful and well written comment. If it is not too rude to ask, what caused your problems with completing college? From your comment I would have expected you to do well there.

    Any suggestions for better management of 50 year time-spans? And how to instill that idea in people?

    P.S. I hope things are going well for you now.
    , @Spangel
    Sorry to hear about your story. You’re not the only case I’ve seen this happen in. Despite what is true about female hypergamy, an extreme status or power differential in relationships does seem to cause resentment.

    Did your husband act condescendingly towards you?
    , @Buffalo Joe
    anon, You did "make partner", that's what a marriage is, some partnerships fail. My first one did.
    , @Clyde
    You produced and raised two solid children maybe more. This is quite an accomplishment these days. You kept your family humming along while he was out making the big money.
    , @Anon

    moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career
     
    When I read this I wondered if the final move may not have been to minimize alimony rather than advance his career. There are massive differences, state by state. Stay out of Massachusetts if you're the breadwinner.

    House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America’s white, deep-roots elites.
     
    This "beiging" of American whiteness is the subject of Eric Kaufmann's recent book White Shift.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.
     
    And do your children love you? What do they think of their father? And their step-mother?

    My guess is that they love you, but not him. And the contempt for the "evil" stepmother will poison any family gathering they attend with their father.

    Not everything can be measured in money.
    , @Simon in London
    "we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America’s white, deep-roots elites."

    Well, IME in UK the successful partnerships involve an element of trading down - beautiful intelligent & kind foreign girl marries a guy who is decent, but a level or two below her on objective Socio-Sexual Market Value. That way he appreciates her and wakes up every day thinking "Wow - I can't believe my luck!" The same dynamic IME works for two white natives, also.

    For an immigrant to also trade up is going to cause problems. To successfully partner with America's white deep roots elites then, it's best to be foreign royalty, supermodel etc. Although SSMV can be adjusted up quite substantially by working on looks, health, temperament/behaviour & education, it takes a lot of effort.
  110. @Oldatty
    This story is an excellent life lesson for young, professional men. One day after the inevitable divorce Mr. Schneid is going to regret his decision to marry and father children with Ms. Jampel. D0 not marry a young woman who will not take your name. Make no exceptions.

    I've been practicing law for over 25 years and have seen this story replayed dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. They are bound together now by the joint responsibilities of rearing young children, but they will be functionally estranged by the time the kids are in middle school. Ms Jampel is already bitter and will grow (even more) resentful of his career. She will compensate by throwing herself into her kids until they are grown and then probably some crazy charitable work about voting rights for women in Uganda. She will let herself go physically, and she's no beauty queen now.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Schneid will be the best absentee father he can, but sacrifices must and will be made and his family relationships will suffer. He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals at the firm will greet him every morning, take care of his work needs, and focus their attention on making his life easier. These young women can smell male mid-life crisis like sharks can smell blood in the water. Things happen, and they will. Mr. Schneid will lose between 75% and 90% of his assets in the divorce and will pay 50% to 75% of his future income in child support and maintenance payments to Ms. Jampel, who conveniently won't have to change her name back to her maiden name.

    I would estimate that 5% of the law firm partners I know are still in their first marriage, and of those in second marriages approximately 50% are married to former secretaries or paralegals. The current associative mating trend is a disaster for young professional men who want a family. Family life is all about managing time and voluntarily making personal sacrifices for the collective good of the family, and that go-getter female law school classmate or work colleague who intrigues you now is uniquely ill-suited for the task. My advice to young, professional men is to bypass the first marriage and go straight to the second marriage to the young, non-professional woman.

    I’m going to have my kids read this entire thread, but this comment needs a Gold Box.

  111. He couldn’t have his job and his kids without her, so it should be a partnership for it to be equitable. If he doesn’t make that clear, he’s a cad.

  112. @Ed
    It used be career driven women knew enough that having kids wasn’t wise. My first boss was such a lady. She was in her mid-50s and worked her way up to the cusp of the C-suite. Then suddenly she soured on the rat race. When I announced I was leaving she confided that she regretted not having a family. She later demoted herself to a less demanding position.

    I don’t know why this woman in the article is angry about her fate. She cannot be a high powered attorney, working 80 hours a week with two small children.

    I don’t know why this woman in the article is angry about her fate

    I think it’s because (1) she’s too childish to fully appreciate the sacrifices necessary to become a successful attorney in New York; and (2) she feels it’s unfair that her husband has direct control over the household income which they both contribute towards.

  113. @AnotherDad

    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?
     
    One issue is as humans developed bigger brains, the female pelvis had to grow wider to give birth to bigger brained babies. Human females became more specifically adapted to birthing and less skilled at running.

    In general, as humans developed and depended upon bigger brains, both human gestation and childhood extended and basic mothering required more of a woman's time.

    In short, in a a more intelligent and civilized species, there is longer developmental phase, more child care required--and for us mamals that means more need for females to do "mothering".

    This--more developed/intelligent/civilized means more mothering, high sex-role dimorphism--is incredibly obvious ... and yet somehow eludes all the great and the good.

    It’s true that gestation and nursing time and the extreme physical immaturity of small children also limit a woman’s ability to hunt big game. If women hunt giraffe, who will mind the toddlers?

    But even with slower speed and wider pelvises, full grown women can probably hunt big game since humans were historically persistence hunters who hunted by running down their prey to the point of exhaustion, sometimes running for 10 hours at a time after the same animal.

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to. They don’t because they dont have to in order to live and because they need to carry their children around or mind their troublesome toddlers.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to.
     
    Ultra long distance running might wear down some prey to the point where you can slit its neck with a pointy stick or a sharp rock. But if you are trying to kill something with some life left it in, which, in my experience, shows up despite apparent exhaustion, you need upper body strength to finish the beast off.

    The death throes of even relatively small animals are remarkable. And the animals that are even smaller are not the ones you can run down.
    , @gcochran
    Jesus, how insane. Have you ever even arm-wrestled a girl?
    , @Forbes
    This is how these discussion get off track--speculating on what might be possible. Speculating on the possible is not how the world works. What one person (woman) can or might do in order to survive is a data point. How the species has evolved to survive is reality. Women are capable of many physical feats. The fact they come in second place to men every time--often by a large margin--means men and women have evolved different physical capabilities.

    I once knew a woman who ran the Leadville (CO) 100 ultra-marathon. It was awe-inspiring. She may have even won the woman's division--I don't recall. But she was (6?) hours behind most of the men. You might ask: What for? It wasn't for survival. It wasn't to feed her children. The luxury of first-world leisure time activities knows no bounds--but it's not the reality of how species evolve physical characteristics.

    IMO. YMMV.
  114. ANonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Behold, the Afro-dirndl…Wakandan dirndl?

    https://www.nohnee.com/collections/afrikanische-dirndl

  115. @DPG
    We’ve set up a system where people have to incur six figures of student loans simply to ensure that they are part of the right social circle in which to meet a spouse.

    It may not be long til those taking that route are seen as ill-suited.

  116. @Spangel
    That doesn’t make much sense. It’s probably easier for men from other tribes to take women while the menfolk are away hunting. It would be better to have the women stay with the men from that perspective. Normally in mammals, the male is larger but pack hunters still hunt in coed packs. Don’t wolves and dogs hunt this way?

    I think one of the things we forget as modern people is that in prehistoric times, people got a lot of their day to day protein from insects, which women can gather.

    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group. As for why they don’t, probably because it’s risky and prone to injury or death and they don’t actually need to do it to live. They can just catch some locusts.

    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group.

    Pygmies are able to hunt elephants because of their small stature. Elephant hides are thick enough to make the animals largely invulnerable to spears and arrows, except for one small spot in the groin area, not much larger than a human hand, where there is a major blood vessel very close to the surface. A pygmy hunter can run under a standing elephant at full speed and thrust a short spear into this vulnerable area without ever breaking stride. If done correctly the elephant will drop from blood loss within a few minutes. If pygmies were of normal human height they’d have to crouch down as they ran under the elephant, which would make the precise spear placement more difficult and would make it more likely that the fast-reacting elephant would trample the hunter.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    Ha! Didn’t know that. Guess that’s why those blokes evolved so small and persisted even through the Bantu expansion era.


    I have to hand it to the dudes who are 4’6” and running under an adult male elephant to spear his nut area at the risk of being trampled.

    Small men with elephant sized balls.
  117. @Mr. Anon

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is. “No one explains this to you when you’re 21, but in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school, she said.
     
    It's almost as if feminism had lied to her.

    Given that her paid work is being a lawyer for New York City, I don't value that.

    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I’m thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?

    • Replies: @res

    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I’m thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?
     
    A good question. This paper gives some information:
    https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/keith.chen/papers/GenderNPV_WorkingPaper.pdf

    Abstract:

    Recent literature has documented that women earn significantly lower returns than men to investing in professional degrees. However, these papers have not addressed the question of whether this gap is large enough to render professional degrees poor financial investments for women. To study this, we examine whether becoming a physician is a positive net-present-value investment for women. We sidestep some selection issues associated with measuring the returns to education by comparing physicians to physician assistants, a similar profession with lower wages but much lower up-front training costs. We find that the median female (but not male) primary-care physician would have been financially better off becoming a physician assistant. This result is partially due to a gender-wage gap in medicine. However, it is mostly driven by the fact that the median female physician simply doesn’t work enough hours to amortize her upfront investment in medical school. In contrast, the median male physician work many more hours, easily enough to amortize his up-front investment. We discuss the robustness of our results to other medical specialties and their relevance to gender-wage gaps more broadly. We discuss other sources of returns to education that rationalize these investments by women.
     
    Sample excerpt:

    Our results suggest that many, if not most, women primary-care physicians do not work enough hours to fully amortize their up-front investments in medical education versus the plausible alternative career of becoming a physician assistant. This raises the issue of whether these findings bear any relationship to the NPVs for obtaining other professional degrees such as JDs and MBAs.
    This is difficult to determine. Of course, both the MBA and JD require much lower upfront initial investment than a medical career. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that female doctors “drop out” of their professions less than women lawyers and (especially) women MBAs. For example, Herr and Wolfram (2008) find, in a sample of Harvard graduates, that 94.2% of MD mothers remain working in their late thirties, as compared to 79% of JDs and 72% of MBAs. The AMA Masterfile, similarly shows very low attrition rates for young women doctors, approximately 3% of the 45-54 year old age cohort. Nonetheless, while our results are not driven by high dropout rates from the medical profession, they are driven by the shorter hours of female professionals.
     
    But the paper reads to me like they would not "notice" an attrition issue for women doctors if one existed (or would minimize it). Caveat lector.

    Any better data out there?
    , @SFG
    From what I've seen a lot of the female doctors just work part-time or do other arrangements, or ramp back up when the kids are older.

    Honestly, it's not the end of the world; it's actually a good societal use for women with very high IQs. The female advantage in empathy, attention to detail, and tolerance for boring tasks helps with patient care.
    , @GermanReader2
    In Germany Female doctors work only about two thirds of the hours male doctors work during their lifetime and also are less qualified (less finished residencies, less difficult specialities) than their male counterparts.
  118. @Wilkey
    Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”

    And the benefit for her is that she never has to worry about how the bills are getting paid. This is single-entry bookkeeping. She sees what's going "out" (her time raising the children), but none of what's coming "in" (him paying for what is probably a very nice lifestyle, her getting to raise the kids rather than dropping them off at some dumbass babysitter, etc.). She recognizes how her own flexibility contributes to their lifestyle but not how his flexibility (in his case, for his employer) contributes to it.

    She has a great thing going. Her gig with New York City probably at least comes with a good retirement package, if nothing else. I'm extremely jealous of them.

    I hope she ruins it.

    She recognizes how her own flexibility contributes to their lifestyle but not how his flexibility (in his case, for his employer) contributes to it.

    Not only that, it’s pretty likely that the vast majority of her husband’s big salary goes to things which she wants more than him. Fancier vacations, expensive private schools for the kids, etc. And even if not, she’s reaping the benefits of that salary big time.

    And on top of that, she probably doesn’t appreciate just how much sacrifice is involved in working a high paying professional job and reaching a high level position.

    It’s funny because women are supposed to be the empathetic gender but they really don’t have much empathy or appreciation for the difficulties men go through to make their lives comfortable.

  119. @Anon
    Article says wife was laid off from her firm during the recession. Hmmm. She doesn't sound like NY law firm partner material to me. Good associates make money for the partners and are not let go that easily.

    There may have been a marginal anti female bias if they thought she'd eventually quit or want to go part time. If so, it wasn't really bias, since that's exactly what she did.

    One of the dirty little secrets about professional services firms is that they are very much biased in favor of women. A female associate — especially if she is remotely attractive — is much more likely to be taken under the wing of a partner and spared layoff during hard times.

  120. Off topic: You knew this was coming. Ken Burns’s head next on the chopping block.

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/on-replacing-ken-burns-the-civil-war

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    That the smug and unctuous Burns is an avatar of "cultural conservativism" and "nostalgia" shows that the slippery slope is above our heads now.

    And really, isn't the fact that nothing good has come out of jazz, or baseball, in the last 40 years pretty close to the truth? Okay, there are the new grass stadiums, but those just replaced the giant split washers of the 1960s and 1970s, so there was a very low baseline.




    https://military-fasteners.com/catalog/part_image/2600-SW.png

    http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0619/mlb_worststadiums_01.jpg
    , @J.Ross
    Well of course he's a [~Nazi], he created something.
    Thus the death of [~Nazism] wouldn't be tolerance or re-education, it would be grasshoppers learning to actually make their own stuff instead of stealing it from ants.
    Which suggests a longer-than-thousand year [~Reich].
  121. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    Thanks, anon[202]. You write well.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    A credit to her race? :D
  122. Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What’s a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that’s actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity “service partner” who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Lot
    Some messy divorces in the news revealed that even older partners at large Wall Street firms were making 300-400k.
    , @Spangel
    I’m surprised that even a junior non equity partner makes that little. I thought those made more like 400k?

    I know a second year associate who makes 250k in biglaw in nyc, granted he’s at one of the top 5 highest paying firms. I thought that was normal.
    , @uman
    To be fair he works at a no-name firm. AND he went to Cardoza law school of Yeshiva University. Which is not in the TOP 50 ranked schools in the country...
    https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/yeshiva-university-03103

    They're are many more ranked law schools alone, Columbia, NYU, Fordham, not to mention all the other law school students that make a run at New York city..

    Fordham Law school, where his wife went, is 20 spots higher than Cardoza.
    Both of these guys went to Cornell undergrad, which is a decent school, but then flamed out when applying to law school.

    So the $250k salary makes sense, its actually pretty good for him. And if you make $250k outside of Manhattan, then you are fine.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    sabril, Her earnings basically pay off her student loans. Her hourly wage, for a 2000 work year would yield her $92,000, not a great pay for living in NYC.
    , @Anon
    Maybe that's why they're angry.

    Doing the math, it seems the family income is 165K - 230K/yr. Pretty good in, let's say, Portland. Middle class in NYC. When you benchmark yourself against all the super high earning attorneys in NYC, 200K/yr is a disappointment.

    That's why she's complaining about her income.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

     

    This explains a lot.

    This thread is tremendous; there's so much how-to-live-your-life observation and wisdom here.

    But no one has yet mentioned a factor from this NYT saga that would have been obvious to someone 100 years ago: where are the servants?

    Miller suggests the following social policies are needed to help make overworked mothers like Ms Jampel feel better:


    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.

     

    Sure, but all of those are unnecessary if you have enough in-house help with the cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

    The couple in the story's problem is that they're not rich enough to employ servants. If they are making less than 300K/year (and possibly less than that), and if they've got student loan debt, then they're not going to be getting ahead much living in NYC. They're just not rich enough to enjoy the kind of lifestyle they believe -- or at least Ms Jampel believes -- they should be entitled to.

    And in these circumstances, it's no surprise that resentment festers.

    Remember in Bonfire that Sherman and Judy McCoy had Bonita standing ready to take little Campbell off their hands whenever they didn't want to be bothered. They also had other household staff for the cooking and cleaning, allowing Judy to indulge her dreams of being an interior designer. Ms Jampel, on the other hand, is pictured slaving over a hot stove.

    One other comment on another theme: note the following sentences, quoted directly from the source of all wisdom and truth, the NYT:


    There’s no gender gap in the financial rewards for working extra long hours. For the most part, women who work extreme hours get paid as much as men who do.

    . . .

    Men and women with law and business degrees have similar jobs right out of college, other research has found — but a decade later, women earn significantly less. It’s explained by the fact that they work shorter hours and take more breaks.

     

    Can we now forget about this 78 cents on the dollar nonsense for once and for all? The NYT says so.
    , @Anon

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY
     
    This is about half of what an assistant DA or assistant U.S. Attorney make, so it sounds about right. In general, any attorney who shows up in a public job after starting in a private law firm has washed out. You see a lot of black Harvard Law graduates who go from $170,000 white shoe associates to $55,000 assistant U.S. attorneys after a couple of years, barely able to make loan payments ... but in the current climate they may end up as $100,000 affirmative action-hire law professors studying the legal implications of hip-hop.
    , @Dr. X
    Haaaaa.... $32K for a Cornell grad! No wonder she's all butthurt. She could make more working at a day-care.

    College is a joke.
  123. @AnotherDad

    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.
     
    If you mean a drop-out degree, i tend to agree.

    But if you mean "get your husband lined up" then i disagree for the really smarts. In today's world most of the really smarts do some sort of professional track--grad, law, med, biz--post-bachelors education, and my observation is that it's generally the last education you do where people lock down their spouse and often their lifelong friends.

    So i agree with the Simon's last point:

    I strongly suspect Law School was too – if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    Now is this in some sense stupid and wasteful--sure. One could argue the old method of having the girl learn to play the piano, dance, engage in delightful conversation and learn French was more reasonable and certainly more pleasant for most women's tastes.

    But there's no doubt that graduating law school was great signalling for her. Matthew Schneid read it as "this girl has the genes and skills to be the mother of my children".

    I am now from another era. Every field, even MRS, has moved on to graduate level. Pharmacists now get “doctorate” degrees so they can fill bottles with pills. Everything is even more of a puffed-up, rent-seeking scam than it was already.

    You are correct. That is a sign of the times.

    I vote for piano lessons for the girls — and welding apprenticeships for the boys.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Competent piano tuners are in demand. Knowing your way around the instrument both technically and musically is a must.
    , @Anon

    Pharmacists now get “doctorate” degrees so they can fill bottles with pills.
     
    I had a girlfriend who graduated with a four-year degree from UCLA, and then went off to a five-year pharmacy program at USC, not recently, but 40 years ago. So they must be doing something other than filling bottles with pills.

    Law school is three years post graduate. A combined law degree and MBA is four years. Medical school is four years if you skip an internship and become a GP (the vibrant track), an extra 3 to 7 for an internship.
  124. @jim jones
    I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    They prefer “stay at home mom,” since “housewife” would imply obligations as a wife (ie, to the husband) and not merely as a mother.

  125. @prosa123
    Human females are more than large enough to hunt big game in packs. I know this because pygmies are highly successful big game hunters. They bring down elephants and rhinos routinely. If a Pygmy group can hunt an elephant, one would think normal women have the raw physical capacity to do so as well if in a large enough group.

    Pygmies are able to hunt elephants because of their small stature. Elephant hides are thick enough to make the animals largely invulnerable to spears and arrows, except for one small spot in the groin area, not much larger than a human hand, where there is a major blood vessel very close to the surface. A pygmy hunter can run under a standing elephant at full speed and thrust a short spear into this vulnerable area without ever breaking stride. If done correctly the elephant will drop from blood loss within a few minutes. If pygmies were of normal human height they'd have to crouch down as they ran under the elephant, which would make the precise spear placement more difficult and would make it more likely that the fast-reacting elephant would trample the hunter.

    Ha! Didn’t know that. Guess that’s why those blokes evolved so small and persisted even through the Bantu expansion era.

    I have to hand it to the dudes who are 4’6” and running under an adult male elephant to spear his nut area at the risk of being trampled.

    Small men with elephant sized balls.

    • Agree: prosa123
  126. @AnotherDad

    The MRS is usually an undergraduate degree.
     
    If you mean a drop-out degree, i tend to agree.

    But if you mean "get your husband lined up" then i disagree for the really smarts. In today's world most of the really smarts do some sort of professional track--grad, law, med, biz--post-bachelors education, and my observation is that it's generally the last education you do where people lock down their spouse and often their lifelong friends.

    So i agree with the Simon's last point:

    I strongly suspect Law School was too – if she had dropped out of career-track too early in favour of homemaking, he probably would not have married her.

    Now is this in some sense stupid and wasteful--sure. One could argue the old method of having the girl learn to play the piano, dance, engage in delightful conversation and learn French was more reasonable and certainly more pleasant for most women's tastes.

    But there's no doubt that graduating law school was great signalling for her. Matthew Schneid read it as "this girl has the genes and skills to be the mother of my children".

    “Law degree” signals other things for a woman though, like “$200,000 student loans” and “ball buster.” On net it is negative, just easy to miss because law schools suck in so much good human capital to begin with.

    She could have gone to a respectable college, worked as a biglaw paralegal for $70,000 a year at 22, and been even more attractive to young biglaw associates.

    Professional school for Mrs is just not a good strategy, even if it often works out most of the time. For one thing, the men there are mostly around 22-28 and a large share are in extended adolescence and not in the mood to settle down. Many will be nerds who did poorly with dating in HS and college starting to see their prospects rapidly rise. And the more traditional ones will have easy access to the undergrads.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The smart Mrs. strategy starts at puberty. Women’s marriage value depreciates like a car, men’s like a house.
  127. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Wow… you mean lawyers earn money?

  128. @Liza

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekend
     
    Big deal. What kind of a life is that, sitting on your arse doin' deals all day long. I call it selling your soul, but that assumes you have a soul in the first place. Is this anyone's idea of a healthy culture? I would disown my children if this is what they aspired to.

    Having spent the past five years as an associate in BigLaw, I can attest that the “life” you describe is truly a ghastly one. Unless you can carve out a niche in one of the more specialized “support” practices–the tax and ERISA guys always seemed to have it pretty good, in my view–you can say goodbye to just about any chance of having a normal, balanced family existence. M&A and leveraged finance are particularly bad. Just about any plans you might make with loved ones will be dashed, often on laughably short warning (I would usually find out at around 5:30 on Friday afternoon before a long weekend that I’d be working all weekend–complete with violent fits of rage at the Wi-Fi on the plane, train, jitney, whatever). Vacations are spent chained to one’s laptop in the hotel room (or, if you’re lucky, the poolside chaise longue). I can recall stretches of six or eight weeks in which I never intentionally went to bed; I’d just work as late into the night as I could until passing out at 3 a.m. at my desk, or on the couch, before jolting myself awake and feverishly reading through the 20-30 emails I’d missed.

    The money was very good, enough to keep me in the game as long as our family was only two. But the prospect of not knowing my children, and probably getting divorced at some point, would never have been worth it. Luckily I was able to find an in-house gig with a slight pay cut, and now I get to spend mornings, evenings and weekends with my wife and our five-month-old.

    Sad that the legal profession has reached such a state.

    • Agree: Liza
  129. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    Thank you for a thoughtful and well written comment. If it is not too rude to ask, what caused your problems with completing college? From your comment I would have expected you to do well there.

    Any suggestions for better management of 50 year time-spans? And how to instill that idea in people?

    P.S. I hope things are going well for you now.

  130. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    You don’t understand New York apartment kitchens. That kitchen looks huge. And that looks like a Viking stove or something similarly high-end. It might cost as much as a used car.

  131. anon[166] • Disclaimer says:
    @Discordiax
    Datum: Husband is a partner at a law firm where partners get "seven figure pay packages."
    Datum: Wife is a part-time lawyer for NYC, working 21 hours a week.
    Datum: Husband earns from 4 to 6 times what wife does, depending on the year.
    Algebra. Husband earns seven figures, $1,000,000 base, increasing to $1,500,000 in some years.
    Conclusion: Wife earns $250,000 per year at her job. At 50 weeks per year, 20 hours per week (I'm simplifying the math, if you don't like it get a calculator and do it yourself) = 1000 hours /year

    So Wife has hard data valuing her time at $250 an hour. (That's a minimum--she's a lawyer, I'm sure she's fully capable of constructing arguments valuing her time at par with her husband's higher hourly rate based on comparisons from law school and pre-pregnancy lawyering).

    She's doing work that she COULD outsource to immigrant housekeeper/nanny/staff, but the family chooses not to (although there is some amount of outsourcing--someone's watching the 1 year old and 5 year old while mommy is off lawyering.)

    That's not a pleasant thing. Adulthood is full of unpleasant realities.

    The law firms where partners make 7 figs is referencing Big Law. The husband is a partner at a mid-sized firm, which likely isn’t going to pay near as much.

    And that’s a very typical career path. The Big Law model is to take top law school grads, pay them well for long hours doing what is relatively grunt work (it’s currently $180k for a first year associate). After a handful of years the vast majority leave, while a privileged few get onto partner track.

  132. @Lawyer Guy
    Partners at mid size firms in dying rust belt cities make 100-200 a year. There are three large regional firms in our city, but the partners there are taking steps to make sure only they stay on top and have been for 20 years, making everyone else is a second class partner-- and the people running things are in their 60s/70s.

    Lots of girl lawyers passed the bar in the 90s, from good schools, working hard until they met and married the neurologist finishing his residency or the engineer who just got promoted to team lead. Now they work 20 hour weeks job sharing, or doing document review, while he makes the money, and they complain about about sexism in law.

    Partners at mid size firms in dying rust belt cities make 100-200 a year. There are three large regional firms in our city, but the partners there are taking steps to make sure only they stay on top and have been for 20 years, making everyone else is a second class partner– and the people running things are in their 60s/70s.

    The compensation structure is different but this is essentially the state of the legal profession nearly everywhere.

    Baby Boomers are under the impression that they invented the law, and don’t seem to want to understand that baby attorneys have $200K in debt rather than the $15K they spent soup to nuts.

    Where they are in a judicial role in my jurisdiction, they brought suit in both State and Federal Court in order to invalidate the state Constitution’s mandatory retirement age for Judges.

    They’re going to take it all with them, and leave a bunch of Gen Xers holding the bag.

  133. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Cornell law degree notwithstanding, he’s a fucking idiot. Women at Cornell are notoriously ugly and she appears to live down to that standard. Additionally, it appears as if she’s a whiny pain in the ass. Get that degree and move to any decent sized burgeoning city in the South, i.e. Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, Austin, etc, etc and he’s pulling in a shade less than he’s making now in NYC, has less of a tax burden, and his kitchen opens to a veranda overlooking the 16th green at a local country club. Moreover, he is surrounded by beautiful single women looking to start a family with a decent wage earner. I’m not saying the beautiful southern women won’t be a whiny pains in the ass, especially after the wedding but I’d rather have a hot whiny wife and big ass house than and ugly whiny wife and cramped apartment.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Lawyer

    Cornell law degree notwithstanding, he’s a fucking idiot. Women at Cornell are notoriously ugly and she appears to live down to that standard. Additionally, it appears as if she’s a whiny pain in the ass. Get that degree and move to any decent sized burgeoning city in the South, i.e. Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, Austin, etc, etc and he’s pulling in a shade less than he’s making now in NYC, has less of a tax burden, and his kitchen opens to a veranda overlooking the 16th green at a local country club. Moreover, he is surrounded by beautiful single women looking to start a family with a decent wage earner. I’m not saying the beautiful southern women won’t be a whiny pains in the ass, especially after the wedding but I’d rather have a hot whiny wife and big ass house than and ugly whiny wife and cramped apartment.
     
    I am a relatively recent graduate of Cornell Law School. I can tell you that you do not understand how legal hiring works. I did well in law school, was on law review, was an officer in several societies, graduated near the top of my class, etc. Despite this, I would never have been able to get a job in a semi-random city that paid anywhere near what NYC legal jobs pay. Law firms in places like Nashville, Raleigh, and Austin *highly* value local connections. There are only so many decent paying legal jobs in those places, and they only hire people who have some sort of local roots there. Even cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc require local connections. Honestly, outside of New York City and Washington DC, both of which place very little emphasis on having local roots, EVERY city’s legal market requires some sort of local connection. Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc.: none of these places are impressed enough by a Cornell law degree to let an outsider waltz in to a $150,000+ per year job.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I’m not saying the beautiful southern women won’t be a whiny pains in the ass
     
    Well, they are American, after all. Still, they are much more likely than their sisters to prefer sweet talk and manipulation to outright whining. Like the French and Italians are famous for. It works better.
  134. Interesting to note the composition of this group, look like 10 white, 4 Indians, 2 Asians, and 1 AA
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/17-students-from-single-high-school-earn-perfect-13797731.php

    • Replies: @Lot
    14/17 are boys. Higher male IQ SD is big enough to see even at the tails of a single high school’s distribution.

    Larry Summers and James Damore got fired for pointing this out in a very delicate manner. Egalitarian Stalinism in action!
  135. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    Sorry to hear about your story. You’re not the only case I’ve seen this happen in. Despite what is true about female hypergamy, an extreme status or power differential in relationships does seem to cause resentment.

    Did your husband act condescendingly towards you?

  136. @Dr. X

    It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”
     
    Well, if she were a 300 lb. lesbian, or she had exercised her "constitutional right to choose" and aborted her kids, she wouldn't have such terrible problems. Sounds like Cornell failed to sufficiently indoctrinate her.

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    ...valued by whom? I'm sure her husband and kids value her time quite a bit.

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

     

    I smell a divorce coming...

    I smell a divorce coming…

    What a troublemaker Betty Friedan was.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    (((Betty Friedan))) wrote that suburbs were "concentration camps for women" in 1963, only 18 years after the liberation of Auschwitz...
    , @SFG
    And she was hardly the worst of them. She actually started feeling sorry for men afterward and got sidelined.
  137. @Spangel
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.

    Good high paying jobs for women are things like dentistry, vetrinary medicine and dermatology. Those have 9 to 5 hours and they can join group practices where they don’t have to work every day. Well veterinary medicine can involve more variable hours but it tends to give such high job satisfaction that women are fine with it. Women who work in those fields also tend to like those jobs, unlike law.

    To succeed in law you have to be a jerk. Very few women are natural jerks so they find themselves stressed out over the arguing and egotism. Those women who can put aside all feelings for the sake of winning do quite well in law. Of course, they tend not to keep husbands or even have any children at all. I say this as the relative of a childless, successful female lawyer, who, unfortunately, had a husband who left for another woman.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    I’m sure that’s true. I think the kind of aptitude required for the lsat and law school itself draws women into the profession because it is primarily verbal, but the actual job of being a lawyer is something almost no women like. In fact most really hate it and leave the field.

    Women are better dealing with other kinds of stress. In the youngest generation of med students, over 80% of ob gyns will be female and this number has been consistently rising over past decades. It’s a plenty stressful job where the patient is overwhelmed, screaming and in pain. You get blamed for anything that goes wrong and easily sued. The hours go on into the middle of the night. But women handle this kind of stress just fine. They do it because it’s a job that they find fulfilling.
    , @keypusher
    That's simply not true. In my experience there are five lawyers who succeed by being collegial for every one who succeeds by being a jerk.
  138. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    (Two times peanuts wasn't much, but it was better. I could finally begin to live like a man with a career.)

    Even though I preferred the environment back home, I stayed here because more promotions and opportunities kept happening, and because even a schmo like me gets paid more and has access to more of everything in general.

    I've met people here who had offers out West and turned them down because of the low pay scales. Maybe that has changed. The Denver area has grown a lot in business and opportunities during the past quarter century, and I sometimes wish I had just stayed, but it is too late now.

    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    I did sort of the opposite. Thirty years ago, just a couple of years out of undergrad, I left a good-paying software job near Boston for 25% less money in S. Florida. My career and wage growth has never recovered, but I’ve enjoyed great winter weather, got in on some early waterfront real estate appreciation, and enjoyed some exotic Cuban women.

  139. Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is.

    Seriously? Her husband seems to value it, to the tune of more than $500,000 per year.

  140. @Spangel
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.

    Good high paying jobs for women are things like dentistry, vetrinary medicine and dermatology. Those have 9 to 5 hours and they can join group practices where they don’t have to work every day. Well veterinary medicine can involve more variable hours but it tends to give such high job satisfaction that women are fine with it. Women who work in those fields also tend to like those jobs, unlike law.

    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off.

    In Big Law, as an associate, you have to work 60-80 hours/week simply to not get fired or let go after 3-5 years. As a partner you have to work 60-80 hours/week to not get fired as a partner. Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.

    • Replies: @sabril

    Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.
     
    In big law firms, the trick is to have your own clients. The name of the game is "portable billing," which means that if you walk away your clients will follow you. If you have 5 or 10 million dollars a year in portable billing, you can have a very nice life as a big law firm attorney.
    , @Desiderius
    Alternatively, one could be exceptionally talented in the law and savvy in applying that talent.

    You’re not a shelf stocker at WalMart.
    , @scrivener3
    Big law is horrible.

    A working class kid who gets into a top ten law school and gets courted by big firms is pretty heady stuff. I made more in a week than I made a full summer making barrels. I watched a pro football game from a firm sky box. The hours are horrible, the clients consider you a servant not an equal.

    The partner I worked for had a home with a backyard that butted up against the yard of David Boise (perhaps the biggest lawyer in the world). He had a deadbolt lock put on his office door so he could sleep during a deal and not be disturbed by the clean up staff. He sleep on his couch.

    He was so successful I could hardly dream of reaching that level, yet he often slept on a couch in his office.

    A lawyers life can be reasonably good. Forgo the big firm, hang a shingle, get your own clients. You will not do the deal with seven zeros after the dollar sign. I did many. It was a horrible life.
  141. @Liza

    He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekend
     
    Big deal. What kind of a life is that, sitting on your arse doin' deals all day long. I call it selling your soul, but that assumes you have a soul in the first place. Is this anyone's idea of a healthy culture? I would disown my children if this is what they aspired to.

    Thank you.

    There’s a time and a place for working your butt off, but if it’s non-stop while you have a young family, you need to quit and do something else.

    Where did I read “the division of labor is the meaning of life”? Was it here or somewhere else? I told it to my daughter and she became quite contemplative.

    • Agree: Liza
  142. OT: iSteve favorite Mohamed Noor disappointed by his experience as American cop:

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/mohamed-noor-who-killed-bride-to-be-expresses-regret-over-joining-force/

    Like Ilhan Omar, America has not lived up to her ‘promise’ for Mohamed.

    “If I knew this would happen, I never would have become a cop,” Mohamed Noor said while being questioned by his lawyer, Tom Plunkett, in Hennepin County District Court on Thursday.

    As Omar would say, something ‘happened.’ Someone did something. And now Mohamed Noor is sad, so sad that he’s experienced ‘slight paralysis.’ Of course, the Australian Yoga teacher is permanently paralyzed. That is to say, dead.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    Scott Johnson from Powerline Blog has been given daily recaps from the courtroom. One of his comments today based on Noor's testimony yesterday was that some of the jurors "seem to me in Noor’s corner." While hoping he is wrong, I wouldn't bet much on a conviction. The defense case has been an embarrassment and essentially boils down to a LEO has the right to fire his weapon any time he gets spooked or perceives a threat of any kind.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Just don't confuse Mohamed Noor with Mohamud Noor, who's serving in the state House of Representatives. This MN in MN has managed to lose to both Phyllis Kahn and Ilhan Omar.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamud_Noor

    Somali men just plain suck at politics. In that arena, they are even worse than Mexicans.
    , @Dan Smith
    I can't wait to read the prosecution's cross on this perp. Defense is throwing a Hail Mary putting him on the stand. I hope it backfires big time.
  143. This isn’t the way they expected
    They didn’t expect that the guy would work longer hours and that the girl would spend more time at home with the kids.
    Unaccompanied eyebrow in motion.
    Unexpected gratitude to the media: at least they’re sort of talking about the Japanization of labor. They might as well, since they can never leave their desks.
    Further gratitude: Snap Judgment (which is a cross between the Moth and This American Life, switching models whenever it feels like it, with a professionally black host) has a must-hear story about a smart friendless white kid, who spends a lot of time present at keyboard, getting crucified by local public school imbecile administrators and police. What’s noteworthy and cause for gratitude is the story actually tells the kid’s story. This is the bizarro world inverse of what happened with Senor Cruz.
    It comes out that the procedure for identifying a potential school shooter (this is relevant to SWATting Red Flag gun seizure laws) is based on absolutely nothing, relies on witness statements which can be checked because the witnesses are named (!) and which witnesses later repudiate the statements (!), is nearly perfectly opaque, guarantees that the kid wil despise the school if he didn’t before, completely derails his education, recognizes no rights on the part of the investigated party, and technically never resolves (the kid left the school, he was never exonerated). Remember, Cruz was having violent tantrums on a near-daily basis. This kid did literally nothing wrong and submitted to surprise searches at home and cars following him home. Somehow I suspect that his last name doesn’t end in a “z.”
    School shooting deaths are outnumbered by lightning deaths, the government is a tyranny every hour.
    https://www.wbez.org/shows/snap-judgment/snap-1012-no-one-calls-me-shooter/a9400c71-e6d3-4924-8e1b-9d0ecc80b472

  144. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Was making it “big” your priority when you switched to journalism?

  145. @Oldatty
    This story is an excellent life lesson for young, professional men. One day after the inevitable divorce Mr. Schneid is going to regret his decision to marry and father children with Ms. Jampel. D0 not marry a young woman who will not take your name. Make no exceptions.

    I've been practicing law for over 25 years and have seen this story replayed dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. They are bound together now by the joint responsibilities of rearing young children, but they will be functionally estranged by the time the kids are in middle school. Ms Jampel is already bitter and will grow (even more) resentful of his career. She will compensate by throwing herself into her kids until they are grown and then probably some crazy charitable work about voting rights for women in Uganda. She will let herself go physically, and she's no beauty queen now.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Schneid will be the best absentee father he can, but sacrifices must and will be made and his family relationships will suffer. He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals at the firm will greet him every morning, take care of his work needs, and focus their attention on making his life easier. These young women can smell male mid-life crisis like sharks can smell blood in the water. Things happen, and they will. Mr. Schneid will lose between 75% and 90% of his assets in the divorce and will pay 50% to 75% of his future income in child support and maintenance payments to Ms. Jampel, who conveniently won't have to change her name back to her maiden name.

    I would estimate that 5% of the law firm partners I know are still in their first marriage, and of those in second marriages approximately 50% are married to former secretaries or paralegals. The current associative mating trend is a disaster for young professional men who want a family. Family life is all about managing time and voluntarily making personal sacrifices for the collective good of the family, and that go-getter female law school classmate or work colleague who intrigues you now is uniquely ill-suited for the task. My advice to young, professional men is to bypass the first marriage and go straight to the second marriage to the young, non-professional woman.

    “He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Past forty any man worth anything has better things to do.
    , @AnotherDad

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”
     
    True that.

    But most of that isn't just being past 40, it's the state of American womanhood. As i noted a few months back:

    When i was a young man a girl still had to be cute to be cute. But now if a young woman is plain, but has a body that looks like it’s from 1960s earth rather than planet blimpo … she’s cute! Well as long as she’s not tatted up. Really unless objectively ugly, simply no fats+tats and a young woman is miraculously “above average”.
     
    ~~~

    I see a fair number of weddings now, on the beach--including two gals getting gay-married last week. (Who the heck would show up for that. I wouldn't bother for my own daughters.)

    Anyway, the size of a lot of these "brides" is amazing. Why in the heck are guys signing up for that? Why bother? The marriage rate has plummeted, but i'm a bit surprised it's still as high as it is.
    , @keypusher
    Secretaries in NY law firms are not "smoking hot." Ever. Paralegals, sometimes.
  146. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    OT: iSteve favorite Mohamed Noor disappointed by his experience as American cop:

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/mohamed-noor-who-killed-bride-to-be-expresses-regret-over-joining-force/

    Like Ilhan Omar, America has not lived up to her 'promise' for Mohamed.

    “If I knew this would happen, I never would have become a cop,” Mohamed Noor said while being questioned by his lawyer, Tom Plunkett, in Hennepin County District Court on Thursday.
     

    As Omar would say, something 'happened.' Someone did something. And now Mohamed Noor is sad, so sad that he's experienced 'slight paralysis.' Of course, the Australian Yoga teacher is permanently paralyzed. That is to say, dead.

    Scott Johnson from Powerline Blog has been given daily recaps from the courtroom. One of his comments today based on Noor’s testimony yesterday was that some of the jurors “seem to me in Noor’s corner.” While hoping he is wrong, I wouldn’t bet much on a conviction. The defense case has been an embarrassment and essentially boils down to a LEO has the right to fire his weapon any time he gets spooked or perceives a threat of any kind.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The defense case has been an embarrassment and essentially boils down to a LEO has the right to fire his weapon any time he gets spooked or perceives a threat of any kind.
     
    That's not the law. It's also not evidence, so how is the defense making argument during the evidentiary portion of the trial?
  147. I heard that in Netherlands, women usually work only part time. Thos is in accordance with Jordan Peterson who says that in Northern Europe, with all the freedom for women to choose, they often go to more feminine pursuits.

  148. @Buzz Mohawk
    I left the Denver metro area 25 years ago for a job in the NYC metro area at twice the salary.

    (Two times peanuts wasn't much, but it was better. I could finally begin to live like a man with a career.)

    Even though I preferred the environment back home, I stayed here because more promotions and opportunities kept happening, and because even a schmo like me gets paid more and has access to more of everything in general.

    I've met people here who had offers out West and turned them down because of the low pay scales. Maybe that has changed. The Denver area has grown a lot in business and opportunities during the past quarter century, and I sometimes wish I had just stayed, but it is too late now.

    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:
     
    Yep.

    My brother-in-law made his career there. I started going, when the kids were young, in the mid-90s and went almost every year for a decade as part of our western rambles. There was a ridge with psuedo-palatial homes above my b-i-l's place in Highland's Ranch--with views of the city and the whole front range-- and the prices back in the day were flat out ridiculous. I mean ridiculous--at least for anyone coming from a coastal metro. No more. Cheap evaporated during the bubble. And the joint has boomed with the recovery. While still quite reasonable compared to Seattle, it really isn't "flyover country" anymore. Shame.

    Basically the immigration wrecking ball is swinging further and further inland.

    As coastal regions fill, whites run from them. The Mexicans go to wherever is booming and Mexicanify older inner suburbs. Places whites want to live with "good schools" dwindle. Any place with a decent economy and any sort of desirable ammenities starts spiralling up in price.

    And we're only at 3 and quarter. (Double the US i was born into.) By mid-century we'll be at 400 million. The wrecking ball swinging anywhere and everywhere there's anything of value. I'll probably die before then in a nation unrecognizable as America to my childhood self. By the turn of the century we'll be at half a billion. We'll have completely sacrificed America's wonderful heritage of cheap land/expensive labor to be a shitty Latinized Asianized high-density nation. Everything will suck.

    Americans really ought to be more pissed and have the heads of their coastal elites on pikes.
  149. @Curious Person
    Females have bigger hips to accommodate bigger heads, which makes running awkward (and probably impedes other physical activities)

    Running speed would be of relatively little importance to human hunter-gatherers because most game animals readily outrun any human. As a result, the fact that women don’t run quite as fast as men is of limited importance. What matters is endurance, humans are able to outrun many seemingly much faster animals over distances because animals don’t always have much endurance. This greater importance ascribed to endurance will not disadvantage women, as women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running.

    • Replies: @sabril

    This greater importance ascribed to endurance will not disadvantage women, as women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running.
     
    That explains why female marathon records are right up there with the top male times.

    But seriously, watch a video of a hunter-gatherer tribe hunting and bringing down a large game animal. You will see that this activity requires speed, strength, endurance, etc. All qualities at which men are better than women.
    , @Simon in London
    "women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running"

    No - less stored energy, plus wider hips means less efficient running.
  150. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Thanks.

  151. @indocon
    Interesting to note the composition of this group, look like 10 white, 4 Indians, 2 Asians, and 1 AA
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/17-students-from-single-high-school-earn-perfect-13797731.php

    14/17 are boys. Higher male IQ SD is big enough to see even at the tails of a single high school’s distribution.

    Larry Summers and James Damore got fired for pointing this out in a very delicate manner. Egalitarian Stalinism in action!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The delicate manner was part of what got them fired. Cf. Durocher, et. al.
  152. @stillCARealist
    To succeed in law you have to be a jerk. Very few women are natural jerks so they find themselves stressed out over the arguing and egotism. Those women who can put aside all feelings for the sake of winning do quite well in law. Of course, they tend not to keep husbands or even have any children at all. I say this as the relative of a childless, successful female lawyer, who, unfortunately, had a husband who left for another woman.

    I’m sure that’s true. I think the kind of aptitude required for the lsat and law school itself draws women into the profession because it is primarily verbal, but the actual job of being a lawyer is something almost no women like. In fact most really hate it and leave the field.

    Women are better dealing with other kinds of stress. In the youngest generation of med students, over 80% of ob gyns will be female and this number has been consistently rising over past decades. It’s a plenty stressful job where the patient is overwhelmed, screaming and in pain. You get blamed for anything that goes wrong and easily sued. The hours go on into the middle of the night. But women handle this kind of stress just fine. They do it because it’s a job that they find fulfilling.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    As well they should.
  153. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Some messy divorces in the news revealed that even older partners at large Wall Street firms were making 300-400k.

    • Replies: @indocon
    And then we have Kamala's husband who is partner at a law firm in LA and look like makes >$1M/year.
  154. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Off topic: You knew this was coming. Ken Burns's head next on the chopping block.

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/on-replacing-ken-burns-the-civil-war

    That the smug and unctuous Burns is an avatar of “cultural conservativism” and “nostalgia” shows that the slippery slope is above our heads now.

    And really, isn’t the fact that nothing good has come out of jazz, or baseball, in the last 40 years pretty close to the truth? Okay, there are the new grass stadiums, but those just replaced the giant split washers of the 1960s and 1970s, so there was a very low baseline.

  155. No one explains debt to 21 year-olds? Not in detail maybe, but we definitely warn people about not getting return on degrees. Anyone smart enough to go to law school should know that the time and money they invest might end up being dust in the wind.

    Granted, there is enormous pressure on people to pursue higher education. Then again, everyone hates lawyers. So there’s not the same pressure to go to law school. My grandfather was a lawyer and he always complained about there being too many lawyers.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Milton Friedman used to talk about how doctors put more cartel pressure to keep down the number of med schools than lawyers put to keep down the number of law schools. He claimed that lawyers see more lawyers as creating more work for lawyers.
  156. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    OT: iSteve favorite Mohamed Noor disappointed by his experience as American cop:

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/mohamed-noor-who-killed-bride-to-be-expresses-regret-over-joining-force/

    Like Ilhan Omar, America has not lived up to her 'promise' for Mohamed.

    “If I knew this would happen, I never would have become a cop,” Mohamed Noor said while being questioned by his lawyer, Tom Plunkett, in Hennepin County District Court on Thursday.
     

    As Omar would say, something 'happened.' Someone did something. And now Mohamed Noor is sad, so sad that he's experienced 'slight paralysis.' Of course, the Australian Yoga teacher is permanently paralyzed. That is to say, dead.

    Just don’t confuse Mohamed Noor with Mohamud Noor, who’s serving in the state House of Representatives. This MN in MN has managed to lose to both Phyllis Kahn and Ilhan Omar.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamud_Noor

    Somali men just plain suck at politics. In that arena, they are even worse than Mexicans.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I think you're on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn't seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It's no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men's faces aren't designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.
  157. Look at that subheadline:

    “obsession with long hours has widened the gender gap”

    Presuming for no reason everyone is a blank slates, gender is a mere social construct, and everyone’s equal or whatever, why is this even referred to as the gender gap? How about calling it the “humans who prefer to work less” gap?

  158. My wife had the same complaints. Until our divorce and she got half of the family fortune. Funny how that women’s lib stuff seemed so passe by then.

  159. I’ve been reading C.R. Hallpike on primitive culture and one of the takeaways is that men in primitive tribes didn’t work much.

    But today we have “freedom.”

  160. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    OT: iSteve favorite Mohamed Noor disappointed by his experience as American cop:

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/mohamed-noor-who-killed-bride-to-be-expresses-regret-over-joining-force/

    Like Ilhan Omar, America has not lived up to her 'promise' for Mohamed.

    “If I knew this would happen, I never would have become a cop,” Mohamed Noor said while being questioned by his lawyer, Tom Plunkett, in Hennepin County District Court on Thursday.
     

    As Omar would say, something 'happened.' Someone did something. And now Mohamed Noor is sad, so sad that he's experienced 'slight paralysis.' Of course, the Australian Yoga teacher is permanently paralyzed. That is to say, dead.

    I can’t wait to read the prosecution’s cross on this perp. Defense is throwing a Hail Mary putting him on the stand. I hope it backfires big time.

  161. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    I’m surprised that even a junior non equity partner makes that little. I thought those made more like 400k?

    I know a second year associate who makes 250k in biglaw in nyc, granted he’s at one of the top 5 highest paying firms. I thought that was normal.

    • Replies: @sabril
    One issue is that the husband apparently works for the New York office of a New Jersey firm.

    A quick internet search reveals that the classic white-shoe firm, Cravath Swaine & Moore, has profits per partner of $4m while the husband's firm is at about $800k.

    A basic rule of thumb is that a junior equity partner makes about half of the PPP. A non-equity partner presumably makes less. How much less? I don't know, but I doubt they are paid much more than senior associates. Why would they be? Without a book of business, they have very little bargaining power.
  162. @Toño Bungay
    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I'm thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?

    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I’m thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?

    A good question. This paper gives some information:
    https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/keith.chen/papers/GenderNPV_WorkingPaper.pdf

    Abstract:

    Recent literature has documented that women earn significantly lower returns than men to investing in professional degrees. However, these papers have not addressed the question of whether this gap is large enough to render professional degrees poor financial investments for women. To study this, we examine whether becoming a physician is a positive net-present-value investment for women. We sidestep some selection issues associated with measuring the returns to education by comparing physicians to physician assistants, a similar profession with lower wages but much lower up-front training costs. We find that the median female (but not male) primary-care physician would have been financially better off becoming a physician assistant. This result is partially due to a gender-wage gap in medicine. However, it is mostly driven by the fact that the median female physician simply doesn’t work enough hours to amortize her upfront investment in medical school. In contrast, the median male physician work many more hours, easily enough to amortize his up-front investment. We discuss the robustness of our results to other medical specialties and their relevance to gender-wage gaps more broadly. We discuss other sources of returns to education that rationalize these investments by women.

    Sample excerpt:

    Our results suggest that many, if not most, women primary-care physicians do not work enough hours to fully amortize their up-front investments in medical education versus the plausible alternative career of becoming a physician assistant. This raises the issue of whether these findings bear any relationship to the NPVs for obtaining other professional degrees such as JDs and MBAs.
    This is difficult to determine. Of course, both the MBA and JD require much lower upfront initial investment than a medical career. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that female doctors “drop out” of their professions less than women lawyers and (especially) women MBAs. For example, Herr and Wolfram (2008) find, in a sample of Harvard graduates, that 94.2% of MD mothers remain working in their late thirties, as compared to 79% of JDs and 72% of MBAs. The AMA Masterfile, similarly shows very low attrition rates for young women doctors, approximately 3% of the 45-54 year old age cohort. Nonetheless, while our results are not driven by high dropout rates from the medical profession, they are driven by the shorter hours of female professionals.

    But the paper reads to me like they would not “notice” an attrition issue for women doctors if one existed (or would minimize it). Caveat lector.

    Any better data out there?

  163. @Buzz Mohawk
    I am now from another era. Every field, even MRS, has moved on to graduate level. Pharmacists now get "doctorate" degrees so they can fill bottles with pills. Everything is even more of a puffed-up, rent-seeking scam than it was already.

    You are correct. That is a sign of the times.

    I vote for piano lessons for the girls -- and welding apprenticeships for the boys.

    Competent piano tuners are in demand. Knowing your way around the instrument both technically and musically is a must.

  164. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    To be fair he works at a no-name firm. AND he went to Cardoza law school of Yeshiva University. Which is not in the TOP 50 ranked schools in the country…
    https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/yeshiva-university-03103

    They’re are many more ranked law schools alone, Columbia, NYU, Fordham, not to mention all the other law school students that make a run at New York city..

    Fordham Law school, where his wife went, is 20 spots higher than Cardoza.
    Both of these guys went to Cornell undergrad, which is a decent school, but then flamed out when applying to law school.

    So the $250k salary makes sense, its actually pretty good for him. And if you make $250k outside of Manhattan, then you are fine.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    So Claire Cain Miller was yanking our chains about a million dollar salary?

  165. @Lot
    14/17 are boys. Higher male IQ SD is big enough to see even at the tails of a single high school’s distribution.

    Larry Summers and James Damore got fired for pointing this out in a very delicate manner. Egalitarian Stalinism in action!

    The delicate manner was part of what got them fired. Cf. Durocher, et. al.

  166. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    sabril, Her earnings basically pay off her student loans. Her hourly wage, for a 2000 work year would yield her $92,000, not a great pay for living in NYC.

  167. @Canadian Observer
    Has Andrew Yang hinted at doing something like this? Can only a non-white advocate the return of the sane and financially healthy two-parent family?

    No, but it seems like the kind of thing he would…I just picked $30K as a number that isn’t a ton of money or a substitute for a career, but enough that a working mom might find attractive enough to stay at home and take care of the kids without feeling like she’s losing a lot. Obviously a national program like this would be hugely expensive.

    Anyway, you are right in that part of the attack from the left would be that it would help a ton of white women, and we can’t have that.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with your view on feminism, Arclight (well, just about everyone here, as Rosie seems to have felt too big a burden to start commenting on about 5 "let's talk" posts - can't blame her one bit!) Anyway, whether it's your number or whatever the idiot Socialist Yang comes up with, you're just going to see the money going round and round.

    Nobody benefits except BIG GOV as they not only take their cut, in the form of more middle-class, mostly-black-filled, make-work jobs, but they will now have control of the people who await their $2,500 a month. Where's that money come from, the FED ctrl-P press? Tell me how 100,000,000 formerly 2-income working middle class families can get paid that amount. That's 3 Trillion bucks yearly, most of the national budget.

    No, maybe American families to stop trying to live like it's the 1990's still and cut back. If they cut back, the wife could stay home. It takes not being the type who feels too proud to ask for prices when they're not marked, scaling vacations way back, and not attending super-expensive pro-sportsball games, stuff like that. The country would be way better off for it, but I'm afraid none of this will happen until the financial pain from the coming crash sets in.
  168. @Lot
    “Law degree” signals other things for a woman though, like “$200,000 student loans” and “ball buster.” On net it is negative, just easy to miss because law schools suck in so much good human capital to begin with.

    She could have gone to a respectable college, worked as a biglaw paralegal for $70,000 a year at 22, and been even more attractive to young biglaw associates.

    Professional school for Mrs is just not a good strategy, even if it often works out most of the time. For one thing, the men there are mostly around 22-28 and a large share are in extended adolescence and not in the mood to settle down. Many will be nerds who did poorly with dating in HS and college starting to see their prospects rapidly rise. And the more traditional ones will have easy access to the undergrads.

    The smart Mrs. strategy starts at puberty. Women’s marriage value depreciates like a car, men’s like a house.

  169. @prosa123
    Running speed would be of relatively little importance to human hunter-gatherers because most game animals readily outrun any human. As a result, the fact that women don't run quite as fast as men is of limited importance. What matters is endurance, humans are able to outrun many seemingly much faster animals over distances because animals don't always have much endurance. This greater importance ascribed to endurance will not disadvantage women, as women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running.

    This greater importance ascribed to endurance will not disadvantage women, as women have as much endurance as men when it comes to distance running.

    That explains why female marathon records are right up there with the top male times.

    But seriously, watch a video of a hunter-gatherer tribe hunting and bringing down a large game animal. You will see that this activity requires speed, strength, endurance, etc. All qualities at which men are better than women.

  170. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    anon, You did “make partner”, that’s what a marriage is, some partnerships fail. My first one did.

  171. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    Let's think about other species where the male is bigger and stronger.

    Lions. One male lion might be able to outhunt one female, but lions hunt in packs. And male lions can't form packs because they live in territories that contain that one adult male and multiple adult females. Fortunately, female lions are plenty big enough to hunt effectively.

    Elephant seals. Males are ten times as big as females. But they all hunt alone, and don't live in families or groups of any kind (except for the mating and birthing season, when they're on land and they don't eat anyway). Moreover, their prey is much smaller than they are, making cooperative hunting unnecessary.

    The fact that, unlike lions, male humans do hunt in packs, poses a problem for any females that might go out to hunt as a pack: males from other tribes would grab them and take them back to be their mates. Hunt over. Hunting by packs of human females would only be practical if males didn't hunt.

    Those lion and elephant seals aren’t like human hunter gatherers. They’re more like human agriculturalists.

    Human hunter gatherers tend to be more egalitarian and monogamous. The women tend to be unable to hunt and acquire enough calories themselves. So they need reliable, longer term mates. The male hunters on the other tend not to be wealthy enough to support multiple mates and children.

    Among human agriculturalists, in some environments women are able to acquire enough food for themselves and children on their own through simple farming, like female lions, and thus the male lions don’t really work and live polygynous lifestyles where they dominate a pride of female lions. In other agricultural societies, there’s an agricultural surplus that’s produced that men are able to tax or collect rent on, and this introduces wealth inequality and polygynous behavior.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    I don’t think that’s correct. All the research I’ve seen suggests it’s in hunter gatherer societies where women can fairly easily acquire enough calories for themselves and their children, including protein sources. They get the protein through insects, nuts and small game.

    It’s in early agrarian societies where women can no longer sustain themselves though even with that, it probably depends on what they are growing.

    It’s interesting that hunter gatherer societies share a similarity to chimp groups in that they do not rely on hunting for food but males will hunt opportunistically for the purpose of having a resource to trade for sex or male alliances.
  172. @Lot
    “He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”

    Past forty any man worth anything has better things to do.

    • Agree: JMcG
  173. @Daniel H
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off.

    In Big Law, as an associate, you have to work 60-80 hours/week simply to not get fired or let go after 3-5 years. As a partner you have to work 60-80 hours/week to not get fired as a partner. Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.

    Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.

    In big law firms, the trick is to have your own clients. The name of the game is “portable billing,” which means that if you walk away your clients will follow you. If you have 5 or 10 million dollars a year in portable billing, you can have a very nice life as a big law firm attorney.

  174. @Daniel H
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off.

    In Big Law, as an associate, you have to work 60-80 hours/week simply to not get fired or let go after 3-5 years. As a partner you have to work 60-80 hours/week to not get fired as a partner. Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.

    Alternatively, one could be exceptionally talented in the law and savvy in applying that talent.

    You’re not a shelf stocker at WalMart.

    • Replies: @anonintron333
    Yeah, you could be. But I don't know how this addresses the fact that working 80 hours a week is miserable.
    , @Desiderius
    Be good enough not to have to.
  175. @davosbane
    They're Jewish.

    We have a winner.

  176. One correction needs to be made:

    “Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued BY THE MEDIA OLIGARCHS WHO PROFIT FROM WOMEN’S LABOR BECAUSE THEY DOUBLED THE LABOR POOL AND HALVED SALARIES.”

  177. @Lot
    “He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”

    True that.

    But most of that isn’t just being past 40, it’s the state of American womanhood. As i noted a few months back:

    When i was a young man a girl still had to be cute to be cute. But now if a young woman is plain, but has a body that looks like it’s from 1960s earth rather than planet blimpo … she’s cute! Well as long as she’s not tatted up. Really unless objectively ugly, simply no fats+tats and a young woman is miraculously “above average”.

    ~~~

    I see a fair number of weddings now, on the beach–including two gals getting gay-married last week. (Who the heck would show up for that. I wouldn’t bother for my own daughters.)

    Anyway, the size of a lot of these “brides” is amazing. Why in the heck are guys signing up for that? Why bother? The marriage rate has plummeted, but i’m a bit surprised it’s still as high as it is.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Spinal Tap explains why in "Big Bottom".
    , @Forbes
    I've remarked to a number of people--though probably not here--today, if a woman was merely "not fat" she'd be above average in the attractiveness department (so debased have appearance standards become).

    In the 20th century, a fat woman was the exception, and noticeable. In the 21st century, a fat woman is typical. A woman being fit, in shape, and not fat, is the exception and noticeable.
  178. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Maybe that’s why they’re angry.

    Doing the math, it seems the family income is 165K – 230K/yr. Pretty good in, let’s say, Portland. Middle class in NYC. When you benchmark yourself against all the super high earning attorneys in NYC, 200K/yr is a disappointment.

    That’s why she’s complaining about her income.

  179. This is an image of our times. Headline: Gonorrhoea conquers UK; in front of the headline, an appeal from the media platform to accept an invasive DRM-like arrangement, because not all social diseases are physical.
    https://postimg.cc/ft6kXQDw

  180. @Arclight
    Feminism went all in on the concept that for women to maximize their happiness and potential they basically needed to be able to have just as much consequence-free sex with a series of short term relationships and work the same high pressure/high hour jobs. Turns out that's not really what most women want at all, but you'll never see them walk that back.

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let's say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you'd see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.

    Turns out that’s not really what most women want at all, but you’ll never see them walk that back.

    “Feminism” as (mostly) presented in public “discourse” (i.e., media propaganda) was never about what women really want. It was always one stratagem to lull more naive status-seekers into the Cult-Marxist religious cult.

    The real aim of the Cult-Marxist cult (going back to Marx himself in the mid-19th century) was always to subvert the traditional family and Christian religion both of which are obstacles to totalitarian state control.

    None of this means that women did not have real reasons to complain about societal arrangements. Feminism like many religious cults before it simply instrumentalizes perceived grievances for its own aims. Remember when Leftists claimed to be concerned with the fate of the “honest working man”? That charade was quietly put aside some 30 years ago.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @SFG
    My opinion was that feminism (second-wave and later) was made by gay and masculine women seeking to advance their own interests, and they got the rest of the women to go along for the ride. (You can see the early fights in the second wave over lesbianism if you read about that era--those two groups did not always see eye to eye.)

    That means subverting the family around, but they either wanted to keep men from hitting on them and be able to date and marry women (in the first case) or be able to make money and/or sleep around (in at least the second case).

    The family and Christianity are obstacles to those goals, not to state control. Not everything traces back to Marx--this isn't 1985 and there isn't a USSR supporting Marxism-Leninism around the world.

    The left, which was heavily influenced by Marx, was of course more congenial to those goals than the right, but as people here have commented it's not really that interested in workers or state control of the markets. The last candidate to focus on that is a relic from the 1970s who just happens to have been alive that long.
    , @Peterike
    “Remember when Leftists claimed to be concerned with the fate of the “honest working man”? That charade was quietly put aside some 30 years ago.”

    Jews were in the forefront of labor unrest and agitation as a means to power. As soon as they took over from the WASP ruling class, that all got shut down. Right around when that old Jewish guy handing out The Daily Worker outside of Bloomingdales stopped showing up. That’s a half-joke, but I do recall in the 70s there was still a lot of Jewish promotion of overt Labor radicalism. It’s all gone now.
  181. @Reg Cæsar
    Just don't confuse Mohamed Noor with Mohamud Noor, who's serving in the state House of Representatives. This MN in MN has managed to lose to both Phyllis Kahn and Ilhan Omar.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamud_Noor

    Somali men just plain suck at politics. In that arena, they are even worse than Mexicans.

    I think you’re on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn’t seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It’s no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men’s faces aren’t designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Something I noticed about Muslim men (Pakis, Afghans, Panjabis, Arabs, etc.) is that they have violent, aggressive, and scary-looking faces. Their phrenology is threatening.

    Remember all those pictures of 9/11 hijackers? The pedophile groomers from Rotherham? Omar Mateen?

    They look how you'd imagine a terrorist or rapist to look. Their faces trigger immediate fight or flight.

    As Roissy always says, phrenology is real.
    , @utu
    "America doesn’t seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress" but is more open to women. There is a good reason you will not see Hanan Ashrawi in American MSM because she was a a very effective spokesman for Palestinian cause so the lobby banished her. They rather have agitated and angry Muslim men whose thick accent gets worse as they get angrier.
    , @guest
    Dr. Oz could run.

    Wait, is he still famous?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    It’s no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.
     
    The other side has noticed the patriotic right advancing lady leaders as well-- Marine LePen, Marion Maréchal, Pia Kjærsgaard, Frauke Petry, etc. Better optics for everybody.


    https://www.dw.com/en/female-faces-of-europes-right-wing-populists/g-45288553
  182. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Off topic: You knew this was coming. Ken Burns's head next on the chopping block.

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/on-replacing-ken-burns-the-civil-war

    Well of course he’s a [~Nazi], he created something.
    Thus the death of [~Nazism] wouldn’t be tolerance or re-education, it would be grasshoppers learning to actually make their own stuff instead of stealing it from ants.
    Which suggests a longer-than-thousand year [~Reich].

  183. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I think you're on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn't seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It's no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men's faces aren't designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.

    Something I noticed about Muslim men (Pakis, Afghans, Panjabis, Arabs, etc.) is that they have violent, aggressive, and scary-looking faces. Their phrenology is threatening.

    Remember all those pictures of 9/11 hijackers? The pedophile groomers from Rotherham? Omar Mateen?

    They look how you’d imagine a terrorist or rapist to look. Their faces trigger immediate fight or flight.

    As Roissy always says, phrenology is real.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    Something I noticed about Muslim men (Pakis, Afghans, Panjabis, Arabs, etc.) is that they have violent, aggressive, and scary-looking faces. Their phrenology is threatening.

    I have a second job at a retailer located in an area with a significant Islamic population, mostly South Asian with some Arabs, and they seldom look threatening or intimidating in the least.
    Don't forget that until 18 years ago the military ineptness of Muslims was a running joke (What's the first lesson in an Arab military academy? How to say "Don't shoot, I surrender!" in Hebrew.)
    , @SFG
    Could just be you're afraid of them.

    I'm more concerned about the effects of large-scale Muslim immigration than physiognomy.

  184. anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    So essentially, she’s upset she doesn’t get the privilege of working 60+ hours a week and being on call 24/7 like her husband? Life is hard. She’ll have to content herself with all that free time with her children I suppose.

    I can only imagine how joyfully content she would be if she and her husband switched positions. I suspect there would still be a ‘woe is me’ NY Times editorial…likely even more woeful than this one.

    Really, she’s resentful that he’s the one earning the larger check. She is viewing those earnings through the feminist lens of ‘his income’ rather than ‘household income’. When they divorce, she’ll be happy to find out that the spoils belong to her as much as him.

    I’ll bet the air conditioning is too cool at her part-time job and she is forced to wear a sweater too.

  185. @Lot
    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:

    https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019.04_top10_5yr-1024x741.png

    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:

    Yep.

    My brother-in-law made his career there. I started going, when the kids were young, in the mid-90s and went almost every year for a decade as part of our western rambles. There was a ridge with psuedo-palatial homes above my b-i-l’s place in Highland’s Ranch–with views of the city and the whole front range– and the prices back in the day were flat out ridiculous. I mean ridiculous–at least for anyone coming from a coastal metro. No more. Cheap evaporated during the bubble. And the joint has boomed with the recovery. While still quite reasonable compared to Seattle, it really isn’t “flyover country” anymore. Shame.

    Basically the immigration wrecking ball is swinging further and further inland.

    As coastal regions fill, whites run from them. The Mexicans go to wherever is booming and Mexicanify older inner suburbs. Places whites want to live with “good schools” dwindle. Any place with a decent economy and any sort of desirable ammenities starts spiralling up in price.

    And we’re only at 3 and quarter. (Double the US i was born into.) By mid-century we’ll be at 400 million. The wrecking ball swinging anywhere and everywhere there’s anything of value. I’ll probably die before then in a nation unrecognizable as America to my childhood self. By the turn of the century we’ll be at half a billion. We’ll have completely sacrificed America’s wonderful heritage of cheap land/expensive labor to be a shitty Latinized Asianized high-density nation. Everything will suck.

    Americans really ought to be more pissed and have the heads of their coastal elites on pikes.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    I can't help but think of all the fantastic farm land that used to be in DuPage County, Illinois that's been converted to housing and just paved over. Aurora and West Chicano are overrun by illegal aliens and their spawn.

    DuPage used to be a solid Republican county that counterbalanced Chicago and surrounding communist suburbs; no more. Pretty soon, future felon Gov. Pritzker will have his graduated income tax. No doubt, more gun control to follow.

    https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/source-feds-probe-illinois-gov-jb-pritzker-first-lady-for-property-tax-appeals-on-gold-coast-mansion/afb5e34e-e7f5-4113-a110-ac8ec98bca63

    Ann Coulter is right: the communists are coverting America to the Third-world intentionally.
    , @MBlanc46
    I certainly see what you’re describing in the Chicago area. Old Polish and Italian suburbs becoming majority Mexican, and whites being driven further and further to the west ( the south suburbs being black and the north suburbs where the rich folks live).
  186. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I think you're on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn't seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It's no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men's faces aren't designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.

    “America doesn’t seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress” but is more open to women. There is a good reason you will not see Hanan Ashrawi in American MSM because she was a a very effective spokesman for Palestinian cause so the lobby banished her. They rather have agitated and angry Muslim men whose thick accent gets worse as they get angrier.

  187. @Desiderius
    Alternatively, one could be exceptionally talented in the law and savvy in applying that talent.

    You’re not a shelf stocker at WalMart.

    Yeah, you could be. But I don’t know how this addresses the fact that working 80 hours a week is miserable.

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    If you’re doing something you love, working 80 hours can be very rewarding. I remember being very, very happy during a month I billed 380+ hours. Admittedly, that was unusual.
  188. The median home value in the Seattle metro is 490K. 410K in Denver. So almost as bad.

  189. @stillCARealist
    Homemaker.

    It's a much better term since no one is married to a house.

    And I agree that this couple has a pretty good thing going. If grandparents were helping, they could have three or four kids no problem.

    As Tucker Carlson says, "If babies are not the most important thing, what is?"

    Money.

  190. @stillCARealist
    Homemaker.

    It's a much better term since no one is married to a house.

    And I agree that this couple has a pretty good thing going. If grandparents were helping, they could have three or four kids no problem.

    As Tucker Carlson says, "If babies are not the most important thing, what is?"

    That term offers no advantage, because they don’t make homes. They’re not builders or carpenters.

    Housewife is known to be a wife who stays in the house, not a woman who is married to her house. There’s no general confusion on that point.

  191. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @ivvenalis
    What she wants (though she doesn't notice) is to be high status. In her social milieu, taking care of the kids is low status. Really, she needs to find a new social circle. Of course, she can't, because she's a SWPL supremacist.

    Basically, she's part of a dysfunctional culture. It sucks to suck.

    Taking care of kids isn’t low status.

    Taking care of kids without a nanny, cleaner, driver, and butler is low status.

    This has nothing to do with SWPL or SJW or whatever. It’s because she belongs to the elite upper crust of NYC, a group that includes people like Ivanka Trump. If you don’t have endless amounts of money to spend on hired help, you are a loser in their eyes.

    If she started hanging out with middle class SWPLs (graphics designers, academics, teachers, etc), she wouldn’t be a loser. However, she’s too snobbish to hang out with plebians.

  192. @Oleaginous Outrager

    she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City
     
    Are they going to pretend this is some hellish form of penal servitude rather than a very cushy, probably fairly well-remunerated and pensioned taxpayer-funded position? Sure, "he earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year", but what if he earns a million or more a year? Hell, what if he makes a mere $400,000?

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    They want to be paid, or at least fêted, for raising their own freakin' children? The words I want to say right now, even Satan would blush.

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving taking care of her own children isn’t valued the way paid work is

    Is she sure it’s not valued? Maybe she should ask her children. Maybe she should ask her husband. It sounds like they live on at least $500,000 per year–yet she bitches about her life choices.

    Life is full of trade-offs. Apparently, some of these most educated women cannot comprehend that many trade-offs (choices, decisions, preferences) don’t involve the quantitative reckoning of dollars and cents.

    I’ll wager that if the NYT checks back in 10 years, our happy couple will be divorced.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Trade-offs are for poors. She deserves everything she wants.
    , @SFG
    I agree 100%.

    Of course, the best predictor that this particular couple will be divorce is that the lady brought her complaints to the New York Times. Who does that? It's like standing on a street corner with a megaphone saying your husband leaves the toilet seat up.

  193. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I think you're on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn't seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It's no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men's faces aren't designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.

    Dr. Oz could run.

    Wait, is he still famous?

  194. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I think you're on to something. Keith Ellison had the advantage of being AA, but America doesn't seem ready for immigrant Muslim men in Congress. It's no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    Muslim men's faces aren't designed to conceal their rage and violent intent. They are designed to get their enemies to turn their camels around and skedaddle when they get close enough to see the unibrow.

    It’s no accident Tlaib and Omar are women. The activists are almost all women too, like Sarsour and others.

    The other side has noticed the patriotic right advancing lady leaders as well– Marine LePen, Marion Maréchal, Pia Kjærsgaard, Frauke Petry, etc. Better optics for everybody.

    https://www.dw.com/en/female-faces-of-europes-right-wing-populists/g-45288553

    • Agree: Lot
  195. @Lot
    Some messy divorces in the news revealed that even older partners at large Wall Street firms were making 300-400k.

    And then we have Kamala’s husband who is partner at a law firm in LA and look like makes >$1M/year.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    He's a very successful lawyer.
  196. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oldatty
    This story is an excellent life lesson for young, professional men. One day after the inevitable divorce Mr. Schneid is going to regret his decision to marry and father children with Ms. Jampel. D0 not marry a young woman who will not take your name. Make no exceptions.

    I've been practicing law for over 25 years and have seen this story replayed dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. They are bound together now by the joint responsibilities of rearing young children, but they will be functionally estranged by the time the kids are in middle school. Ms Jampel is already bitter and will grow (even more) resentful of his career. She will compensate by throwing herself into her kids until they are grown and then probably some crazy charitable work about voting rights for women in Uganda. She will let herself go physically, and she's no beauty queen now.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Schneid will be the best absentee father he can, but sacrifices must and will be made and his family relationships will suffer. He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals at the firm will greet him every morning, take care of his work needs, and focus their attention on making his life easier. These young women can smell male mid-life crisis like sharks can smell blood in the water. Things happen, and they will. Mr. Schneid will lose between 75% and 90% of his assets in the divorce and will pay 50% to 75% of his future income in child support and maintenance payments to Ms. Jampel, who conveniently won't have to change her name back to her maiden name.

    I would estimate that 5% of the law firm partners I know are still in their first marriage, and of those in second marriages approximately 50% are married to former secretaries or paralegals. The current associative mating trend is a disaster for young professional men who want a family. Family life is all about managing time and voluntarily making personal sacrifices for the collective good of the family, and that go-getter female law school classmate or work colleague who intrigues you now is uniquely ill-suited for the task. My advice to young, professional men is to bypass the first marriage and go straight to the second marriage to the young, non-professional woman.

    The young hot non-professional woman might marry you for your money, but she’ll divorce rape you too. Also, she’ll probably bang a hot Chad male on the side, exposing you to the risk of STDs and false paternity.

    Especially in a place like NYC, the cost of living is high. A lot of these minimum-wage secretaries do prostitution/escorting on the side. Keep that in mind before you put a ring on it.

    Marry a hot young gold digger at your own peril. This isn’t the 1920s, when young secretaries married the boss, went home, and played house for decades. Today’s women are different and the risk of cuckery is very high.

    Also, many of these secretaries are dumb bimbos. So your kids will grow up to be dumb and unambitious.

    FYI, secretaries get old too. So the bangability will fall off by within a few years of her marrying you, having kids, and getting fat.

    The older professional woman is usually a better bet. She has better genes, so smarter children. She parents better. Cheats a lot less. More earning power. The only disadvantage is that she’s not that hot, so sex is worse.

    The older professional women are status chasers and into the whole “power couple” arrangement. So they typically don’t divorce a high earning and successful husband, unless he’s banging the secretary.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The older professional woman is usually a better bet. She has better genes, so smarter children. She parents better. Cheats a lot less. More earning power. The only disadvantage is that she’s not that hot, so sex is worse.
     
    Children have to exist to be smarter. I notice you neglect the most pertinent factor of all: fertility

    You may fool a thirsty herb, but you can’t fool Mother Nature.
    , @AnotherDad

    The older professional woman is usually a better bet. She has better genes, so smarter children. She parents better. Cheats a lot less. More earning power. The only disadvantage is that she’s not that hot, so sex is worse.
     
    Good rejoiner Anon[302].

    Bottom line--gene's matter. This is--at root--an HBD blog. Most of the quality of your children is going to be what's in the genetic mix. And only a bit how you parent--as long as it's not extreme. And most of your life happiness will be "how are the kids doing?" plus the character of your spouse.

    However, Oldatty's comment and Desiderius's response are on point as well.

    You want the high quality genes that the smart gals have ... but a young man simply can not afford to wife up a smart young woman whose brain is full of feminist bullshit. As Oldatty points out, the "won't take your name" is a tell. She's full of female ego and not really "in" on the marriage--the idea that it's no longer "her", but "us"--a family.

    And as Desiderius points out, the children have to actually exist!

    So what you want is a smart--professional "capable"--woman of high intelligence and character, who is truly smart about life and hence fully on board from the get go, at a young enough age, that her priority is not "career", but motherhood and family.

    I've been fortunate to find that with AnotherMom, she got a good head on her shoulders, got her Astronomy PhD--one of the papers from it well regarded and climbing toward 1000 cites--but then was ready to do what was really important, be a mom.

    There are still such women out there. And i think more are available if men show straightforward, confident leadership--they are looking not for a sexual "partner" but a wife and mother ready to build a family with them. But the popaganda out there is intense and young women are not exactly indepenednt thinkers. Men must be firm and uncompromising, willing to turn down attractive women with potential who have drunk the kool-aid and say "fine, enjoy your cats".
  197. @Steve Sailer
    So the husband can make partner in a Big Law firm that pays a million per year? What do partners gets paid in Tulsa?

    NYC is not for everyone. I’ve been here 32 years, and managed to scrape by on less than half-a-million per year.

    I grew up in the suburbs (not NYC suburbs), green grass, basketball hoop in the driveway, BBQ, etc. I had little idea what I was in for when I moved here, it was an opportunity. I had friends encouraging me to come, “You’ll love it!”

    It’s a completely different lifestyle than the rest of America–except, perhaps LA and Chicago, which have their own uniqueness. A couple other large cities might fit the bill, e.g. Philly, Houston.

    Most places you can work in the city and be back home in the suburbs in 30 minutes–or you visit the city for a night out, a ball game, some entertainment, and are back home in 30 minutes. Not NYC.

    The trade-offs are many–and so are the attractions, hi-brow, lo-brow, and everything in between. NYC attracts freaks, workaholics, and a lot of superstars in their own profession/avocation, and a lot of wannabes and thinks-they-are, in the same.

    I thought I’d give it a try for 5 years, and I’m still here. Maybe it’s the water…

  198. OT: Would like to hear more about this:

    The Sailer Theory is that it was also due to Obama’s re-election.

    It being the Wokedammerung.

    That was one of the happiest days of my life (had just met my future wife) until I looked up at a TV hanging over a bar and felt like I’d been hit by a truck. Obama was winning going away.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    That was one of the happiest days of my life (had just met my future wife) until I looked up at a TV hanging over a bar and felt like I’d been hit by a truck. Obama was winning going away.
     
    Des, from one of your designated "BoomerCon" whipping boys, kudos on meeting a good woman and now your 1st child. (If i understand where you're at. Have lots more.)

    But why "hit by a truck". There was so little surprise on that one.

    First off, America was very unlikely to fire the black guy--bad optics for good whites.

    But more importantly Romney had utterly failed to produce any sort of positive program. Nothing on immigration--and hence nothing on jobs, wages. No pro-family, pro-fertility tax reform. Essentially nothing for the Republicans middle class base. And then stupid saber rattling on Russia. GOPe drivel, presented by an attractive looking ex-WallStreeter. America's going to fire the black guy for that?
  199. kids first, school second

  200. I have read this article several times, and i have no idea what she is complaining about or why. They have made choices and it seems to have worked out rather well.

    The only thing missing was the dilemma over whether to hire a puerto rican or jamaican maid.

  201. Having not said this after literally hundreds of violent, undeniable attacks, Jupiter has today called out Allah as a problem. It’s noteworthy that this happened at all, but why is he doing this today? Is there something particularly bad that Islam did recently which Macron wants to get out ahead of?

    French President Emmanuel Macron vowed Thursday to resist ‘political Islam’, which he said is a threat and seeks succession from the republic.

    Macron made the remarks during a press conference at the Elysee Palace to unveil his policy response to the Yellow Vest protests following a three-month-long national debate.

    “Political Islam wants to secede from our republic,” he said, asking the government to be “intractable” against it.

    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/political-islam-seeks-secession-from-france-macron/1462978#

  202. @JimB

    It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”
     
    From a Google image search, most Jampel's look South Asian. So the Schneid-Jampels are a mixed marriage of sorts. An interesting phenomenon of mixed marriage is that one parent usually has a greater affinity for the children than the other. I suspect Matthew Schneid J.D. is none to concerned about having quality time with his third world kids. Jampel might secretly resent her white male husband's privilege and racism.

    From a Google image search, most Jampel’s look South Asian. So the Schneid-Jampels are a mixed marriage of sorts. An interesting phenomenon of mixed marriage is that one parent usually has a greater affinity for the children than the other. I suspect Matthew Schneid J.D. is none to concerned about having quality time with his third world kids. Jampel might secretly resent her white male husband’s privilege and racism.

    About Daniela Jampel……There are two photos of her via Bing images and Linkedin. She doesn’t look at all South Asian. She looks white.

  203. @Polynikes
    She's not earning 250k as a part time Gov lawyer.

    Yes, this. And he is not earning $1m-$1.5m a year, either. Much more senior partners than he is, maybe.

  204. @Lot
    “He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals”

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”

    Secretaries in NY law firms are not “smoking hot.” Ever. Paralegals, sometimes.

  205. @Desiderius
    OT: Would like to hear more about this:

    The Sailer Theory is that it was also due to Obama's re-election.

     

    It being the Wokedammerung.

    That was one of the happiest days of my life (had just met my future wife) until I looked up at a TV hanging over a bar and felt like I'd been hit by a truck. Obama was winning going away.

    That was one of the happiest days of my life (had just met my future wife) until I looked up at a TV hanging over a bar and felt like I’d been hit by a truck. Obama was winning going away.

    Des, from one of your designated “BoomerCon” whipping boys, kudos on meeting a good woman and now your 1st child. (If i understand where you’re at. Have lots more.)

    But why “hit by a truck”. There was so little surprise on that one.

    First off, America was very unlikely to fire the black guy–bad optics for good whites.

    But more importantly Romney had utterly failed to produce any sort of positive program. Nothing on immigration–and hence nothing on jobs, wages. No pro-family, pro-fertility tax reform. Essentially nothing for the Republicans middle class base. And then stupid saber rattling on Russia. GOPe drivel, presented by an attractive looking ex-WallStreeter. America’s going to fire the black guy for that?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It was the first time I’d been surprised in my life by a presidential election. There was a lot of last minute momentum for Romney, especially around Cincinnati. Felt like 2000.

    And everyone around Obama was awful to the point of incompetence. Marie Harf, for God’s sake? I was an R leaner so most of my info was about D shortcomings, so I got blindsided by Romney and Ryan turning out to be a coward and a naif.

  206. @stillCARealist
    To succeed in law you have to be a jerk. Very few women are natural jerks so they find themselves stressed out over the arguing and egotism. Those women who can put aside all feelings for the sake of winning do quite well in law. Of course, they tend not to keep husbands or even have any children at all. I say this as the relative of a childless, successful female lawyer, who, unfortunately, had a husband who left for another woman.

    That’s simply not true. In my experience there are five lawyers who succeed by being collegial for every one who succeeds by being a jerk.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    The only congenial lawyers I've ever met have been family lawyers. They were both evangelical Christians.

    The other lawyers were obnoxious and utterly careless of others feelings. Most were Jewish, which I find odd, since I never meet anybody Jewish in any other context here in Northern CA.
  207. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    You produced and raised two solid children maybe more. This is quite an accomplishment these days. You kept your family humming along while he was out making the big money.

  208. anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moses
    I was at a group outing where several women with high-powered careers were commiserating over how difficult it is for them and their husbands to juggle professional and children responsibilities.

    I suggested they divide labor. "Why not have your husband stay at home while you earn the big bux?"

    They let out a collective gasp and clutched their pearls.

    Mein gott! The thought of being with a man who earned less than they do! Icky!

    I had to break out the smelling salts.

    Yes, hypergamy is a thing.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    On Earth Day, Denis Hayes of the Bullit Fdn spoke about Overpopulation:

    The human population has more than tripled in my lifetime. If there is an effect of living in a round planet, you cannot grow forever. With regard to most species, there is a state of equilibrium where the population will continue at that level because it is held in control by starvation, by disease, by predators. Humans have overcome a series of blows and we have continued to grow.
    We would rather not be held in check by disease, predators and starvation. We are a ticking animal and we should be be able to think our way through this.
    It turns out that what is by far the most important leverage is women. If you can provide women with a higher degree of personal control over their lives, and over their reproductive lives — give them education, give them ways to have power and a sense of personal satisfaction in something other than having children, then suddenly you see birthrates begin to stabilize and even decline.
    In several industrial countries. in fact in the United States, we would be declining today, but for immigration.
    This will not be an easy one, because you don’t have birthrates, people have babies. Even those of us concerned about birthrates like babies.
    But I hope we are smart enough to recognize that they are really the same thing.

    nb. res @ 130: “Any suggestions for better management of 50 year time-spans? And how to instill that idea in people?”

    Looks like we’re going the wrong direction.
    However, we can gain this insight: government and all its tools, especially media, function to shape our lives in ways that are very real, but that we know nothing about. That was true in an earlier generation and even more the reality today.
    What we can do is to make ourselves and those we care about keenly aware of those shapers-of-the-cognitive-map, so that they can examine their own operating systems and discern/decide for themselves how best to form their own best selves.

    We can also remind them, and gubmint and all its minions, what the makers of margarine used to know: You can’t fool Mother Nature. Giving a million girls an MBA is not going to look as swell an idea 45 childless years down the road.

    As to “instill that idea in people” — I am going to become rich and famous by writing a book,
    NOT Reading the Bible in a Year.” It will be a collection of the wisdom of the Greeks, the great novelists, the myths and epics of the nations — anything but worn-out distorted, “freakish, querulous fads” plucked from the Hebrew and Christian testaments.
    What if Mr. and Mrs. Lawyer spent a week reading Antigone — how would they handle Creon’s position? Would their love for their disgraced and dead child lead them to do what Euridice did?

    Does Mrs. Lawyer see a bit of herself in Medea? Is she so pissed with having given Jason the best years of her life, garnering for him the Golden Fleece while all she got was floppy breasts and no Social Security, that she would off their progeny?

  209. @Endgame Napoleon
    Highly paid moms in professional fields don’t want to sacrifice time away from kids for a career, but also don’t want to sacrifice the career for their kids.

    Moms must “have it all” without the sacrifices.

    In the bottom half of the bottom 80%, that means moms must have an independent household financed by Uncle Sam without bothering to close a marriage deal or to put up with the faults of the man who fathered their children. In the top 20%, it means that married moms must have a high-ranking career without sacrificing the time away from kids.

    That is a 19th century womb-productivity pedestal that couldn’t be less feminist. It is a Womb Productivity Spoils System.

    The unfairness is not to the mom in a professional field, a womb-privileged worker who gets to hold onto a good-paying, steady, non-churn job with benefits, even if she is not rewarded with boatloads of money when working only part-time by choice to pursue something else that enhances her life.

    The unfairness is to the armies of law school grads of either sex—the people who are just as qualified as the part-time-working mom, but with no second income from a highly paid spouse to ensure an upper-middle-class / wealthy lifestyle.

    Job seekers have less access to rent-covering jobs when so many moms are willing to work part-time, giving employers a way to get cheaper labor or a way to commit less frequently to hiring full-time employees.

    Since housing costs have doubled in some areas and are sky-high compared to wages everywhere, many job seekers can no longer pursue an independent household due to all of the willing part-time / gig workers, able to work part time for less pay due to the unearned, womb-productivity-related income covering their major household bills.

    This gets far more brutal, the farther down the female-dominated office-job food chain that you go, with managers staffing most lower level positions in smaller offices and big corporations by bypassing female college grads and those with legally required licenses (in cases where that applies) in favor of non-degree-holding, unlicensed moms who are able to work for low wages due to their multi-layered, womb-productivity-based welfare platter: free EBT food, reduced-cost rent, monthly cash assistance, electricity assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash.

    Just like the many moms with spousal income, working part time for keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ money, many unmarried moms do not need pay that is high enough to cover their major monthly bills because of their unearned income from Uncle Sam. Nor do they need full-time hours.

    The job is not full time, or the job is a just high-turnover gig that will not be there to cover your full lease agreement.

    No problem, say the moms.

    They can go off of welfare if the wages in a temp / gig job are slightly higher, claiming womb-productivity-based benefits after the temp / part time / churn-gig ends, rinsing and repeating, doing this all throughout the year, with a big cherry on top: up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash for the mommies to spend as they please, even on mom-pampering things.

    The more the temp churn-gig pays, the fewer months a welfare-qualified, single-breadwinner mom has to work to get the same combination of earned & unearned income per year.

    Non-womb-productive, non-welfare-eligible, single workers with no rent-covering child support do not have that option. They have to cover rent and all other household bills between churn jobs on earned-only income. And they have to wade through the land mines of scam jobs with zero pay (and expenses), plus the many 90% minority-staffed workplaces and the 98% mom-gang jobs, all of which require a lot of hoop-jumping and often rude game-playing despite the low pay, short duration and the futility.

    Many have opted out of an impossible system that caters mostly to moms with unearned income.

    Low-wage churn jobs are *expensive* when government or a spouse does not provide back-up income

    After going through this many times, many job seekers decide it’s not even worth the hiring process charade—a rude-cubed, multi-hoop-jumping process that rewards mostly frequently absentee moms in back-watching absenteeism gangs, the “culture fits.” Most everyday, all-day, quota-meeting hard work that helps crony-parent managers keep their numbers up goes unrewarded, even in terms of job longevity, in that managers can just churn more hard workers while keeping fellow absentee parents for crony-absentee collusion purposes.

    The many corporate managers who hire almost all moms for low-wage positions are well aware that the single-breadwinner moms need low wages and part-time hours to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs. They are well aware that other moms have spousal income.

    It is discussed openly in interviews for “voted-best-for-moms” office jobs. The discrimination-conscious “diversity” generation is incredibly bold when discriminating in favor of moms who have “somethin’ comin’ in.”

    Never has there been so much womb-productivity-based discrimination, and while men only care about how it affects men, politicians on both sides do not address the issue at all since part-time-working moms with unearned income are one of the ways that their corporate donors avoid providing quality jobs, thereby saving money on labor.

    It is the most brutal in traditionally low paying, female-dominated jobs, specifically for single, childless women and single moms with kids over 18 who have no second income and no access to government-issued wage supplements. These are the jobs where most women have always worked. These are the jobs where the majority of women still work.

    The few high-paying jobs at the top, like those in high-rolling law firms: those are the only ones that matter to elites on both sides of the political fence since they want to snag two per household for themselves, for their spouses, for their kids, for their kids’ spouses and for their friends’ kids in the crony-parent job network.

    It is not just men who could work the high-wage, professional-grade office jobs that provide highly paid moms with the consolation of libertine absenteeism privileges in exchange for lesser pay packages or part-time hours.

    There are plenty of single, highly educated, childless women able to work the long hours. Those women need the income due to having no other household income.

    More of them would have a chance to enter various high-paying fields, particularly the non-technical fields where employers aren’t searching for scarce female applicants per EEOC requirements, if so many moms with high income from a spouse or an ex spouse weren’t clinging to jobs, while taking off a ton of time after they have kids.

    The solution from fake feminists is equal womb-productivity-based absenteeism privileges for the dads. The feminists want to keep wealth as concentrated as possible, with top 20%er households keeping two high-paying jobs under one roof, no matter how much time off both parents take.

    They want to keep doing it, even though it has halved the size of the college-educated middle class, concentrating the wealth from salaried jobs under fewer roofs without creating jobs for other Americans. The corrupt cronyism is causing many of these dual-earner parents trouble once their kiddos grow out of the show-off-baby stage, and they find out that what sprang from their loins doesn’t always land one of the few rent-covering jobs.

    At retirement, the dual-high-earner parents who enjoyed libertine absenteeism privileges during their working years due to 1) the crony-parent job network and 2) the personal-life decision to have kids have two streams of SS per household and two bigly 401ks in the case of two corporate high earners.

    Or, in the case of the moms in safe, mom-dominated government jobs with lots of time off for kids in the summer, like teaching, married to corporate high earners, the couples have two SS streams per household, plus one big corporate 401k for the dad and one government pension for the mom.

    The dual-earner, retired parents also have a paid-off house in a housing-bubble / asset-bubble economy that protects the static, non-job-creating wealth of the top 20% of dual-earner parents.

    Most of the single, childless women who worked their cans off for low wages, with zero leniency for even 5 minutes of absenteeism, have $1,300 per month in one stream of SS-retirement income only, with rent at $900 for a one-room s********e apartment.

    While covering unaffordable rent and all other bills on one stream of low earned-only income, very few of the single, childless employees had money left over to save for retirement, even without ever going on a family vacation, unlike these dual-earner parents who take multiple and lengthy vacations every year, plus indulging in tons of smaller luxuries, like eating out in expensive restaurants constantly—all while covering a posh-zip-code mortgage.

    It is hard to be a parent. Dual earners need another doubling of the non-refundable child tax credit.

    Most single, childless earners wont even have the $1,300 per month in SS income since that is what the average retiree gets, and most single, childless women are on the bottom end of the wage scale, never holding a high-wage job for 5 years or more, which is what is required to get the bigger SS-retirement checks that both dual-high-earner parents get at retirement.

    Mommas sure can hold onto those high-paying jobs for 5 years or more, even though they frequently take off whole mornings, whole afternoons and whole weeks from work, year after year, way beyond just their pregnancy leave(s) and their PTO.

    There may be a few with irreplaceable skills.

    But in most cases, the reason is simple: corrupt womb-based cronyism, a good ol’ girls’ network based on mutual womb productivity that rivals any male cronyism in the days when workplaces were mostly male-dominated.

    Fake feminists hate no group more than the single, childless women who historically worked because 1) more of them were willing to make the sacrifice of time to pursue careers in demanding fields or sustenance in low-paying fields and 2) because they had no spousal income to fall back on.

    Today, work is a mom thing.

    At the high and the low end of the labor market, the practical reason why work can even be a mom thing is computers that do more and more of the mom cronies’ work for them, enabling all of that crony absenteeism. A secondary reason is the low-wage NannyCam-surveilled babysitters, the low-wage daycare workers and the at-their-beck-and-call grandparents who accommodate dual-earner parents, doing the work of raising their kids for them while both parents work and enjoy lengthy and frequent respites from work, like the many expensive global vacations for busy-working parents.

    I showed your post to Robert Reich, who said you’re a sexist who hates women.

  210. @Travis
    appears going to Cornell actually paid off for her. She married a fellow student and can live off his significant income while she raises their children. If she had not spent the money to attend Cornell she would never have met her future husband. Women gain more status from their husbands than via their careers. We see it all the time at the private school my kids attend. The wives with the wealthiest husbands all stay home to raise the kids and the wives who work are envious. The working mothers would gladly ditch their careers if their husbands were earning $950,000 per year, so they could spend more time with their kids, or have another child. The most miserable wives have good careers with husbands who earn far less. One of them just got divorced, she was upset seeing her husband playing golf every week, spending money on his toys, as she was working 80 hour weeks and he was barely working.

    … she was upset seeing her husband playing golf every week, spending money on his toys, as she was working 80 hour weeks and he was barely working.

    Women’s Lib! You’ve come a long way, baby!

    Instead of selling you cigarettes, this time you’re probably gonna need something stonger.

  211. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    This explains a lot.

    This thread is tremendous; there’s so much how-to-live-your-life observation and wisdom here.

    But no one has yet mentioned a factor from this NYT saga that would have been obvious to someone 100 years ago: where are the servants?

    Miller suggests the following social policies are needed to help make overworked mothers like Ms Jampel feel better:

    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.

    Sure, but all of those are unnecessary if you have enough in-house help with the cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

    The couple in the story’s problem is that they’re not rich enough to employ servants. If they are making less than 300K/year (and possibly less than that), and if they’ve got student loan debt, then they’re not going to be getting ahead much living in NYC. They’re just not rich enough to enjoy the kind of lifestyle they believe — or at least Ms Jampel believes — they should be entitled to.

    And in these circumstances, it’s no surprise that resentment festers.

    Remember in Bonfire that Sherman and Judy McCoy had Bonita standing ready to take little Campbell off their hands whenever they didn’t want to be bothered. They also had other household staff for the cooking and cleaning, allowing Judy to indulge her dreams of being an interior designer. Ms Jampel, on the other hand, is pictured slaving over a hot stove.

    One other comment on another theme: note the following sentences, quoted directly from the source of all wisdom and truth, the NYT:

    There’s no gender gap in the financial rewards for working extra long hours. For the most part, women who work extreme hours get paid as much as men who do.

    . . .

    Men and women with law and business degrees have similar jobs right out of college, other research has found — but a decade later, women earn significantly less. It’s explained by the fact that they work shorter hours and take more breaks.

    Can we now forget about this 78 cents on the dollar nonsense for once and for all? The NYT says so.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    We?
    , @Anon
    Yeah. It's amazing how so many people here missed this important point.
    , @Anon
    You haven't been keeping up. The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn't take time off are getting. I kid you not.

    This sounds crazy, but I don't think that it can be ignored: Think of all the other crazy stuff that has come true, e.g. trans rights.
    , @Forbes

    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.
     
    Why not go full-on and outsource parenting. Just hand the children to the state after childbirth. In fact, why bother with pregnancy--have the state pay surrogates to carry women's petri dish fertilized egg to term. That way women won't have to suffer the burden of pregnancy and childbirth.

    Wouldn't that be the ultimate satisfaction of Adam Smith's theory of the division of labor and labor specialization? What could be more progressive?

    CCM's policy recommendations don't help lighten parents’ demands at home--unless being "overworked" is the objective. (Children's needs aren't lessened because the parents are at work.) Said policies allow women to stay on the job so they can fulfill their obsession with long hours...
  212. @Wilkey
    she works 21 hours a week as a lawyer for New York City, a job that enables her to spend two days a week at home with their children, ages 5 and 1, and to shuffle her hours if something urgent comes up. He’s a partner at a midsize law firm and works 60-hour weeks — up to 80 if he’s closing a big deal — and is on call nights and weekends. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

    So at minimum he works three times as much as she does - probably closer to four times as much as she does. And he's available at random times if they really need him, which means he can take on big important clients that pay a whole lot more. And he makes...four times what she does.

    Math is hard.

    This couple sounds like they have a great thing going. She gets to spend a lot of time with her small children. He makes bank. They get to live in one of the greatest, most expensive cities in the world, which is important to a lot of people.

    The biggest problem with feminism is that it tells women that their relationships with the men in their lives shouldn't be symbiotic, but parasitic and antagonistic. If this couple divorced it would probably clear up one or two annoyances in her life but would create about 30 new ones for her, and for him, and for their children. Modern politics is stupid.

    The reason she’s complaining is because she probably made 150K/yr before she had children. Now she makes one-fifth that.

    It’s as simple as that.

    Especially when your family’s combined income is only 200K/yr, that doesn’t go far in NYC.

  213. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Depends what you want, I reckon. Recall Caesar's remark while passing thru some crummy Gaulish village on his way to conquer Omnia Gallia: he told a colleague he'd rather be the supreme high chieftain of this little sh!thole, than just some mid-level schmo in Rome. I bet there are some steakhouses and strip joints in Tulsa worth owning.

    Also, the lady in the story didn't take her husband's name, so: fake marriage. Her lawyer skills will come in handy when she decides to divorce-rape him, and she will.

    Also, (why do I even still bother?)...

    "by Claire Miller"

    No further questions, your honor.

    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.
     
    Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.
    , @SFG
    I'm sure there are definitely people who would rather be a big fish in a small pond.

    I agree with you, though. Caesar wasn't one of them.
  214. @Arclight
    No, but it seems like the kind of thing he would...I just picked $30K as a number that isn't a ton of money or a substitute for a career, but enough that a working mom might find attractive enough to stay at home and take care of the kids without feeling like she's losing a lot. Obviously a national program like this would be hugely expensive.

    Anyway, you are right in that part of the attack from the left would be that it would help a ton of white women, and we can't have that.

    I agree with your view on feminism, Arclight (well, just about everyone here, as Rosie seems to have felt too big a burden to start commenting on about 5 “let’s talk” posts – can’t blame her one bit!) Anyway, whether it’s your number or whatever the idiot Socialist Yang comes up with, you’re just going to see the money going round and round.

    Nobody benefits except BIG GOV as they not only take their cut, in the form of more middle-class, mostly-black-filled, make-work jobs, but they will now have control of the people who await their $2,500 a month. Where’s that money come from, the FED ctrl-P press? Tell me how 100,000,000 formerly 2-income working middle class families can get paid that amount. That’s 3 Trillion bucks yearly, most of the national budget.

    No, maybe American families to stop trying to live like it’s the 1990’s still and cut back. If they cut back, the wife could stay home. It takes not being the type who feels too proud to ask for prices when they’re not marked, scaling vacations way back, and not attending super-expensive pro-sportsball games, stuff like that. The country would be way better off for it, but I’m afraid none of this will happen until the financial pain from the coming crash sets in.

  215. @AnotherDad

    That was one of the happiest days of my life (had just met my future wife) until I looked up at a TV hanging over a bar and felt like I’d been hit by a truck. Obama was winning going away.
     
    Des, from one of your designated "BoomerCon" whipping boys, kudos on meeting a good woman and now your 1st child. (If i understand where you're at. Have lots more.)

    But why "hit by a truck". There was so little surprise on that one.

    First off, America was very unlikely to fire the black guy--bad optics for good whites.

    But more importantly Romney had utterly failed to produce any sort of positive program. Nothing on immigration--and hence nothing on jobs, wages. No pro-family, pro-fertility tax reform. Essentially nothing for the Republicans middle class base. And then stupid saber rattling on Russia. GOPe drivel, presented by an attractive looking ex-WallStreeter. America's going to fire the black guy for that?

    It was the first time I’d been surprised in my life by a presidential election. There was a lot of last minute momentum for Romney, especially around Cincinnati. Felt like 2000.

    And everyone around Obama was awful to the point of incompetence. Marie Harf, for God’s sake? I was an R leaner so most of my info was about D shortcomings, so I got blindsided by Romney and Ryan turning out to be a coward and a naif.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I held my nose voting for Romney but did expect him to lose. I did not expect him to have an unprecedented number of red districts where not one person voted for him, which I still think borders on suspicious given Obama's record of electoral interference, but then again Romney is such an utterly umlikeable man, and such an insult to conservative values, that maybe he just turns that many off. Something I have in my head when I hear Willard open his mouth nowadays, to extend his opinion about that guy who actually wins elections.
  216. @AnotherDad

    Of course past 40, a completely average 25 yo secretary that makes a minimal effort at staying fit and nice clothing looks “smoking hot.”
     
    True that.

    But most of that isn't just being past 40, it's the state of American womanhood. As i noted a few months back:

    When i was a young man a girl still had to be cute to be cute. But now if a young woman is plain, but has a body that looks like it’s from 1960s earth rather than planet blimpo … she’s cute! Well as long as she’s not tatted up. Really unless objectively ugly, simply no fats+tats and a young woman is miraculously “above average”.
     
    ~~~

    I see a fair number of weddings now, on the beach--including two gals getting gay-married last week. (Who the heck would show up for that. I wouldn't bother for my own daughters.)

    Anyway, the size of a lot of these "brides" is amazing. Why in the heck are guys signing up for that? Why bother? The marriage rate has plummeted, but i'm a bit surprised it's still as high as it is.

    Spinal Tap explains why in “Big Bottom”.

  217. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

     

    This explains a lot.

    This thread is tremendous; there's so much how-to-live-your-life observation and wisdom here.

    But no one has yet mentioned a factor from this NYT saga that would have been obvious to someone 100 years ago: where are the servants?

    Miller suggests the following social policies are needed to help make overworked mothers like Ms Jampel feel better:


    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.

     

    Sure, but all of those are unnecessary if you have enough in-house help with the cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

    The couple in the story's problem is that they're not rich enough to employ servants. If they are making less than 300K/year (and possibly less than that), and if they've got student loan debt, then they're not going to be getting ahead much living in NYC. They're just not rich enough to enjoy the kind of lifestyle they believe -- or at least Ms Jampel believes -- they should be entitled to.

    And in these circumstances, it's no surprise that resentment festers.

    Remember in Bonfire that Sherman and Judy McCoy had Bonita standing ready to take little Campbell off their hands whenever they didn't want to be bothered. They also had other household staff for the cooking and cleaning, allowing Judy to indulge her dreams of being an interior designer. Ms Jampel, on the other hand, is pictured slaving over a hot stove.

    One other comment on another theme: note the following sentences, quoted directly from the source of all wisdom and truth, the NYT:


    There’s no gender gap in the financial rewards for working extra long hours. For the most part, women who work extreme hours get paid as much as men who do.

    . . .

    Men and women with law and business degrees have similar jobs right out of college, other research has found — but a decade later, women earn significantly less. It’s explained by the fact that they work shorter hours and take more breaks.

     

    Can we now forget about this 78 cents on the dollar nonsense for once and for all? The NYT says so.

    We?

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    LOL; good catch.
  218. @Steve Sailer
    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.

    One of my mottos is: Don't be oblivious to the obvious.

    Exactly right. NYC is the number #1 city for billionaires in the world, not merely the USA. I watch CNBC in the AM and Kernan is always going on about how NY/NJ/CA have taxed their residents so high and the wealthy will flee. Only thing is they don’t flee. Now middle class, I wouldn’t consider a partner in a law firm middle class, do flee.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/09/the-cities-with-the-most-billionaires/

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The high taxes keep out the riff-raff. It’s a form of conspicuous consumption.
    , @scrivener3
    America produces more billionaires than any other country, and most people like to live where they were raised. Istanbul is above San Fransisco but not because Istanbul is an attractive place.

    A better measure would be how many millionaires move out of a city. It takes a lot to make someone rip up roots and move, like the many New Yorker going to Miami.
    , @SFG
    Hong Kong's actually pulled ahead now...

    https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/06/investing/world-richest-people-cities/index.html
    , @Forbes
    Residential property taxes in NYC are incredibly low. Owning an apartment (effectively an investment property) to spend the (leisure and networking) time you need here, and actually living elsewhere, where you pay income taxes, is a smart situation that the wealthy can carry off.
  219. @prosa123
    Speaking about the earliest division of labor, I have never figured why among human hunter-gatherers, both past and present, the hunting is almost exclusively a male activity. Among most other carnivorous species the females do an equal share of the hunting, and in the case of lions most of it. Why are humans different?

    It’s a primate thing. Chimps also hunt in packs of males. Lots of primates utilize groups of males for defense as well.

    The general tendency for human males to act aggressively in groups goes way back to before modern humans evolved. Probably more than 10 million years, and certainly more than 5 million, so it’s doubtful that modern human female physical limitations have much to do with it.

  220. @Ed
    Exactly right. NYC is the number #1 city for billionaires in the world, not merely the USA. I watch CNBC in the AM and Kernan is always going on about how NY/NJ/CA have taxed their residents so high and the wealthy will flee. Only thing is they don’t flee. Now middle class, I wouldn’t consider a partner in a law firm middle class, do flee.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/09/the-cities-with-the-most-billionaires/

    The high taxes keep out the riff-raff. It’s a form of conspicuous consumption.

  221. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

     

    This explains a lot.

    This thread is tremendous; there's so much how-to-live-your-life observation and wisdom here.

    But no one has yet mentioned a factor from this NYT saga that would have been obvious to someone 100 years ago: where are the servants?

    Miller suggests the following social policies are needed to help make overworked mothers like Ms Jampel feel better:


    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.

     

    Sure, but all of those are unnecessary if you have enough in-house help with the cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

    The couple in the story's problem is that they're not rich enough to employ servants. If they are making less than 300K/year (and possibly less than that), and if they've got student loan debt, then they're not going to be getting ahead much living in NYC. They're just not rich enough to enjoy the kind of lifestyle they believe -- or at least Ms Jampel believes -- they should be entitled to.

    And in these circumstances, it's no surprise that resentment festers.

    Remember in Bonfire that Sherman and Judy McCoy had Bonita standing ready to take little Campbell off their hands whenever they didn't want to be bothered. They also had other household staff for the cooking and cleaning, allowing Judy to indulge her dreams of being an interior designer. Ms Jampel, on the other hand, is pictured slaving over a hot stove.

    One other comment on another theme: note the following sentences, quoted directly from the source of all wisdom and truth, the NYT:


    There’s no gender gap in the financial rewards for working extra long hours. For the most part, women who work extreme hours get paid as much as men who do.

    . . .

    Men and women with law and business degrees have similar jobs right out of college, other research has found — but a decade later, women earn significantly less. It’s explained by the fact that they work shorter hours and take more breaks.

     

    Can we now forget about this 78 cents on the dollar nonsense for once and for all? The NYT says so.

    Yeah. It’s amazing how so many people here missed this important point.

  222. @Desiderius
    It was the first time I’d been surprised in my life by a presidential election. There was a lot of last minute momentum for Romney, especially around Cincinnati. Felt like 2000.

    And everyone around Obama was awful to the point of incompetence. Marie Harf, for God’s sake? I was an R leaner so most of my info was about D shortcomings, so I got blindsided by Romney and Ryan turning out to be a coward and a naif.

    I held my nose voting for Romney but did expect him to lose. I did not expect him to have an unprecedented number of red districts where not one person voted for him, which I still think borders on suspicious given Obama’s record of electoral interference, but then again Romney is such an utterly umlikeable man, and such an insult to conservative values, that maybe he just turns that many off. Something I have in my head when I hear Willard open his mouth nowadays, to extend his opinion about that guy who actually wins elections.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3
    Romney is a world-class whore. First in business, then in politics. For a Mormon, his 'principles' were, and are, remarkably malleable.
    , @Anon
    Romney is a married man with 5 children. He's a devoted husband and father, and active in his Church.

    Trump is a philanderer who neglects his kids and never attends Church.

    Say what you want, but Romney embodies conservative values more than Trump.
    , @Anonymous
    Since Blacks make a lot of mistakes and a few are just contrary-there's always that one guy who hates the guy he's supposed to vote for and decides to vote the other way-if Romney got ZERO votes you know something's up. Usually when you rig a vote you make sure the other guy got a few just for appearance. In fact you make sure every candidate gets at least a few votes, the libtys, greens, reform, you name it.


    Romney like most Mormon men of any success is at least an able administrator, even if he has no political principles to speak of and will do whatever will get him eected in terms of his positions on matters of any weight. I voted libty in that election, but I lived in Kansas, where Romney was going to carry the state anyway. I would have preferred Romney over Obama, of course. But not by much.
    , @ScarletNumber

    I did not expect [Romney] to have an unprecedented number of red districts where not one person voted for him [in 2012]
     
    I don't think this is true. Do you mean blue?
  223. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career

    When I read this I wondered if the final move may not have been to minimize alimony rather than advance his career. There are massive differences, state by state. Stay out of Massachusetts if you’re the breadwinner.

    House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America’s white, deep-roots elites.

    This “beiging” of American whiteness is the subject of Eric Kaufmann’s recent book White Shift.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Steve should really review that book. I suspect the 'beiging' of whiteness is probably what will happen, with quarter-Chinese, quarter-Mexican people calling themselves 'white' and eventually voting Republican.

    I'm curious to hear what people think about this. I mean, racial purity and political power in a democracy kind of point in opposite directions here. Is it better to have an 80% 'beige' block that dominates the others, or a 30% 'white' block dueling with a 30% 'Latin', a 20% 'Asian, and a 20% 'black' bloc? (Honest question.)

  224. Women Did Everything Right. Then Work Got ‘Greedy.’

    How America’s obsession with long hours has widened the gender gap.

    Who gives a shit? Since all children have a male and female parent, it doesn’t matter, and you have to be a “wrecker” to pretend that it does.

  225. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

     

    This explains a lot.

    This thread is tremendous; there's so much how-to-live-your-life observation and wisdom here.

    But no one has yet mentioned a factor from this NYT saga that would have been obvious to someone 100 years ago: where are the servants?

    Miller suggests the following social policies are needed to help make overworked mothers like Ms Jampel feel better:


    Certain changes would lighten parents’ demands at home, like universal public preschool, longer school days, free afterschool care and shorter school breaks.

     

    Sure, but all of those are unnecessary if you have enough in-house help with the cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

    The couple in the story's problem is that they're not rich enough to employ servants. If they are making less than 300K/year (and possibly less than that), and if they've got student loan debt, then they're not going to be getting ahead much living in NYC. They're just not rich enough to enjoy the kind of lifestyle they believe -- or at least Ms Jampel believes -- they should be entitled to.

    And in these circumstances, it's no surprise that resentment festers.

    Remember in Bonfire that Sherman and Judy McCoy had Bonita standing ready to take little Campbell off their hands whenever they didn't want to be bothered. They also had other household staff for the cooking and cleaning, allowing Judy to indulge her dreams of being an interior designer. Ms Jampel, on the other hand, is pictured slaving over a hot stove.

    One other comment on another theme: note the following sentences, quoted directly from the source of all wisdom and truth, the NYT:


    There’s no gender gap in the financial rewards for working extra long hours. For the most part, women who work extreme hours get paid as much as men who do.

    . . .

    Men and women with law and business degrees have similar jobs right out of college, other research has found — but a decade later, women earn significantly less. It’s explained by the fact that they work shorter hours and take more breaks.

     

    Can we now forget about this 78 cents on the dollar nonsense for once and for all? The NYT says so.

    You haven’t been keeping up. The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting. I kid you not.

    This sounds crazy, but I don’t think that it can be ignored: Think of all the other crazy stuff that has come true, e.g. trans rights.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting.

     

    Yeah, I've seen this as well. But it's still a ways from filtering down from academia into, for example, political campaign BS. That's where you still hear the 78% figure, along with the 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in college, etc.

    An interesting study: how does an academic hypothesis -- especially an unfounded, hypberbolic, and socially harmful one -- make it out of the academy and into the broad national, or even international, conventional wisdom?

    It seems having a simple number as a focus really helps: a percentage, a fraction, a sum total (e.g. we're killing off ONE MILLION species or something is the latest greenie meme), or a deadline (we have only 12 years to stop global warming).

    Gendered discrimination and structural bias are hard to communicate in soundbites. They need a number.

    , @Oleaginous Outrager

    There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting.
     
    Why not go all in on declaring that a man's time on Earth amounts to nothing when compared to a woman's? It's where we've been headed for some time now.
    , @Pericles
    Since they suffer so, perhaps women should reenter at a higher salary than their male cohort?
    , @Forbes

    There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting.
     
    Kind of short-sighted, don't you think...

    It should just be required that women continue to be paid for the time devoted to childbirth/rearing until they return to work.

    This is no different than what the military did for Bowe Bergdahl who deserted in Afghanistan--who was promoted to Sergeant while AWOL/captive/detained/whatever.
  226. @Ed
    Exactly right. NYC is the number #1 city for billionaires in the world, not merely the USA. I watch CNBC in the AM and Kernan is always going on about how NY/NJ/CA have taxed their residents so high and the wealthy will flee. Only thing is they don’t flee. Now middle class, I wouldn’t consider a partner in a law firm middle class, do flee.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/09/the-cities-with-the-most-billionaires/

    America produces more billionaires than any other country, and most people like to live where they were raised. Istanbul is above San Fransisco but not because Istanbul is an attractive place.

    A better measure would be how many millionaires move out of a city. It takes a lot to make someone rip up roots and move, like the many New Yorker going to Miami.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    A decade or so ago, the State of Maryland passed a "millionaire's tax"--a surcharge rate on incomes above $1 million. The year it went into effect there were no reported incomes exceeding $1 million.

    It seems those with wealthy incomes can arrange their living circumstances in ways more imaginative than the legislature can fathom.
  227. American women of working age are the most educated ever. Yet it’s the most educated women who face the biggest gender gaps in seniority and pay: At the top of their fields, they represent just 5 percent of big company chief executives and a quarter of the top 10 percent of earners in the United States.

    They do not “face” anything; they CHOOSE or have been chosen (by nature) to be less valuable in those fields. Moreover, women are not separate from men; they are partnered with them, so any “gender gap” doesn’t matter.

  228. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY

    This is about half of what an assistant DA or assistant U.S. Attorney make, so it sounds about right. In general, any attorney who shows up in a public job after starting in a private law firm has washed out. You see a lot of black Harvard Law graduates who go from $170,000 white shoe associates to $55,000 assistant U.S. attorneys after a couple of years, barely able to make loan payments … but in the current climate they may end up as $100,000 affirmative action-hire law professors studying the legal implications of hip-hop.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Lawyer

    This is about half of what an assistant DA or assistant U.S. Attorney make, so it sounds about right. In general, any attorney who shows up in a public job after starting in a private law firm has washed out. You see a lot of black Harvard Law graduates who go from $170,000 white shoe associates to $55,000 assistant U.S. attorneys after a couple of years, barely able to make loan payments … but in the current climate they may end up as $100,000 affirmative action-hire law professors studying the legal implications of hip-hop.
     
    In general it might be true that a large percentage of publicly employed attorneys could not hack it in private practice. But this rule does not extend to Assistant United States Attorneys. AUSA, especially in a place like SDNY, is a highly prestigious job with extremely competitive hiring. Top grades from a very good law school, a federal clerkship, and several years practicing at a biglaw firm are virtually prerequisites to getting an interview for an AUSA position. People don’t just land on that job because they couldn’t make it in private practice.
    , @Forbes
    A quick search says the entry level, straight from law school, salary is $55K, with salary higher depending on experience, while the average AUSA makes $105K.
  229. @AnotherDad

    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:
     
    Yep.

    My brother-in-law made his career there. I started going, when the kids were young, in the mid-90s and went almost every year for a decade as part of our western rambles. There was a ridge with psuedo-palatial homes above my b-i-l's place in Highland's Ranch--with views of the city and the whole front range-- and the prices back in the day were flat out ridiculous. I mean ridiculous--at least for anyone coming from a coastal metro. No more. Cheap evaporated during the bubble. And the joint has boomed with the recovery. While still quite reasonable compared to Seattle, it really isn't "flyover country" anymore. Shame.

    Basically the immigration wrecking ball is swinging further and further inland.

    As coastal regions fill, whites run from them. The Mexicans go to wherever is booming and Mexicanify older inner suburbs. Places whites want to live with "good schools" dwindle. Any place with a decent economy and any sort of desirable ammenities starts spiralling up in price.

    And we're only at 3 and quarter. (Double the US i was born into.) By mid-century we'll be at 400 million. The wrecking ball swinging anywhere and everywhere there's anything of value. I'll probably die before then in a nation unrecognizable as America to my childhood self. By the turn of the century we'll be at half a billion. We'll have completely sacrificed America's wonderful heritage of cheap land/expensive labor to be a shitty Latinized Asianized high-density nation. Everything will suck.

    Americans really ought to be more pissed and have the heads of their coastal elites on pikes.

    I can’t help but think of all the fantastic farm land that used to be in DuPage County, Illinois that’s been converted to housing and just paved over. Aurora and West Chicano are overrun by illegal aliens and their spawn.

    DuPage used to be a solid Republican county that counterbalanced Chicago and surrounding communist suburbs; no more. Pretty soon, future felon Gov. Pritzker will have his graduated income tax. No doubt, more gun control to follow.

    https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/source-feds-probe-illinois-gov-jb-pritzker-first-lady-for-property-tax-appeals-on-gold-coast-mansion/afb5e34e-e7f5-4113-a110-ac8ec98bca63

    Ann Coulter is right: the communists are coverting America to the Third-world intentionally.

    • Replies: @Anon
    That's only true if you think Democrats are Communist.
  230. @Pat Hannagan
    OT but reviewing video evidence it seems Fairfax/Nine journos along with NSW police got the assault wrong.

    https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/photographer-hurt-in-scuffle-at-fraser-anning-press-conference-20190426-p51hig.html

    The media union later stated: "It is unacceptable in a democracy for journalists to be physically threatened or assaulted in the course of doing their job."

    I think the greatest of modern misconceptions is that "the media" and its "journalists" sit outside the theatre and only comment on it. Everyone knows the media is owned by the state.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts1RfaK_FXg

    I think the greatest of modern misconceptions is that “the media” and its “journalists” sit outside the theatre and only comment on it. Everyone knows the media is owned by the state.

    Or vice versa.

  231. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Where did we get a million dollars salary, the average partner in a NYC law firm is 200K or so and the high end is 400K.

  232. Were people always so complaining? For Allah’s sake you got flush toilets!

  233. Anon[176] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    I am now from another era. Every field, even MRS, has moved on to graduate level. Pharmacists now get "doctorate" degrees so they can fill bottles with pills. Everything is even more of a puffed-up, rent-seeking scam than it was already.

    You are correct. That is a sign of the times.

    I vote for piano lessons for the girls -- and welding apprenticeships for the boys.

    Pharmacists now get “doctorate” degrees so they can fill bottles with pills.

    I had a girlfriend who graduated with a four-year degree from UCLA, and then went off to a five-year pharmacy program at USC, not recently, but 40 years ago. So they must be doing something other than filling bottles with pills.

    Law school is three years post graduate. A combined law degree and MBA is four years. Medical school is four years if you skip an internship and become a GP (the vibrant track), an extra 3 to 7 for an internship.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Pharmacy schools have Pharm.D professional doctorate that are 3-year programs, after 2-year pre-program.
  234. @Daniel H
    I smell a divorce coming…

    What a troublemaker Betty Friedan was.

    (((Betty Friedan))) wrote that suburbs were “concentration camps for women” in 1963, only 18 years after the liberation of Auschwitz…

    • Replies: @SFG
    If all the feminists were Ukrainian, we'd hear endless comparisons to the Holodomor...
  235. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Isn't this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They're smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.

    The problem is that the women don't realize that they're signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn't. Everyone knows - especially the few successful women lawyers - that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.

    American women (and men) need to grow up. American women willfully believe childish things, and American men aren't man enough to tell them the truth.

    Isn’t this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They’re smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.

    At the same time, though, they’re not smart enough to signal the same thing without wasting a huge amount of money. Most men can tell whether a woman is smart simply by talking to her.

    The problem is that the women don’t realize that they’re signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn’t. Everyone knows – especially the few successful women lawyers – that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.

    You’re right about that.

    • Replies: @Anon
    A Manhattan lawyer typically won't marry a woman who's not an educated, affluent professional.

    It's not a waste to get a degree, as she'll probably earn a lot before having children. She can also start reearning again once the kids grow up.
  236. @sabril
    Daniela Jampel made $32,906 in 2018 according to SeeThroughNY. Since she is a city employee, her salary is a matter of public record.

    Her hourly rate is $46 so it seems that in 2018 she was working closer to 2 days a week than 3 on average.

    What's a bit surprising to me is that this would seem to indicate her husband makes roughly $250k as a law firm partner. It may sound like a lot, but that's actually pretty lousy for an experienced New York law firm partner. Quite possibly he is a junior non-equity "service partner" who is held out to the world as a partner but actually has no real say in firm governance and does not get a share of firm profits.

    Haaaaa…. $32K for a Cornell grad! No wonder she’s all butthurt. She could make more working at a day-care.

    College is a joke.

    • Replies: @Anon
    You can make 46/hr working at a daycare. LOL.
  237. @Discordiax
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/tulsa-attorney-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IM871_KO6,14.htm

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000, High salary = $176,000

    Let's take a more reasonable comparison, presuming that one or both grew up in Oklahoma, (otherwise why Tulsa?) the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex would be a reasonable place to move.

    Not much better--$123,000 average, $187,000 High.

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000

    LOL.

    Not even close.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    First item that comes up searching for "Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK" was $72,701, which sounds more realistic.
  238. @Spangel
    Maybe because humans don’t really need big game to survive. It’s a treat. In hunter gatherer societies, women do hunt, but they just hunt small game like nearby rodents or fish. Mostly they gather and they tend to produce enough to sustain themselves and their children this way. They are not dependent on successful big game hunts by men for daily survival. But when men bring big game back, it’s extra protein and a treat.

    Maybe big game hunting was something men did primarily to help them get laid?

    Maybe big game hunting was something men did primarily to help them get laid?

    Everything men did was to help get them laid.

  239. @Daniel H
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off.

    In Big Law, as an associate, you have to work 60-80 hours/week simply to not get fired or let go after 3-5 years. As a partner you have to work 60-80 hours/week to not get fired as a partner. Once you get on the lawyering treadmill there is no respite until you retire or get fired. Not a pleasant life.

    Big law is horrible.

    A working class kid who gets into a top ten law school and gets courted by big firms is pretty heady stuff. I made more in a week than I made a full summer making barrels. I watched a pro football game from a firm sky box. The hours are horrible, the clients consider you a servant not an equal.

    The partner I worked for had a home with a backyard that butted up against the yard of David Boise (perhaps the biggest lawyer in the world). He had a deadbolt lock put on his office door so he could sleep during a deal and not be disturbed by the clean up staff. He sleep on his couch.

    He was so successful I could hardly dream of reaching that level, yet he often slept on a couch in his office.

    A lawyers life can be reasonably good. Forgo the big firm, hang a shingle, get your own clients. You will not do the deal with seven zeros after the dollar sign. I did many. It was a horrible life.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I oversaw the writing of a contract for a 9 figure deal in the 1990s. It was a pretty horrible 9 day ordeal. Toward the end, I slept under some unknown worker's desk at a famous Silicon Valley firm from 3am to 6am.
  240. @Spangel
    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.

    Good high paying jobs for women are things like dentistry, vetrinary medicine and dermatology. Those have 9 to 5 hours and they can join group practices where they don’t have to work every day. Well veterinary medicine can involve more variable hours but it tends to give such high job satisfaction that women are fine with it. Women who work in those fields also tend to like those jobs, unlike law.

    Law is a field that usually doesn’t make sense for mothers. You have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to be able to pay your school debt off. You can’t work 60 to 80 hours a week and know your kid. Law attracts women in part because it’s a field that relies on verbal intelligence, which is their stronger point.

    No, it really doesn’t rely on that.

  241. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Damn, she’s ugly.

  242. @Joe Stalin
    I can't help but think of all the fantastic farm land that used to be in DuPage County, Illinois that's been converted to housing and just paved over. Aurora and West Chicano are overrun by illegal aliens and their spawn.

    DuPage used to be a solid Republican county that counterbalanced Chicago and surrounding communist suburbs; no more. Pretty soon, future felon Gov. Pritzker will have his graduated income tax. No doubt, more gun control to follow.

    https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/source-feds-probe-illinois-gov-jb-pritzker-first-lady-for-property-tax-appeals-on-gold-coast-mansion/afb5e34e-e7f5-4113-a110-ac8ec98bca63

    Ann Coulter is right: the communists are coverting America to the Third-world intentionally.

    That’s only true if you think Democrats are Communist.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    That’s only true if you think Democrats are Communist.
     
    And you think they are....
    , @Forbes
    They're not?
  243. @scrivener3
    Big law is horrible.

    A working class kid who gets into a top ten law school and gets courted by big firms is pretty heady stuff. I made more in a week than I made a full summer making barrels. I watched a pro football game from a firm sky box. The hours are horrible, the clients consider you a servant not an equal.

    The partner I worked for had a home with a backyard that butted up against the yard of David Boise (perhaps the biggest lawyer in the world). He had a deadbolt lock put on his office door so he could sleep during a deal and not be disturbed by the clean up staff. He sleep on his couch.

    He was so successful I could hardly dream of reaching that level, yet he often slept on a couch in his office.

    A lawyers life can be reasonably good. Forgo the big firm, hang a shingle, get your own clients. You will not do the deal with seven zeros after the dollar sign. I did many. It was a horrible life.

    I oversaw the writing of a contract for a 9 figure deal in the 1990s. It was a pretty horrible 9 day ordeal. Toward the end, I slept under some unknown worker’s desk at a famous Silicon Valley firm from 3am to 6am.

  244. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Isn't this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They're smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.

    The problem is that the women don't realize that they're signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn't. Everyone knows - especially the few successful women lawyers - that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.

    American women (and men) need to grow up. American women willfully believe childish things, and American men aren't man enough to tell them the truth.

    Women want to be lawyers because of the money and social status.

    Most male lawyers aren’t cut for the partner track either. That’s okay, as lots of lawyers end up making a couple hundred grand a year as corporate counsels.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Being a lawyer employed by a corporation can be a pretty good all-around upper middle class job.
    , @Lawyer Guy
    Except...traditional lawyer roles, like the legal side of contract management, IP rights tracking and basic enforcement, compliance... are now handled poorly out of Bangalore. Execs love it because they "saved" the company money for the next option cycle, even though 15 years down the pike it will cost the company way more than it is worth.

    So you have one pretty good General Counsel who is a Jew or traditional WASP, a HR girl lawyer who is either hot or married to someone just like the GC, and another pretty good IP rights lawyer who is, or is married to someone, just like the GC, and one good lawyer in charge of contract negotiations and two great lawyers from outside the top 10 schools who are called 'assistant under deputy general counsels' or flat out 'contract specialists', who make a little more than a paralegal would for twice the work.
  245. @Arclight
    Feminism went all in on the concept that for women to maximize their happiness and potential they basically needed to be able to have just as much consequence-free sex with a series of short term relationships and work the same high pressure/high hour jobs. Turns out that's not really what most women want at all, but you'll never see them walk that back.

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let's say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you'd see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let’s say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you’d see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.

    I’m opposed to that. I do not wan to see a huge subsidy going out to net tax eaters–helping them eat even more. Nor do i think welfare is good for the character of an individual or society.

    But a huge child deduction, would be great. Huge–taking a bunch of married with children families off the tax rolls and encouraging precisely the high-quality folks with their stuff together to have more children.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Didn't Trump double the child tax credit? It's a very nice chunk of change for us (increased income by about 6%).
  246. @indocon
    And then we have Kamala's husband who is partner at a law firm in LA and look like makes >$1M/year.

    He’s a very successful lawyer.

  247. He earns four to six times what she does, depending on the year.

    He needs to have his pay cut to 1/4 or 1/6 of what he would have earned, depending on the year.

    We solved the problem the problem is solved!!!

  248. The time she spends caregiving isn’t valued? It’s certainly valued by her children. I’ll bet they wish there were more of it.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    Not really on the "wish there were more of it." Children don't need constant attention past the age of 6-8 or so. That is a historical anomaly. Historically older children were expected to assist with chores or the family farm/business, take care of siblings, and roam around with neighborhood children to develop a sense of independence. Helicopter parents have weird semi-autistic kids. They sometimes end up as maladjusted socially as neglected children. A lot of underemployed "incels" in the 20-30 range are the sons of 90's helicopter mommies.
  249. @Moses
    I was at a group outing where several women with high-powered careers were commiserating over how difficult it is for them and their husbands to juggle professional and children responsibilities.

    I suggested they divide labor. "Why not have your husband stay at home while you earn the big bux?"

    They let out a collective gasp and clutched their pearls.

    Mein gott! The thought of being with a man who earned less than they do! Icky!

    I had to break out the smelling salts.

    Yes, hypergamy is a thing.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.

    “Satisfied women”? Come now sir, surely you jest. The female of the species is insatiable, whether married to a laborer or a titan of business. With age, they may settle, but they will never be “satisfied”. Never.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "they will never be “satisfied”. Never."

    Parents should read these old fairy tales to their children. Much wisdom therein.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fisherman_and_His_Wife
    , @Colin Wright
    '“Satisfied women”? Come now sir, surely you jest. The female of the species is insatiable, whether married to a laborer or a titan of business. With age, they may settle, but they will never be “satisfied”. Never.'

    I take it that's been your experience.
  250. @Desiderius
    Alternatively, one could be exceptionally talented in the law and savvy in applying that talent.

    You’re not a shelf stocker at WalMart.

    Be good enough not to have to.

  251. @ben tillman

    Isn’t this all about signalling. These women are signally that they are good mates. They’re smart enough and hard-working enough to make it through law school; therefore, the man has better odds of having smart, hard-working kids if he has children with her.
     
    At the same time, though, they're not smart enough to signal the same thing without wasting a huge amount of money. Most men can tell whether a woman is smart simply by talking to her.

    The problem is that the women don’t realize that they’re signalling. They think that the world really wants them to be lawyers, when it doesn’t. Everyone knows – especially the few successful women lawyers – that the vast, vast majority of women coming out of top law schools are not cut out to be partners (or even good associates) for a variety of reasons.
     
    You're right about that.

    A Manhattan lawyer typically won’t marry a woman who’s not an educated, affluent professional.

    It’s not a waste to get a degree, as she’ll probably earn a lot before having children. She can also start reearning again once the kids grow up.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    A Manhattan lawyer typically won’t marry a woman who’s not an educated, affluent professional.
     
    That may be so, but there's a difference between signalling and fulfilling a prerequisite.
  252. @AnotherDad

    Denver has had very rapid cost of living increases. It isn’t NYC/SF/LA level, but it is just about the most expensive non coastal city. Top two spots for fastest rent increases are in Colorado:
     
    Yep.

    My brother-in-law made his career there. I started going, when the kids were young, in the mid-90s and went almost every year for a decade as part of our western rambles. There was a ridge with psuedo-palatial homes above my b-i-l's place in Highland's Ranch--with views of the city and the whole front range-- and the prices back in the day were flat out ridiculous. I mean ridiculous--at least for anyone coming from a coastal metro. No more. Cheap evaporated during the bubble. And the joint has boomed with the recovery. While still quite reasonable compared to Seattle, it really isn't "flyover country" anymore. Shame.

    Basically the immigration wrecking ball is swinging further and further inland.

    As coastal regions fill, whites run from them. The Mexicans go to wherever is booming and Mexicanify older inner suburbs. Places whites want to live with "good schools" dwindle. Any place with a decent economy and any sort of desirable ammenities starts spiralling up in price.

    And we're only at 3 and quarter. (Double the US i was born into.) By mid-century we'll be at 400 million. The wrecking ball swinging anywhere and everywhere there's anything of value. I'll probably die before then in a nation unrecognizable as America to my childhood self. By the turn of the century we'll be at half a billion. We'll have completely sacrificed America's wonderful heritage of cheap land/expensive labor to be a shitty Latinized Asianized high-density nation. Everything will suck.

    Americans really ought to be more pissed and have the heads of their coastal elites on pikes.

    I certainly see what you’re describing in the Chicago area. Old Polish and Italian suburbs becoming majority Mexican, and whites being driven further and further to the west ( the south suburbs being black and the north suburbs where the rich folks live).

  253. @Forbes

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving taking care of her own children isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    Is she sure it's not valued? Maybe she should ask her children. Maybe she should ask her husband. It sounds like they live on at least $500,000 per year--yet she bitches about her life choices.

    Life is full of trade-offs. Apparently, some of these most educated women cannot comprehend that many trade-offs (choices, decisions, preferences) don't involve the quantitative reckoning of dollars and cents.

    I'll wager that if the NYT checks back in 10 years, our happy couple will be divorced.

    Trade-offs are for poors. She deserves everything she wants.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Of course. She's been indoctrinated with "You can have it all" throughout her formative years.

    Whadya mean it's not true...
  254. @jim jones
    I remember when women tried to get the Gubmint to pay them for being a housewife or whatever the term is now.

    That’s actually not a bad idea if you truly want to make raising children more attractive and affordable for the college-educated middle class on up.

    It would motivate people to marry/start families earlier too.

    But it should be the same sum no matter how many children-otherwise it will encourage irresponsibility among the underclass.

  255. @Spangel
    It’s true that gestation and nursing time and the extreme physical immaturity of small children also limit a woman’s ability to hunt big game. If women hunt giraffe, who will mind the toddlers?

    But even with slower speed and wider pelvises, full grown women can probably hunt big game since humans were historically persistence hunters who hunted by running down their prey to the point of exhaustion, sometimes running for 10 hours at a time after the same animal.

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to. They don’t because they dont have to in order to live and because they need to carry their children around or mind their troublesome toddlers.

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to.

    Ultra long distance running might wear down some prey to the point where you can slit its neck with a pointy stick or a sharp rock. But if you are trying to kill something with some life left it in, which, in my experience, shows up despite apparent exhaustion, you need upper body strength to finish the beast off.

    The death throes of even relatively small animals are remarkable. And the animals that are even smaller are not the ones you can run down.

  256. @AnotherDad

    If some politician put up the idea that married women with children would receive a guaranteed basic income of let’s say $30,000 a year if they stay home, you’d see a ton of working moms exit the labor force.
     
    I'm opposed to that. I do not wan to see a huge subsidy going out to net tax eaters--helping them eat even more. Nor do i think welfare is good for the character of an individual or society.

    But a huge child deduction, would be great. Huge--taking a bunch of married with children families off the tax rolls and encouraging precisely the high-quality folks with their stuff together to have more children.

    Didn’t Trump double the child tax credit? It’s a very nice chunk of change for us (increased income by about 6%).

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, from $1,000 to $2,000. As you know, but others might not, this is a tax CREDIT, not deduction. It comes off the bottom line, so $1,000 more not stolen by the Feral Gov't for each kid you have.

    OTOH, there are no EXEMPTIONS anymore, which were about $4,000 for each "exemption". (That means you, your wife, and each kid under whatever age, along with old people living with you as dependents). It's like a DEDUCTION though, taken off the TOP line. The standard deduction doubled from $12,000 to $24,000, so with 1 kid (or dependent) it's a wash with the loss of exemptions. For more than 1, you lose out on the $4,000 exemption by basically the tax bracket you are in - on the margin, that means the highest percentage you fall under - multiplied by that $4,000.

    For a number of kids, if you are in the middle-class tax bracket of $77,000 - $165,000, meaning 22%, then you lose about $880 per kid by not having the exemptions, while gaining $1,000 from the tax credit. BFD.

    It is nothing but a shell game, IMO, EXCEPT for the lowering of the rates. That can make a pretty decent difference to the good side. If you do the forms yourself, Desiderius, you'll know what I'm talking about.
  257. @Dr. X
    Haaaaa.... $32K for a Cornell grad! No wonder she's all butthurt. She could make more working at a day-care.

    College is a joke.

    You can make 46/hr working at a daycare. LOL.

  258. @ben tillman

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000
     
    LOL.

    Not even close.

    First item that comes up searching for “Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK” was $72,701, which sounds more realistic.

  259. @JimB

    It isn’t the way they’d imagined splitting the breadwinning and the caregiving. But he’s been able to be so financially successful in part because of her flexibility, they said. “I’m here if he needs to work late or go out with clients,” Ms. Jampel said. “Snow days are not an issue. I do all the doctor appointments on my days off. Really, the benefit is he doesn’t have to think about it. If he has to work late or on weekends, he’s not like, ‘Oh my gosh, who’s going to watch the children?’ The thought never crosses his mind.”
     
    From a Google image search, most Jampel's look South Asian. So the Schneid-Jampels are a mixed marriage of sorts. An interesting phenomenon of mixed marriage is that one parent usually has a greater affinity for the children than the other. I suspect Matthew Schneid J.D. is none to concerned about having quality time with his third world kids. Jampel might secretly resent her white male husband's privilege and racism.

    Both of them are Jewish.

  260. @Discordiax
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/tulsa-attorney-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IM871_KO6,14.htm

    Average salary for a lawyer in Tulsa OK = $160,000, High salary = $176,000

    Let's take a more reasonable comparison, presuming that one or both grew up in Oklahoma, (otherwise why Tulsa?) the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex would be a reasonable place to move.

    Not much better--$123,000 average, $187,000 High.

    Your own link says the average is $116,000, which is quite a bit lower than $160,000.

  261. @Ed
    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.

    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.

    Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

  262. @MBlanc46
    The time she spends caregiving isn’t valued? It’s certainly valued by her children. I’ll bet they wish there were more of it.

    Not really on the “wish there were more of it.” Children don’t need constant attention past the age of 6-8 or so. That is a historical anomaly. Historically older children were expected to assist with chores or the family farm/business, take care of siblings, and roam around with neighborhood children to develop a sense of independence. Helicopter parents have weird semi-autistic kids. They sometimes end up as maladjusted socially as neglected children. A lot of underemployed “incels” in the 20-30 range are the sons of 90’s helicopter mommies.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Most parents are into helicopter parenting these days. Wave of the future.
  263. @J.Ross
    I held my nose voting for Romney but did expect him to lose. I did not expect him to have an unprecedented number of red districts where not one person voted for him, which I still think borders on suspicious given Obama's record of electoral interference, but then again Romney is such an utterly umlikeable man, and such an insult to conservative values, that maybe he just turns that many off. Something I have in my head when I hear Willard open his mouth nowadays, to extend his opinion about that guy who actually wins elections.

    Romney is a world-class whore. First in business, then in politics. For a Mormon, his ‘principles’ were, and are, remarkably malleable.

    • Agree: L Woods
  264. @Curious Person
    Why would white people (?) with children be living in NYC?

    Money, ambition, or parentheses.

    Not mutually exclusive, of course.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Money, ambition, and parentheses go together like PB&J.
  265. OT:

    Let’s not refer to ships as “her” or “she.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/ships-she-royal-navy-language-row-female

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Checking out your link led me to another story from 2018, also in the Guardian, about "transgender women" invading the "women-only" swimming pond area within Hampstead Heath, a huge park in North West London. Hampstead is ground zero of bien pensant Guardianista culture.

    Amid a lot of PC talk throughout the piece, we find one Jen Izaakson being more blunt about her fears but a little vague about the science behind her fears:


    “Personally, I don’t see a difference between a man who says he’s a man or a man who says he’s a woman. It’s not about a physical change, men are socialised to be more violent than women and it’s men whom women feel frightened of when they are getting undressed.

     

    Apparently, British schools no longer teach about yucky science stuff like sex hormones etc.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/debate-over-inclusion-of-trans-women-in-women-only-spaces-intensifies

  266. @Anon
    That's only true if you think Democrats are Communist.

    That’s only true if you think Democrats are Communist.

    And you think they are….

  267. It sounds like she’s saying she shouldn’t have listened to the feminist conventional wisdom and instead married her husband at a younger age, but Claire Cain Miller will never figure that out.

    Oh, it isn’t a matter of figuring it out. Clair figured everything out long before she ever met the couple featured in her article. Her job as a journalist for the NYT is to see the face of social justice Jesus in every slice of toast or tortilla or family scenario set before her.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  268. @Curious Person
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/28/upshot/up-greedyprofessions2/merlin_152729739_f2b35d0c-c95d-4cfc-8358-08add51f6f1a-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

    Looks like a very dinky kitchen for a man earning a million a year

    Welcome to Manhattan.

  269. @kihowi

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving isn’t valued the way paid work is.
     
    The only "payment" is a happy, healthy child. Not like you can take a picture of that and make other women jealous on Twitter. You know how many interesting breakfasts in exotic places you could have instead of one family Christmas?

    You *can* make other women jealous on Twitter with that, just not the sort of women who actually want to live in NYC.

  270. @Ed
    Caesar was bullshitting the underling he told that quote to and I bet the underling knew it too. Caesar is the epitome of historical examples of naked, unrelenting ambition.

    I’m sure there are definitely people who would rather be a big fish in a small pond.

    I agree with you, though. Caesar wasn’t one of them.

    • Replies: @res
    I'm not sure about that. Caesar had the ability to be Caesar in Rome so that was what he did. And I agree he would not have been happy settling for less. But if his ability was less than that I wonder if he really would have preferred being a big fish in a small pond rather than a mid level functionary in Rome.

    Remember that the account given was a hypothetical (rather than just some mid-level schmo in Rome, does someone have an actual quote?).
  271. @Anon
    You haven't been keeping up. The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn't take time off are getting. I kid you not.

    This sounds crazy, but I don't think that it can be ignored: Think of all the other crazy stuff that has come true, e.g. trans rights.

    The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting.

    Yeah, I’ve seen this as well. But it’s still a ways from filtering down from academia into, for example, political campaign BS. That’s where you still hear the 78% figure, along with the 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in college, etc.

    An interesting study: how does an academic hypothesis — especially an unfounded, hypberbolic, and socially harmful one — make it out of the academy and into the broad national, or even international, conventional wisdom?

    It seems having a simple number as a focus really helps: a percentage, a fraction, a sum total (e.g. we’re killing off ONE MILLION species or something is the latest greenie meme), or a deadline (we have only 12 years to stop global warming).

    Gendered discrimination and structural bias are hard to communicate in soundbites. They need a number.

    • Replies: @res

    An interesting study: how does an academic hypothesis — especially an unfounded, hypberbolic, and socially harmful one — make it out of the academy and into the broad national, or even international, conventional wisdom?
     
    How is easy. The media. Why is more interesting.
    , @Pericles
    The anchoring factoid, if you will. Note that Trump is pretty good at this too, though not as shameless.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I had an instructor at traffic school (yeah, I had to attend a number of times) who told us first thing, to scare us straight (from rolling through 4-way stop signs), that 1 in 3 Americans get killed in wrecks. He went around the room counting off every 3rd person just to be dramatic about it. I was calculating "Hey, if there are 300 million people, that means 100 million over their lifetimes. For 100-year lifetimes, that's 1 million a year, but, but ... it's around 50,000." (This was a while back.)

    I was not trying to cause any more trouble than I was already in to be in attendance to begin with, but the guy saw me involuntarily shaking my head. "What, you don't believe this." "Nope, I'm just saying."

    See "Good Luck Streak in Traffic School" for more.

    Oh, BTW, when I was in college, the bogus number I saw on a few flyers was 1 in 4 girls raped. So, #WINNING.
  272. @Ed
    Exactly right. NYC is the number #1 city for billionaires in the world, not merely the USA. I watch CNBC in the AM and Kernan is always going on about how NY/NJ/CA have taxed their residents so high and the wealthy will flee. Only thing is they don’t flee. Now middle class, I wouldn’t consider a partner in a law firm middle class, do flee.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/09/the-cities-with-the-most-billionaires/
  273. @Oldatty
    This story is an excellent life lesson for young, professional men. One day after the inevitable divorce Mr. Schneid is going to regret his decision to marry and father children with Ms. Jampel. D0 not marry a young woman who will not take your name. Make no exceptions.

    I've been practicing law for over 25 years and have seen this story replayed dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. They are bound together now by the joint responsibilities of rearing young children, but they will be functionally estranged by the time the kids are in middle school. Ms Jampel is already bitter and will grow (even more) resentful of his career. She will compensate by throwing herself into her kids until they are grown and then probably some crazy charitable work about voting rights for women in Uganda. She will let herself go physically, and she's no beauty queen now.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Schneid will be the best absentee father he can, but sacrifices must and will be made and his family relationships will suffer. He will go to work every day where the smoking hot, young secretaries or paralegals at the firm will greet him every morning, take care of his work needs, and focus their attention on making his life easier. These young women can smell male mid-life crisis like sharks can smell blood in the water. Things happen, and they will. Mr. Schneid will lose between 75% and 90% of his assets in the divorce and will pay 50% to 75% of his future income in child support and maintenance payments to Ms. Jampel, who conveniently won't have to change her name back to her maiden name.

    I would estimate that 5% of the law firm partners I know are still in their first marriage, and of those in second marriages approximately 50% are married to former secretaries or paralegals. The current associative mating trend is a disaster for young professional men who want a family. Family life is all about managing time and voluntarily making personal sacrifices for the collective good of the family, and that go-getter female law school classmate or work colleague who intrigues you now is uniquely ill-suited for the task. My advice to young, professional men is to bypass the first marriage and go straight to the second marriage to the young, non-professional woman.

    The catch is alimony. It’s assessed in most cases from the difference of the couple’s earning power, so a professional woman is actually *less* dangerous in this regard as long as she actually makes a good salary.

    My parents had similar salaries (now retired) and have been married for over 40 years. Still, n=1.

    • Replies: @res

    The catch is alimony. It’s assessed in most cases from the difference of the couple’s earning power, so a professional woman is actually *less* dangerous in this regard as long as she actually makes a good salary.
     
    How is earning power assessed? For example, for this couple would it be current salaries, maximum full time salaries, estimated salaries in highest paying jobs available to them, or something else?
  274. @J.Ross
    I held my nose voting for Romney but did expect him to lose. I did not expect him to have an unprecedented number of red districts where not one person voted for him, which I still think borders on suspicious given Obama's record of electoral interference, but then again Romney is such an utterly umlikeable man, and such an insult to conservative values, that maybe he just turns that many off. Something I have in my head when I hear Willard open his mouth nowadays, to extend his opinion about that guy who actually wins elections.

    Romney is a married man with 5 children. He’s a devoted husband and father, and active in his Church.

    Trump is a philanderer who neglects his kids and never attends Church.

    Say what you want, but Romney embodies conservative values more than Trump.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    By “church” you mean money-laundering Masonic cult (admittedly that weirdly produces clean cut attractive people).

    Fun fact: the Mormon Church has more money than the Vatican. How the hell did that happen?
    , @Desiderius
    If Trump neglected his kids they’d hate him. The opposite is the case.

    There is no evidence, unlike with other Presidents, that Trump is philandering. As for church, Jesus didn’t attend much either. Trump is akin to Churchill, who claimed to be a buttress of the church - he supported it from the outside.

    Meanwhile Romney remains utterly oblivious to the forces which are at war with her.

    , @Lot
    “Say what you want, but Romney embodies conservative values more than Trump.”

    Romney is a vulture capitalist who looted middle american companies pensions, lied to the IRS about his IRA contributions, and his choice for VP was an open borders Ayn Rander.

    I hear Hitler was nice to his dog and gallantly made an honest woman out of Eva at the end.
    , @J.Ross
    >conservatism begins and ends with sex prohibitions
    Stephen Colbert, is that you?
    , @Ed
    He does but it’s going to be something when he endorses Biden, if he should win the nomination, over Trump. I suppose the good folks in Utah will continue to support him but few others will.
    , @Anonymous

    Romney is a married man with 5 children. He’s a devoted husband and father, and active in his Church.
     
    Romney's motto is: conservative values for ME but not for THEE, peasants.
    , @Forbes
    Plenty of prog-lefties are married, with children and attend church. I'd say the description of Romney is not much of a standard for conservatism. I bet half the Senate Democrats will claim to be a Catholic in good standing.
  275. @anon
    You implicitly and unintentionally, unknowingly raised another set of issues:

    I'm a 1st gen. American, not a college graduate. I met my husband while working the night-shift at a university to pay for my (unsuccessful) attempts to get thru college. He was working on a PhD.

    He's white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA; I'm Southern European Catholic, child of peasant-class immigrants.

    We married, he went to law school while I worked. He finished law school & got 1st job in law firm, I became pregnant w/ 1st child, quit work, stayed home, had second child, moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career. I started up new homes for our family, got the children re-settled in schools. In the corners and side-pockets, between moves, family exigencies, etc., I tried to finish college & professional degree, unsuccessfully.

    His career rocketed; he became partner & made $$$$; kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    I was not doing so well. An undereducated peasant never managed to fit into the world of partners and their social-climbing WASP wives.
    Go ahead and judge this if you wish, but try to understand: HE 'earned' big bucks, got big paydays, advancements, acknowledgments and rewards; I didn't. I did not feel I'd ever had a payday, never "made partner," never felt I'd achieved anything: early on I had indoctrinated myself that his and the children's accomplishments were their own -- they were not MY trophies.
    My sense of my own nothingness did not enhance me to husband; you're right: we divorced.

    He re-married, a white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA, multiple college and professional degrees and accomplishments but no children.

    What will the social landscape look like when (the remaining) white, white-collar Protestant, deep roots in USA men marry the first generation daughters of Latino immigrants? Maybe they won't be as peasant-like as I was, maybe they won't have been as indoctrinated as I was by my religious culture to be the perpetual underling. Or maybe they will -- there will be such women, and men, in the country, and they have to do something with their lives.
    I was fortunate to have spent the years I did with a mate who was intelligent and skilled; stupid to have gotten caught up in divorce. If I had known how to manage a 50-year time-span better, I would have.
    Perhaps instead of a Pete Buttigieg modeling how to be the first male-wife-president with the first "first-husband" in the White House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America's white, deep-roots elites.

    kids did well in the best public schools we arranged for them to attend. I made sure they had the best we could afford, including the best colleges. They graduated with no debt.

    And do your children love you? What do they think of their father? And their step-mother?

    My guess is that they love you, but not him. And the contempt for the “evil” stepmother will poison any family gathering they attend with their father.

    Not everything can be measured in money.

  276. @Realist

    Making it big in New York City is bigger than making it big in Tulsa.
     
    Quality of life is what counts.

    You mean having hundreds of museums to go to, being able to eat food and watch movies from anywhere in the world, and never having to drive?

    Oh, I’m sorry, you mean having plenty of space, access to the outdoors, and room to raise a big family.

    One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

    • Replies: @Realist

    You mean having hundreds of museums to go to, being able to eat food and watch movies from anywhere in the world, and never having to drive?
     
    The above sounds like a screed from a lib, elitist, snob promoting 'culture'.

    No I mean the redundancy of hundreds of museums that are expensive to get to (not to mention time wasted to get there) and expensive to get into. Most food and movies from 'anywhere' in the world are gag inducing (and again expensive). And never being able to drive.

    Oh, I’m sorry, you mean having plenty of space, access to the outdoors, and room to raise a big family.
     
    Yes, safety, clean air and room to raise a family in a safe atmosphere.

    One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
     
    Yes, indeed.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I agree totally, SFG. I've heard a lot of that "but we have the ballet, the orchestra, pro baseball, the museums ..." over the years. So, we can visit NYC, stay in a friend's closet apartment, and go to all those things in 3 days. Then we can go home and continue paying $1,200 yearly property tax in a GOOD neighborhood.

    How many times do these people go to the ballet anyway? As far as the museums, they probably only go when they have those visitors from "the sticks", so they can show them the cultcha. When I lived in a big city (not NYC) I only went to this one cool museum when I had a friend in town who was interested - 3 times, I think.
  277. @Anonymous
    Those lion and elephant seals aren't like human hunter gatherers. They're more like human agriculturalists.

    Human hunter gatherers tend to be more egalitarian and monogamous. The women tend to be unable to hunt and acquire enough calories themselves. So they need reliable, longer term mates. The male hunters on the other tend not to be wealthy enough to support multiple mates and children.

    Among human agriculturalists, in some environments women are able to acquire enough food for themselves and children on their own through simple farming, like female lions, and thus the male lions don't really work and live polygynous lifestyles where they dominate a pride of female lions. In other agricultural societies, there's an agricultural surplus that's produced that men are able to tax or collect rent on, and this introduces wealth inequality and polygynous behavior.

    I don’t think that’s correct. All the research I’ve seen suggests it’s in hunter gatherer societies where women can fairly easily acquire enough calories for themselves and their children, including protein sources. They get the protein through insects, nuts and small game.

    It’s in early agrarian societies where women can no longer sustain themselves though even with that, it probably depends on what they are growing.

    It’s interesting that hunter gatherer societies share a similarity to chimp groups in that they do not rely on hunting for food but males will hunt opportunistically for the purpose of having a resource to trade for sex or male alliances.

  278. @Judge
    One man's takeaway from your story is to never marry an attorney. They have six ways to Sunday to make you pay for that.

    My dad always told me that one. Really, it’s common sense. They know the law, which they will use against you in a divorce…

  279. @Anon
    You haven't been keeping up. The latest theory is that the idea that you cannot take off years to reaise kids without losing pay is gendered discrimination and a structural bias. There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn't take time off are getting. I kid you not.

    This sounds crazy, but I don't think that it can be ignored: Think of all the other crazy stuff that has come true, e.g. trans rights.

    There are academics proposing that women should be able to reenter the workforce years later at the same pay rate that men who didn’t take time off are getting.

    Why not go all in on declaring that a man’s time on Earth amounts to nothing when compared to a woman’s? It’s where we’ve been headed for some time now.

  280. @Toño Bungay
    The question also arises whether it makes sense for universities and public policy to underwrite the graduate studies of young women who may drop out, wholly or in part, from the working world. I'm thinking primarily of doctors. Are there statistics on this?

    From what I’ve seen a lot of the female doctors just work part-time or do other arrangements, or ramp back up when the kids are older.

    Honestly, it’s not the end of the world; it’s actually a good societal use for women with very high IQs. The female advantage in empathy, attention to detail, and tolerance for boring tasks helps with patient care.

  281. @Daniel H
    I smell a divorce coming…

    What a troublemaker Betty Friedan was.

    And she was hardly the worst of them. She actually started feeling sorry for men afterward and got sidelined.

  282. @Forbes

    Ms. Jampel feels angry that the time she spends caregiving taking care of her own children isn’t valued the way paid work is
     
    Is she sure it's not valued? Maybe she should ask her children. Maybe she should ask her husband. It sounds like they live on at least $500,000 per year--yet she bitches about her life choices.

    Life is full of trade-offs. Apparently, some of these most educated women cannot comprehend that many trade-offs (choices, decisions, preferences) don't involve the quantitative reckoning of dollars and cents.

    I'll wager that if the NYT checks back in 10 years, our happy couple will be divorced.

    I agree 100%.

    Of course, the best predictor that this particular couple will be divorce is that the lady brought her complaints to the New York Times. Who does that? It’s like standing on a street corner with a megaphone saying your husband leaves the toilet seat up.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Ha! We don't leave the seat up. We leave it down and pee through a smaller opening. What's so hard about that?

    I can't believe our family is the only one to have figured this out.
    , @Forbes

    the lady brought her complaints to the New York Times.
     
    Imagine their conversation that followed...
  283. @Dr. X
    (((Betty Friedan))) wrote that suburbs were "concentration camps for women" in 1963, only 18 years after the liberation of Auschwitz...

    If all the feminists were Ukrainian, we’d hear endless comparisons to the Holodomor…

  284. @Anon

    moved three or four times as he made strategic moves to advance his career
     
    When I read this I wondered if the final move may not have been to minimize alimony rather than advance his career. There are massive differences, state by state. Stay out of Massachusetts if you're the breadwinner.

    House, we need to figure out how first-generation Americans are going to successfully partner with America’s white, deep-roots elites.
     
    This "beiging" of American whiteness is the subject of Eric Kaufmann's recent book White Shift.

    Steve should really review that book. I suspect the ‘beiging’ of whiteness is probably what will happen, with quarter-Chinese, quarter-Mexican people calling themselves ‘white’ and eventually voting Republican.

    I’m curious to hear what people think about this. I mean, racial purity and political power in a democracy kind of point in opposite directions here. Is it better to have an 80% ‘beige’ block that dominates the others, or a 30% ‘white’ block dueling with a 30% ‘Latin’, a 20% ‘Asian, and a 20% ‘black’ bloc? (Honest question.)

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    What would the values of the "beige" be? I suspect they would be globalism under a light, vaguely traditionalist coating. If that's the case, then we are back to skin color not mattering.
    , @Desiderius
    An 100% American block who loves and cares about our country.
    , @Lot
    “ I suspect the ‘beiging’ of whiteness is probably what will happen”

    Not likely for a long time. Look at LA, where whites are a smaller minority now than we’ll be nationally in 2070. Yet, still plenty of plain white people, who still dominate politics and the economy. To the extent “white” has blurred there, it is more because of high performing kinda-white minorities like Persians, 90% white Mexicans, Azeris, and Armenians, not race mixing.

    I understand that in the prole Inland Empire there’s been a heavy blending and intermarriage between whites, US born Mexicans, and SE Asians. But we don’t think about the IE too much. It is near one of the media capitals of the world, and has a larger population (4.4 million) than Chicago, Oregon or Oklahoma. But most Americans have never heard of it.
  285. @Spangel
    It’s true that gestation and nursing time and the extreme physical immaturity of small children also limit a woman’s ability to hunt big game. If women hunt giraffe, who will mind the toddlers?

    But even with slower speed and wider pelvises, full grown women can probably hunt big game since humans were historically persistence hunters who hunted by running down their prey to the point of exhaustion, sometimes running for 10 hours at a time after the same animal.

    Women are physically capable of ultra long distance running and could probably hunt this way if they had to. They don’t because they dont have to in order to live and because they need to carry their children around or mind their troublesome toddlers.

    Jesus, how insane. Have you ever even arm-wrestled a girl?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Persistence hunting sounds like something invented by modern, paleo distance runners. Is there any evidence it was a common form of hunting in prehistory (other than it being possible)? It seems like a very costly way of adding calories to your diet.
  286. @Anon
    Women want to be lawyers because of the money and social status.

    Most male lawyers aren't cut for the partner track either. That's okay, as lots of lawyers end up making a couple hundred grand a year as corporate counsels.

    Being a lawyer employed by a corporation can be a pretty good all-around upper middle class job.

    • Replies: @Anon
    It is. I know lots of corporate counsels, mostly female. Good work-life balance, lots of money.
    , @Paul
    There are now too many lawyers. I wonder how much Lexis and computers have to do with that.
  287. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I have a friend who is a Big Law partner in New York City. Back in his 24-7 associate days, he and his wife talked about him switching to firm at a nice, mid-sized city such as Nashville or Tampa. The hours would less, the competition for making partner would be less and they'd be able to live better than do on the East Coast.

    Obviously, they decided against it. The wife - a lawyer who quit working to stay at home with the kids (and who never shut up about the career and money she gave up) - grew up in Bethesda, a close-in, very nice suburb of DC, and couldn't imagine living in the provinces. My friend, who grew up in the provinces, had no issue with that; however, he and his fellow East Coast lawyers considered province attorneys to be second rate. He couldn't bring himself to voluntarily drop from the majors to the minors.

    They stayed in the NYC area and, naturally, got divorced.

    You don’t mention whether they had children.

  288. @SFG
    Steve should really review that book. I suspect the 'beiging' of whiteness is probably what will happen, with quarter-Chinese, quarter-Mexican people calling themselves 'white' and eventually voting Republican.

    I'm curious to hear what people think about this. I mean, racial purity and political power in a democracy kind of point in opposite directions here. Is it better to have an 80% 'beige' block that dominates the others, or a 30% 'white' block dueling with a 30% 'Latin', a 20% 'Asian, and a 20% 'black' bloc? (Honest question.)

    What would the values of the “beige” be? I suspect they would be globalism under a light, vaguely traditionalist coating. If that’s the case, then we are back to skin color not mattering.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Actually, it doesn't really matter that much, ironically.

    The only thing that matters is the size of the bloc. Think about it--you don't want to be a minority. You'd rather live in socialist Sweden than Pinochet's Chile, no?

  289. @F. Arbuckle
    Lol, when you make it all about economics and maximizing wealth (to what end?) don’t you feel hypocritical when bitching about the importation of cheap third-world labor?

    make it all about economics and maximizing wealth (to what end?)

    “Growth, for the sake of growth, is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
    –Edward Abbey

    • Agree: Desiderius
  290. @Steve Sailer
    Being a lawyer employed by a corporation can be a pretty good all-around upper middle class job.

    It is. I know lots of corporate counsels, mostly female. Good work-life balance, lots of money.

  291. @Moses
    I was at a group outing where several women with high-powered careers were commiserating over how difficult it is for them and their husbands to juggle professional and children responsibilities.

    I suggested they divide labor. "Why not have your husband stay at home while you earn the big bux?"

    They let out a collective gasp and clutched their pearls.

    Mein gott! The thought of being with a man who earned less than they do! Icky!

    I had to break out the smelling salts.

    Yes, hypergamy is a thing.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.

    The most satisfied women I know are full-time mothers. Especially the highly-educated ones.

    Whoever brainwashed women to want big jobs did them a great disservice.

    And, by extension, did Western Civilization a disservice. Perhaps intentionally.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It was principally their own fathers. Product of smaller family sizes -> fewer sons.
  292. “How America’s obsession with long hours has widened the gender gap.”

    Most Americans do not get to choose how many hours they want to work. Employers decide the hours. It is not “America’s obsession.”

  293. @S. Anonyia
    Not really on the "wish there were more of it." Children don't need constant attention past the age of 6-8 or so. That is a historical anomaly. Historically older children were expected to assist with chores or the family farm/business, take care of siblings, and roam around with neighborhood children to develop a sense of independence. Helicopter parents have weird semi-autistic kids. They sometimes end up as maladjusted socially as neglected children. A lot of underemployed "incels" in the 20-30 range are the sons of 90's helicopter mommies.<