ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

TL;DR

Ms Wolf could have saved herself considerable trouble had she simply titled her book: Supply and Demand: How Seventy Million Working Women Created a Lower-Paid Society. With a few simple graphs, she probably could have wrapped the whole thing up in less than 10 pages.

I always find it remarkable, and perhaps even a little depressing, how few people are able to grasp that the primary consequence of the addition of 70 million working women, all of whom were already consumers, to the labor force, could never have been anything else but to lower wages. 

One can debate whether female workers are more or less productive than male workers, and one can certainly debate whether the societal effects were beneficial or negative, but the one thing that cannot be denied, on logical, theoretical, historical, or empirical grounds, is that the post-1950 doubling of the female labor force has had a severely depressing effect on American wages.

Labels:

190 Comments:

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 5:02 PM  

SUPPLY AND DEMAND SEXIS!!!

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 5:07 PM  

ECONOMICS SEXIS!

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 5:08 PM  

What's the thesis?

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 5:09 PM  

Wages didn't have a chance of surviving the dual shocks of mass female employment and mass immigration.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 5:09 PM  

The thesis? There is no thesis. its just idiotic girl power

Anonymous Stephen J. October 09, 2013 5:10 PM  

"...the primary consequence of the addition of 70 million working women, all of whom were already consumers, to the labor force, could never have been anything else but to lower wages."

By virtue of making two-income couples much more normative, it also had the effect of spiking home ownership prices to levels only two-income couples could afford, which inflated the mortgage industry to its current bloated size and created all the incentives for the subprime house of cards behind much of the recent turmoil.

Anonymous MrGreenMan October 09, 2013 5:10 PM  

It's amazing what people will destroy to satisfy themselves when they set up a god and idol of themselves, and then decide that their god shall be a god of fairness, a god of retribution, a god of wicked vengeance, a god of kindergarten morality.

Anonymous Daniel October 09, 2013 5:11 PM  

What's the thesis?

How 70 million women accidentally broke the middle class, then blamed the system.

Blogger River Cocytus October 09, 2013 5:11 PM  

How seventy million women diluted the wage to commodity ratio!

Weeeeeee

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 09, 2013 5:13 PM  

The occupations that women are involved with are mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs. Most degrees that women get are worthless.

Blogger AMDG October 09, 2013 5:13 PM  

And men and children pay the price. Yet we hear how bad consumerism is from the Left, but when it comes to a woman's "career", the room is silent.

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 5:13 PM  

Full title: The XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World

Hmm... I think the marketing people at her publisher had control over the cover.

Anonymous David October 09, 2013 5:15 PM  

But think of all the extra tax revenues! The government made so much money this way.

If instead the government had to try and tax women at home for their time spent making meals from scratch, growing vegetables in the garden, clipping coupons, and sewing their own family's clothes it would have inspired too much resistance and have been a nightmare enforcement effort.

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 5:16 PM  

Amazon blurb: In this revealing and deeply intelligent book, Alison Wolf examines why more educated women work longer hours, why having children early is a good idea, and how feminism created a less equal world.

Not quite the "girl power" tract I was expecting.

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 5:21 PM  

Thesis sexis

Anonymous Daniel October 09, 2013 5:22 PM  

Amazon autoquotes and features a blurb from one of the reviews:

"I'm not here to say one book is better than the other, or one view is bad and the other good."
Kay S. Walsh

Yeah. So there's that.

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 5:23 PM  

Nate, have you tried Duchesse de Bourgogne beer, or any other Flanders red ale? If so what do you think?

Anonymous dh October 09, 2013 5:30 PM  

t the primary consequence of the addition of 70 million working women, all of whom were already consumers, to the labor force, could never have been anything else but to lower wages.

In economic theory, would a new household increase consumption more than a new member of an existing household?

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 5:32 PM  

"I always find it remarkable, and perhaps even a little depressing, how few people are able to grasp that the primary consequence of the addition of 70 million working women, all of whom were already consumers, to the labor force, could never have been anything else but to lower wages. "

Amazing when you do the math and use a little logic how clarifying things can become.

Slightly OT: My wife left her partnership and "retired" from medicine to be home with our four kids whom we are going to home school. This after much prayer, soul searching and inspiration from many on this blog. I was scared to death at first but it's been nothing but a joyful experience!

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 5:34 PM  

Josh - Thesis sexis

Mama told me not to judge a book by its cover. We just might have a Wolf in rabbit's clothing here.

Anonymous Mr. Obvious October 09, 2013 5:40 PM  

But, But Equality...Sexism!? How could we evil White Men continue to oppress the wimmens by forcing them to live in the safe manicured lawn suburbs with all the conveniences of automation provided by sexist male industry?
These wimmens needed to find themselves - childless and alone in a rundown urban jungle apartment with ten locks and a cheap siren alarm with up to a hundred feline hostages to fill the emptiness of their useless wombs and dead ovaries!
How could we continue to oppress these wimmens with loving families and high standards of living that were unmatched in world history? They needed their own identity as waitresses and secretaries, because its much more fulfilling to wait on the needs of strangers than people you love - just ask Gloria Steinem, but wait until she takes her meds with a cup of strong coffee...

Anonymous smack October 09, 2013 5:48 PM  

@War Kicker: Congrats on unplugging from the matrix!

Anonymous TBA October 09, 2013 5:52 PM  

I'm no economist, but, leaving aside all other effects of women in the workforce, it seems to make intuitive sense that if people who used to be only consumers become producers too, production per capita should rise. Couldn't that be enough to offset the effects of lowered wages?

Anonymous Daniel October 09, 2013 5:58 PM  

Mama told me not to judge a book by its cover. We just might have a Wolf in rabbit's clothing here.

That's what you get for listening to a woman. I doubt very much that this is anything more than a "aren't smart women remarkable?" sort of book.

Oddly, smart women tend to purchase these books. Funny that.

The fact that it may have large sections of it devoted to criticisms of feminism because 4/5ths of working women are dissatisfied won't make it an anti-feminist screed, it just means it is a book for elite women to make them feel great about being elite.

It appears that midwittery in high mass is underway.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 09, 2013 6:07 PM  

The XX Factor: How 70 Million Women Created A New Society

Technically, this is true.
The title doesn't say "better" society.
And hey, without their contributions, PowerPoint would just be one of those quirky novelties in the MS Office Suite that rarely saw the light of day, like Publisher.
So there's that...

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 6:11 PM  

Tell me again why I should work harder to support these gynoparasites?

Or Obamacare? Or the college-debt bubble? Or the gynocorporation? Or... anything, really.


//sips tall glass of not giving a fuck

That goes down smooth.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 6:15 PM  

This is me, living in the current Matriarchy

Go on, shoot me. Heh heh heh heh heh....

lulz
lulz lulz

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein October 09, 2013 6:19 PM  

//sips tall glass of not giving a fuck

Pro Tip: Works even better with a couple Dammitall caplets.

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 6:21 PM  

in the classical, judeo-christian, chivalric context, a man would man up as he would be guaranteed a non-asscocked, chaste woman who be shamed out of not acting on and serving every gina tingle and butt tingle. instead of serving her butt and gina tingles, a woman would be expected to serve god, man, and family. for this, she would be honored in a civilized context, and she would realize her greater mythology as a mother, wife, and grandmother, instead of an asscocked, aging spinster with cats, working to expand the fed’s debt alongside her ass.

Anonymous Porky October 09, 2013 6:22 PM  

I've heard of this woman. She's married to a white knight.

Literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Wolf

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 6:24 PM  

The modern wymyn's song -

yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats”

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein October 09, 2013 6:24 PM  

Nate, have you tried Duchesse de Bourgogne beer, or any other Flanders red ale? If so what do you think?

Being the team player that he is, I'm sure Nate has quit with all the bourbons and beers and is now subsisting totally on Purple Drank and various all-u-can-eat buffets.

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 6:28 PM  

It's cheaper to hire pre-grown mexican labor as opposed to women being taken out of the fiat masters work force to raise their own.

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 6:29 PM  

Sorry for the flurry of posts with links, but da GBFM totally has this issue nailed down.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 6:33 PM  

So you were really just kidding, and you want me to support you at home again while you raise babies (easily done since before electricity arrived), cook meals (which is easy with modern appliances), watch daytime television (there is a reason those audiences are all women), while I am busy at the office for 60-80 hours a week?


Hey, instead of me doing that again, how about you go fuck yourself instead?

Blogger Crude October 09, 2013 6:34 PM  

dh,

In economic theory, would a new household increase consumption more than a new member of an existing household?

What about a new member of an existing household capable of producing yet another new household or new member of an existing household?

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 6:38 PM  

I am busy at the office for 60-80 hours a week?

Almost all of which is not actually necessary - nearly all of it is for the fed, the international bankers, and the welfare state.

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2013 6:42 PM  

> Supply and Demand: How Seventy Million Working Women Created a Lower-Paid Society.

Well, lower average payper employee, yes. Whether the overall pay of the society actually decreased would be another matter entirely, and one where I'd have to check the actual figures before I could even make a guess. That's nitpicking, however.

Anonymous Vidad October 09, 2013 6:48 PM  

"My wife left her partnership and "retired" from medicine to be home with our four kids whom we are going to home school. This after much prayer, soul searching and inspiration from many on this blog. I was scared to death at first but it's been nothing but a joyful experience!"

Congrats, WarKicker. We've been living that life for almost ten years and have never regretted it. You will prosper in ways you never expected while watching your children outgrow their peers intellectually and emotionally.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 6:50 PM  

Almost all of which is not actually necessary - nearly all of it is for the fed, the international bankers, and the welfare state.

True. Let's assume for an argument it is an actual productive position. Like "at the office" = "making a new pharmaceutical for diabetes". Or a dangerous line of work, like a "delivering goods on a truck to the grocery store". Use your imagination.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 7:13 PM  

"My wife left her partnership and "retired" from medicine to be home with our four kids whom we are going to home school."

I really... really... hope you didn't just throw away a mid 6 figure a year income because of something you read on this blog.

The financial end of the world is coming son.

You can have a stay-at-home-wife later. Now is the time to bring the money in and save.

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 7:23 PM  

Perhaps the case can be made that with the huge influx of women in the workforce, overall productivity has actually decreased, because the types of jobs women gravitate towards are mostly useless overhead and bureaucracy. Such jobs are created artificially via political bludgeons on society. They then become an enormous drag on those aspects of the economy that directly produce useful goods and necessary services.

...or something.

Anonymous Daniel October 09, 2013 7:32 PM  

You can have a stay-at-home-wife later. Now is the time to bring the money in and save.

Deflationista.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:33 PM  

"The occupations that women are involved with are mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs."

Today I went to the bank to talk over the impact of paying off a loan early. I talked with the VP of Lending: Sharon. I also called out to CA to purchase some wine from a vineyard I particularly like. I spoke with the owner: Kate. I was also on the phone speaking the president of an national association of pilots. I spoke with Ruth. My neighbor came by to ask if we could watch her place while she is away. She's has to go to Oregon to address labor issues at one of the plants she owns.

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 7:36 PM  

You can have a stay-at-home-wife later.

Or have her work and just be a stay-at-home dad.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 7:37 PM  

Hey Golf Pro, what does the term "mainly" mean?

Do you give you up why I am asking that? Let me help you.

"The occupations that women are involved with are mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs."

Still nothing?

Let us try again.

"The occupations that women are involved with are MAINLY make-work and parasitical government jobs."

This one, the brain does not touch the spinal column.

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 7:38 PM  

True. Let's assume for an argument it is an actual productive position. Like "at the office" = "making a new pharmaceutical for diabetes". Or a dangerous line of work, like a "delivering goods on a truck to the grocery store". Use your imagination.

Yes - I meant that most of the work at most jobs is unnecessary, or that at important jobs like the ones above, the employees do way too much work - the massive taxes and overhead of the welfare state and the federal reserve cause employers to hire way to few people to do the productive work, leaving them seriously overworked.

Hard to have much of a life when you come home from work each day too exhausted to do much of anything, and barely having any time in which to do it anyway.

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 7:38 PM  

GP: nice little anecdote. Who knows, some tiny piece of it may actually be true. Meanwhile, of course, you conveniently ignore the word "mostly", and the historically destructive effects thereof.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:39 PM  

"Hey Golf Pro, what does the term "mainly" mean?"

It means whatever the commenter wanted it to mean for the sake of his own argument. It surely didn't mean a contribution to truth.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:42 PM  

"GP: nice little anecdote. Who knows, some tiny piece of it may actually be true. Meanwhile, of course, you conveniently ignore the word "mostly", and the historically destructive effects thereof."

It's a nonsense word, along with "make-work" and "Parasitical". Words meant to support an argument with rhetoric and nothing more.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 7:42 PM  

'Deflationista."

Save doesn't mean keep cash in the bank.

It means horde gold. and silver. and ammo. and guns. and booze.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 7:42 PM  

Mainly
adv.
For the most part; chiefly.

I think he is using that definition Golf Pro from dictionary.com

Which means he is not using "whatever the commenter wanted it to mean for the sake of his own argument" since it also used in something besides "his own argument" which means you are talking out of your ass.

Surprise, surprise!

Anonymous Golf Pro's Brain October 09, 2013 7:42 PM  

And then there's Jenny, the clinician who is treating my syphilis...


Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:43 PM  

"Yes - I meant that most of the work at most jobs is unnecessary"

Yes, because it the purpose of a business owner to hire people for no reason at all and for no purpose at all.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:45 PM  

"I think he is using that definition Golf Pro from dictionary.com"

Yes, I know what the word means. I also know when it is used not to represent reality and truth, but to offer an argument with not basis in fact.

Anonymous kh123 October 09, 2013 7:47 PM  

Business and federal agency - which thing is not like the other?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:47 PM  

"And then there's Jenny, the clinician who is treating my syphilis..."

It was "Molly", she was a doctor, and it was treatment for nerve damage in the elbow region. Imagine that. A woman doctor. I'm sure she only does "make work" and other parasitical work.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 7:49 PM  

Are you sure you know?

"I also know when it is used not to represent reality and truth, but to offer an argument with not basis in fact."

What fact would that be, Golf Pro?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:49 PM  

"Business and federal agency - which thing is not like the other? "

Good question, perhaps you should have the original commenter who didn't distinguish between the two and did not mean to distinguish between the two to clarify.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:51 PM  

"Are you sure you know? "
Yes.

"What fact would that be, Golf Pro?"
As I said, there was no fact or truth referenced.

Anonymous kh123 October 09, 2013 7:52 PM  

Actually, let me rephrase that:

Business, fed agency, federally propped up entity, heavily indebted to squid-entity to keep afloat, union...

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:55 PM  

"Actually, let me rephrase that:

Business, fed agency, federally propped up entity, heavily indebted to squid-entity to keep afloat, union..."

That helps...I guess. The real purpose here though is to try to rid our minds of the silliness proposed by Fubar Ben in his original comment.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 7:55 PM  

"What fact would that be, Golf Pro?"
As I said, there was no fact or truth referenced.


No, you said quote: "It means whatever the commenter wanted it to mean for the sake of his own argument. It surely didn't mean a contribution to truth."

Contribution to which truth, exactly?



Why do you make this so easy for me to pwn you? Do you think I am like the other commentators?

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 7:56 PM  

"I really... really... hope you didn't just throw away a mid 6 figure a year income because of something you read on this blog."

Thanks you Nate. I'm a little more sophisticated than that. Simultaneous to her decision to leave her group, my company merged with another, actually increasing our efficiency, lowering overhead and doubling my income to almost 7 figures. We are debt free except for a little bit of mortgage left, placing as much as we can into savings and investments. I do greatly appreciate your concern.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 7:59 PM  

"Contribution to which truth, exactly?"
The truth that is in opposition to untruth. Put another way, FUBAR Ben is thinking just clearly enough to spout nonsense.

Anonymous Golf Pro's Brain October 09, 2013 8:00 PM  

It was "Molly", she was a doctor, and it was treatment for nerve damage in the elbow region.

Note to self - never cut a "glory hole" in a public bathroom stall with one of those electric knives from the Sharper Image.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 8:00 PM  

"Why do you make this so easy for me to pwn you? Do you think I am like the other commentators?"

No, I don't think of you like the other commentators. I think of you like I think of FUBAR Ben....(See above).

Anonymous kh123 October 09, 2013 8:01 PM  

Question for GP/Tad: Yes or no (feel free to follow up), is Vox' assertion that wages have decreased due to 70 million additions to the workforce correct.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 8:03 PM  

Contribution to which truth, exactly?"
The truth that is in opposition to untruth. Put another way, FUBAR Ben is thinking just clearly enough to spout nonsense.


I see. So you are using two true-values, with a law of the excluded middle.

p: The occupations that women are involved with are not mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs.
~p: The occupations that women are involved with are mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs.

So... you're saying that is the truth (p) and that is the untruth (~p)? I'm glad we clarified this.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 8:04 PM  

"is Vox' assertion that wages have decreased due to 70 million additions to the workforce correct."

I don't know.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 8:06 PM  

"So... you're saying that is the truth (p) and that is the untruth"

I think what I'm really saying is that Ben and those that agree with his statement are likely on heavy drugs and not thinking straight.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 09, 2013 8:12 PM  

So basically Golf Pro, you are saying nothing at all?

I always thought that was a tautology about his posts. Now, it has finally been mathematically proven.


You've all been a fabulous audience here at Vox Popoli. Give yourselves a big round of applause!

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 8:13 PM  

It never takes very long for the leftist to discard logical discourse and facts, and devolve into semantic games and ad hominems. GP has already done both here.

Arguing with a leftist is like trying to point out to a dog that she's chasing her own tail. "Look, that's your tail right there" is met with the response of "No, I've moved, nothing is there now."

Anonymous Dr. Doom October 09, 2013 8:14 PM  

Golf Pro being a Liberal is apparently bad at MATH - SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
In statistics there are things known as outliers, which laymen and innumerates refer to as exceptions to a rule. There are female billionaires and there are female scientists and there are female doctors, but there is also Affirmative Action or Quotas, set-asides, and preferential treatment for Government and Corporate Contracts based on sex.
Women are horrible bosses that treat their workers based entirely on how they feel about them. Even women HATE working under female bosses because if they don't like you then you will either be fired or never promoted irregardless of your ability or productivity.
Women are on average about as smart as men in general intelligence, however most women are horrible at mathematics and have the spatial ability of a near-sighted monkey. There are some female engineers, but most are there to fill a quota set up by the EEOC and merely perform duties that a much lesser paid file clerk could do, but hey keep believing in that EGALITARIAN FANTASY you were spoon fed at MARXIST UNIVERSITY. You might get lucky and not end up being shot for having a college degree like in the killing fields of Cambodia!

Anonymous Golf Pro's Brain October 09, 2013 8:16 PM  

"I think what I'm really saying is that Ben and those that agree with his statement are likely on heavy drugs and not thinking straight."

That reminds me... it's time for my antiretroviral cocktail and my penicillin.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 8:16 PM  

"Women are horrible bosses that treat their workers based entirely on how they feel about them."
WRONG

"Even women HATE working under female bosses"
WRONG

"however most women are horrible at mathematics"
WRONG

Anonymous lozozlo October 09, 2013 8:20 PM  

doubling my income to almost 7 figures

7 figures!!!! What the heck do you do, if I may ask?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 09, 2013 8:21 PM  

Golf Pro, you have no idea what you're talking about. Without women, men would be able to run society just fine. They are the engineers, farmers, miners, and tradesmen. Without them society would collapse.

Being a school teacher or HR manager is not critical to running a society. Raising the next generation is.

this proves it.

And Golf Pro, I know you do some heavy drugs. Especially if you live in the gay area of Williamsburg. Right Tad?

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 8:23 PM  

"(Feminism) is the most socially destructive movement perhaps in the history of the world — and I mean that in the scientific sense. Every single culture, every single nation that’s adopted feminism [as a dominant philosophy] is now dying out. Feminism means death.” Joseph D’Agostino

Traditionalism is essentially a way to prevent women from believing their own BS.

Anonymous The Other, Other Skeptic October 09, 2013 8:23 PM  

"Is Vox' assertion that wages have decreased due to 70 million additions to the workforce correct?

A focus on automation in factories; an emphasis on a service-based economy; a reliance in some sectors of the economy on immigrant labor; the machinations of companies to keep labor costs down; and the inclusion of females in the workforce COMBINED have played a role in depressing wages.

The mileage will vary whether VD’s assertion is the PRIMARY cause.

http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/


Everyone here should recall that MEN hired women to work in their businesses and factories, well within the confines of free association. So perhaps THEY are to blame for falling wages.

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 8:24 PM  

"Congrats, WarKicker. We've been living that life for almost ten years and have never regretted it. You will prosper in ways you never expected while watching your children outgrow their peers intellectually and emotionally."

Thanks Vidad! We look forward to what you've already experienced. Something that I should have done long ago, but couldn't take that leap of faith. We've already reaped a bountiful harvest since our decision.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 09, 2013 8:25 PM  

"Being a school teacher or HR manager is not critical to running a society. Raising the next generation is."

Yes, all those teachers who have taught men really do amount to performing "make-work". And somehow, how society has raised new generations even with women working. How could it be??? More drugs Ben, more drugs!!

More drugs, Ben. More Drugs!

Blogger Jeff D October 09, 2013 8:27 PM  

"...could never have been anything else but to lower wages."

And lower prices, because of said lower wages.

In a free market women entering the workforce wouldn't matter, in fact it would probably be better. The effect would be increased productivity, which increases supply which lowers price, which is what a healthy economy should be doing. Increasing supply and lowering price of things.

The real culprit is that free markets aren't free market enough.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 09, 2013 8:39 PM  

Golf Pro, I just proved to you that what men do is absolutely critical to running the economy. Do you realize that school teachers are paid out of taxes? Do you realize that HR managers do not produce revenue or cut costs but instead actively enforce government regulations to avoid getting sued?

Maybe you can provide an argument instead of posting snarky comments, unless you are incapable. Too much antidepressants, Tad? Put up or shut up.

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 8:47 PM  

"7 figures!!!! What the heck do you do, if I may ask?"

Otolaryngology - head and neck and facial plastic surgery. But most of the income comes from ancillary investments in allergy and audiology as well as a busy surgery center. Not a greedy, money grabbing doctor. Just try my best to practice good medicine and made some good decisions. Also, this may not be too popular on this blog, but I bought a ton of Apple stock when it was around $10 a share. And you know what the stock did later.

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2013 8:53 PM  

> Put another way, FUBAR Ben is thinking just clearly enough to spout nonsense.

Well, I must reconsider FUBAR Ben's comments carefully then. You are our resident expert on that matter, having had so much practice.

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2013 8:54 PM  

> ... but I bought a ton of Apple stock when it was around $10 a share.

I hope you took some profits at $700. :)

Anonymous Doh! October 09, 2013 8:56 PM  

But think of all the extra tax revenues! The government made so much money this way.

If wages fell, then tax revenues fell accordingly.

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 8:58 PM  

Otolaryngology - head and neck and facial plastic surgery. But most of the income comes from ancillary investments in allergy and audiology as well as a busy surgery center

Be careful, Nate might propose

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 9:03 PM  

Warkicker

Excellent. Carry on. You have no idea how happy I am to see my concern unwarranted.

Blogger Carnivore October 09, 2013 9:05 PM  

More like in less than 1 page. You did an excellent job in your last two paragraphs.

Anonymous Porky October 09, 2013 9:06 PM  

Be careful, Nate might propose

He did say he wants to be a woman.

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 9:10 PM  

TOOS: "Everyone here should recall that..."

But first, possibly everyone here should recall that leftism has politically bludgeoned society into creating useless jobs mainly consisting of overhead and bureaucracy and feeding the government maw.

Not only have MEN been forced to hire women, they've been forced to create parasitical positions in their businesses and factories.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet October 09, 2013 9:24 PM  

Vox,

but what about all those children that went off the market with child labor laws?

Anonymous The Other, Other Skeptic October 09, 2013 9:26 PM  

"But first, possibly everyone here should recall that leftism has politically bludgeoned society into creating useless jobs mainly consisting of overhead and bureaucracy and feeding the government maw."

Rhetoric alert, Will Robinson, rhetoric alert!


"Leftism", a philosophy developed by MEN, embraced by a number of MALE politicians, embodied by some MALE entrepreneurs!

You forget that general American employment is 80% private sector, 20% public sector.

This fact remains unchallenged--men who owned businesses WILLINGLY hired women (and children) with the intent to lower wages and increase profits. They had every liberty to do what they wanted with their own property--at least that is what the libertarians here claim. Ah, the sweet smell of capitalism!

Anonymous DonReynolds October 09, 2013 9:27 PM  

Of course, the addition of 70 million additional workers reduces the wages of everyone (in the same way that tens of millions of illegal aliens works in the same direction). What goes unmentioned is the effect (developed by Austrian economist F.A. vonHayek) regarding the effect of lagging wages on capital investment. As long as wages are constant or declining, there is little reason to automate business processes or add capital investment. What business will do instead is use existing capital more intensively by adding more shifts of cheap labor to use the same facilities and equipment and machinery. Yes, we have seen this quite a bit in recent decades, which skews the labor-capital mix in the direction of using more labor, even if that labor is not the most productive available. The only reason to substitute capital for labor is if labor is becoming more expensive. But when labor becomes relatively cheap (through oversupply) then labor is substituted for capital.....hire more low wage people. This becomes an impoverishing condition since long-term wages are determined by improvements in productivity and those improvements are driven by capital investment. In short, lower wages cause still lower wages as marginal labor is added to the labor force.

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 9:27 PM  

"I hope you took some profits at $700. :)"

I did. That was a GOOD DAY!

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 9:30 PM  

"Be careful, Nate might propose"

LOL!

The nice thing about this specialty that keeps us busy is there's always a booger that needs to be picked.:)

Anonymous Don Reynolds Pooped His Drawers October 09, 2013 9:33 PM  

Bravo, sir, bravo. Tell us something we don't know. Why should those companies NOT hire more low wage people, which includes men AND women? It makes perfect business sense. Again, it comes down to companies doing what they want with their property and how they prefer to approach their labor situation.

Blogger WarKicker October 09, 2013 9:37 PM  

"Excellent. Carry on. You have no idea how happy I am to see my concern unwarranted."

Nate, I've lurked for a long time on this blog and greatly appreciate and enjoy your comments. I hope that such concern would still have been exhibited had you known that my alma mater is UF. At least I'm in the right conference, right?:)

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 9:39 PM  

re: TOOS

You've illogically conflated so many disparate items that I'm not quite sure where to begin. However, I'll give it a try...


For your first exercise, please review the meaning of the phrase "...feeding the government maw", then compare & contrast it with your reference to 80% private and 20% public sector.

If you do well on this exercise, maybe we'll proceed to the next.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad October 09, 2013 9:55 PM  

Fubar nation ben taunts: Too much antidepressants, Tad? Put up or shut up.

Tad's a self-medicator. There is never too much. That's why he can't "put up".

Ergo, shutup, Tad.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 09, 2013 9:58 PM  

"Why should those companies NOT hire more low wage people, which includes men AND women? It makes perfect business sense. Again, it comes down to companies doing what they want with their property and how they prefer to approach their labor situation."

There was no normative case in my posting. I did not say they should or they should not do anything. You decide, but either way does not refute what I posted above.

But to make the question of yours relevant, let's make it clear that the businesses in question are hiring Chinese for $50 a month or Vietnamese for $35 a month. As you say.....it makes perfect business sense. Is it wrong? Obviously not. It has been going on for decades.

But of course, it all depends on whose side you are on.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 10:02 PM  

"Nate, I've lurked for a long time on this blog and greatly appreciate and enjoy your comments. I hope that such concern would still have been exhibited had you known that my alma mater is UF. At least I'm in the right conference, right?:)"

Could be a lot worse mate. You could've gone to Ohio State.

Anonymous Godfrey October 09, 2013 10:06 PM  

They created a new society, not a better one. They created a society in which both husband and wife HAVE TO work until they drop.

It was a con ladies. You're now a corporate serf on a treadmill.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 09, 2013 10:08 PM  

Remember the 20th century in America?

Remember it well. It will never be like that again.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate October 09, 2013 10:13 PM  

Ohio State--7 national championships, 36 conference championships, ten undefeated seasons

"Nuff said.

Anonymous zen0 October 09, 2013 10:19 PM  

( I can't tell anymore if this is off topic or not, I will leave it to your discretion to decide)

Has anybody noticed how the new pittsburgh pirates logo with the crossed bats looks like Frank Zappa?

A coincidence? I think not.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 10:27 PM  

"Ohio State--7 national championships, 36 conference championships, ten undefeated seasons

"Nuff said."

0-9 against the SEC.

Bitch.

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 10:29 PM  

In 2012, fedgovernment imposed an estimated $216 billion in regulatory costs on private businesses. This was almost double the previous record. This also entailed nearly 87 million hours of paperwork burdens on the economy in order to meet such regulations. (from report 'Piling On: The Year in Regulation', American Action Forum)

And who is having to do this? Oh yeah, the private sector. And what are they feeding? Oh right, the government maw. Note that this figure does not include any state or local regulatory burdens. It does not even include taxes. And for 2013 and the rest of the Obamanation? It is only getting worse.

Rhetoric? I think not.

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 10:41 PM  

...and now for total costs...

'The Impact of Regulatory Costs
on Small Firms', http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

The annual cost of federal regulation was $10,585 per employee in 2008, and is now over $10,000. The total cost of federal regulations to the economy was $1.75 trillion in 2008.

More rhetoric, I suppose...

Anonymous whatever October 09, 2013 10:42 PM  

correction: "and is now over $15,000"

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate October 09, 2013 10:49 PM  

Regardless of that painful statistic, the history of Ohio State football speaks for itself compared to Florida.

Whore.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 09, 2013 10:58 PM  

Who benefited the most from women entering the workforce in such large numbers?

Was it that now that women were earning their own money they felt like spending more?

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 10:59 PM  

"Regardless of that painful statistic, the history of Ohio State football speaks for itself compared to Florida.

Whore."

What? A history of racking up stats against lesser competition and then boasting about the "accomplishments" only to have your ass handed to you when you play the Big Boys? Piss off son.

OSU is a bunch of hacks.

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 11:08 PM  

Hey, remember that time Ohio State beat an SEC team in a national championship game?

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 11:10 PM  

and what's this 7 national title crap? You're counting that BS 1970 championship awarded by someone called the NFF? Seriously? Ya know if Bama and Tennessee counted all those BS titles they'd each have over 20. Give me a break.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate October 09, 2013 11:15 PM  

Right, because in those 7 national championship seasons and 10 undefeated seasons in question Ohio State did not play a combined total of 25 ranked teams, with 12 teams in the top 10.

Fuck face.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 11:17 PM  

oh man and you're also counting 1961... when Alabama went undefeated... 11-0 and finished number one 1 both the coaches and the AP... but OSU... which didn't even play in a bowl game... got something called the FWAA national championship?

Really?

I mean you've really only one like 3 national titles man. Alabama has done that since 2004.

Anonymous cheddarman October 09, 2013 11:19 PM  

Nate,

sports are a tool of Satan to keep you distracted from your calling to preach the gospel and set things right in the world by teaching men principles of game and true manhood in a biblical framework...if this is not your calling (at least part of it), I am not an OSU grad...

sincerely,


Cheddarman

Anonymous The other skeptic October 09, 2013 11:20 PM  

Blacks and Hispanics have low levels of literacy

It's almost as if they were all Pontiac buyers.

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 11:25 PM  

weird... after I look colose... it looks like Ohio State only has about 3 actual legit national titles... and florida has... 3.

Wow.

That must sting.

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 11:27 PM  

Right, because in those 7 national championship seasons and 10 undefeated seasons in question Ohio State did not play a combined total of 25 ranked teams, with 12 teams in the top 10.

So in those seasons, you played an average of 2 or 3 ranked teams, one of which was in the top 10?

A half dozen SEC teams play a schedule like that every freaking year

Anonymous Josh October 09, 2013 11:29 PM  

weird... after I look colose... it looks like Ohio State only has about 3 actual legit national titles... and florida has... 3.

And in one of those, Florida beat THE Ohio State...

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 11:29 PM  

"sports are a tool of Satan to keep you distracted from your calling to preach the gospel and set things right in the world by teaching men principles of game and true manhood in a biblical framework...if this is not your calling (at least part of it), I am not an OSU grad..."

hey... I wrote dragon slaying. What else do y'all want from me?

Blogger Nate October 09, 2013 11:33 PM  

"Right, because in those 7 national championship seasons and 10 undefeated seasons in question Ohio State did not play a combined total of 25 ranked teams, with 12 teams in the top 10.

Fuck face."

I think we huwt his feewings! All of them!

Look nancy you can pout and cry all ya want. Doesn't change the fact that you believed Ohio State Tackling Faggots have not one 7 national titles. They lost games in years other teams went freaking undefeated... and lets not forget your little Tackling Faggots have a long history of ducking bowl games. Right? Funny how in some of those years your Tackling Faggots claim a national title in... they didn't play a bowl at all. Wonder why? Maybe because they knew damned well they were facing a good PAC10 team... or Bama... or Tennessee... and they knew they'd get their asses handed to them. So... like the gamma bitches they are, and always have been, they run.

Pussies.

Always pussies.

Nothing screams bitch like claiming National Titles you didn't win.

Anonymous Laz October 09, 2013 11:45 PM  

Women in the US now have a lower life expectancy. Who woulda thunk it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/women-lifespan-us-declining-study_n_2807755.html

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate October 09, 2013 11:46 PM  

[Laughs] it's so easy to get Nate and his gay pal Josh all in a lather and tizzy. Carry on, negroes, carry on! Regardless of what you say, OSU won 7 national titles. But if it makes you better to say they won less, knock yourself out.

Blogger Phoenician October 10, 2013 12:27 AM  

I always find it remarkable, and perhaps even a little depressing, how few people are able to grasp that the primary consequence of the addition of 70 million working women, all of whom were already consumers, to the labor force, could never have been anything else but to lower wages.

You're making the implicit assumption, Dipshit, that they don't produce anything for the wages they get.

If they *are* producing more value than they get paid for, as seems reasonable in a capitalist society, then the wages paid will go up but be spent purchasing even more goods.

By your "logic", Dipshit, the best America could do would be to have one person working to produce goods for 300 million consumers - after all, if anyone else enters the workforce, it will lower wages...

And we can show how wrong you are simply by looking at the facts

- http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg

You talk about the post-1950 rise in female employment. So tell us, Dipshit, how come real wages continued to rise (in line with productivity) between 1950 and 1975 or so?

The real problem, of course, is the post-70s disconnect between real wages and productivity, which is a matter of one side winning the class war in America.

Not just a Dipshit today, but a lying Dipshit.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee October 10, 2013 12:45 AM  

The Other Other Skeptic: "This fact remains unchallenged--men who owned businesses WILLINGLY hired women ...."

Have you never heard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent developments, or is it that you need to be watered once a week?

Anonymous Robert in Arabia October 10, 2013 12:48 AM  

Please all the idiots who troll thise site with stupid chatter about sports.

Blogger IrishFarmer October 10, 2013 12:55 AM  

My bad if this posted twice, but hitting submit the first time logged me out of Google for some reason.

If women were consumers before they entered the workforce, then who's money were they consuming with? Mens? Parents'? In that case, those wages were already practically depressed by the fact that men and/or parents were providing women with a sort of salary.

It seems to me that this is just quibbling over, not how high wages will be per se but rather, who is going to be providing women their wages: Parents and husbands, or industry and government?

I suppose guys who don't get married or have children have a say on this one still, because their wages are lower and they weren't going to be providing for a woman anyway.

But I think it's simplistic to say, "Women were still consumers." I'll admit I don't have the answers to these questions, but they still come to mind: Isn't it possible that women workers created new markets, created increase consumption in some way? Can you really just say, "It was the exact same level of consumption now as it was in the '50s"?

Granted, this is a blog post, and not a peer-reviewed article in a journal of economics, but the question still remains for me.

A few mitigating factors that come to mind are things like work clothing, alcohol, cigarettes, vehicles, housing, prescription medicines, etc. Consumption of these things and probably more should, all things being equal, rise for one reason or another when women go to work en masse, as far as I can tell.

I don't see how it's different for children. Children increase consumption after they're born without increasing productivity (consuming with parents' money), but then they move out and get their own jobs and so on, and yet wages don't drop just because a newer, more numerous generation is born.

I'm not a hater, btw, this is genuine disagreement over the intellectual issue.

Blogger LibertyPortraits October 10, 2013 12:56 AM  

What a ridiculous title! The 70 million women created nothing of the sort that would resemble a new society. They didn't go off and colonize some land and cultivate it and create something new, they just lowered the cost of labor, big deal. The title gives away the pure propaganda nonsense the author is intending, I already suspect that "new society" means "better society" and we get a bunch of silly chapters attempting to prove the nonexistent clothes.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee October 10, 2013 12:57 AM  

And Phoenician? So when do you think the whole women's right movement kicked into high gear and started moving women en masse into the workforce, huh? Wouldn't that be sometime in, say, the mid-70s?

The mind reels at the extent of your historical illiteracy. It's truly stunning.

Anonymous Laz October 10, 2013 1:08 AM  

" Isn't it possible that women workers created new markets, created increase consumption in some way?"

The increased consumption comes from the doubling of the population in the last 70 or so years.

New markets? Women's Studies among other useless academia instantly comes to mind. Along with products geared exclusively to women. How does that benefit society as a whole?

Blogger IrishFarmer October 10, 2013 1:29 AM  

"New markets? Women's Studies among other useless academia instantly comes to mind."

I understand that women make a lot of dumb choices in consumption, including helping to prop up bubbles like the useless college degree bubble. But of course, that's not a women workers problem only, that's also a problem of statist interference in the free market as well, women are just the unwitting participants in a wider problem on that one.

But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the other consumption that women workers tend to partake in is "real" consumption, by which I mean they're freely trading on the market without any kind of coercion from the state or otherwise. If there's enough of that going on, it could not only make up for the bad consumption but could actually keep wages from being depressed to some extent.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box October 10, 2013 2:11 AM  

Yeah, right...You ignorant cunt. That's why American society has been in progressive degenerative mode since 1920, when bitches like you were given the vote!
I'm S000000 going to run right out and buy your propaganda...Or NOT!

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box October 10, 2013 2:17 AM  

Back in the real world:
Minimum wage was $1.25 in 1964.
Today, five trade silver quarters are worth $14.95 and minimum wage is $7.25...
Between BanKhazar & femin$taziism, you've been screwed out of more than half your pay.

Anonymous Dc October 10, 2013 2:35 AM  

"The only reason to substitute capital(investment) for labor is if labor is becoming more expensive."

Excellent points Mr.Reynolds. Though it appears that an argument could be made that raising the minimum wage to a certain point could help stimulate capital investment in the other direction? Anyway your statements point to an impoverishment cycle that many employers are not aware they are in, including the clown you refuted.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 2:54 AM  

"Golf Pro, I just proved to you that what men do is absolutely critical to running the economy."

Did you now? Because I recall you claiming exactly this, FUBAR:

""The occupations that women are involved with are mainly make-work and parasitical government jobs."

What is "make work"? What is a "parasitical government job"? It looks like what you've proved is that "Make works" is what you personally define it as and that it isn't worth anything or necessary. Like the school teaching you dismiss. I suspect the great men taught by school teachers would think different.

And what about the parasitical government workers who fill up the army, navy, airforce and marines? Parasites, according to you.

And can it really be that all or mainly what women do is HR and government? I suspect the business owning women, the women that work on assembly lines, the women that are engineers, the women that work in retail, the women that work in banks, the women that teach calculus, the women that work on the police force, the women that are domestic workers, the women that pick crops, the women that drive buses, the women that inspect meat, the women that do all the same jobs as men would think different.

You have proved one thing: Drugs, Ben. Heavy drugs.

What exactly was it you proved?

Anonymous kh123 October 10, 2013 3:14 AM  

"The real problem, of course, is the post-70s disconnect between real wages and productivity, which is a matter of... "

Which reminded me that something similar had been covered here several months ago, in a post dedicated to our one and only Economist in a Time of Romans.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 10, 2013 3:15 AM  

Look guys, in the end, the joke's on women, who, 45 years later, have found out the awful truth: that most work sucks. It's not fulfilling, it's not meaningful - it's just tiring, stressful drudgery for shit pay.

Women were taken in by feminism, which always had a class component to it that its advocates subtly hid. Look at the pre-1965 feminists, and you'll see that they were virtually all upper-class types for whom feminism could only mean positives, because they had the money and/or family connections to absorb any negative consequences. Women in the workplace would never mean the likes of Betty Friedan were going to end up driving a bus route through snowstorms or being Assistant Manager at a ghetto Burger King.

It's kind of like Ethnic/Women's Studies programs at universities. Now that the job market is such that people with truly bullshit degrees are basically unemployable, while at the same time tuition and student loan interest are astronomical, I see getting one of those degrees as more or less being a $100,000 tax on supporting trivialities and Cultural Marxism in our universities. Maybe if enough people pay it, they'll finally figure out what's wrong with the whole picture.

Increasingly, I find myself less being angry with them and more just pitying them.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 10, 2013 3:29 AM  

"And what about the parasitical government workers who fill up the army, navy, airforce and marines? Parasites, according to you."

If not according to him, then according to me. Sorry, I'm not a "Support the Troops" robot. America has oceans and nukes and hundreds of millions of privately-owned firearms, which means nobody is going to invade us. Spending trillions of dollars to "protect" us from distant foreign boogeymen is not only a waste of money, but a threat to our own freedom - read what the founding fathers had to say about big standing armies. If the purpose of the Department of Defense was actually to defend this country - rather than being to to maintain a big ridiculous empire that we don't need and can't pay for and is far, far more trouble than it's worth - then we could get by spending maybe a tenth of what we do on the military. Or less.

Which we should do.

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2013 7:33 AM  

What exactly was it you proved?

More flatulent faggotry from Tad. Or is it just the syphilis running its course?

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2013 7:36 AM  

Have you never heard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent developments, or is it that you need to be watered once a week?

Comedy gold. I'm guessing the answer is "both."

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2013 7:44 AM  

The real problem, of course, is the post-70s disconnect between real wages and productivity, which is a matter of one side winning the class war in America.

And we are all highly amused that a quasi-literate, quasi-male Kiwi who wants to be a woman is writing these words on his magic box that connects him and his obsession with Vox to the rest of the world. Do continue to spout Marxist slogans, Squeewee, we need the lulz.

Anonymous frenchy October 10, 2013 8:00 AM  

@ Phoenician,

I think you failed to research your questions before you posed them. Anger will do that to a man.

"If they *are* producing more value than they get paid for, as seems reasonable in a capitalist society, then the wages paid will go up but be spent purchasing even more goods."

Uh...sounds like the profit margin you are describing. However, wages will not go up simply because the company is making a profit. Wages could co go up because an employer seeks to reward an employee, the govt increases minimum wage, OR demand for the company's product increases, thus allowing an employer to pay his employees a bit more. I think what you are referring to is the latter.

"By your "logic", Dipshit, the best America could do would be to have one person working to produce goods for 300 million consumers - after all, if anyone else enters the workforce, it will lower wages..."

This is silly. There are a finite number of jobs in any one country, and each employer has a fixed amount that he can pay for labor. This is why minimum wage laws increase unemployment. The bottom line is that the more of something you have, in this case laborers, the more the value of that supply goes down. This is why "limited editions" items cost more than mass production items.

"And we can show how wrong you are simply by looking at the facts

- http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg

You talk about the post-1950 rise in female employment. So tell us, Dipshit, how come real wages continued to rise (in line with productivity) between 1950 and 1975 or so?"

I think the answer lies in history.

WWII ending--more men entering the work force thus supplying the labor needed for the U.S.'s growth in manufacturing. Korean War (1950-53) (yeah, I know the war has not yet ended). Vietnam War (1955-1973).

With two wars going on, is it not reasonable to expect an increase in productivity and wages due to more money entering the system? Secondly, most of the producing world was destroyed in WW2. The U.S. had few competitors. The world was buying American goods because Europe and Japan lay devastated and were rebuilding. And the collapse, or halt in 1975...well, this always happens at the end of a war (with the exception of 1946).

And I would add going from silver coins to clad coins in 1965, and coming off the gold standard in 1971 only worsened the effects of the wars ending because now you have inflation hitting hard.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 9:44 AM  

Golf Pro, you've proved that you don't have any reading comprehension. If you've read the article that I cited you would realize that the vast majority of engineers (in some categories 100%) are men.

The military is a parasite. It would not be able to exist without the taxes to support. This applies to all government jobs, which would not be able to exist without the underlying productive economy. You can be as snarky as you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

The difference between you and I is that I actually try to debate instead of engaging in personal attacks without provocation. You did the same thing when we were debating if it was worth it to go to college.

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2013 9:57 AM  

The difference between you and I is that I actually try to debate instead of engaging in personal attacks without provocation.

The thing you have to understand about getting down in the mud an wrestling a pig is that the pig LIKES it. Treat Tad accordingly.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 10:07 AM  

"The difference between you and I is that I actually try to debate instead of engaging in personal attacks without provocation."

I would bet there are other differences. Among them, you don't fully understand what parasitical means and I do. You use words in ways that make no senses (see: "make work") and I don't. You think women mainly work in the government or "makework" postions. I don't. You think government is imposed on the citizenry, while I understand it is the product of the citizenry's wishes.

You made a horribly ridiculous statement about women and now are struggling to try to defend it, I didn't.

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 10:11 AM  

You can have a stay-at-home-wife later. Now is the time to bring the money in and save.

Yeah, you can buy yourself some survival skills later. I'm sure there'll be plenty just lying around.

*eyeroll*

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 10:24 AM  

By the way, I think I'll give this book a read, after I get through the one about greenhouses I'm working through. Harvest's a jealous mistress, though, so it's slow going. Thanks for the pointer.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 11:41 AM  

I'm not struggling to defend anything, Tad. I fully stand by what I just said. We have completely different ways of looking at the world. That's fine.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 11:42 AM  

Golf Pro, government jobs are parasitical because they rely on taxing the private sector to create them. What about that do you not understand? In other words, they could not exist without the private sector.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 11:44 AM  

Tad, I'm a citizen and this government and don't consent to it. That disproves what you just said.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 2:09 PM  

"Golf Pro, government jobs are parasitical because they rely on taxing the private sector to create them. What about that do you not understand? In other words, they could not exist without the private sector."

Government jobs are created by and for the citizens of the country. You speak as though government is imposed upon citizens instead of being a creation of the citizens. Think of it this way: Government (and the people who work in it) are approved by the citizens. They are the employers. Citizens have determined that collective funding of a service (defense, food inspectors, highways, etc) is the best way to pay for a service they want. A parasite lives off its host, with no benefit to the host. This is not the case with government jobs. Quite clearly a benefit is being derived by the host in the case of government jobs. That makes government jobs not parasitic, but symbiotic.

" I'm a citizen and this government and don't consent to it. That disproves what you just said."

None of it. Not a bit? Not the democracy part? Do you break all the laws? Do you drive on citizen funded highways?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 2:30 PM  

I don't break any laws and I don't approve of democracy, which is basically a way for the majority to loot the minority. Usually the rich control the government and loot the productive middle class in order to placate the lower classes.

Government has done a piss poor job at defense. They provide a false sense of security with the food they pass off as healthy, and the highways suck and are run at multiples of what a private firm could provide. The government where I live are a bunch of parasites. The police chief makes more than the chief of police of the NYPD and all they do is sit around writing tickets and eating donuts.

I would do fine without government as it currently is being implemented.

Anonymous tehstoopidhurts October 10, 2013 2:34 PM  

There was so much obsequiousness and idiocy in reTad's last post I though my head was going to esplode.

Can we go back to a 5 derp minimum on Tad again, please?

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 2:38 PM  

They are the employers

Tell me how I fire the idiot down at the DMV who not only misspelled my name, but proceeded to explain to me why the actual spelling couldn't possibly be right. Please. I want to know how to use my Magic Citizen Power.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 3:10 PM  

"I would do fine without government as it currently is being implemented."

Now things are getting interesting. You don't approve of democracy. I'm guessing you've probably given a great deal of thought as to what form of government for a nation of 300 million + you would approve of. I'd be curious to understand what that form of government you'd approve of. Or are you just fine with a Hobbsian "State of Nature" kind of thing?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 3:18 PM  

I think the best form of government is probably the city state. It's small enough that if the government makes mistakes, the results aren't catastrophic which is unlike today.

Anonymous Dr. Doom October 10, 2013 4:10 PM  

Democracy doesn't work - at all. Giving an idiot the same voting power as a wise man is about as stupid as Government gets! Especially when you realize there are always more idiots than wise men!
The Communists realize this which is why they gave women the vote and also blacks. Believe me, if they could get away with it, the Communists would extend the right to vote to chickens and other animals as part of some bizarre animal rights movement!
Anything that allows Stupid people to decide Government policy and expenditure is an open invitation to con men, ruthless demagogues, and other evil people to take advantage of the open opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others through confiscatory taxation and police state thievery!

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 4:27 PM  

Dr. Doom and Ben appear to be political platonists. Quaint. Doom, besides being white (or at least beige--is that ok.), how else shall we determine the wise ones. Would you be one of the wise ones? I vote no to that. Will there be a vote on who the wise one are? Who gets to vote on that? Wait, I see where this is going. Who gets to be the facist dictator under your system? Can we vot on that too?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben October 10, 2013 5:51 PM  

We already have a fascist dictator. He's called President Obama and he does whatever the hell he wants. Better than that. You probably voted for him. He spies on you. Kills you. Anything he wants. Where have you been since 9/11? Were you trusting of George W. Bush?

Compared to democracy, having some sort of city state system modeled after the city states of the Levant would be preferable. At least corruption is out in the open, instead of having the rich and powerful use democracy to validate their opinion or discard them when it's inconvenient to their powerful allies and special interests.

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 6:41 PM  

Who gets to be the facist dictator under your system? Can we vot on that too?

Nope. You're probably going to be executed for annoying the dictator pretty quickly, so that'd make your vote irrelevant.

But it's irrelevant now as it is, so...yeah.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 10, 2013 6:57 PM  

Neal Stephenson once defined intelligence as the ability to comprehend subtlety. It is a sign of a mind that is incapable of understanding subtlety - and therefore is not intelligent - that it is capable only of believing in the possibility of two kinds of government: mass democracy, or Hitler.

Golf Pro is just such a mind.

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 7:20 PM  

...mass democracy, or Hitler.

Golf Pro is just such a mind.


Except he'd be the first to argue that Hitler was democratically elected, because the democracy in question was made up of people he doesn't like.

Anonymous The Other, Other Skeptic October 10, 2013 7:58 PM  

Whatever--In what specific ways does your point regarding federal regulations on business even remotely relate to how wages have been depressed due to increasing numbers of women in the workforce??? Hint: There is no connection.

ChicagoRefugee--"Have you never heard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent developments, or is it that you need to be watered once a week? So when do you think the whole women's right movement kicked into high gear and started moving women en masse into the workforce, huh? Wouldn't that be sometime in, say, the mid-70s?"


Your questions are benign. Come back when you are taller for this ride.


Galt-in-da-Box--“That's why American society has been in progressive degenerative mode since 1920, when bitches like you were given the vote!”

I believe MEN were instrumental in the passage of the 19th Amendment, as evident by a more maturing society ensuring the liberty of ALL citizens is protected.


“Women were taken in by feminism, which always had a class component to it that its advocates subtly hid.”

Business MEN were taken in by feminism because it made perfect economic sense--hire a group of people to do the same type of work for lower pay to maximize profits. Are you saying company owners should be denied their right to do what they want with their property???


Stillcho--”Comedy gold. I'm guessing the answer is "both."

The joke is on you. Again, you seem to forget that MEN passed legislation to ensure that citizen liberties would be guaranteed. This mandate was demanded by the majority of the population.


These points need to be reiterated--
A focus on automation in factories; an emphasis on a service-based economy; a reliance in some sectors of the economy on immigrant labor; the machinations of companies to keep labor costs down; and the inclusion of females in the workforce COMBINED have played a role in depressing wages.

Everyone here should recall that MEN hired women to work in their businesses and factories, well within the confines of freedom of association. So perhaps THEY are to blame for falling wages.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Psychiatric October 10, 2013 8:05 PM  

"Giving an idiot the same voting power as a wise man is about as stupid as Government gets! Especially when you realize there are always more idiots than wise men!"

Indeed, who determines who is wise and who is an idiot? What is the criteria? When the wise and the idiots are sorted out, what happens to the idiots when they object to being controlled or having been designated as an "idiot"? Do YOU even fit the criteria established?

We're all waiting...


"It's small enough that if the government makes mistakes, the results aren't catastrophic which is unlike today."

Please show evidence to support your assertion.

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 8:07 PM  

as evident by a more maturing society ensuring the liberty of ALL citizens is protected.

Here's another one who thinks more votes mean more liberty.

Hint: Every time the franchise was expanded, did the government subsequently expand or contract its powers?

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 8:08 PM  

When the wise and the idiots are sorted out, what happens to the idiots when they object to being controlled or having been designated as an "idiot"?

From what I've seen, they're usually patted on the head and told to make sammiches.

Anonymous Dr. Doom October 10, 2013 8:27 PM  

How do you determine who is wise or an idiot? Gee, if only their was some way to measure that scientifically. If only there were something such as psychometric testing or maybe some science devoted to psychology. If only there were experts who studied behavior or were able to determine sanity or insanity.
But, that's just too ridiculous! How could science provide answers like that?

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Psychiatric October 10, 2013 8:40 PM  

"But, that's just too ridiculous! How could science provide answers like that?"

What is the cut score? 100 IQ? 120 IQ? 140 IQ?

You do realize that just because someone scores high on this type of test does NOT mean they are "wise". Look at our own gummint for starters, which has a number of politicians who have high IQ's.

Besides, being "wise" contains a number of factors that are measured subjectively--they educated themselves, they are disciplined, they are patient, they can handle rejection, they are trustworthy, etc.

You do realize the fact is that scientistry has become increasingly disconnected from scientody, peer review is a charade, most published science papers are not reproducible, and what passes for science is simply not what you probably believe it to be.

Regardless, we live in a society in which the people of a country collectively have decided who is able to vote and participate in government; rights endowed by Our Creator and guaranteed by our Constitution. Warts and all, I will take this form of government over any other one. If you want to play make believe, knock yourself out!

Again, when the wise and the idiots are sorted out, what happens to the idiots when they object to being controlled or having been designated as an "idiot"? Do YOU even fit the criteria established?

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 8:45 PM  

If only there were experts who studied behavior or were able to determine sanity or insanity.

...

Oh dear Lord help me. You want to trust the determinant of sanity to a group of people who one out of four are certifiably suicidal, and most of who have significant sanity issues of their own?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 9:44 PM  

"We already have a fascist dictator. He's called President Obama and he does whatever the hell he wants"

Well, this isn't true. Everything the President has said suggests he wants the government open. Why doesn't he just open it if he does whatever the hell he wants?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 10, 2013 9:45 PM  

"How do you determine who is wise or an idiot? Gee, if only their was some way to measure that scientifically. If only there were something such as psychometric testing or maybe some science devoted to psychology. If only there were experts who studied behavior or were able to determine sanity or insanity.
But, that's just too ridiculous! How could science provide answers like that?"

OK...Fair enough. Now, what happens when a bunch of folks pass your tests and also turn out to support policies that in no way match the one's you support and think that only "wise" folks would support? Are they still "wise". Or do we simply have to change the tast to make sure the answers match yours.

Yes...If only we had a test for idiots!!

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Psychiatric October 10, 2013 10:33 PM  

Or (gasp), women pass or exceed the standards for the test. Are they summarily dismissed because "they ruin everything"?

Come on, Dr. Doom and Anti-Democracy Activist, crawl from under that rock of yours and respond.

Anonymous The Real Idle Spectator October 10, 2013 11:36 PM  

Dude, Nightbedwetter posing as me, I thought you would have gotten bored by now.

Especially since I never use the terms "(gasp)" or "support your assertion." And once again, you are fucking up with the dashes. You ARE FUCKING SUCKING at trolling.

Anonymous The Real Idle Spectator October 10, 2013 11:49 PM  

I am sorry for my rant... I just lost a major bet and had to take it out on someone.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 11, 2013 12:10 AM  

So, I took it out... on myself posing as myself? You're not even coherent anymore.

Are you even trying?

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 11, 2013 12:33 AM  

I really don't know who I am anymore, I am so confused.

Anonymous The Real Idle Spectator October 11, 2013 12:44 AM  

Maybe Nightbedwetter is not even trying because he is trolling at trolling. Several layers. Kind of like meta-trolling.


Hmmmm. It's like a deep theory here. Balls deep.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 11, 2013 12:51 AM  

"Or (gasp), women pass or exceed the standards for the test. Are they summarily dismissed because "they ruin everything?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but the question does not apply to me, because I am not an advocate of mass voting by either sex (I would have thought you could have told that by my name).

Now, speaking not for myself, but in the historical perspective, the men who designed the American Republic limited voting to a rather small portion of the populace. This was not an accident or an oversight. Their views on mass democracy are no secret, and can be found with minimal effort. Their main fault was in failing to understand one of the crucial lessons of the Roman Republic, which is that the centrifugal forces in a limited republic always, eventually, pull it towards being a mass democracy. More people demand citizenship, demand the vote, and eventually get it, until finally you have your ochlocracy - cue Plato about what happens next.

Most interesting, and probably perplexing to modern Americans, was the property ownership requirement for voting they established. This didn't last long in the American Republic, but not for the reasons some might think. The Republic was founded right about the same time the Industrial Revolution kicked off, so the founders had pre-industrial sensibilities. In the pre-industrial era, wealth was measured in land, not cash. So the property requirement was there to make sure that voters were people of a certain level of wealth, accomplishment, and social standing - in other words, not the rabble. As the Industrial Era progressed and there were more and more individuals who clearly did have the wealth, accomplishment, and social standing that the founders wanted voters to have, but whose wealth was measured in cash, not land, the property requirement was dropped.

But the original intent of the property qualification - that only people who had a certain measurable level of accomplishment to their name and/or a certain measurable stake in the system should be allowed to have a share in deciding how things were run - was a good one. It isn't quite exactly the same as giving a scientific measurement of intelligence in order to measure competency to vote, but it's a damn good substitute for it.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 11, 2013 2:01 AM  

"that only people who had a certain measurable level of accomplishment to their name and/or a certain measurable stake in the system should be allowed to have a share in deciding how things were run"

It's a matter of giving meaning to "accomplishment" or "stake". The latter is the most problematic as it's pretty darned easy for someone who has no say in how their community is organized to make the case they have a really big stake in in their community. So, that notion should be tossed aside. It's the "accomplishment" part that should be dealt with. And I'm going to assume we ought to look at that notion from a 21st century perspective rather than a 17th century perspective only because, well, it's the 21st century. So, please how shall we define accomplishment in order to know how we shall allow voting in this new 21st century American republic for which you pine?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 11, 2013 2:59 AM  

"It's a matter of giving meaning to "accomplishment" or "stake".

I suppose it's no wonder that it was the left who brought us a President of the United States who proudly proclaimed not to have a mentally solidified working definition for the word "is".

Look, I'm not going to play this game where you claim not to understand plain words of English so you can draw me into a debate about what they mean, in the course of which you hope to win by doing what the left always does - redefine terms until they mean whatever leftists want them to mean. If you really don't understand what these plain, common words of English mean, buy a fucking dictionary. Otherwise, Homie don't play that.

"it's pretty darned easy for someone who has no say in how their community is organized to make the case they have a really big stake in in their community."

Sure, and as a longtime Apple customer, I could make the case that I have a really big stake in how Apple is run, as I've sunk many thousands of dollars into Apple hardware, into accessories that work with (and frequently only work with) Apple products, and into software that runs only on Apple's operating systems.

None of this entitles me to any voting stock, to a seat on Apple's board, or to the right to tell Tim Cook how to run the company.

"rather than a 17th century perspective"

18th. The 1700s were the 18th century.

"this new 21st century American republic for which you pine?"

I don't pine for any Republic, as my previous post clearly indicated. Next time please read my posts thoroughly before responding to them.

Anonymous The Voice Of Reason: First Blood October 11, 2013 3:31 AM  

Because I apparently couldn't get over Sunny and what's-her-name rejecting my advances in favor of their pursuing some environmental engineering degree... which I can understand, more power to them and their future adventures in Herpesville... and to work off some of this red hot undergrad rage over my spurned cheerleading efforts, I'm going to start trolling the resident pharmacist via sockpuppetry. Because we all know how well that worked out here last time.

Sandos got nothin' on me, bitchez.

Anonymous Sigyn October 11, 2013 6:07 AM  

I suppose it's no wonder that it was the left who brought us a President of the United States who proudly proclaimed not to have a mentally solidified working definition for the word "is".

He's gone full Asher.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Psychiatric October 11, 2013 7:18 PM  

“More people demand citizenship, demand the vote, and eventually get it, until finally you have your ochlocracy - cue Plato about what happens next.”

In the end, you are simply trying to make a modern equivalent between the “ignorant masses” and the “elite” with your (unrealistic) proposal. Not...going...to...happen.


“But the original intent of the property qualification....it's a damn good substitute for it.”

The return to the property requirement as the means for a citizen to vote demands that specific criteria to be established, contrary to your hissy fit. So it is fair to ask what are the metrics for “accomplishment” and “measurable”. These terms are subjective and can be easily manipulated. Consider Nathaniel Bacon, who received a degree from Cambridge, had a sufficient amount of land for comfortable living, and had political connections. Yet, despite his “accomplishments”, he did not meet the standards necessary to be elected to the House of Burgesses; consequently, he organized a rebellion.

Imagine similar instances occurring today. How would you propose handling these situations? What would be the desired course of action? How much property is considered an “accomplishment”?
Do YOU meet the standard?

Anonymous Dr. Doom October 11, 2013 7:41 PM  

Actually, these rhetorical games of government are pointless. Anyone seeing the willingness to surrender to the Mocha Madman must realize we have passed the Rubicon where a peaceful resolution and political solution is even possible.
The unwillingness of some to see that the Democrats and RINOs especially the neo-cons are just thinly-disguised Marxists employing a strategy of Fabian Incremental Confiscation of Rights and bring us towards Soviet Socialism must be willfully blind.
Fortunately, the economy was decimated in 2008 and can not recover due to the drastic de-industrialization of outsourcing and the continued influx of peons from the Third World. The FEDGOV is already selling ALL its bonds to the Federal Reserve leading me to conclude that everyone in the World has written off the Dollar as a viable financial instrument.
Systemic Collapse is imminent, hyperinflation is inevitable. People ALREADY HAVE MORE DOLLARS THAN THEY NEED AND WILL START DUMPING THEM SOON!

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Johns Hopkins Psychiatric October 11, 2013 8:17 PM  

"Giving an idiot the same voting power as a wise man is about as stupid as Government gets! Especially when you realize there are always more idiots than wise men!"

Indeed, who determines who is wise and who is an idiot? What is the criteria? When the wise and the idiots are sorted out, what happens to the idiots when they object to being controlled or having been designated as an "idiot"? Do YOU even fit the criteria established?

We're all waiting... (still)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts