Increasing Number Of Indicators Point To Society Destabilizing

[Rikurzhen]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

 

[toxicmedia]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

Good God I would so love to have lunch with you.

Just to see if you're a real person.

 

[Skylar]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

 

[Moonglow]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

He's still negotiating that point...

 

[Moonglow]

I don't like gold diggin' women, they aren't even good enough for anal...

 

[candycorn]

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners,...​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

He got called "short stack" once by a woman and he's never let it slide. He is trying to make his shortcoming everyone else's problem.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

Conservatives are focused on family formation. Liberals are focused on individualism and the individuals relation to government. Families are a threat to the atomized population structure which puts government at the heart of an individual' world.

Look at where the two parties draw their support.

Married couples, of all races, homeowners, etc don't need government as much, so this works against the liberal interest of growing government.

On another front, women reach peak fertility at about age 23 and it's all downhill from there. The median age for marriage for men is now 29 and almost 27 for women. Does it seem rational to you that women focus on establishing careers during their period of peak fertility and then, for many, only begin hunting around for a man to marry at around age 30? The more rational approach is to line up social practices with biology. Children first and then career taking greater focus when the child bearing phase of life is completed.

The pool of marriageable men decreases for women as their own income increases, so the best and brightest of women, as measured by market skills, are the least likely to start families because the men they find attractive as potential mates don't have reciprocal standards and so have a broader pool of women to choose from. Here's a silly feminist expressing her befuddlement at this phenomenon:

They surveyed 925 people and found that a huge percentage of women said they wouldn't date a guy who was unemployed. When the situation was reversed, only one-third of men said they would not date an unemployed woman. Damn, why are women so much less tolerant of having a partner that's not bringing home any bacon?

Apparently, men aren't concerned with finding women who have plans and are keeping themselves busy. Basically two-thirds of guys said they didn't have a problem going out with a woman who was unemployed—19 percent of guys said they'd have "no reservations" and 46 percent said they were positive they'd go out with a woman who didn't have a job. Well, look who comes off looking a lot more open-minded and compassionate on this topic—kind of, unless these guys are the kind who don't care if a woman has a job because they secretly believe women shouldn't have jobs? Commence hand-wringing.
​

All these goals that liberals have seen to actually work quite well together in destroying the fabric of society. Nothing makes sense. Women need to have careers! OK, why does that have to be the goal during peak fertility years? Why does marriage have to be delayed until age 30? Liberals don't like income inequality but the policies they champion result in more assortative matings - physician married to physician versus physician married to electrician and so inequality is slowly being genetically stratified. Driving women into the workforce in ever greater numbers drives down wages for everyone and when it drives down wages for men, then that reduces the number of men women find attractive enough to date/marry:

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 -- their fathers' generation -- adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier. Ms. Sawhill said she isn't sure why men's wages have stagnated. "It seems there's been some slowdown in economic growth, it's possible that the movement of women into the labor force has affected male earnings, and it's possible that men are not working as hard as they used to."​

 

[Rikurzhen]

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners,...​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

He got called "short stack" once by a woman and he's never let it slide. He is trying to make his shortcoming everyone else's problem.

Here's to you! You Go Girl!!

 

[Skylar]

Conservatives are focused on family formation. Liberals are focused on individualism and the individuals relation to government. Families are a threat to the atomized population structure which puts government at the heart of an individual' world.

Huh. Because conservatives sure seem to be arguing for individual freedom awful hard. Now you're saying they focus on the collective of the family?

And again, are conservatives against women working and being educated? I'll gladly stipulate that liberals advocate both. If conservatives are also for women working and being educated, then you can't rightly blame liberals for a position that conservatives share. If conservatives are against women working and being educated....I'd like you on record saying as much.

 

[The Rabbi]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

It seems that way to you because you're stupid. I'm not kidding either. That really is the reason.

 

[occupied]

Society is going to be fine, different but fine. I feel a sort of optimism that the white protestant male hegemony foresees the end of their stranglehold on prosperity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Society is going to be fine, different but fine. I feel a sort of optimism that the white protestant male hegemony foresees the end of their stranglehold on prosperity.

Because the problem with society is white men, right?

No society has continued to exist with gay marriage and the like.

 

[Skylar]

It seems that way to you because you're stupid. I'm not kidding either. That really is the reason.

Well then explain it to me. Economic empowerment of women is cited as the reason for the drop in marriage rates and the lower earning potential of some men. And liberals are blamed for causing the economic empowerment of women.

Liberals most definitely support women working, their education, and their economic empowerment. The question is......do conservatives? Its a simple question. And yet its completely confounded both the OP and yourself.

Please try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems that way to you because you're stupid. I'm not kidding either. That really is the reason.

Well then explain it to me. Economic empowerment of women is cited as the reason for the drop in marriage rates and the lower earning potential of some men. And liberals are blamed for causing the economic empowerment of women.

Liberals most definitely support women working, their education, and their economic empowerment. The question is......do conservatives? Its a simple question. And yet its completely confounded both the OP and yourself.

Please try again.

See, this is why you are stupid. You cannot read a simple paragraph and draw appropriate conclusions.

 

[Katzndogz]

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners,...​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

He got called "short stack" once by a woman and he's never let it slide. He is trying to make his shortcoming everyone else's problem.

Here's to you! You Go Girl!!

A cat won't cheat on you. You will never come home and find your cat drunk. Your cat will never interrupt a pleasant dream for sex. Your cat will never take money out of your purse, tell you that the dress makes your ass look big or tell you to bring him a beer when you're busy. Cats don't hit on your best friend or accuse you of hitting on his.

The worst a cat does is cough up a hairball once in awhile. They are superior to men in every way that counts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right "never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans." The destruction of the middle class began with the Reagan years.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Conservatives are focused on family formation. Liberals are focused on individualism and the individuals relation to government. Families are a threat to the atomized population structure which puts government at the heart of an individual' world.

Huh. Because conservatives sure seem to be arguing for individual freedom awful hard. Now you're saying they focus on the collective of the family?

And again, are conservatives against women working and being educated? I'll gladly stipulate that liberals advocate both. If conservatives are also for women working and being educated, then you can't rightly blame liberals for a position that conservatives share. If conservatives are against women working and being educated....I'd like you on record saying as much.

Because this is all too typical.

Forget her, there are plenty of women who've racked up student loan debt and aren't in marketable careers. A high earning man would have to be an idiot to take on responsibility for helping such a woman pay off her student loans when he has a higher sexual market value than his girlfriend. Time to move on or simply avoid getting married. Again, bad for society.

Even high income careers are affected. Female physicians work about 1/2 the hours of male physicians and tend to retire sooner, so when society subsidizes the training of a physician it will actually get twice as many hours on the job from a male as from a female. Then in terms of economic returns for the woman, this is what we see. From The Journal of Human Capital:

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.​

That's not an efficient investment for society to make. Women who qualify for admission to medical school are pretty damn smart, and society would be better served if these women raised many kids while still young and THEN devoted themselves to career where they could actually match men hour for hour because family raising was already done with.

Instead of the above, this is what liberals are gifting to society.

 

[occupied]

Society is going to be fine, different but fine. I feel a sort of optimism that the white protestant male hegemony foresees the end of their stranglehold on prosperity.

Because the problem with society is white men, right?

No society has continued to exist with gay marriage and the like.

Societies exist with all sorts of things more horrible than dudes kissing in public. What about them? Rape is endemic in many countries of the third world like India and Pakistan and yet they continue to function after a fashion. China kills more of it's people than anyone, Iran and Saudi Arabia also, these things are horrors that make homosexuals look like not a big deal in any way. What a retarded statement.

 

[Skylar]

It seems that way to you because you're stupid. I'm not kidding either. That really is the reason.

Well then explain it to me. Economic empowerment of women is cited as the reason for the drop in marriage rates and the lower earning potential of some men. And liberals are blamed for causing the economic empowerment of women.

Liberals most definitely support women working, their education, and their economic empowerment. The question is......do conservatives? Its a simple question. And yet its completely confounded both the OP and yourself.

Please try again.

See, this is why you are stupid. You cannot read a simple paragraph and draw appropriate conclusions.

So you still won't answer my question on whether or not conservatives support women working, being educated, and being economically empowered.

A liberal could answer that question....directly and clearly. You can't. And that speaks volumes.

 

[Skylar]

Forget her, there are plenty of women who've racked up student loan debt and aren't in marketable careers.

So women are economically empowered by degrees that aren't marketable? And if they aren't economically empowered by such degrees which you've called 'typical', then how are they competing with men in such a way as to reduce men's place in the economy?

Your latest argument contradicts your opening one.