My own personal take on the economy as a "poor person" in America.

As most here well know that I'm a college student (senior year), so for me finding work has been hard, even in the best of economic times (as college students are perceived as flight risks from jobs, and this is generally proven to be true statistically).

Last year, I had enough of a job in which I was more or less not only left with a great responsibility of maintaining a kitchen at a grocery store (it was a chinese kitchen) in the evenings, but in this case those who were selected to be under my responsibility were in themselves quite irresponsible in their own duties; taking extra breaks when customers were still waiting on meals and/or appetizers. I simply quit the job; no two weeks notice, no complaining to the store supervisor, or anything. I think now that it was a bad choice in the long term, but also I think it was a good choice in the longer term in as much as it allowed me to sharpen my skills in my degree major (computer science and software development). Still, the price was a nice income that fed me well and kept the bills paid up in advance. Now, I've been searching for a job at any level of skill that I could fill (fast food, janitorial, and my degree major in CS as a support technician (phone based is usually was what I found in demand)). It's not easy when money is tight and the bills are tighter, but I'm glad that even now I did find a job.

I guess the point of this post is that I never have and never will understand the constant finger pointing that folks in my position. I can understand that government policy itself can be blamed for disemployment (through wage increases and other forms of regulations), but the constant blaming of so-called corporate greed and the younger generation's so-called selfish attitude seems born out of lack of foresight by those who are disemployed by their own actions or those of governmental policy. It seems fashionable to assume one cannot be responsible or able to adapt to changing environments (look at me, I'm a CS student that will be asking if you would like fries with your meal...), whether it means taking a lower wage or a different job altogether. It is that adaptability that seems to be ignored by many despite its obviousness in the actions of even non-human species (the whole effect of adapt or die forming what is more fancifully known as natural selection). This need of adaptability is not simply left to the wage earners, but also to the firms and executives that desire a profit. If they themselves do not adapt, they too will die. Thus, I don't see it as a mere us versus them dichotomy as many conclude that are still on the job hunt as I am today. It's more of a everyone versus very bad ideas dichotomy, if anything.

Spot on Lady. I was just lucky enough to get employment a few days ago. I had been unemployed for over several months. Even at this job I am overqualified but I need something for graduate school.

Is the computer job market really bad? I'm working on a Computer Engineer major, at the moment, and I've looked into internships, but most companies aren't looking for freshmen/sophomore level students.

First things first:  Banned, love your signature. XD You should put that in the freedom images thread.

LadyAttis:  It's as I've said before, workers are capitalists too.  Our prices are our wages.  If we find we can't compete, or find work, lower our prices or offer something the competition doesn't that your buyer (employer) wants; just like any other capitalist who is having trouble competing.

malgratloprekindle:

First things first:  Banned, love your signature. XD You should put that in the freedom images thread.

LadyAttis:  It's as I've said before, workers are capitalists too.  Our prices are our wages.  If we find we can't compete, or find work, lower our prices or offer something the competition doesn't that your buyer (employer) wants; just like any other capitalist who is having trouble competing.

Unfortunately at the bottom of the pile (the minimum wage zone) there are very few offerings one can make to make yourself sound appealing. The most obvious is stressing your full availability for work, but there are plenty of others who are saying that now too; and of course you can't say you will work for less than others because you cannot legally. Of course these are all problems for IF you can get an interview, and with those damn internet personality tests that seems to be the rage in business, its difficult. I am not trying to negate what you said by the way, it is all true, but it is very hard!

I am a year out of high school and am confused, much like many other market actors, as to what direction I should take my life in the state's distortion box. I am returning to college, but I know from others and my own experience that it is shit by any other name.

 

My advice would be to consider one of the trades instead. If a djinn appeared to me one day and said you're going to have to start all over again, that's what I would do. The downside is you may have to follow the work around the country.

I am going to agree with you here. Several years ago, I dropped out of college and went to trade school. Now my friends from high school who graduated college are in the unemployed line or making the same money I did several years ago. I am stunned at the utter uselessness of some college degrees these days. Most amusing is a few of them thought I was going into 'white trash' blue collar work, and now I just laugh all the way to the bank.

"My advice would be to consider one of the trades instead. If a djinn appeared to me one day and said you're going to have to start all over again, that's what I would do. The downside is you may have to follow the work around the country." -- Byzantine

I partly agree in terms of trades regarding IT. Not so much in the terms of a complete change over, but rather a change over in terms of what I will do with my Computer Science degree. In this case, instead of being another code monkey able to splice together web scripts (PERL, PHP, ASP, and etc) with DB backends. I plan to focus on my own strong suit of software architecture and software modeling. As it's those two fields that I've never seen any software engineer or computer scientist take on with any vigor. I'm also still working on my own theory of mind and AI, so I suspect much of my own future depends less on any one field in IT/CS, but on the whole field of the industries.

"We are still only one generation in to the unprecedented experiment of putting men and women in head-to-head financial competition with each other. I don't see how that can turn out well." -- Byzantine

I agree on this point as well in that I think it's an artificial deconstruct of social units (of family) to make people more pliable. Imagine it more as a means to make the State (and its associated corporations) as the new mother/father figure for these individuals (as both parents are being forced to work so the institutions of the State are replacing mothers and fathers in terms of the parental activities related...). I think I could write a storm on this subject, but I suspect it would diverge the current thread. :-P

Awwww!

"We are still only one generation in to the unprecedented experiment of putting men and women in head-to-head financial competition with each other. I don't see how that can turn out well." -- Byzantine

I agree on this point as well in that I think it's an artificial deconstruct of social units (of family) to make people more pliable.

What ? What ??? I expect the social conservatives to constantly utter socially conservative dogma but I thought you were a bit more thoughtful...

as both parents are being forced to work

What ?? 'Forced' to work ? People work because they want to buy stuff.

What ? What ??? I expect the social conservatives to constantly utter socially conservative dogma but I thought you were a bit more thoughtful...

In particular terms of the nature of social units, the family isn't necessarily an atomic-like one. Families evolve under the economical/environmental conditions of the time. But when an institution attempts to supplant whatever evolved in terms of what was sustainable for a given environment, then it is doing so in terms of being a social aggressor as it were. This isn't an argument for any social conservative values, rather it's an argument for maintenance of the peace (a social non-aggression principle).

What ?? 'Forced' to work ? People work because they want to buy stuff.

Forced in terms of supporting the regulatory instruments and institutions which the State creates. Consider the historical shift in the UK from friendship societies to State welfare, in which the State's added burden of taxation to supply its welfare forced friendship societies out of the same service industry. This isn't unlike the forcing of private schools by means of funding public schools via taxation (and inflation in the modern era).

But in terms of individuals, it's less obvious when considering how inflation is the primary instrument, and not institutions, for which incentivizes individuals to more thoroughly as with inflation purchasing power of one regular wage becomes less sustainable than two. Currently, it's becoming worse than simply excluding parents from the time they would have otherwise used in other tasks (outside of their labor), where now it is normal that the average parent (single or otherwise) to work two jobs to maintain their standard of living. And even this is becoming less of the norm (where the average is now 3 jobs per person in a family unit).

The result is quite obvious: more demand for social services and more taxes and inflation to support them. Thus, the cycle feeds back onto itself, reinforcing this social change away from families being units that are economically independent, but rather those which are economically dependent on the State (regardless of configuration/content). That is the force which I'm eluding to. It is not a matter of "jews, queers, and them thar businessman!" It's a matter of social change by means of legal statute mandate. Change from the top-down (inorganic in nature).

Good post.

Even before I dropped out of college to run my own business, I pretty much had this outlook just from having to work at other jobs.  When running my own business, these thoughts were even more crystalized and certainly confirmed.  I would agree, adaptability is the most important thing a person can have (particularly in a free market). 

As far as the greed factor is concerned, it can not be stressed enough that all a good business owner/employee is, is someone who serves other people well.  Your success is based off of others wants and needs, not your own. This hardly sounds like the perfect most convienent recipe for arrogance or tyranny or sheer evil Dr Doom bastardry, govt would by far be the easier, attractive, and more convienient way to be a Dr Doom. This should be plain as day obvious, but somehow this is simply not noticed at all by most people. 

I really do find it hard to empathize with people of the opposite view, I have no idea how they could form such opinions if they work in "the real world".  It truly does confuse me.  One thing is clearly obvious the left has a major upperhand when it comes to propaganda and mainstream thought, it seems to have had the upper hand for quite some time.  Shutting down leftisms' stranglehold on propaganda seems almost like a David vs Goliath type task.

I was referring to lowering the amount you'd be willing to work for in the job of your choice though.

Meaning if no-one wants to hire me as an Engineer at a price of 40k a year, I could try dropping it to about 30k a year and see what happens.

And yes, I do understand that, because of minimum wage and licensing laws that our ability to climb the ladder is nigh impossible...effing' government.

ladyattis:

In particular terms of the nature of social units, the family isn't necessarily an atomic-like one. Families evolve under the economical/environmental conditions of the time. But when an institution attempts to supplant whatever evolved in terms of what was sustainable for a given environment, then it is doing so in terms of being a social aggressor as it were. This isn't an argument for any social conservative values, rather it's an argument for maintenance of the peace (a social non-aggression principle).

Vague. Maintenance of peace ? What has that got to do with individuals, regardless of gender, choosing to work if they want to ? Do you think that women are naturally predestined to 'raise children' and cook ?

Forced in terms of supporting the regulatory instruments and institutions which the State creates. Consider the historical shift in the UK from friendship societies to State welfare, in which the State's added burden of taxation to supply its welfare forced friendship societies out of the same service industry. This isn't unlike the forcing of private schools by means of funding public schools via taxation (and inflation in the modern era).

Yes, I'm familiar with state intervention =]

But you take for granted that in a 'family' - whatever that is - only one member works and pays the expenses. But there's absolutely no reason why it should be that way. Except conservative dogma about the 'natural order' of course.

The standard of living is arbitrary. If the state makes things more expensive, 'families' can do two things. Either consume less, or work more to pay for the expenses. But if there were no state and no plunder, that choice would remain wholly valid.

Your position is one big non-sequitur. Yes, there are lots of state interventions. No, absent intervention, the 'family' would not have a definite and 'natural' structure in which the male parent is the only one who works.

where now it is normal that the average parent (single or otherwise) to work two jobs to maintain their standard of living.

People can either work more or be paid less. That's the result of a general attack on property rights which applies to all people subjected to the state.

The result is quite obvious: more demand for social services and more taxes and inflation to support them.

No it's not quite obvious. People could choose to sacrifice a bit their 'standard of living' in order to keep 'family values'.

Thus, the cycle feeds back onto itself, reinforcing this social change away from families being units that are economically independent, but rather those which are economically dependent on the State (regardless of configuration/content).

Nobody is economically independent in a market society. A market society is the opposite of economic independence. There's nothing intrinsically good about families being economically independent units, by the way.

Juan:

Maintenance of peace ?

AKA not trying to bully folks over their own personal beliefs and values

Juan:

What has that got to do with individuals, regardless of gender, choosing to work if they want to ?

It has to do with forcing people to work due to inflation and taxes. Polls have shown that most couples (in the US) would prefer to have one parent at home in their own household (that's also why stay-at-home dads are becoming commonplace in terms of male workers that can do work via telepresence technology).

 

Do you think that women are naturally predestined to 'raise children' and cook ?

In terms of biology? Yes. In terms of training, experience, and values? Not necessarily.

Juan:

The standard of living is arbitrary.

Not when it comes down to keeping a roof over one's head and food enough in the fridge for more than a day for everyone in your household.

Juan:

If the state makes things more expensive, 'families' can do two things. Either consume less, or work more to pay for the expenses. But if there were no state and no plunder, that choice would remain wholly valid.

So, is it acceptable to have a State enforce via inflation and taxation a disintegration of social units? Lets say they started taxing university students more so to "cover expenses?" Would that be okay too? What about other social regulatory 'controls' that many States in the world utilize to force what is perceive as aberant social units (such as what is found among Gypsies in Eastern Europe), economic or otherwise, is that also acceptable? If not, then what's your RAAAAAEGGGGGGGG all about.

Juan:

Your position is one big non-sequitur. Yes, there are lots of state interventions. No, absent intervention, the 'family' would not have a definite and 'natural' structure in which the male parent is the only one who works.

Prove it.

Juan:

Nobody is economically independent in a market society.

Prove it.

Juan:

There's nothing intrinsically good about families being economically independent units, by the way.

Therefore all social units which foster the basic units of economic action are not intrinsically good in terms of sustaining human existence? Also, humans are very much more independent due to sustainable social units for the fact that these units are plastic in nature. Whether it's the family unit or other social units (which includes the firm), these insure there are means to communicate, share information, and even pool capital and resources. So, unless you can show me a species that has a market economy like we humans that doesn't have social units and survives quite well, your entire bitchfest against families and social units is something akin to Keynes bitchfest over savers and 'breeders.'

 

The social structure, the household, the what needs to be done at home involves work.  When my wife and I both worked and had a small apartment it very challenging to keep up with all the work at home, the simple things like dishes, washing clothes, having dinner, making a lunch for work, keeping the house clean and maintained, and let alone other important appointments such as if the roof leaks, etc... who's going to have the time if both are working?  Throw in children and the cost of living increases and the natural care has now multiplied to three.  There is more to life than only working especially with a child.  Emotional support, such as care for each other, is very significant.  One person can go their whole life without a mate or children, and they can cope fine, but once two people start to live with each other the dynamics of the household change and children change it in crucial ways.  I think being married and having children is a plus that I would instantly do all over again if given the choice.  

For half a year or more, my wife and I both worked and our one year old son was at day care.  How horrible to have to pawn off our responsibility to other people, but we didn't have a choice.  We have a very small house and live on basics.  My luxuries are any books that I've purchased along the way and this computer that is tremendous tool for my wife's work and has dramatically increased the education level and will be an excellent tool when my son is home schooled now that I'm home.  I'm at home now since my wife had a pay increase, one of us can be with our child, take care of all the laboring at home (life is much easier and the flexibility and options in life increase), and financially it made no sense to keep our son in day care especially when 90% of my paycheck went to his daycare.  We tried to figure out a way to get away with me working before her pay increase, but that extra 10% paid the electric bill.  We dont' have a TV and we've already started saving money by canning fruit that is coming into season in the yard and grocery store saving a lot of money this way.  Our six gardens will save lot's more money when we can that harvest.  I'll savings will go into future investments.

And I think we're doing well compared to some of the stories I'm beginning to hear locally here from other people.  We didn't get hit by the bubble bust as of yet as the rest of the country has, but it is slowly creeping in.  That's one reason the G20 is being held here in the Pittsburgh at the end of summer cause Obama wants to show off, he said, the innovation and the "green" infrastructure that has already been built over the last decade in this region.  But by the end of summer I'm having a hard time seeing this region stay somewhat economically better off than other places in the country.  Surrounding counties of Pittsburgh are beginning to really go downhill as businesses have begun to let go of their employees as of late.

malgratloprekindle:

I was referring to lowering the amount you'd be willing to work for in the job of your choice though.

Meaning if no-one wants to hire me as an Engineer at a price of 40k a year, I could try dropping it to about 30k a year and see what happens.

And yes, I do understand that, because of minimum wage and licensing laws that our ability to climb the ladder is nigh impossible...effing' government.

Remember that in a recession the problem is not only high labor wages, but also a misallocation of capital. If there is no capital for you to work with, you won't be able to find any job as an engineer. You can't employ an engineer unless he has machines to work with.

This is why the capital liquidation process is so important, and it must come before the labor liquidation process.

Byzantine:

Not everyone is a homosexual male.  In fact, only about 5% of the population is.  And they can't reproduce biologically.

Since the statistics I've read (coming from the UK, admittedly) seem to place homosexuals as 3% of the pop (which is matched in the PRC, of all places), wouldn't it be even less, more like 1.5%?

Lady....

 

I was going to say something funny... but I rethought.....

 

Jobs are rough... I am a dishwasher, and that took me a year and a half to get....

 

That was before the BIG fall out in the economy, mind you....

 

The job market has sucked for a long time....

Byzantine:

Not everyone is a homosexual male.  In fact, only about 5% of the population is.  And they can't reproduce biologically.

So there doesn't seem to be any compelling need to listen to them.

spoken like a democrat

ladyattis:

Polls have shown that most couples (in the US) would prefer to have one parent at home in their own household

But the gov't sends the cops and forces the two parents to work. I see.

ladyattis:

Juan:

Do you think that women are naturally predestined to 'raise children' and cook ?

In terms of biology? Yes. In terms of training, experience, and values? Not necessarily.

Is this a bad joke ? Women are biologically determined to COOK ?

Also, you didn't know that children can be raised by anyone ? There are no special biological abilities needed to raise children (as opposed to give birth to babies...).

Not when it comes down to keeping a roof over one's head and food enough in the fridge for more than a day for everyone in your household.

Even in that case, people can arrange things in order to stay at home if they want. Not to mention that the amount of 'families' who need two people working in order to avoid starvation is probably close to ZERO. So, is it acceptable to have a State enforce via inflation and taxation a disintegration of social units? I didn't say that.

ladyattis:

Juan:

No, absent intervention, the 'family' would not have a definite and 'natural' structure in which the male parent is the only one who works.

Prove it.

LOL. Prove that your conservative dogma is true.

ladyattis:

Juan:

Nobody is economically independent in a market society.

Prove it.

Are you joking ? Do I need to teach to somebody familiar with political economy what division of labor is ?

Juan:

But the gov't sends the cops and forces the two parents to work. I see.

Juan:

Is this a bad joke ? Women are biologically determined to COOK ?

 

Juan:

Even in that case, people can arrange things in order to stay at home if they want. Not to mention that the amount of 'families' who need two people working in order to avoid starvation is probably close to ZERO.

You're still evading the fact that taxes and inflation do indeed force people to maintain more than two jobs at any given time (both single individuals and parents). It's even becoming common to find people with three jobsp to maintain their living standard. Thus, you're evading the point entirely. So, refer to Mr. Bolger above as to why you're fracking off the wagon of intellectual discussion!

Byzantine:

Not everyone is a homosexual male.  In fact, only about 5% of the population is.  And they can't reproduce biologically.

So there doesn't seem to be any compelling need to listen to them.

Well, first, it's 3% total pop as one person stated earlier, but more importantly, I'm a bisexual that leans heavily on the pink side of the spectrum (aka I liek teh butt secks...). So, for me it's not a matter of giving one's opinion on the familt unit structure has much to do with one's sexuality as to whether their opinion is valid or not.

Rather, it's whether one accepts the fact that some folks want to hang out together more than just a night at a bar. Some folks want to lay down roots and make connections that become the basis of a family. Hell, how many non-genetically direct relations are there in a family? Probably quite a few, considering the Catholic tradition of god-parents. Family isn't the atomic family. It's all possible configurations of social relations that has some biological aspect of reproduction involved (to make children). So what's the heart of family is the capacity for a group of individuals to come together and care for children. What folks like Juan don't grasp is that family isn't this evil bane of liberty.

It's the fact that families are diverse in configuration is what makes liberty worthwhile. That my neighbor may be in a polyandry familial structure compared to another neighbor who focuses on some Mormom whacky polygamy configuration both being in a sharp contrast to the family which I was raised, thus the specified or typified configuration is not important. It's the freedom to make a family that's important. Just as the freedom to property and self-determination (as the freedom to self-determine what kind of family (if one should want one)) is similarly important. Juan seems to want a world full of free peoples, but none free to make a family they see fit as natural to their preferences and outlook. Maybe I'm strawmanning on that point, but that's all I can conceive as the thrust of his ideas (as he's never presented his own take on the nature of family and society).

ladyattis:

You're still evading the fact that taxes and inflation do indeed force people to maintain more than two jobs at any given time (both single individuals and parents).

Yes, if they want to maintain their arbitrary "standard of living", which, get this, might have been artificially raised by interventions on the credit market, for instance.

By the way, you evaded all the points I made.

ps : I'd love to hear your 'biological' theory showing that women are genetically endowed with cooking abilities.

ladyattis:

but that's all I can conceive as the thrust of his ideas (as he's never presented his own take on the nature of family and society).

Well, I'm not much of a social planner after all...As to the nature of society, come on, there's no such thing as society, only individuals. All I can tell you, and I suppose you already know it, is that 'society' should be purely voluntary cause individuals are not to be coerced.

So let me modify this a bit

I:

No, absent intervention, the 'family' would not have a definite and 'natural' structure. in which the male parent is the only one who works.

Doesn't seem very different from this

You:

It's the fact that families are diverse in configuration is what makes liberty worthwhile.

So, I'm not sure what the quarrel is about. Although I might point that you have it backwards : given freedom people can choose what they want not what the theocrats dictate.

Byzantine:

The nuclear family is an artificial model, enabled by the post-WWII vision of mom, dad, two kids and their car, living out in suburbs that never would have been built in a truly free market.

Polygamous society does not work. A few older men monopolize sexual relations with the women so all the young, productive men leave. It's Big Man society, like Africa and Utah before the latter realized the model was not sustainable.

Polyandrous societies are similarly dystopic. Black America is an example of this, and secular democracy is working hard to make sure this trickles up.

So....what's the natural and proper system...according to you ?

Byzantine:

Polygamous society does not work.  A few older men monopolize sexual relations with the women so all the young, productive men leave.  It's Big Man society, like Africa and Utah before the latter realized the model was not sustainable.

Yet many countries and tribes on Earth have polygamous familial institutions. And many of these have produced many economic ventures of their own in the past and at present

Byzantine:

Polyandrous societies are similarly dystopic.  Black America is an example of this, and secular democracy is working hard to make sure this trickles up.

Similar to Polygamy, there are nations and tribes predicated on these values in a sustainable format. Unless for both cases you can categorically prove their unsustainability a priori you don't have a leg to stand on. Whereas in terms of both anthropology and Praxeological reasoning I have the high ground, Anakin. ;)

 

Juan:

As to the nature of society, come on, there's no such thing as society, only individuals.

So there's no such thing as the Internet, only computers? You know what Daniel Dennett calls your sort of reasoning? Greedy Reductionism. If we go by your logic, there's no human mind, just neurons firing all at different times. Atoms bumping into each other at different times and spaces. And so on.

Understand that there are two kinds of hierarchies in terms of existence: epistemological and ontological. In terms of society, society is an epistemological, in that we can perceive that it is not a unit on its own in terms of exclusive features, but at the same time there are unique phenomena that cannot be instantiated by singular individuals alone (in asocial formats). Thus, any assertion that society doesn't exist in terms of human existence and socialization is down right retarded (to put it mildly). As such, I argue for an IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) styled thesis of consideration of societies and human interactions because in terms of how societies and social interactions form, they are not predicated on a priori principles in the kind of prescription/normative thinking. Rather they depend on the same features of the action axiom (and even Rand's own premise of integration and differentiation in terms of personal epistemologies), so there's much room for variation.

Juan:

So, I'm not sure what the quarrel is about. Although I might point that you have it backwards : given freedom people can choose what they want not what the theocrats dictate.

Or more properly stated; that all social interactions and institutions are forged on the conditions set in the environment, both personally and impersonally.

ladyattis:

So there's no such thing as the Internet, only computers? You know what Daniel Dennett calls your sort of reasoning? Greedy Reductionism. If we go by your logic, there's no human mind, just neurons firing all at different times. Atoms bumping into each other at different times and spaces. And so on.

Wrong analogies : fail. Now, you know what the holistic views of 'society' are called no ?

Understand that there are two kinds of hierarchies in terms of existence: epistemological and ontological. In terms of society, society is an epistemological, in that we can perceive that it is not a unit on its own in terms of exclusive features, but at the same time there are unique phenomena that cannot be instantiated by singular individuals alone (in asocial formats). Thus, any assertion that society doesn't exist in terms of human existence and socialization is down right retarded (to put it mildly).

I'm only concerned with relations between individuals. Those relations of course exist. No, there is still no 'society.'

As such, I argue for an IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) styled thesis of consideration of societies and human interactions because in terms of how societies and social interactions form, they are not predicated on a priori principles in the kind of prescription/normative thinking.

... Not sure what you mean. Anyways, I'm only concerned with voluntary interaction, which by definition is something that happens (or not) at the individual level. I don't see where infinite combinations and other infinite stuff fits in. We're not talking about maths are we ? This is not computer science either.

Juan:

Wrong analogies : fail. Now, you know what the holistic views of 'society' are called no ?

No, I don't. Please explain.

Juan:

I'm only concerned with relations between individuals. Those relations of course exist. No, there is still no 'society.'

I think we're still talking past each other. Society is the network of individuals that interact and/or aggregate/defer decision making to others.

Juan:

Anyways, I'm only concerned with voluntary interaction, which by definition is something that happens (or not) at the individual level. I don't see where infinite combinations and other infinite stuff fits in.

IDIC in terms of the fact that no one given configuration of social institution(s) isn't inherent to the [social] universe of human interactions.

Juan:

We're not talking about maths are we ? This is not computer science either.

You're confusing what I'm talking about. In fact, half of what I speak of is in fact purely in the sphere of Anthropology in as much as I'm describing a class of relations in which human beings seem to have adopted in history (past and present). Similarly, I'm avoiding any final judgments as to which are optimal or otherwise as no universal theory of social interaction beyond Praxeology has been formulated with any success.

 

Byzantine:

I suppose they are sustainable, as in the Ivory Coast or Yemen will probably keep their TFR at replacement.  Not that people who use phrases like 'a priori' will ever live there.

Yet Cote d'Ivoire isn't as backwater as you might assume.Yemen, same thing.

Byzantine:

The experiment of polyandry in the West has given us black America's welfare-dependent matriarchies and, on the SWPL side of the tracks, cratering birth rates.

Still, you have to look at countries that have matrinial(sp?) and matriarchal structures like Afghanistan. They're not the top of the technological world, but prior to the Taliban and other outsider influences, they had a relatively peaceful existence (and was the birthplace of the Agricultural Revolution, some thousands of years ago).  So, I suspect the formation of such structures weren't due to welfarism, but rather due to lack of technologies and techniques to know who was who in terms of family. Thus, to insure proper ownership transference of capital (land was this for them), knowing for sure you had a mother and who she was a better bet than following some hoodoo religious tripe (of their day...).

Juan:

ladyattis:

Juan:

Do you think that women are naturally predestined to 'raise children' and cook ?

In terms of biology? Yes. In terms of training, experience, and values? Not necessarily.

Is this a bad joke ? Women are biologically determined to COOK ?

Lady, honestly, I am completely shocked you would make such a ridiculous statement. What presupposes that women are biologically determined to cook? All I see are social norms which can be accepted or denied.

Cain, read the quote right, you're not absorbing what was said. *sigh*

ladyattis:

Cain, read the quote right, you're not absorbing what was said. *sigh*

Stop writing in such an obscure fashion! Can women raise children and cook? Yes. Are they made for it [implying that they are naturally assumed to do these functions]? No

Are you saying the former or latter?