Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[LiveFromUkraine]

Nope.  I'm not saying birth rates are important for society either.  Society won't cease to exist if birth rates decline, and society won't cease to exist if birth rates climb.  Society is just a group of people, regardless if there are more or less people in that society tomorrow.

I'm saying that society does not require individuals (or couples) to have children.  Society (as a whole) has no rights superior to the rights of the individuals.  Society doesn't (and can't) require people to have children.

Japan is not capable of experiencing emotion.  Japan is an imaginary abstract concept.  Japan is not a person.  Japan is the name folks call a geographic area.  Nation states come and nation states go.

I don't think anyone said Japan, as a country, experiences emotion.  It is the people of that country that make up Japan.  When stating a country, like Japan, we are typically speaking of the people in that country.   Arguing otherwise is splitting hairs so to speak.

They could do away with all social programs, and make people responsible for themselves.  There would be some short-term initial pain as people readjusted, but the free market would quickly balance things out.
Individual quality of life should actually improve as the total population declines as there will be the same amount (or more) of resources, divided up among a smaller number of people.

This sounds like the typical Republican response.


Anyway , that may work for the younger generation but certainly wouldn't be good for the older that have already worked and paid into the "system".   Our own social security systems is more like a pyramid scheme.  If we don't have enough paying in the older generations won't get anything.


It also doesn't work if the jobs are not there so people can be responsible for themselves.. which we are experiencing in America.


Continuing with Japan, for the moment, the amount of hours worked is already at a very high rate.  If memory serves, they outwork America in hours.  Less population means less productivity.  It may work if companies only competed on a local landscape but we are now competing in a global economy.   You either bring in more immigration or send jobs overseas. 

[alex330]

Anyway , that may work for the younger generation but certainly wouldn't be good for the older that have already worked and paid into the "system".   Our own social security systems is more like a pyramid scheme.  If we don't have enough paying in the older generations won't get anything.

Unfortunately for the older generation the younger generation understands there will be nothing for them. Many no longer play by the rules. At least those who are intelligent and making good money. Many are starting to bypass the system as Bee Farmer mentions. It can no longer be trusted. Many that I communicate with feel this way and are taking measures.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Unfortunately for the older generation the younger generation understands there will be nothing for them. Many no longer play by the rules. At least those who are intelligent and making good money. Many are starting to bypass the system as Bee Farmer mentions. It can no longer be trusted. Many that I communicate with feel this way and are taking measures.

I hear ya.  I never planned my retirement around social security being available to me.  I look at it as another tax at this point.

[Patagonie]

Boethius, it is said that if you give someone enough rope, they will hang themselves with it - and you just hung yourself with that statement.  You destroyed your entire argument, and reinforced the opposing arguments.

Whether or not women bear children has no place in any discussion of equality or feminism  because it is IRRELEVANT.  Men have less neural connections between the halves of the brain, which allows them to concentrate on individual tasks (women have more connections, making it easier for them to multi-task) but if a guy brought that up, it would quickly (and rightly) be dismissed as irrelevant.  Men and women both have gender specific advantages and disadvantages (which can't be changed by legislation) but they do not affect equal rights.

The moment someone brings up the argument that women are the ones who bear children, they expose their true argument.  They are not interested in equality - they are arguing in favor of special rights.  Someone cannot argue in favor of special rights, and at the same time, be arguing in favor of equal rights.

Not all women have kids, some parents use surrogates to bear their children for them, and some parents simply adopt.  Any argument about women bearing children is moot and irrelevant.

+1

[Miquel Westano]

That is statist nonsense.  First, society does NOT require individuals to have children.  It is a personal CHOICE (not a societal requirement) if they have children.  Secondly, individuals do not create children - COUPLES create children.

******Snipped for space.******

If women don't want to lose the hours from the workplace, they can choose not to have children.  The problem is, the women are wanting special rights at the expense of everyone else, so the women can have their cake and eat it too.

I am impressed with this response.  I have read a lot of your stuff, and I had no idea how intelligent you could lay out your thoughts.  This is not meant as sarcasm.  I wish there were more of this on the forum.  I may not agree with all those points 100%, but I applaud the orderly and polite way it was presented.

Those were all valid points of consideration on a very complex issue.  Nice post.

[fathertime]

I hear ya.  I never planned my retirement around social security being available to me.  I look at it as another tax at this point.

Well I believe SS shall be there!  You and I are about the same age, and may be required to work a few extra years by the time we hit retirement age, but I'm expecting that, and believe it will be necessary. 

Unfortunately for the older generation the younger generation understands there will be nothing for them. Many no longer play by the rules. At least those who are intelligent and making good money. Many are starting to bypass the system as Bee Farmer mentions. It can no longer be trusted. Many that I communicate with feel this way and are taking measures.

If you are talking about under the table income, I have to agree that their is a very large market for that...those that engage in the underground market aren't receiving SS credits and will be paid less, or nothing at all.  Still there is a large pool of people involved in SS, and I imagine if there ever were a shortfall, the federal government would take steps to bolster/fund SS for those that had been contributors to the fund.


Fathertime! 

[alex330]

If you are talking about under the table income, I have to agree that their is a very large market for that...those that engage in the underground market aren't receiving SS credits and will be paid less, or nothing at all.  Still there is a large pool of people involved in SS, and I imagine if there ever were a shortfall, the federal government would take steps to bolster/fund SS for those that had been contributors to the fund.

Yes, I am referring to the fast growing underground market and those running under the radar. They are not worried about SS credits, they no longer believe in the system and invest in in other ways.

And yes, the pool of people is still enormous and the base is large, but not sure I agree with your last statement. For you guys it may be there, for those a few years younger than us I am not so sure.

[Slumba]

Yes, I am referring to the fast growing underground market and those running under the radar. They are not worried about SS credits, they no longer believe in the system and invest in in other ways.

And yes, the pool of people is still enormous and the base is large, but not sure I agree with your last statement. For you guys it may be there, for those a few years younger than us I am not so sure.

No one under the age of 50 seriously believes SS will pay out anything useful.

Since we are on an FSU related forum, it is easy enough to point to the pensions which are paid out - they got the promised number of rubles per month; but the currency was devalued so much that those rubles were not worth much.

USA might be an exceptional nation (or was) but you can't escape reality forever.  Serious structural stuff is not being handled properly:

ObamaCare: a machine-gun/money-vacuum aimed straight at the productive middle-class

Wall Street financialization: hand in hand with the corrupt Federal Reserve

Failed wars, as bad as Golitsyn's claiming that he had succeeded in Crimea when he hadn't even got near it - and losing 35K men as a result.

Taxation at all levels of government; an ever-increasing bureaucracy.

Some think, why pay into SS?  No one else is following the rules either...

[Miquel Westano]

Well I believe SS shall be there!  You and I are about the same age, and may be required to work a few extra years by the time we hit retirement age, but I'm expecting that, and believe it will be necessary. 

That is one of the biggest problems with our government.  They took money for years based on promises of retiring at 65 at 100%.  Then when they pissed away the money, they moved the age to collect full benefits and want to move it again.

From the days of the Native Americans, through today, the US Government has continually promised it's citizens things it has reneged on.  That is the reason I would love to see a complete reset.  The politicians have rigged it so they never have to live with the commoners and are never affected by their pathetic proposals like the socialized medicine debacle or social security.  We always hear of social security cuts, but never of congressional retirement benefits being slashed.  Odd, huh?

I am sick of a bunch of elitist politicians enacting cuts and new rules for us, that do not apply to them.  The world is changing and the pack mules are getting tired of carrying the water and never getting a drink.  If Shillary wins, and the trends continue, there will be a day of reckoning coming soon.  The middle class is tired of the career welfare recipient, the crooked politician and the useless government employee who gives substandard work for above standard pay.

Think what you want, but there are a lot of people sick of the way this country is spiraling down.  They are mostly the ones paying the freight.  When they pack it in, the economy tanks almost instantly and rule of law goes out the window. 

[Slumba]

Yes, source is British:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1864677/i-had-sex-with-eight-lads-on-girls-holiday-and-caught-an-sti-and-im-terrified-ive-given-it-to-boyfriend/

I am 20 and have been with my lovely boyfriend for almost two years.

He is 22.

I went on a girls’ holiday to Crete a month ago.

There were six of us sharing an apartment.

We were out on the town every evening and met a bunch of lads who we all got on well with.

We spent most of the holiday with them, sunbathed and partied together, going round the bars and clubs in the evening.

When one of the guys came on to me the first evening, I was having such a good time I hardly gave my boyfriend a second thought.

I danced the night away with this guy then went back to his apartment.

The sex was awesome.

I did feel guilty the next day but it soon wore off.

The same thing happened the rest of the holiday.

By the time we were ready to go home, I’d had sex with eight different men.

I started to worry when I developed symptoms.

I saw my GP who referred me to a clinic.

They confirmed I had an STI and said I should tell anyone I’d had sexual contact with so they could have treatment too.

That was impossible because I mostly knew these guys only by their first names.

I haven’t been in touch with any of them since I returned home.

I’ve had sex with my boyfriend so there is a risk he could be infected too.

I don’t know how to tell him.

I regret everything that happened.

I love my boyfriend so much.

I’m sure he will go mad and won’t forgive me.

I don’t want him to leave me because I gave him an STI.

I, I, I, I ... do you see the self-absorption and lack of shame? 

She is only unhappy because she got caught. (by the infection, which is proof of her infidelity)

[Boethius]

What has this got to do with feminism?

[Boethius]

If she is producing then that is not an issue unless she has a job that pays hourly. Find another. Many workplaces are flexible these days. Especially with technology and online opportunities. You can work any hours you want in your underwear from home.

We just let our VA go last month. She was a woman in India with two children (her husband does well so no starving kids). She asked for a raise and was not producing. It does not matter to my employer what the reason was. We hired a man in Romania at the same rate who produces 5 times what she does.

The labor is there, they need to make it more efficient or figure out how to harness it from elsewhere. Their way of life might change, but there is a solution.

Probably true. Hire a maid? Dry cleaner? Drink Soylent?

Ten years is a long time for a many businesses. Thirty percent of her working career? No small number there.

Too late for that.

If these attitudes are widespread, then it proves exactly why:

1.  Some AW (still a minority) remain childless;
2.  AW who have children need the protection of the courts for maintenance on marital breakdown.

It also explains a lot about American divorce rates.

[Patagonie]

If these attitudes are widespread, then it proves exactly why:

1.  Some AW (still a minority) remain childless;
2.  AW who have children need the protection of the courts for maintenance on marital breakdown.

It also explains a lot about American divorce rates.

2/ The women already have the help of the govnerment all along their life as mothers in my country. Except the alimony for children when they split with a father, i don't see any need for courts. That's a private situation.
Men needs protection of the courts to be not rapped twice, first by the taxes and second by the divorce.

[Patagonie]

The problem is, the women are wanting special rights at the expense of everyone else, so the women can have their cake and eat it too.

+1
In my country a woman can be pregnant, paid the same, and have no penalty for the career advancement. And i also imagine that she has the same vacations (need to check this one).

I have nothing special to say about that, i am ok with this.
But why the men later could have to pay a possible compensatory alimony and give back more assets than she earned?

As you said BeeF children are a personal choice, problem: that's the choice of women and not necessary of the men. A lot of time it's done WITHOUT their acceptance.
But as the legal system don't care to officialy record the willing of men the rape will continue for a long time....
Trying to rape a woman in my country is a crime, rape a man is at least an alimony.
This society don't have the same respect for the genders.

[Boethius]

2/ The women already have the help of the govnerment all along their life as mothers in my country. Except the alimony for children when they split with a father, i don't see any need for courts. That's a private situation.

Courts don't get involved unless the party required to provide support disputes it, or fails to provide that support.

Men needs protection of the courts to be not rapped twice, first by the taxes and second by the divorce.

Why should individuals shirk their personal responsibilities because the state steps in?

[Slumba]

Courts don't get involved unless the party required to provide support disputes it, or fails to provide that support.

If a court system routinely ruled that the woman got $50K up front as an initial payment for child support (hypothetical example), then negotiation by the woman's lawyer before litigation would have a slightly lesser amount, say, $45K, added by default.

You are pretending that the way courts rule, on average, on a particular type of case, doesn't affect negotiation.  That is utterly ridiculous.

[alex330]

If these attitudes are widespread, then it proves exactly why:

1.  Some AW (still a minority) remain childless;
2.  AW who have children need the protection of the courts for maintenance on marital breakdown.

It also explains a lot about American divorce rates.

I am talking about performance and equality at work. A woman is free to make whatever choice she feels best for herself. Most of the women I know are smart and realize they cannot have both. Married couples talk, sacrifices are made, and you decide what is best as a family unit and personally.

It explains nothing about divorce rates. Lack of communication, financial hardship, infidelity, or not finding common ground explain divorce rates.

[Boethius]

If a court system routinely ruled that the woman got $50K up front as an initial payment for child support (hypothetical example), then negotiation by the woman's lawyer before litigation would have a slightly lesser amount, say, $45K, added by default.

You are pretending that the way courts rule, on average, on a particular type of case, doesn't affect negotiation.  That is utterly ridiculous.

I don't have to pretend anything.  Most states have stipulated guidelines fro maintenance, so the child support that is going to be paid is predetermined. 

It is not usually child support that is an issue in disputes.  It is custody/access to children.  Most states also now have joint custody as a default, and the vast majority of cases are resolved without litigation or the threat of litigation.

[Boethius]

It explains nothing about divorce rates. Lack of communication, financial hardship, infidelity, or not finding common ground explain divorce rates.

You missed the point entirely, probably because of your mindset.  But, you did again prove my point.

[Slumba]

I don't have to pretend anything.  Most states have stipulated guidelines fro maintenance, so the child support that is going to be paid is predetermined. 

It is not usually child support that is an issue in disputes.  It is custody/access to children.  Most states also now have joint custody as a default, and the vast majority of cases are resolved without litigation or the threat of litigation.

For one, child support and custody are linked in many states.  A parent who has the kids for 12 out of 14 days will get more money than if custody if 50/50 .

I think if you had taken the time to research the variations :

between the different USA states

between employment income and self-employed (business owner) income

as far as how the courts treat things you would see an extremely wide variation.

Hint:  the site realworlddivorce.com

[Boethius]

For one, child support and custody are linked in many states.  A parent who has the kids for 12 out of 14 days will get more money than if custody if 50/50 .

Irrelevant to my point.  Legislation starts with 50/50 joint custody.  Variations are only either by negotiation or litigation.  The vast majority of custody arrangements are not litigated.  Most are agreed to by parents, either without legal representation or through mediation.

I think if you had taken the time to research the variations :

between the different USA states

between employment income and self-employed (business owner) income

as far as how the courts treat things you would see an extremely wide variation.

Hint:  the site realworlddivorce.com

Again irrelevant to my point.  You can't take an extreme you've read about on some men's rights forum and apply it as the standard.  That's not how the real world works.

[Slumba]

Irrelevant to my point.  Legislation starts with 50/50 joint custody.  Variations are only either by negotiation or litigation.  The vast majority of custody arrangements are not litigated.  Most are agreed to by parents, either without legal representation or through mediation.


Again irrelevant to my point.  You can't take an extreme you've read about on some men's rights forum and apply it as the standard.  That's not how the real world works.

You show your denseness, your impermeability to the truth, with this post.

[alex330]

You missed the point entirely, probably because of your mindset.  But, you did again prove my point.

No need for me to help prove your point. You did that yourself earlier in the thread 

[Boethius]

You show your denseness, your impermeability to the truth, with this post.

I could say the same of you.

How is child custody decided? 51% agreed on their own 29% settled without third party involvement 11% decided during mediation 5% resolved differences after a custody evaluation 4% went to trial (of the 4% that initiated litigation, only 1.5% actually completed it) [/t] http://archive.is/o3Ym8#selection-1169.0-1243.87 om the New England Law Review - Study 1: MASS 2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%) 5 year duration 29% of fathers got primary custody 65% of fathers got joint custody 7% of mothers got primary custody Study 2: MASS 700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody 6 years 67% of fathers got primary custody 23% of mothers got primary custody Study 3: MASS 500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody 6 years 41% of fathers got sole custody 38% of fathers got joint custody 15% of mothers got sole custody Study 4: Los Angeles 63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful Study 5: US appellate custody cases 51% of fathers who sought custody were successful http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm The point is, most custody arrangements never go through litigation.  It is not because of judicial bias that his occurs.  It is because most parents really do wish to make their divorce as painless as possible on their children.

[Slumba]

I could say the same of you.

Stats you quote are from what years, again?