Data suggests this is in declining numbers.
Winners arent winning; we’re living in idiocracy.
3 Likes
This is actually very important. Being a devil’s advocate for someone is kind of a service for that person.
I made no mention of “high status” I said “money, status, the ability to provide is still king.” Status is that ability.
What do you consider high status?
I posted the article that mentioned $140k. I have also read anywhere from 100-150k for an individual to be seen as a “viable option”. Obviously more is better.
That is not crazy. I would not consider that “high status”.
If a guy can’t do that then…he will lose.
Some accountability has to be taken.
Thanks, clippy
Just for the side note, I’ve always found it interesting how much people in US value income. It seems very important for people to be gaining at least 100-200k a year.
Not surprising, if you think how your society is build. But it’s still relatively alien concept for me.
Always ready.
Unless you’re version of this includes pallets of ammunition and regular target practice, I think our definitions vary greatly here.
1 Like
My bullets are intangible.
(Not that I don’t have training with guns.)
It’s just occurred to me, I guess because of the way you wrote it out this time, that the issue is that we don’t teach our little kids in a morality-focused manner, probably starting with the very late Boomers and into Gen X. We hadn’t gone fully child-centered yet, but we were the weed smoking latchkey check-outs. Parents were selfish and the kids were lost. Those kids (me) then reacted by wanting our kids to feel loved and valued, and the self-esteem era started, leaving us with the “I’m the center” generation. Child-parent estrangement is way up - the kids of decent parents (by which I mean mediocre - not great, but not abusive) deciding that “I need to separate myself for my mental health,” or basically when they JUST CAN’T with their irritating parents/jobs/boy-girlfriends stating “I just want some space” which we now teach children to take if they feel cranky or need a time out in a safe space.
My parents lacked morality in some ways. They were both professionals, but they weren’t good parents, and they would steal from restaurants and tennis clubs (a glass they liked, good towels) or lie if it was convenient. As you know, after they fell apart I did too - I was an “at risk youth,” as we say in the business. As a result of that and because I’ve always been a voracious reader (which my parents deserve credit for, as they were, too) morality was very important to me as a parent. Weirdly so. We had an easel with a blackboard on it, on which I wrote quotes - the most noble thoughts of the most noble people in history, from a Dictionary of Quotations that the kids gave me the year my bestie gave me the blackboard. (OMG! I just figured out my Christmas gift all of the women in my family will get for Christmas! A blackboard and an easel! YAY!!!)
Where was I? Oh…morality…I loved my kids and they were the center of our family and got participation trophies, but they were also taught about duty. Duty to their families (the families they’re creating, one another, and their father and myself), STRONG work ethics (I didn’t do this alone, credit to my ex here), and continual self-education. My youngest married his high school sweetheart. They have kids and are buying a second house at age 30, so would fit your ideal. Faithful and ambitious toward shared goals. However he also got into trouble as a teen and she stuck with him, which if you were her dad would have eliminated him as a prospect. They had very rocky times early on, especially with young babies. They’re only recently really flourishing.
It’s much more complicated than men vs women. People who marry and have kids later do better. But we have currently a hopeless generation - financially and romantically. People aren’t having kids because poverty feelings now extend well into the middle class.
I think it’s parenting that needs to change, not M/F relationships. People don’t know how to be selfless now, unless they’re lucky enough to figure it out on their own, as I did and you did and my kids seem to be doing.
3 Likes
You do realize that if you make 140k per year, that 87% of people (men and women) in America earn less than you, right?
Another source says that >140k per year income is top 10 percentile of incomes amongst American men of any age. Married, fat, midget, all are included.
1 Like
Just like when you said
You said nothing more.
What does the data suggest? The top 5% of earners is only around 10% childless. That is around $200k.
Yes, they tend to have less children but, why is that an issue? We are no longer farmers why do people need to have 6 kids?
We are talking about the ability for a man to provide and raise a family. The “idiocracy” issue has do to with the way our country is run. It is in large part a govt. issue.
Because the poor and stupid are still breeding like they wont have to pay for their children’s care.
2 Likes
And I said.
What do you suggest be done? We have to make life easier for those that can’t compete?
How is that different than lowering military, LEO, educational test standards for those that are unfit to compete?
make houses more affordable by forcing all corporations to sell off their single-family houses. 10% sold per year for the next 10 years.
increases starter home supply - lowers cost.
Stop exporting our jobs via H1B visas.
more jobs for middle class skillsets.
Deport all illegals ASAP.
increases supply of houses - lowers cost.
Stop funding generations of welfare families.
Someone has to pay for these babies, and it isnt gonna be the govt. Decentivizes the poor and lazy from having kids when they cannot afford them.
3 Likes
Most young men don’t start their careers at 100k.
Many men who build and operate things don’t earn that either.
What should they be accountable for? They already are accountable men.
Regarding status, no, 100 to 150k is certainly not high status.
As an aside, if I were single, young or middle age these days, I wouldn’t let a damn thing deter me from trying to find a woman and would only give up if enormous effort didn’t pay off for years, like literally being rejected or going on failed dates hundreds of times.
1 Like
wimminz
1 Like
But, why does this matter to them? Those people can’t compete with them, and their children will be in the same hole they are, working for the kids of the earners.
How does that hurt the incels? How does it affect them?
Which is why I said
What are the chances of any of that happening? Since those chances are slim the only option is succeeding financially and bettering oneself instead of becoming a recluse playing video games, and smoking weed all day.
That’s where you’re wrong.
The earners are working for the poor because we have to pay for their unwillingness to work.
2 Likes
You’re missing another option, but I don’t blame you for missing it.
1 Like