It appears you have not registered with our community. To register please click here ...

!!

Welcome to Russian Women Discussion - the most informative site for all things related to serious long-term relationships and marriage to a partner from the Former Soviet Union countries!

Please register (it's free!) to gain full access to the many features and benefits of the site. Welcome!

+-

Author Topic: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12  (Read 109050 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #525 on: September 26, 2016, 11:40:37 AM »
The feminist movement, from his study of it, has been hijacked by its leaders to propel themselves into position of power/money/influence at the expense of other women.  I never thought of it that way, but in some respects, I can't disagree.

I needed  a lot of time to figure out that's the worst inequality is between women and feminists NEVER talk about equally sharing the fruits of their battle, that's the signature of an unhealthy motive and goal.
They absolutely want to pursue the old system that is favouring the sexual selection and the social preselection by birth but just to secure and increase their benefits from such situation.
It's only rewarding a tiny fraction of the women.



No, I disagree with this to a degree.


I think feminism has benefited large numbers of women, but most of those women are in the middle class.  Women living in poverty, and women of colour, have not been the focus of feminism, and they have not benefited from it.
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #526 on: September 26, 2016, 11:42:21 AM »

Pat brings up a very valid point. In this day and age from an operations standpoint it does not make sense. When companies are cutting benefits, shifting from W2 to 1099 hires, moving offshore, and laying off senior employees to hire younger and cheaper replacements a 10-20% reduction in operations costs is enormous. If it was exactly the same performance level why the difference?


Because women still are the ones who bear children.

After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Slumba

  • Banned Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1462
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #527 on: September 28, 2016, 12:25:14 PM »



If you won't vote for the sociopathic, corrupt, lying, wife of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend, you hate your own wife.

43K followers on Twitter; author, feminist, female lawyer (no comment).

http://twitter.com/JillFilipovic

FEMINISM IS CANCER
Me gusta ir de compras con mi tarjeta verde...

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #528 on: September 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PM »
Irony impairment.
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Slumba

  • Banned Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1462
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #529 on: September 28, 2016, 10:41:53 PM »


Aaron Russo, now deceased, was a documentary filmmaker.  In 2006 he came out with "America: From Freedom to Fascism" which was described as:

"A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America."

The IMDB page for it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/

During the course of filming it, he sat down with one of the Rockefellers (see image above) and had an exchange about feminism. 

It's a thought-provoking question: was feminism an elite-sponsored method of breaking down the strength of the family unit?

Looking around today, families do seem a lot weaker than before...
Me gusta ir de compras con mi tarjeta verde...

Offline Bee Farmer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #530 on: September 29, 2016, 05:59:09 AM »
Quote
Because women still are the ones who bear children.

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.

Offline jone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7281
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Committed > 1 year
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #531 on: September 29, 2016, 10:19:44 AM »
Not to them its not.
Kissing girls is a goodness.  It beats the hell out of card games.  - Robert Heinlein

Offline Slumba

  • Banned Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1462
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #532 on: September 29, 2016, 10:49:38 AM »

Because women still are the ones who bear children.

Some women still bear children; but given the previous generations' having 5+ children and current 2-3 (if that) then we see a collapse in productivity, if we are going to be clear-eyed and impartial about it.  It's reasonable to expect that if some aspect of women changes, that men's attitudes towards women will also change.
Me gusta ir de compras con mi tarjeta verde...

Offline alex330

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #533 on: September 29, 2016, 11:18:24 AM »
Yea, the children statement just sunk the ship on this like others say....


Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #534 on: September 29, 2016, 04:30:24 PM »
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. 

No, it is not irrelevant. 

Society requires individuals to create children (and future workers/taxpayers).  Workplaces should recognize the fact that workers (usually, but not always) who are women are going to be absent from the workforce for a period and not penalize them by putting them on a "mommy track".

Equality does not mean that individuals must be treated identically in every situation.  That has never occurred in the male world, and it does not occur today.  But what is occurring, is that women are being penalized for becoming mothers, and even if they don't bear children, they usually are paid less than men.  They are also penalized if they are married, because women usually spend more time on household chores than do men.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/25/the-surprising-reason-why-lesbians-get-paid-more-than-straight-women/

Quote
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.

Also irrelevant.  Women still have higher childcare burdens, and household chore burdens, which means they are not as available to the workforce.

Your comment confirms to me you have never raised children.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 04:49:54 PM by Boethius »
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #535 on: September 29, 2016, 04:32:42 PM »
Some women still bear children; but given the previous generations' having 5+ children and current 2-3 (if that) then we see a collapse in productivity, if we are going to be clear-eyed and impartial about it.  It's reasonable to expect that if some aspect of women changes, that men's attitudes towards women will also change.


Having fewer than five children is not really because of feminism.  It is because of the availability of birth control. 







After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #536 on: September 29, 2016, 04:53:18 PM »
It's reasonable to expect that if some aspect of women changes, that men's attitudes towards women will also change.


I don't have an issue with that.  I doubt most women do, either.
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline alex330

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #537 on: September 29, 2016, 05:17:58 PM »
Society requires individuals to create children (and future workers/taxpayers).  Workplaces should recognize the fact that workers (usually, but not always) who are women are going to be absent from the workforce for a period and not penalize them by putting them on a "mommy track".

"Workplaces should do this" -  it does not work like that anymore. You either produce or you are not needed. People are expendable in this day and age.

There is no shortage of labor in the world. Just the opposite in fact, so using future workers as a reason is nonsense. And that trend will continue with technology. It is ruthless and will not get any easier.

Women still have higher childcare burdens, and household chore burdens, which means they are not as available to the workforce.

That's a personal choice women must make. If they want to pursue a career and bring home the bacon then skip the kids or have a stay at home dad. Household chores? Hire a maid or marry a man who helps more. Why should an employer cover this burden?

If I own a fembot factory I only care who produces the most in a given week. Nothing else matters. And when I can replace a man, woman, offshore it to mars, write software, or buy a robot to cut my production costs by 20% I will do it.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #538 on: September 29, 2016, 05:27:02 PM »

"Workplaces should do this" -  it does not work like that anymore. You either produce or you are not needed. People are expendable in this day and age.


You are assuming a woman who works fewer hours is not producing.  That is not accurate, in my experience.


In my field, women tend do be more productive during workplace hours.  But they are not there at night, usually.  They almost all work through lunch.  Men don't.


The point is not to keep an unproductive worker.  The point is that workplaces need to be flexible.


Quote
There is no shortage of labor in the world. Just the opposite in fact, so using future workers as a reason is nonsense. And that trend will continue with technology.

Yes.  Europe is really finding that to be an accurate statement, isn't it?  Or FSU individuals in the West, on the other side.


Quote
That's a personal choice women must make. If they want to pursue a career and bring home the bacon then skip the kids or have a stay at home dad. Household chores? Hire a maid or marry a man who helps more. Why should an employer cover this burden?


Stay at home fathers are never as productive as stay at home mothers.  Even men who help a lot never shoulder the same burden (as a group) in terms of division of childcare and household chores.  That is a reality, not an opinion.


Why?  Because the period where that woman will need fewer hours is not really that long, ten years at most.  But I would suggest that governments recognize this in terms of, payroll remittances.

Quote
If I own a fembot factory I only care who produces the most in a given week. Nothing else matters. And when I can replace a man, woman, offshore it to mars, write software, or buy a robot to cut my production costs by 20% I will do it.


Fair enough.  Then don't blame feminists for the drop in birth rates, or blame governments for globalizing trade, or blame US corporations for moving operations offshore (or suggest they be taxed for that), or blame consumers for buying products online from countries where they are produced more cheaply. 
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline alex330

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #539 on: September 29, 2016, 06:19:19 PM »
You are assuming a woman who works fewer hours is not producing.  That is not accurate, in my experience.

The point is not to keep an unproductive worker.  The point is that workplaces need to be flexible.

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.

Europe is really finding that to be an accurate statement, isn't it?

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.

Stay at home fathers are never as productive as stay at home mothers.  Even men who help a lot never shoulder the same burden (as a group) in terms of division of childcare and household chores.  That is a reality, not an opinion.

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

Why?  Because the period where that woman will need fewer hours is not really that long, ten years at most. 

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

Fair enough.  Then don't blame feminists for the drop in birth rates, or blame governments for globalizing trade, or blame US corporations for moving operations offshore (or suggest they be taxed for that), or blame consumers for buying products online from countries where they are produced more cheaply.

Too late for that.

Offline Anotherkiwi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4089
  • Country: nz
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #540 on: September 29, 2016, 06:43:41 PM »
We just let our VA go last month.

This time I'm NOT yanking your chain...what is a VA?  I thought that stood for Veterans' Administration.

Offline alex330

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #541 on: September 29, 2016, 06:46:59 PM »
This time I'm NOT yanking your chain...what is a VA?  I thought that stood for Veterans' Administration.


Virtual assistant. Apparently cost of living is going up in India so cheaper and better for us to hire in Eastern Europe now.

Offline Bee Farmer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #542 on: September 29, 2016, 08:40:50 PM »
Quote
Society requires individuals to create children (and future workers/taxpayers).

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.

Thirdly, people are NOT required to be workers/taxpayers.  People do not exist to serve the state.  The state exists to serve the people.  Duh.
People have the choice to care for the home, and never be taxpayers.  (Or in the US, they can choose to not engage in a federally privileged activity that subjects them to the federal excise income tax).  People are not required to be taxpayers.

Quote
Workplaces should recognize the fact that workers (usually, but not always) who are women are going to be absent from the workforce for a period and not penalize them by putting them on a "mommy track".

Why should a workplace be penalized by a workers choice to be absent from the workplace?  If a worker makes a personal choice to engage in an activity that makes them absent from work, the worker should be held fully responsible.  If I choose to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery that makes me absent from the workplace, should the workplace be penalize because of my personal decision?  Of course not.

There is a simple solution.  A woman (or man) who works for someone else should not receive any benefits she/he would not get if she/he was working for themself.  If they started their own business, and they decided to take time off work to have/care for children, they would have to pay for it out of their own pocket and take a loss in pay.  Thus, if they work for someone else, they should still have to take the loss in pay.

Quote
Equality does not mean that individuals must be treated identically in every situation. 


Equality most definitely does mean individuals must be treated equally in every situation.  Equal rights does NOT mean equality.  (With equal rights, everyone can have the equal right to own property, and the equal opportunity to acquire property, but it doesn't mean they will have equal amounts of property.  Equal amounts of property is equality.)  There is a difference between equality and equal rights.  Do not confuse the two.

Quote
But what is occurring, is that women are being penalized for becoming mothers, and even if they don't bear children, they usually are paid less than men.

What is preventing women from starting/owning their own business?  They will get paid based upon what they do, just like men are paid.

If women are paid less than men, it is because they are less productive.  If they are equally productive, but paid less, they would simply take their productivity elsewhere or work for themselves, where they would be paid based upon what they do. 

The free market will resolve any pay issues, if we only allow it to.

Quote
They are also penalized if they are married, because women usually spend more time on household chores than do men.

Men usually spend more time than women on outside chores.  So what? 

Why should other folks be penalized because a woman chooses to spend time on household chores?

If a woman doesn't want to be penalized by spending time on household chores, she can work as much as a man in the workplace, and hire someone else to do domestic work. 

Quote
Women still have higher childcare burdens, and household chore burdens, which means they are not as available to the workforce.

Women can hire out the childcare and household chores.  Why should others be penalized because the woman chooses not to hire someone else to do domestic work, so she can spend more time in the workforce?

Men don't think anything of hiring someone to mow the lawn, shovel snow, do handyman work around the place, etc.  Men have household chores to.  If women want equality and equal rights, those women can hire someone to do the household chores they don't want to do, or don't have the time to do - just like men do.

Quote
Your comment confirms to me you have never raised children.

Your comment confirms that you think women should be entitled to special privileges, simply because they are a woman.  Your comment also confirms that you do not understand allocating labor and resources where they are most efficiently used.

Quote
Having fewer than five children is not really because of feminism.  It is because of the availability of birth control. 

Nonsense.  It has to do with productivity and efficiency.  Prior generations that lived on farms (100 years ago, 80% of Americans lived on farms) needed large families because they needed farm labor.  Folks who lived in cities did not usually have the very large families, because they did not need all the labor for the household.  Extra children became a burden, rather than being a benefit.

As farming became more productive and efficient, and less labor was needed, family size was reduced.

Quote
"Workplaces should do this" -  it does not work like that anymore. You either produce or you are not needed.

There is a simple solution.  Folks can work for themselves.  They will get paid based upon what they accomplish.  And the workplace can do whatever they think should be done, because they are the workplace.

Quote
There is no shortage of labor in the world. Just the opposite in fact, so using future workers as a reason is nonsense. And that trend will continue with technology. It is ruthless and will not get any easier.

Very good point.  It's not a lack of labor.  People and businesses are becoming more productive and efficient, displacing unnecessary workers, and freeing them to find other ways of being productive.

Quote
You are assuming a woman who works fewer hours is not producing.  That is not accurate, in my experience.

You are making a false assumption in regards to what you believe he is assuming.  His statement implied they were not productive enough.

People often say that people on welfare/food stamps should get a job.  In reality, most folks on food stamps do have a job.  But their level of productivity at their job is very low, which is why everyone else is penalized and forced to subsidize them. (Instead of letting them go hungry to incentivize them to start being more productive.)

Quote
In my field, women tend do be more productive during workplace hours.  But they are not there at night, usually.  They almost all work through lunch.  Men don't.

I've never seen a workplace where women didn't take a lunch, but the men did.  (Maybe it is a Canadian culture thing?)  I take that back - I know a small business where the wife is the secretary in the office.  The husband takes a half hour lunch break in between jobs.  The wife eats lunch at her desk as she is doing paperwork/answering phones, and she leaves work an hour early because she doesn't get a lunch break.
I have seen men work double shifts, or stay over and work half the night to finish a job, whereas the women hit the door running when the shift ended.

Quote
The point is not to keep an unproductive worker.  The point is that workplaces need to be flexible.

The point is that you are arguing that a workplace needs to be flexible when the woman is the unproductive or less productive worker.

Quote
Stay at home fathers are never as productive as stay at home mothers.

And just how are you measuring productivity?
(That's comparable to arguing that women are never as productive as men in the workplace.)

Quote
Even men who help a lot never shoulder the same burden (as a group) in terms of division of childcare and household chores.  That is a reality, not an opinion.

I know a Mr. Mom.  The wife had a higher paying job, so the man quit his job to take care of the kids full-time. (All 3 kids are autistic.)  The wife is obese, and the man is physically fit.  After she got laid off, the husband started his own lawncare business, and the wife cared for the kids.  The husband did more household chores when he was the stay at home parent than the wife does now.  he still does quite a bit of the household chores, even while working fulltime at his business.

Quote
Because the period where that woman will need fewer hours is not really that long, ten years at most.  But I would suggest that governments recognize this in terms of, payroll remittances.

But government can not give to someone, without first taking it from someone else.  Why should everyone else have money taken from them, so that a woman can receive payroll remittances for 10 years while she is being less productive?

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.


Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #543 on: September 29, 2016, 08:56:13 PM »
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.



Are you saying birth rates are not important for society?  Japan would be happy to hear that. 

Offline Slumba

  • Banned Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1462
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #544 on: September 29, 2016, 09:00:06 PM »

Are you saying birth rates are not important for society?  Japan would be happy to hear that.

Japan can slowly trend downward from their current level to a lower level without any pain, actually.  The false call for more immigration into Japan will just screw it up more (as has happened in many EU countries and the USA).
Me gusta ir de compras con mi tarjeta verde...

Offline alex330

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #545 on: September 29, 2016, 09:03:07 PM »
There is a simple solution.  Folks can work for themselves.  They will get paid based upon what they accomplish.  And the workplace can do whatever they think should be done, because they are the workplace.

This is the current trend in the world. People are technically working for themselves as 1099's (independent contractors) and freelancers. This trend will continue. It is all about what you can produce or bring to the table.

Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #546 on: September 29, 2016, 09:05:29 PM »
Japan can slowly trend downward from their current level to a lower level without any pain, actually.  The false call for more immigration into Japan will just screw it up more (as has happened in many EU countries and the USA).


I don't think immigration is the answer either.  I imagine the work culture is more to blame.  Adding more immigrants to offset the real problems won't make them go away.


Disclaimer:  I am in no way an expert on Japan. 

Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #547 on: September 29, 2016, 09:06:36 PM »
This is the current trend in the world. People are technically working for themselves as 1099's (independent contractors) and freelancers. This trend will continue. It is all about what you can produce or bring to the table.


I, personally, love this new trend.  I think it is fantastic.

Offline Bee Farmer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 535
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #548 on: September 29, 2016, 10:39:05 PM »
Quote
Are you saying birth rates are not important for society?

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.

Quote
Japan would be happy to hear that.

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.

Quote
People are technically working for themselves as 1099's (independent contractors) and freelancers.

1099's are for independent contractors who are working in a federally privileged activity. 
And many people are working for themselves in private sector, non-federally privileged jobs, being paid based upon what they bring to the table - and not subject to the US income tax.

Quote
Japan can slowly trend downward from their current level to a lower level without any pain, actually.

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.

Offline Slumba

  • Banned Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1462
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: 1 - 3
Re: Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12
« Reply #549 on: September 29, 2016, 10:52:43 PM »
Bee Farmer, your view of the Federal tax system is personally interesting to me.  I recognize that it is off topic for this thread however. If you feel comfortable sharing a link to a website, or even sending me a PM on this subject, I would welcome it.
Me gusta ir de compras con mi tarjeta verde...

 

+-RWD Stats

Members
Total Members: 8883
Latest: Leroy14
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 541019
Total Topics: 20849
Most Online Today: 2385
Most Online Ever: 12701
(January 14, 2020, 07:04:55 AM)
Users Online
Members: 9
Guests: 2204
Total: 2213

+-Recent Posts

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by krimster2
Today at 06:44:55 AM

Re: Arctic Blast hit hard in most areas of USA by 2tallbill
Today at 06:36:29 AM

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by Infoman
Yesterday at 09:57:04 PM

Re: Plumber earnings by Trenchcoat
Yesterday at 09:37:55 PM

Plumber earnings by ML
Yesterday at 07:49:26 PM

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by krimster2
Yesterday at 07:23:34 PM

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by Infoman
Yesterday at 06:28:48 PM

American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by 2tallbill
Yesterday at 04:48:07 PM

Re: What to do by krimster2
Yesterday at 04:37:18 PM

If you don't know what you are talking about, post away anyway by 2tallbill
Yesterday at 04:17:08 PM

Powered by EzPortal

create account