Post Millennial Marriage Strike

Deleted, unable to quote.

I am happily unmarried. I love the peaceful solitude I have earned for myself.
I have plenty of female friends. No complaints about my sex life.
I certainly don't sit around playing video games and watching porn.
I woke up at three o'clock this morning with music in my head.
I cranked up my amp and riffed away. You can't do that with a woman sleeping next to you.

a reply to: Hushabye
You do realise that it not me making the accusations don't you. I raised the thread because I thought it worthy of exploration and I was interested to see if the undeniable trend was seen as detrimental to wider society.

a reply to: boohoo
Thank you for your candour. I took the time to read your post and I can tell you that you are certainly not alone in your opinions, in fact there seem to be many in the "Manosphere" who are in complete agreement with you.

Kind regards.

a reply to: boohoo

The majority people having more then two babies are incredibly low income people. The coming generations are going to be low skilled government dependent people and if they do wanna go to college they will be in debt. I'm not saying marriage solves this issue but having two incomes never hurts

a reply to: JDmOKI

It would seem that on balance you personally consider the trend away from marriage to be for the worse of society overall. Yes?

a reply to: skunkape23

I was woken today by a gentle touch from my lovely wife of twenty years. Your guitar can't do that.
Marriage is not for everyone, but some people really don't know what they are missing.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

There is no doubting your thoughts on the institute of Matrimony. Same question to you Sir, do you consider the trend away from marriage to be damaging to society as a whole.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
The majority people having more then two babies are incredibly low income people. The coming generations are going to be low skilled government dependent people and if they do wanna go to college they will be in debt. I'm not saying marriage solves this issue but having two incomes never hurts

This always comes up, however, remember despite the moral dilemma, governments have no trouble at all decreasing low income, low educated populations. They are in fact quite easy to control, through legal and illegal means, due to a lack of unionization and lack of strong common cultural identity. All governments have to do is deny them medical care through pricing, deny them economic opportunity so they harm one other in the territories they occupy in the quest for survival, design the legal system in a way that it can only be navigated by those with "capital" and last make them wards of the state by decree. By the way, the mere existence of these low income and low educated populations drives down the wages for the educated, the self employed and small businesses.

Here is the other part of my argument, which you may not be familiar with, but others on ATS are:

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but at the same time, not decreasing the supply. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment with" and “practice on" before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.

Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time-only engineering programs, that strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time and don’t EVER work at an unrelated job to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.

The "boot straps" paradigm has long sailed off into the sunset, never to return. There are too many people and not enough jobs available, permanently.

a reply to: boohoo

So in your opinion the trend is a symptom of the over availability of cheap labour and therefore is of itself an indicator societal decay and you therefore, presumably, consider the trend to be a bad thing?

originally posted by: hotel1
So in your opinion the trend is a symptom of the over availability of cheap labour and therefore is of itself an indicator societal decay and you therefore, presumably, consider the trend to be a bad thing?

Decay is not the right word. The trend is a symptom of the “owners of capital” not having enough desire to employ people for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day AND the lack unionization among the lower classes (essentially poor people universally thinking that "other poor people" is not their problem either).

Millennials and young X'ers, have in a way, subconsciously found a way to counter the lack of jobs being created and lack of unity among labor. How much control can big companies or government really exert over the population when there is no upcoming 18-34 year old demographic? Propaganda and bad public policy can't survive when there are NO new people whom didn't know how things were before. Imagine a situation where big business and government can't fool anybody. THAT is what refusing marriage, not making children and blocking all immigration creates.

Here is some more history to consider. During the Peasants Revolt birth rates fell dramatically in 1381, not surprisingly, the Revolt had roots in the aftermath of the Black Death. In fact, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". The sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". It was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market. Millenials and younger X'ers know that not playing ball is the only move left because the “owners of capital” will simply try to legislate behavior. Is there a better way to shut things down than to just stop making people? I'll bet the long term response from governments will be to further raise the taxes on those without children and big business starting to discriminate against those without kids or large debts.

a reply to: boohoo

I'm sorry but the last few lines of the your last paragraph are confusing to me. Surely what you suggest the governments will eventually do would go against what you say is their aim.

originally posted by: hotel1
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

There is no doubting your thoughts on the institute of Matrimony. Same question to you Sir, do you consider the trend away from marriage to be damaging to society as a whole.

More of a result of a damaged society.
It's another sign of people not taking things seriously. Meh, we will just get divorced.

originally posted by: hotel1
I'm sorry but the last few lines of the your last paragraph are confusing to me. Surely what you suggest the governments will eventually do would go against what you say is their aim.

I will clarify in simple terms, lets say current tax revenue is $100 per single person aged 18-34 and the population of these people is 1000. When that cohort ages out of being 18-34 that 1000 people needs to be replaced, preferably with more people, so they can pay a gradually inflated tax rate of $120 per single person. Imagine now if the first 1000 only has 200 people come in to replace them, the $120 rate will no longer be sufficient to replace the income of the original 1000, so the tax rate is then significantly increased to make up the difference, UNLESS of course someone has a baby, THEN those people get a percent discount, which is still more than the original rate but less than the current rate. Cable companies fees are structured very much like taxes, compare my scenario with the whole "cor-cutting" trend. Mark my words, governments first move to solve their declining population related revenue problems will be to punish people that don't make babies. Government will say, "Do you want the tax discount, so you have enough money to buy food and shelter? Have a baby and you will get a sizable tax discount, so you can do so."

Now for the big business scenario, recent history has shown us that American workers whom have kids to feed and big debts to pay, follow orders at work and don't form unions, period. Now imagine instead of 25% of your workforce being single, that 75% are single without debt. How can companies threaten these peoples jobs? How can they break unions or stop them from forming? The answer is that they won't be able to, so hiring "preferences" will be created for people that have kids and for people with big piles of debt. Is it currently illegal to not hire someone because they are single? NO, so it will very easy for big companies to implement such a policy and not break the law. Big business will say, "Do you want a job, so you have enough money to buy food and shelter? Have a baby and you will get a job, so you can do so."

My problem with marriage is I was cheated on. I got joint custody, but was made to pay a crazy amount of child support, half of medical, child care, dental, etc. Was made to hand over half of the savings account. Hell, they had me sign to allot her a percentage of my retirement. So I got out of the military to prevent that. Point is, I was so broke after divorce it was almost like an impossible hole to dig myself out of. Why would I want to repeat that?

a reply to: hotel1

"Modern culture to me is spiritually dead,"

I don't know about the rest of it. The marriage cycle is broken and the birth derth in the West is a well known fact.

But...you're comment quoted above is very, very, true. And here's the deal. When a "culture" is spiritually dead, the death of that culture can't be far behind. A spiritually "dead" culture is one in which no one really believes in anything anymore and that describes Western culture to a tee.

a reply to: hotel1

I think you've summed it up pretty nicely.

I love my GF dearly but modern women's spending habits drive me nuts. Clothes, Shoes, Beauty Supplies eating out etc. How can a man with a minimum wage part time job and a useless college degree afford to support that? Or how can a woman with a minimum wage job support herself with those kind of desires? It's impossible.

It's not just women though. Many men must have "the latest and greatest thing" and the items that men want are typically higher dollar tech items like the Xbox One or PS4. I bought one and it's just been sitting collecting dust because I don't have time for it. What a waste, it's really not that impressive either.

I'm sick of the materialistic, narcissistic, debt slave society too! Maybe men are just waking up to the reality of the economy first, because we've historically been the bread winners and now we are struggling financially?

originally posted by: asmall89
It's not just women though. Many men must have "the latest and greatest thing" and the items that men want are typically higher dollar tech items like the Xbox One or PS4. I bought one and it's just been sitting collecting dust because I don't have time for it. What a waste, it's really not that impressive either.

This is another thought that comes up frequently, but consumers will not have choices in the future.

Don't forget, policies structured like Obamacare have taught us all quite a bit about how these "counter responses" will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implament legislated purchases on a large scale.

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results in a situation where the "owners of capital", can and will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season (the current Healthcare dependent Flexible Spending Account, FSA, is just the pilot program, one day we will have an FSA for ALL goods and services, use-it or lose-it).

You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties". In the future when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).

Look at solar roof panels, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn drive down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired running the utilities.

the worldwide battle between utilities and solar

Most Americans over 40 will not work with family to build wealth TOGETHER, to grow small private businesses TOGETHER, training their young to keep that business going TOGETHER and then be willing to loan collective capital, to relatives, so they can enter & expand the markets that the families have those established businesses in.

BUT since Americans are incapable of ANY of this, the only choice left, to stem the tide, is to not get married, not have babies and oppose all forms of immigration.

I think it has been successfully established that the trend is real and that for the most part it is seen as not being good. What has not been definitely established is the reasons for the trend and wether or not society as a whole should or should not be concerned by it.

Once again thanks for participating.

originally posted by: hotel1
I think it has been successfully established that the trend is real and that for the most part it is seen as not being good. What has not been definitely established is the reasons for the trend and wether or not society as a whole should or should not be concerned by it.

Only the "owners of capital" are concerned with the trend because lower populations directly affects their pocketbooks. The "human race" will survive, so thats not the issue.

The "owners of capital" also believe that tech, along with legislation and wage control will also give them ultimate power over labor. This is where Millennials fail big time. They need to start abandoning tech, if they truly hope to have a chance at standing up to the "owners of capital". They falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by "corporate committee" to do the opposite

This kind of tech is bad for regular people whom are not part of the true "Owners of Capital" class.

Remember when cell phones were actually fun?

I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after what was considered typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought at midnight.

Right now most Americans are expected to and are coerced by employment requirements to buy/finance a car, buy/finance education, buy/finance healthcare, buy/finance insurance and eventually buy/finance a home of some kind.

Remember this is America, we have no labor protection, no union representation and no access to collective bargaining. In situations like this we are sheep to be slaughtered. Mark my words, Europeans will fare MUCH better when "fantasy tech" becomes reality.

When my parents were in school in the 1950's and 60's they were told: no one would have to work in the future, that everything would be done by robots and they would, in turn, have increased free time used for creating, making art, learning and helping others...

Robotics, the singularity, cell regeneration and AI are essentially the same lie, told to our parents, rehashed for a 21st century audience. I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech like the Singularity, AI, Robotics, etc. Do people really think when these thing finally become real, functioning, working designs, applicable to industry, that we the "peons", will somehow ALL get a Data from Start Trek or a C-3PO from Star Wars, to help us at home, at the job site or in the office, etc?

In reality we are going to get a David 8 from Prometheus/Aliens movies or the Robot Probation officer seen in filmElysium. They are going to take away jobs and make unethical policing and policy enforcement, both easier and cheaper, for the true "Owners of Capital". They won't be paying a salary to the robot worker, so the savings will instead be pumped into legal fees and political lobbying, resulting in an overall savings and good ROI for the corporations/governments and a full blown, loss of liberty, for everyone else.

Whom goes to jail when an AI robot or Mind Clone pulls your arm out of the socket? Will it be considered "negligence by the human that lost the arm", a "civil suit", "not a criminal act", etc, in court/arbitration? I personally at this point are willing to live with 1980's +/- era tech, if it means, I am more free and can continue to earn money to live off.

Elysium Probation Officer:
fourthdimensionalrecovery.files.wordpress.com... 1/probation-officer1.jpg

Introducing David 8:
www.weylandindustries.com...

In the words of David 8: “I can do almost anything that could possibly be asked of me, including things that my human counterparts might find distressing or unethical”

Sounds swell, don't it!

The only way regular people can save themselves, NOW, is to abandon tech, physically impede tech research and stop buying/supporting companies making this AI/singularity tech.

First, AI is going to make regular people jobless
Second, it is going to steal what few liberties and freedoms we have left
Third, it will make human life valueless to the true "Owners of Capital", many of whom are Closeted Fascists