Categorii
Adult69

Economia lui Obama: barbati, femei si statul bunastarii

Recent, Business Week a povestit modul in care somajul masculin a atins maximele postbelice. Richard Florida (scriitorul „clasei creative”) a scris despre subiect si in Atlantic. Atat Business Week cat si Richard Florida s-au intrebat despre provocarile politice pe care le creeaza acest decalaj. Probabil ca le era frica sa reflecte implicatiile.

Ceea ce este clar ca barbatii nu au nicio investitie in economia lui Obama sau in statul sau de bunastare, iar barbatii le sunt garantate, majoritatea, sa vrea sa o distruga. Complet, radacina si ramura.

Povestea Business Week prezinta urmatoarele grafice, care ilustreaza decalajul dintre somajul masculin si cel feminin (majoritatea cohortelor de varsta masculina sunt la maximele apropiate sau dupa razboi).

[Faceti clic pe imagine pentru a mari]

[Faceti clic pe imagine pentru a mari]

Nu este nimic nou. Americanii mai in varsta care isi amintesc de depresie stiau ca somajul masculin era mult mai mare decat somajul feminin, intrucat angajatorii ar plati femeilor mai putin decat barbatii, iar multe ocupatii chiar atunci erau considerate „feminine”, cum ar fi lucrarea de comert cu amanuntul, tinerea de carti si alte ocupatii unde unele a fost nevoie de forta de munca part-time. Intre timp, productia si extractia de resurse (minerit, lemn etc.), dominate de barbati, au fost taiate la os, deoarece stocurile au fost vandute. Fotografiile vechi ale liniilor de paine si ale somajului aveau aproape toti barbatii. Femeile au putut si s-au inteles, adesea ca principalii castigatori pentru familii, desi salariile reduse au facut din aceasta o propunere extrem de stresanta.

Pericolul pentru Obama si democrati este insa faptul ca statul de bunastare in crestere este nesustenabil fara beneficii pentru barbati. Binevoit, barbatii trebuie sa primeasca suficiente avantaje pentru ei pentru a sustine cheltuielile cu bunastarea si impozitele mai mari. Acum nu primesc nimic si, de fapt, sunt raniti pozitiv de Economia lui Obama, care este aproximativ super-dimensiunea statului de bunastare. Ceea ce nu inteleg nici Obama, nici majoritatea democratilor este ca „perna” anilor ’90 a disparut.

Dupa cum arata aceasta poveste reala a politicii din 2007, anii 90 nu au fost doar un pat de trandafiri, in special pentru barbati. Cresterea salariilor a fost depasita semnificativ de cresterea economica, pana la perioadele de boom de la sfarsitul anilor ’90, in jurul anului 1995, in care angajatorii disperati de lucratori, au licitat salariile si diverse bule, inclusiv bula Dot-Com, au crescut semnificativ salariile.

Dar anii ’90 au fost diferiti pentru barbati decat pentru femei. Link-ul Real Clear Politics, citand datele Biroului de recensamant din SUA despre „Castigurile saptamanale obisnuite” (practic toate veniturile, dar castigurile si beneficiile de capital) au produs urmatoarele grafice:

[Faceti clic pe imagine pentru a mari]

[Faceti clic pe imagine pentru a mari]

Barbatii de pana la 75 de procente (barbati care castiga salariul scazut / mediu) au prezentat scaderi semnificative ale castigurilor saptamanale obisnuite din 1993 pana in 1995. Pentru 2002 pana in 2006, aceiasi salariati cu salarii mici / mijlocii au avut scaderi mult mai mici decat la inceputul anilor 1990. In timp ce barbatii din numarul 75 si mai mare (barbati cu venituri mari) au avut castiguri modeste in anii 90, dar au castigat intr-adevar mare in anii 2000 sub George Bush. Acest lucru este valabil in special pentru al 75-lea percentil barbati care au obtinut castiguri foarte mici sub Bill Clinton, dar castiguri foarte bune sub Bush.

Intre timp, doar cel de-al zecelea procent (castigatorul de venituri inferioare) in randul femeilor a pierdut salariul in perioada 1993-1995. Femeile au aratat castiguri modeste (25 si 50%) la castiguri spectaculoase, de ordinul a aproape 9% (90% Percentile, super-bogate), sub Bill Clinton. Femeile s-au descurcat putin mai bine sub George W. Bush, peste tot, cu exceptia celui de-al 25-lea procent (chiar sub salariul mediu, dar nu si cel mai sarac), ceea ce s-a descurcat destul de bine sub George W. Bush.

Ce inseamna asta? Ca pentru majoritatea barbatilor, in special pentru veniturile medii si barbatii care castiga in crestere, George W. Bush si economia sa s-au descurcat mai bine pentru ei decat Bill Clinton. In timp ce pentru femei, efectul este inversat, dar nu la fel de puternic.

Din punct de vedere structural, economia a „functionat” doar pentru cresterea salariilor barbatilor in perioade de boom. Ceea ce ar descrie anii 1990 si perioada 2002-2006 (intr-o masura mai mica). Ocuparea femeilor si cresterea salariilor par sa apara cel mai bine in perioadele de cheltuieli ale asistentei sociale, atunci cand cresterea locurilor de munca si a salariilor se limiteaza la lucrurile pe care democratii si liberalii le cheltuiesc, precum educatia, bunastarea, asistenta medicala, serviciile sociale si altele asemenea. Pe scurt, barbatii „castiga” atunci cand economia este orientata catre exporturi stimulate de boom, constructii, fabricatie, unde lucratorii sunt necesari „acum” si instruirea se face din mers, cu accent pe flexibilitate in realizarea muncii. Femeile castiga atunci cand economia se bazeaza pe calificari, incluzand in mod crucial preferintele de gen si rasa, in serviciile sociale dominate de femei, finantate din veniturile fiscale.

Acest lucru creeaza un mare risc pentru cheltuielile sociale: barbatii nu castiga prin aceasta si vor face fata doar daca mediul economic general este atat de favorabil incat este mai usor „sa nu faci valuri” in timp ce vremurile sunt bune.

Bineinteles Cheltuielile degradeaza, desigur, capacitatea „furnizorului de beta” de a concura cu alti barbati pentru accesul sexual exclusiv la o femeie. Unul dintre factorii motori ai maternitatii si ilegitimitatii unice (a crescut de la 17% in 1980 la hispanici la peste 50%, de la 4% pentru albi in 1965 la 28% sau 41%, in functie de numerele pe care le utilizati sau 24% in 1965 pentru negri cu peste 70% la nivel national si peste 90% in Black Urban Core astazi) a reprezentat incapacitatea unui barbat „furnizor de beta” de a concura cu cheltuielile cu cheltuielile de asistenta sociala (negre si hispanici saraci) pentru cresterea veniturilor (generata de bunastare- Ocuparea serviciului social) pentru femei profesionale albe. Daca o femeie alba, cu statut social-economic profesional, castiga suficienti bani ca lucrator de „clasa creativa” sau prin cheltuieli sociale (sanatate, educatie, bunastare, mediu etc.), nu are nevoie de venitul unui „furnizor de beta” care are o probabilitate de a castiga mai putin decat ea si nici nu are nevoie de serviciile sale. Ceea ce poate fi inlocuit de bona stereotipica din El Salvador sau din alte locuri care trimit multi imigranti ilegali.

[This is why women fare more than men support Open Borders/Amnesty. Not only do White Women find no competition in the “creative class” category but very little in the social spending employment jobs. Meanwhile, lots of illegal aliens means lots of cheap nannies and other labor to replace a husband or boyfriend in child care and household tasks.]

But Barack Obama’s Economy is more than just a structural imbalance tilted towards women. It positively punishes most men, with wage losses and declines, particularly on high-end men, making powerful enemies. Machiavelli advised to kill enemies before making them poor, and that a man might forgive the murder of his father quicker than impoverishment. Obama’s economy, with high taxes, sluggish job growth, no booms in anything requiring male workers “right now” and thus competition for workers driving up wage growth, promises to take men who made a lot of money and make them poor.

What this means is that men who competed for the most important thing in their life: women, went from ordering $200 bottle service at some nightclub to impress women, to hanging around dateless and poor. While the story about “Dating a Banker Anonymous” was indeed a hoax (and the NY Times fell for it), the general outlook expressed by the women (their men were not desirable after losing jobs/income) is nevertheless broadly accurate.

Men from the 50th Percentile upwards used spare wealth from real wage growth to pay for signaling devices like Iphones, Macbook Airs, bottle service at clubs, and other displays to compete for women who no longer need merely “beta providers” of steady, faithful income and companionship, but flash, excitement, wonder, and greater wealth and social power than their own. These men have suddenly become poorer under Obama, as 82% of Obama-era layoffs are men. With little prospect that any will be hired, much less at wages equalling or exceeding their old jobs, in Government sponsored spending such as Social Services, or the Environment.

Indeed, Robert Reich on his own blog, and in testimony before Congress (and Nancy Pelosi who approves).

No money will be spent in ways that benefit “White Men” according to the Obama Administration. It will all go to White Women, unsurprising since Single Women voted for Obama 70-29.

But this imbalance creates a large mass of opposition towards Obama. Men who were middle wage earners or better, who find declining wages, or no wages, no help for them from Obama, continued preference for Women and non-Whites, and most importantly, lack of success in the dating/mating market. Even putting aside Robert Reich’s words, when was the last time anyone saw a Straight White Male working at the DMV, the local Library, or any government office?

During the Depression of the 1930’s, FDR made move after move that only made the Depression worse. He was re-elected to massive majorities because he took care of patronage, and specifically male patronage. FDR ordered the deportation in massive scales of anyone who might be in the country illegally. Non-citizens were excluded from all social benefits and programs. Blacks were suppressed in unionizing and largely excluded from government programs. White males, the most important demographic group and the only one capable of explosive action (witness the Bonus Army) threatening FDR’s rule, were “taken care of,” in the sense that they got a very public “first call” on benefits even if the net result of FDR’s policies was continued massive male unemployment.

Moreover, the society of the 1930’s was not what today’s is, in terms of male-female relations. Women still preferred the “beta provider” who would be steady and reliable, rather than a series of exciting bad-boy playboys. Women shared the apprehension of a society on the brink of chaos and the threat, very real, of revolution.

Today, most women’s lives have not been affected at all. Most women today are single, not married, a change seen first in 2007.

filme porno alina plugaru http://forum.setter.kz/go.php?adult69.ro/
porno cu femei frumoase https://www.dekoracie-vianoce.sk/plugins/guestbook/go.php?url=https://adult69.ro/filme-porno/amatori
filme porno cu mame sexi http://www.portaldaflorencio.com.br/redirect.asp?cod_cliente=100261&link=https://adult69.ro/filme-porno/anal
porno cu tineri https://buddha-rat.squarespace.com/process/Redirect?url=https://adult69.ro/filme-porno/asiatice
porno mom mature http://www.enter-web.biz/Redirect.asp?AccID=-17745&AdCampaignID=2708&AdCampaignType=2&AffDuration=30&url=https://adult69.ro/filme-porno/beeg
hd porno izle http://digitaljacket.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/blonde
filme porno intre frati http://turboshare.folle.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/blonda-de-16-ani-este-linsa-in-pizda-de-tatal-ei
film porno cu animale http://h50.90daystolaunch.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/bruneta-minora-sta-in-genuchi-si-suge-pula-vecinullui-ei
filme porno masochiste http://www.leefleming.com/neurotwitch/index.php?URL=https://adult69.ro/film-porno-cu-un-cuplu-de-amatori-filmati-cu-camera-ascunsa
martina stoessel porno http://www.bondagepractice.com/cgi-bin/a2/out.cgi?id=42&u=https://adult69.ro/blona-frumoasa-care-seamana-cu-bianca-dragusanu-este-supusa-la-perversiuni
porno son forced mom http://www.studnz.co.nz/ra.asp?url=https://adult69.ro/studenta-face-show-la-web-si-se-masturbeaza-cu-un-vibrator
filme porno cu amatori http://www.japanesefuck.com/cgi-bin/atx/out.cgi?id=117&tag=bottom2&trade=https://adult69.ro/un-culpu-de-amatori-fac-sex-in-padure-o-fute-pe-la-spate-anal
porno hub xxx http://yhello.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/fututa-cu-degetele-de-sora-ei-mai-mica
dane jones porno http://nerymusic.com/v4/modules/mod_jw_srfr/redir.php?url=https://adult69.ro/curva-bruneta-care-stie-ce-vrea
filme porno cu fete de 18 ani http://www.lamystiquedespierres.com/liens/redirect.php3?NUM=94&URL=https://adult69.ro/fetita-naiva-violata-de-bunic
porno mature german http://girlfriendexperiencefilm.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/ii-plac-senzatiile-tari-si-noi
filmulete porno online http://d-click.armazemdanoticia.com.br/u/18887/88/31/5_0/1fb90/?url=https://adult69.ro/si-a-bagat-capul-in-pula-pana-la-gat
filme porno cu lezbi http://www.serenityfountain.org/pages/redirect.php?r=https://adult69.ro/iti-arata-ca-are-o-pizda-unica
filme porno cu negrese grase https://www.vara.ee/adv/adclick.php?bannerid=815&zoneid=106&source=&dest=https://adult69.ro/pizda-in-calduri-pentru-o-pula-de-negru
josephine porno http://vintagetwat.com/dtr/link.php?id=df4167&gr=1&url=https://adult69.ro/vrea-ca-cineva-sa-o-mulga

Without an unemployed husband, most women are not affected by either layoffs (focused mainly on men) or wage losses (so far not affecting women much). Since women no longer need or want a “beta provider” the economic downturn has reaped benefits, winnowing out the non “Alpha” or socially dominant men from their lives.

But this creates a false sense of security. Men who made good money, and through that money had a girlfriend, now find themselves with neither. Obama offers not only no hope, but hostility expressed daily to the formerly well off White men who now have little hope of recovery. What does this dynamic create?

It creates a whole class, with no connection at all to the Welfare State, who would instead wish to destroy it. Destroy it on the upper end, so that the economic basis for women’s preference for bad boys is erased. Few men of middle to upper income can quickly turn themselves into thugs as happened to the men in the Black Urban Core, or low-income Hispanic men, or the White British Underclass (the latter famously chronicled by Theodore Dalrymple “Life at the Bottom” and other books). Becoming a violent thug as the only way to compete for women absent the beta male provider is certainly a strategy that works. But it has too many costs (the very real possibility of ending up dead or in prison) that most will not take it. However, all the time and energy (the men will not be dead, as Obama merely made them poor) men who used to have “lives and women” and now have neither will be focused somewhere. Very likely on the destruction of the Welfare State. Taking away women’s economic independence and forcing a choice between bad boys and poverty, or exclusivity to beta providers.

At the very least, we will see pretty much all White Men except those who remain very, very rich become Conservative voters, mostly Republican. Kerry won 38% of the White Vote. Obama slightly less. But even with Obama’s 70-29 edge in single women’s votes, if his share of White Male voters goes to say, 4%, neither he nor Democrats remain in office.

Men don’t have a stake in the Welfare System. Indeed since they pay for it in taxes but get nothing for it (but payment to women to enable the bad-boy selection), they are better off without it. Without the Welfare System, and with a low-tax, high boom/bust economy, they at least have the chance to ride another boom wave and create a life that includes women. Obama offers men nothing but poverty and sexless isolation from women.

Men are likely to reject both Obama and Democratic policies en-masse, and dismantle as much as possible the Welfare State.