cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The standard of living, if anything, has DECREASED if judging by real wages (adjusted to inflation). Today, you need two incomes to match the standard of living one income provided 50 years ago. Again, all the window dressing about our life being so much better nowadays is just cosmetic, and has malicious intents. We are far worse off in most ways. All the so-called improvements are either not improvements or political and subjective. I wonder if rational and intelligent black people had the choice between living in a safe neighborhood, having good schools, and not having the majority of their male population behind bars like they did many years ago, or dating interracially, which would they pick?
meerkat stew Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I find it far weaker when a man bothers to ask a girl out, gets a mixed signal, then gives up, which relegates him to only dating the more desperate women that say yes to almost every man that asks. Should a guy date the girl he really wants, or just the ones who are easy? It's not a matter of dating "easy" girls and letting the good ones get away because you don't pursue them enough, but rather a matter of having enough self-respect and sense of self worth that a major criteria for spending time and money dating a woman is that she is into you, or sees the possibility. Also, when you have this attitude, interestingly enough you don't have to chase. It's a natural aphrodisiac. Saying again, people have a built in sense when they are dealing with someone who doesn't put up with crap because they have other options. If a woman perceives that you are a highly experienced man with lots of social value, she is much more likely to chase you, which is the way it should be
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The point I'm trying to make is that I feel a lot of people are misguided when have a yearning for the "good ole days," especially when they didn't live during those times. I'm not saying society as a whole is better today than in the past. I'm saying that people view the 1940s-50s as some sort of Golden Age of society, when it wasn't always the case. I'm also not saying that parents/religious figures aren't good role models, but they can be bad. Is it good when a kid emulates his narow-minded father? Is it good when a church commits mass suicide because its leader tells them to? The progress of today's society is a double-edged sword. It's improved life, but it has also made things worse. I personally believe emulating your narrow minded father is always going to be superior to emulating a rap star/movie star/rock star/ETC, which is what young people do today. Individuality is completely dead nowadays, people are LESS individual than they were in the so-called "rigid" 40's and 50's. It's almost like I know how someone is going to react or what they're going to say before they even open their mouth. I would rather get my information from a decentralized perspective like a religious leader or a parent, than get it from a big corporate malicious centralized medium like the radio, TV, hollywood, etc, as most people do today. Not to mention a parent or a religious leader is far more trustworthy than a faceless CEO looking out only for profits and social manipulation, at any human, spiritual, and moral expense.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 The standard of living, if anything, has DECREASED if judging by real wages (adjusted to inflation). Today, you need two incomes to match the standard of living one income provided 50 years ago. Again, all the window dressing about our life being so much better nowadays is just cosmetic, and has malicious intents. We are far worse off in most ways. I understand the cost of living/inflation argument but you can't even buy anything exactly like they sold it back then. If you're comparing a 'basket of goods' as they use to measure inflation then you can't even buy the same basket of goods today as you could then so the comparison is apples & oranges. We have to have soooo much these days to be considered 'average' that I see almost no comparison. Everything we buy today is bigger, better, badder, and we consider that 'normal'. As if we have any real use for a blender with twenty seven speeds compared to one or two. People only spend on average 8% of their income on food now. It was at least double that back then and as high as 40% in 1890.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 I personally believe emulating your narrow minded father is always going to be superior to emulating a rap star/movie star/rock star/ETC, which is what young people do today. +1 on this. It's pollution. We don't get a chance to be ourselves, we just get a smorgasbord of conspicuous options and are supposed to pick one and mold ourselves into that cookie cutter.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The standard of living has also changed a lot over the years. The labor pool has changed greatly as well. It was easy to make a lot of money with a bachelors degree when hardly anyone went to college. It was also easy to make money when women and minorities were systematically excluded from holding white-collar jobs. Raising a family consisted of having one car, a small house, and putting food on the table. The kids typically went to their neighborhood public school. Today a lot more wealth has been created. You didn't have cell phones, personal computers, the internet, cable/satellite television, etc. People were much less likely to go to college. Health care is far superior to what it was in the past.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 +1 on this. It's pollution. We don't get a chance to be ourselves, we just get a smorgasbord of conspicuous options and are supposed to pick one and mold ourselves into that cookie cutter. Once again, my argument is that some people romanticize the past too much. The world is pretty messed up these days, but it was messed up back then as well. We will tell our grandkids down the road that things were so much better back in our day.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I understand the cost of living/inflation argument but you can't even buy anything exactly like they sold it back then. If you're comparing a 'basket of goods' as they use to measure inflation then you can't even buy the same basket of goods today as you could then so the comparison is apples & oranges. [/Quote] How about the fact that real wages in the US have actually decreased, despite more wealth in the world than ever in the history of mankind? 2 wages today are equal to 1 back then. How is that apples and oranges? We have to have soooo much these days to be considered 'average' that I see almost no comparison. Everything we buy today is bigger, better, badder, and we consider that 'normal'. As if we have any real use for a blender with twenty seven speeds compared to one or two. People only spend on average 8% of their income on food now. It was at least double that back then and as high as 40% in 1890. I disagree completely. The only reason people can afford those things is not because they can, but because they are hopeless in debt-interest slavery. Many people nowadays are in debt just paying the common house bills, which was unheard of 50 years ago. Not to mention the fact that we're working more NOW than people back then. I don't know wher eyou get the statistic that people only spend 8% f their income on food, but food isn't the only grocery you know. What about non-edible needs like toothpaste, razors, shampoos, soap, etc etc.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Where do you get your statistic that two incomes today can only do what one did back then? Once again, consumption bundles are completely different. There are a lot of "necessities" that Americans pay for today that didn't even exist back then.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The standard of living has also changed a lot over the years. The labor pool has changed greatly as well. It was easy to make a lot of money with a bachelors degree when hardly anyone went to college. It was also easy to make money when women and minorities were systematically excluded from holding white-collar jobs. Raising a family consisted of having one car, a small house, and putting food on the table. The kids typically went to their neighborhood public school. Today a lot more wealth has been created. You didn't have cell phones, personal computers, the internet, cable/satellite television, etc. People were much less likely to go to college. Health care is far superior to what it was in the past. Well back then they had their own version of the cell phone, computer etc, in the form of the television, the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner, etc. Of course today we think nothing of these inventions, but accounting for time they are a valid comparison. Personally I think that having an overqualified work force is a bad thing, i don't think you should need a college degree to sell underwear at the Calvin Klein (as they demand), it's ludicrous. The only thing this overqualification of our work force has done is force people to go in huge debt for something they don't really care about, simply because it is now a pre requisite to get any kind of employment. Vast majority of college majors don't use their skills at their job. And of course health care is better, for the same reason health care was better in 1750 compared to 1650. Not because society is better.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Where do you get your statistic that two incomes today can only do what one did back then? Once again, consumption bundles are completely different. There are a lot of "necessities" that Americans pay for today that didn't even exist back then. Do you really think people pay for those big screen tv's and 400 dollar cellphones in cash? No, it's done via credit. Which means that these consumer trends mean nothing in terms of income because they are bought via borrowed money. It's true people did technically spend less because of a simpler life as well, but the problem is we are not given this choice these days. Everything is made to make you spend more and more, even if it's not necessary.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 How about the fact that real wages in the US have actually decreased, despite more wealth in the world than ever in the history of mankind? 2 wages today are equal to 1 back then. How is that apples and oranges? I disagree completely. The only reason people can afford those things is not because they can, but because they are hopeless in debt-interest slavery. Many people nowadays are in debt just paying the common house bills, which was unheard of 50 years ago. Not to mention the fact that we're working more NOW than people back then. I don't know wher eyou get the statistic that people only spend 8% f their income on food, but food isn't the only grocery you know. What about non-edible needs like toothpaste, razors, shampoos, soap, etc etc. And why does everyone end up in debt? Because family values are $hit in my opinion. I still argue that we work MORE now because we "expect" to have more to be considered "normal". I think we really are talking about morals and values as opposed to "standard of living". Seriously, 2 wages are not "the same" as 1 was then though. We just WANT all kinds of money for "extra" bull#hit like big tv's fancy cars, and a closet full of clothes. You know why struggling with utility bills was unheard of then? Because it wasn't on the news all the time just to fill a time slot and entertain us. Things were hard as hell then too. We are, I believe convinced that our money problems are worse now when in reality our interpersonal relationships are leaving us empty and looking for something new to buy to make us feel better. Which people couldn't afford to do back then, not EVEN with credit if they could get it b/c they KNEW they couldn't pay it back because 'extra money' didn't exist back then.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Yes, those inventions such as the vacuum, washer/dryer, etc. are still involved in American consumption today. We still use these goods, and they are more technologically advanced today than in the past.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Yes, those inventions such as the vacuum, washer/dryer, etc. are still involved in American consumption today. We still use these goods, and they are more technologically advanced today than in the past. True, and if everything we buy today were EXACTLY the same as they were 60 years ago an iron would cost a damn nickel and a car would be like a few hundred bucks because, without fiat currency inflation, things get cheaper. Now if I could buy a new car for peanuts instead of a half a years wages I would call THAT standard of living, financially at least.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The reason why it's harder to pay utilities also comes from the fact that back then, there really wasn't such a thing as economic development outside of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Western Europe. The rest of the world was stuck in this third-world country status. The reason people work more these days is because there is more competition in the labor pool. Why would I pay someone $50,000 per year to work 40 hours per week and take two weeks of paid vacation when I could pay another equally-qualified person $50,000 to work 60 hours per week and defer their paid vacation?
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I love how a thread about persistence with respect to pursuing a woman turns into a thread about macroeconomics.
Awesome Username Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I would be BOTHERED by a guy who asked me out on a romantic date, I politely declined, and he kept doing it and constantly flirted or he kept trying to make me jealous. Or, if he texted me once a day asking when I had a day off, bought me a bunch of stuff off the bat, etc. I would be flattered by a guy who kept finding situations where he was out doing something regardless of be being there, and kept inviting me (like a party, for instance). Or, he just asked me to hang out without any strings attached and kept it casual for a while. If he was persistent in seeing me and getting to know me, and not getting into my pants as quickly as possible, he's likelier to win my heart. Even if I know he likes me and getting into my pants is the intent (which is likely if he keeps wanting to hang out), a guy who gives me the time to get to know him more before making his move is the winner. It's not playing games - I'm just literally not comfortable with a man to be on an intimate level that suddenly. So in conclusion, persistent in getting to know me rather than persistent in being sexual is the kind of persistent I like. I think our grandparents were more persistent in the former rather than the latter way, which is why I think it worked more. A lot of guys say that if you're friends first, then you're stuck in the friendzone and you should have been more straight-forward to romance in the beginning. I say, if you try to be friends with a girl who is attracted to you off the bat, you will not be in the friend zone for long. This is just how I am, personally.
carhill Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 So, after a positive initial meeting/date/whatever, if a guy stopped contacting a lady after 3 non-responsive initiations, would he be deemed to be too persistent, not persistent enough, or a creepy stalker who finally went away?
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 So, after a positive initial meeting/date/whatever, if a guy stopped contacting a lady after 3 non-responsive initiations, would he be deemed to be too persistent, not persistent enough, or a creepy stalker who finally went away? Yeah, and how about 10 times for that matter? I was almost shocked when i saw this work out except for my friend is just about the most charming SOB to ever walk the earth.
calizaggy Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 This is what it seems like to me.. Back in the day, society was not so over sexualized.. So, a woman could be dating a few men, and that was quite normal. One would try to win the affection of her over the others, and pursuing was important. She was not sleeping with all, or any of them. It seems today, you are sleeping with the girl on the second date. If you are not, and she is holding out, then chances are she might have an ex she sleeps with, a FWB, or is sleeping with her other dates. I suppose I think of pursuing in a romantic way, but perhaps it is a waste of time in this current society..I am more old fashioned in my thinking and usually if a woman is pursuing me I have no interest.
Awesome Username Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 This is what it seems like to me.. Back in the day, society was not so over sexualized.. So, a woman could be dating a few men, and that was quite normal. One would try to win the affection of her over the others, and pursuing was important. She was not sleeping with all, or any of them. It seems today, you are sleeping with the girl on the second date. If you are not, and she is holding out, then chances are she might have an ex she sleeps with, a FWB, or is sleeping with her other dates. I suppose I think of pursuing in a romantic way, but perhaps it is a waste of time in this current society..I am more old fashioned in my thinking and usually if a woman is pursuing me I have no interest. I'm like this too. There is WAY too much sexual pressure on dates. It seems like a job interview where a guy is paying for as much as he can and proving stuff to you and trying to be JUST sexual enough to get you in the sack on the third date. This is probably due to the fact that women nowdays will sometimes actually put out on the first or second date, which baffles me. A lot of ladies have FWBs and think they are players, but are surprised when guys only spend enough time with them to get their sex and then leave. This means that a lot of guys are getting laid very soon by women they don't really know, so a lot of guys don't have patience with a lady anymore. I honestly don't even want to deal with dates just because of this.
Recommended Posts