Tucker Carlson is Half Right

[BoomBoomMancini]

And there’s the military, which gives all kinds of benefits to those who serve. The housing loans and health care (it’s not all scandalous and horrible) are pretty good.

We already have a version of the “family wage” in the military. Getting married entitles you to Basic Allowance for Housing, which can be thousands of dollars a month depending on where you’re stationed.

One of the unfortunate side effects of the policy is that it encourages impulsive, short lived marriages. The young soldier marrying a stripper he met last weekend is kind of a stock joke in the military.

 

[MikeInVA]

One of the unfortunate side effects of the policy is that it encourages impulsive, short lived marriages. The young soldier marrying a stripper he met last weekend is kind of a stock joke in the military.

Sorry, but I think that’s just a stereotype. I think the reason for the high divorce rate is a combination of young people making rash decisions combined with the stresses of military life.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Sorry, but I think that’s just a stereotype.

It’s a stereotype, sure, but it’s a stereotype with a basis in reality. And sure, long absences and moving around does stress marriages, and when you combine that with marriages between immature people, you get a high divorce rate.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

The elephant in the room that the elite do not want to deal with: incentives. Economic incentives that they were responsible for supporting and promulgating into law. Now the costs having been biting us hard and the elite have their hands firmly covering their ears. This is why Carlson has sent them into such a tizzy! He dares to talk openly of things they don’t want to hear about.

What men outside of the upper classes has not experienced first hand or through the men he knows first hand the financial damage done by family courts and social welfare priorities, both of which act to incentivize mothers to kick men out of their homes and keep them out.

Further, what men have not experienced first hand or directly through people they know the predatory pricing practices of medical insurance and care? Has anyone priced non-subsidized family health insurance in recent years? Going from subsidized to unsubsidized premiums represents a 50% marginal tax rate from $40k to $70k of AGI, making it extraordinarily difficult for men to support a family even if they wanted to. A lot easier for mothers to rely on state-subsidized care.

Put these together and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that marriage has become the preserve of the upper middle class and higher. For only they can afford the costs of family court resolutions and unsubsidized family health care. For anyone below them, the economic incentives in place are anti-traditional family formation.

Men like Geraghty and French who call themselves “conservative” do men the disservice of talking down to them from their blinkered elite positions.

 

[KMC]

JimG:

The first papal encyclical I was required to study was Rerum Novarum. It recommended a living wage, a “family wage.”

And Republicans would be the first to say that it’s “too political” and we “need a new Pope.”

Actually as a Republican, I have no issue with the Church’s teaching on a living wage, because if you read CCC 2434 you find that the teaching also says “taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good”. A person generating $10 of hourly value cannot be paid “a living wage” (approx $30 / hr for a family of 4 in L.A., or about $24 / hr in Jackson MS). It would simply cause the company to eliminate the position in favor of automation, and then the worker would be $0.
If the person generates $30 of value and is only paid minimum wage, then yes, I have an issue.

I think the catechism has it right.

 

[KCmedtech]

The stripper comment is a stereotype.

But the idea of the short lived relationship to marriage for benefits is 110% true.

It happens all the time.
When I was in basic and tech school…I had heard of the “tech school” marriage.

In the air force, you go from no freedom in basic to a lot of freedom in tech school.
You can go out at night, leave base, drive a car, etc.
There isn’t a lot to do at many of the bases and hotel parties become very, very common over the weekend.

Girls are heavily pursued and everyone is lonely and missing home and a sense of normalcy.
So, relationships start quickly and to keep them going…quick marriages happen so they can apply to the same duty station and get a chance at base housing or BAH.

We are talking 2-3 months, max, of meeting each other, dating and getting married.
It’s just as bad as young couples who meet at home, boyfriend joins the military, and a marriage quickly happens in order to capitalize on the extra pay in basic and training schools.
Then the new couple goes to their first duty station. Hubby has something to do but the girl is bored, idle, and at home in a totally new environment…with little to no skill sets or education to keep herself busy.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen. Infidelity is rampant from both sides, there is so much OPSEC (confidential info) violations on social media platforms due to boredom on the wife’s part.

It’s shocking and really sad.
It’s the biggest reason why I think fast marriages are a poor idea and women with no higher education or skill sets is another poor idea.

I have three daughters. They are going to college to do something. If they want to stay at home…they’ll have a skill and education to fall back on, just in case.

 

[PJH_74]

Does anyone know “why” wages went from enough to support a family to both need to work to make it?

Real wage growth has failed to keep real pace with inflation. As a parent I can say the financial explanations are higher. College debt has become a big issue. Secure employment is much harder to come by and the requirements to get one have greatly increased and so on.

 

[PJH_74]

Now in response to the article, I’m a bit tired of this whole ranting of a war on masculinity. I have no issue in observing that boys tend to play more aggressively and loudly, I have a 7 yearold. I also have a goddaughter or two that will play just as hard while wearing princess costumes.

Yes, there’s a standard deviation of the sexes, but society should not be imposing standards on those at the edges. There is decrimination of men…but on those who don’t fit the much narrower definition of manliness than the female experience. This is basically self imposed by men on themselves.

Disagree with me? Ask yourself this. Is there an acceptable male version of a tomboy? Not really those boys are wimps or “gay”. Do you really equate Lesbianism the same as gay men? I’d strongly say no, it’s blatantly clear to me from the years I’ve spent here. When selling “bathroom bills” why is it always the male to female people that capture the imagination? I know a female to male individual or two, you would NEVER guess this was the case, testosterone is a powerful thing. Would you want to explain this situation to your poor daughter?

It’s not that there’s a “war” against manliness. The war is against the toxic “code” of manliness that holds men hostage, even those who are generally comfortable with it. Many of the harmful things men do has its roots in such notions and that is detrimental to all men.

 

[Sarcelle]

Each sex has to deal with its own poisonous stereotypes.

For femininity, it would mean being vapid, stupid, shallow, gossipy, catty, materialistic, weak in mind, body, and spirit.

Then there are the “Christian” standards of femininity promoted by the fundamentalist blogosphere on femininity, such as being a subservient homeschooling stay at home mom who only wears skirts.

Any woman who isn’t one is a man hating feminist who’s probably an ugly lesbian.

 

[blackforest]

Perhaps there wasn’t a single cause and effect but a feeding off of each…as some families depended more on two wages, corporations took advantage and froze wage growth which led to more women joining the workforce yada yada… I just remember being able to live on one income and within a few years, I had to work if we wanted to eat and make the rent. Inflation was a large part of the problem as well!

First of all, you’re not going crazy. Wages have definitely become more stagnant. But as you acknowledge, the reasons are a lot more complex than men vs. women.

I can share a lot of analyses but will start with this one. Why Wages Aren’t Growing in America

It cites a number of factors that are putting workers at a disadvantage to negotiate, including shifting technology, (e.g. automation of a lot of blue collar and some white collar jobs) and higher-up workers getting a disproportionate share of the raises.

 

[goout]

Interesting question. Maybe all people can wear a gold band on their finger to level the playing field.

Or would that be deception?

By today’s cultural relativism, it really doesn’t matter. There’s no such thing as deception. I call myself what I want, because words and their meanings are subjectively malleable.
I’m a ten foot all Chinese basketball player.

 

[ChristMyLife]

That would also be illegal now.

The federal minimum wage in the US is an absolute disgrace. $7.25 USD / hour in 2019 is an affront to human dignity. I wouldn’t pay a 14 year old girl less than $10 an hour to babysit. I wouldn’t pay a 16 year old kid less than $10 an hour to shovel snow. I wouldn’t pay an illegal immigrant less than $10 an hour to pick strawberries.

The federal minimum wage should IMMEDIATELY be raised to $10.10 an hour like Obama suggested years ago. And the legislation which raises it to that, should also have a clause where the minimum wage automatically increases 35 cents on January 1st every year in perpetuity.

 

[blackforest]

I’m not sure what to make of Carlson’s analysis. It’s true that families need more money to live on than single and childless people. On the other hand, I don’t want to go back to the days when the phone company refused to hire my grandmother because she had just gotten married, (they feared she would leave to have a baby). Women, in particular, are under a special microscope from which not even anti-discrimination laws can protect us.

Years ago, one potential employer was trying to woo me, and the woman on the phone was gushing about my resume and qualifications. That all went downhill quickly when I showed up at the interview visibly pregnant. It’s one of those situations deliberately set up so that you can call anyone out on it, though. . .

Anyway, my point is that as Carlson acknowledges, this law comes with trade-offs. But ultimately I’m glad that we have it.

 

[ChristMyLife]

Ask yourself this. Is there an acceptable male version of a tomboy? Not really those boys are wimps or “gay”. Do you really equate Lesbianism the same as gay men?

Wow… Excellent points.

I would wager there are literally millions of American men who have no problem with women acting tomboyish and wearing male clothing, and find nothing offensive about lesbians… And who simultaneously would condemn a man wearing women’s clothing and men being gay.

Actually, I’m an American man myself. And if I’m being 100% honest to God open and truthful, I’ll freely admit: women dressed in men’s clothing and lesbians being intimate doesn’t bother my sensibilities… Whereas I feel disgust with men dressing like women or imagining two men being intimate.

(To be clear - I condemn homosexual acts either by men or women as gravely immoral. I’m talking my visceral, physical reaction though. Gay sex to me is disgusting, whereas lesbian sex is… Odd but enticing, and doesn’t cause disgust.)

Why?

 

[redbetta]

As a woman, I also have a visceral reaction to gay and effeminate men that I don’t have for lesbians and Tom boys.

I can think of a few reasons.

1. Effeminate men act in ways that are cringey even by female standards. I don’t even know why we call them effeminate when I’ve never seen a grown woman act similarly.
2. Gay men just come across as more oversexed.

 

[ChristMyLife]

As a woman, I also have a visceral reaction to gay and effeminate men that I don’t have for lesbians and Tom boys.

Very interesting…

Is it because “patriarchy” is so ingrained in our psyche? Or something deeper? Even harkening back to Adam and Eve?

 

[redbetta]

It’s probably because most sexual predators tend to be male and, when guys wear their sexuality on their sleeve, my creep alarm goes off immediately.

 

[Peeps]

So what I think you’re saying is that we should pay wages depending on the job, which is what I said.

I’m not a business owner, but I assume that someone who owns a business (babysitting, snow shoveling, picking strawberries) would calculate the costs of his business. E.g., picking strawberries–what kind of packaging is needed (baskets? little wooden boxes? plastic boxes? paper boxes?), what kind of protective clothing and other materials for the workers (bug/bee repellant, gloves?), what facilities for the workers (rest/lunch area, bathrooms and material like toilet paper, soap, water, hand sanitizer, etc.), how much did the strawberry plants cost, is the land paid for or is there still a mortage, transportation of the workers and for the strawberries to market, etc. Then the owner would compare all those costs to the price that he/she receives for the strawberries, determine how much of that price has to be put back into the business, and THEN determine how much he/she can pay the workers.

I know that many business owners do NOT pay themselves until all these other costs, including wages, are paid. And if the owner has very little left over, well–can you blame the owner for cutting wages in order to be able to provide for himself/herself?

If the owner is living like a caliph while the workers starve, that’s immoral. But if the owner is paying himself/herself a modest wage and the workers get a little less–that isn’t immoral.

I realize that there are business owners who pay themselves a magnificent salary while their workers barely eke by.

But I’m thinking that most McDonald’s franchisees are not making a mint from their franchise, and to pay workers a living wage would put them out of business. After all, how many of us are willing to pay $8.00 for one of those gourmet McDonald’s burgers? Not I! The $1.00 cheeseburger is just fine for me!

If a business owner can pay workers 10.10/hour and still keep a profitable business, then they should do so.

But if the business owner can’t pay this much and keep the business, then all the workers, including the business owner, will lose their jobs.

Does this make sense?

 

[ChristMyLife]

should pay wages depending on the job, which is what I sa

No, that’s not what I said.

I said it’s an affront to human dignity in 2019 to pay anyone less than $10 an hour. It should be illegal to pay anyone less than $10 an hour. Did you not see where I said I cannot think of any person doing any job in 2019 where $10 isn’t justified as a minimum fair recompense?

And if a business isn’t able to pay their employees $10 an hour, they can’t stay in business. Pretty simple. I have a hard time believing many businesses would be severely hurt by this… Most already start people between $8-10 an hour anyways.

It strains credulity to believe McDonalds can’t afford to pay their employees $10 an hour without raising costs of hamburgers dramatically. How about the top 500 people in McDonald’s all take a 50% pay cut in order to let some of that money “trickle down?” Trust me, I won’t lose any sleep knowing Joe CEO is now making a measley 1.25 million $ a year instead of 2.5 mil. Something tells me, he’ll survive… Somehow.

 

[Peeps]

You don’t think that $10.00/hour is a living wage, do you?

It’s only 800.00/month, or 9600.00/year. Even with subsidized housing, food stamps, free child care, free public schools, some kind of subsidized transportation (bus?), free health care, free cell phone, and a free clothing closet–that’s still not much left over to provide for an individual, let alone a family.

What I think is that these jobs are not meant to support people. They are meant to be supplemental income–a second income for a man or woman who has another job, an income for a senior who can’t quite meet expenses with pension/social security, or a job for a teenager or college student who believes they should pay for their own phone and video games. Some people take on a McD/s type job to earn money to pay for something extra, or in many cases, to pay off a debt.

The problem in families is that taking on second jobs takes the worker away from their family. That’s tough, but people do what they have to do.

But to expect a “minimum wage” to be a living wage–I think that’s unrealistic.

Rather than pushing for a higher minimum wage, I think we should be pushing for better education that helps teenagers to choose a life path that will prepare them for a job that will support them adequately and perhaps even luxuriantly.

A lot of this preparation should be done by parents who are alert for a child’s “natural bent” and guide them towards learning skills and subjects that will eventually lead to a career that not only pays an adequate living wage, but is fulfilling for the worker.

But many parents themselves were not adequately prepared for life, or they struggled against obstacles like family poverty, racism, addictions in the family, or sickness of themselves or family members. SO–it falls to the government and to private organizations (like churches!) to take up the slack and work with children and teenagers to help them discover a Life Calling that will allow them to support themselves and a family, and keep them off public aid/dole.

A minimum wage will just have to keep growing and growing, but it will always fall far behind the wages of a person who works at gainful employment in a fairly-secure field (e.g., health care, which is desperately short of workers in almost all areas). What this means is that as the minimum wage increases, so will the wages of everyone else, and that will put the min. wage earner right back down at the bottom of the heap again.

Instead of relegating people to the bottom, we need to help them figure out how to climb off of the heap and up the ladder to be where many of us are–making a wage that supplies us with our needs and some of our wants, and is fairly secure (nothing is completely secure).