getfiscal posted:woody allen said that he divides people into the horrible and miserable and it seems like north america is taking that route at a 50/50 rate. about half of households have jobs, relatively good health outcomes, good educations, etc. the other half struggle with something horrible that society doesn't do enough to address and are just seen as a giant weight on society - prisoners, chronic health patients, long-term unemployed, etc. the first group votes, the second group is excluded in various ways. it's like neoliberalism is about basically the cultural genocide of the second group.
I think neoliberals have bigger issues with SSI than they do with SSDI.
mustang19 posted:Correct, SSI is more effective at annihilating the white race. Of course I don't think any race should intentionally annihilate themselves, all should try their best because they will convert to Islam in the end. The flaw in IMF neoliberalism is that they try to privatize social security or turn it into a mandatory savings scheme, rather than destroying industrial civilization entirely to free everyone to chose traditional methods of social insurance.
Hey don't repost my music tubes.
mustang19 posted:Usually what people do in those situations is have 8 kids because, statistically, one of them will turn out not to be a deadbeat and will pay for your retirement. This is why fertility consistently falls a lot when social security is introduced. It's an inevitable feedback mechanism, there is no alternative. Contrary to cultural genocide theory, cutting SS actually increases differential fertility and makes poorer groups reproduce faster.
Yeah I'm aware of this theory but I just realized I have been assuming it was true based off common sense. People in poor rural parts of the world straight up say it, but I was wondering if there have been any serious studies that demonstrate a relationship between social safety nets and fertility. An alternative theory is that declines in fertility have more to do with urbanization, that is as the population moves from a rural economy in which children are assets to an urban economy in which children are a burdensome investment you naturally see declining fertility. Probably both are true but it would be nice to have, you know, evidence.
mustang19 posted:Why don't you just implement communism so the government will invent a star trek replicator that beams food stamps and hot pockets straight to your mouth?
ON IT
Crow posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:post less mustang19
I tell you in friendship, this is the path to take. The other leads to seclusion.
time to talk about God and the Bank Of Japan
mustang19 posted:Okay, I can reduce my posting to 2-3 a day, no promises however.
innsmouthful posted:i got a job today, oh boy
innsmouthful posted:soon i will become a home owner and i might fall in love too
im at a crossroads (c.f. britney spears) between sticking where i am and hopefully buying a house, or moving on and hopefully falling in love. on the plus side both will be equally bourgeois and unsatisfying so im not agonising much
when i said i might fall in love, i meant with my own reflection
innsmouthful posted:buy the house. you don't want a useless, sniveling bag of flesh following you around everyday, eating your food, shedding skin in your bed, urinating in your shower, etc. etc.
i absolutely do want this fyi
Crow posted:
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
NoFreeWill posted:why would any of you bourgoisie fucks buy a 'ouse?
yeah seriously. rent forever, spend it all, accumulate no wealth. permaburger
it's more fun anyway
tpaine posted:is that a big bunch of dum sum that other girl is thinking about?
the only . . . dum sum here . . . is . . . y-
drwhat posted:permaburger
Goethestein posted:mustang9 seems ok. okkk.