Thinking like an economist, a MGTOW forum poster makes the same mistakes they do:
A woman being hired over a man almost always costs the company more money and returns less revenue. Women, due to biology, are going to miss more work, work less hours, and statistically will work fewer years than a comparably educated and experienced man would — The Opportunity Cost of Twats.
A Reader and his faithful Tennessee friend Jack know the real costs of hiring women into productive companies: instead of fitting themselves to the workplace, they force the workplace to fit to them, disrupting operations and threatening sexual harassement or discrimination lawsuits anytime something doesn’t go their way. That is the real cost. The economics blather above is the rounding error.
When some bright-eyed recently minted engineer starts telling A Reader about how the new rich people like the Google founders are down-to-earth, drive small cars, etc, A Reader always points out how driving a small car when you use airliners as private planes and stash billions in offshore accounts isn’t comparable to driving a small car that is your only means of transportation and you have to work extra shifts to pay for it. This is what A Reader was reminded of when he saw:
Obama characterized his 5% as sharing the sacrifice that the sequester is forcing some public sector employees to make. It’s just not the same kind of sacrifice. He won’t even feel his sacrifice. And if he does, he can ease his tiny pains with another deluxe vacation and a few more concerts at the White House performed by whichever pop stars his daughters are enthusing over this month. — Althouse: “Obama’s insulting salary stunt.”.
The worst part is that the venal mass media will present this as a great sacrifice and an important and significant gesture, and the ruminant sheeple of the general public will agree.
A Reader enjoys reading Coyote’s blog, as his business forces him to interact with governments constantly, creating a never ending stream of reasons for A Reader to stay out of government-contractor jobs.
First, I will say that I am perfectly happy for folks who are either good earners or good savers or both and who choose to use their accumulated wealth to stop working at some age. — My Retirement Rant | Coyote Blog.
No question that this would be a good thing, except that that accumulated wealth is too tempting for the people in power to seize, either directly as was done with privately held gold in a number of countries in the mid-20th century and through bank action like just recently in Cyprus, or indirectly via inflation.
And that was what Social Security initially was — the age 65 was chosen as a retirement age not because it guaranteed 10-15 years of senior leisure but because it matched the life expectancy at the time. The equivalent age would be well into the 70’s today.
All good Ponzi schemes must come to an end. A Reader has zero expectations of getting paid anything after decades of contributing to Social Security.
While they are proposing higher taxes to support this, my guess is that it will not be long before a wealth tax is suggested. […] I would be willing to bet him that within the decade, it will become a mainstream idea in the progressive community to fund shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare with a full or partial seizure of 401K’s.
There’s already a wealth tax, inflation. But A Reader agrees with Coyote that savings and other financial vehicles are just too tempting for the powers that be. It’s almost as if we’re in Bizarro World: work and save, and all you get in the end is forced to pay for the people who don’t work and don’t save.