Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marriage, Babies and Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2013

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work.  To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in.  In a nice neighborhood with good schools.  After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child.  And the other children they have.  While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that.  It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead.  Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.  To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers.  But it doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child.  Deciding not to return to work.  Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children.  And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers.  Making it more risky to hire women.  Especially in this litigious world.  They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves.  And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities.  Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.).  For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees.  And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government.  If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee.  And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities.  Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women.  Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent.  It happens.  But not as often as it happens with women.  Because women have a biological clock ticking.  Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans.  For a woman has to leave work to have a child.  And to recover from the birth.  Men don’t.  Their lives can go on with little change.  And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child.  Which is a powerful force.  Mothers are very protective of their babies.  And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget.  For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home.  Forcing the new family to get by on less.  Government understands this.  And they design the tax code to help families raise children.  Because the government needs people to have babies.  And they need them to have more than two.  For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow.  These children will only replace their parents.  Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population.  But having more than two children is very expensive.  Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code.  To help offset the high cost of having children.  So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families.  Such as the baby’s last name.  A woman may hyphenate her name when married.  But you can’t do that with children.  For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check.  Put on a nametag.  Tradition has the father being the financial provider.  As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy.  He can keep working.  And providing.  So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life.  And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child.  Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children.  Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important.  Raise their children.  But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children.  Having children came first.  People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools.  Then civilization advanced.  The economy grew more complex.  This advanced civilization was costly.  Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children.  Governments and business help families have and raise children.  For we need families to have and raise children.  Businesses need an expanding population.  For a business needs more people to grow.  To buy the goods and services of their expanding business.  Just as government needs an expanding population.  To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government.  An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy.  And a growing and more generous government.  Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family.  Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children.  Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit.  Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  And it’s the same for government.  A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage.  The woman doesn’t leave the workforce.  She builds her career and earns more income.  Providing more tax revenue.  But there is no long-term benefit.  For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them.  So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least.  For marriage is not about civil rights.  It’s about lowering the cost of raising children.  Which both business and government needs.  For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand.  And it will age.  Making it more costly for government.  While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses.  A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive.  And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman.  From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy.  They will not lower the future cost of government.  And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name.  As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage.  During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love.  And these people lived together flaunting convention.  And tradition.  Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements.  These marriage-less committed relationships.  Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left.  If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world.  And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples.  If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone.  Then they could have everything they want.  The free love of the sexual revolution.  Low taxes.  And no reason to get married.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT148: “You only know what someone taught you.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

If we Grew up on a Deserted Island isolated from Hate we’d Probably Grow up Better Adjusted to live with One Another

No one is born a racist.  It’s something you have to learn.  Someone has to teach it to you.  If a parent is a racist chances are the child will be bombarded with racial slurs growing up.  And become a racist.  Just like his or her parent.  But if you raised a bunch of babies of different races together on a deserted island in isolation would any of them grow up to be a racist?   No.  For they wouldn’t even know what racism is.  Because the life they knew would be normal.  It would be normal for black, white, brown, red and yellow to live together.

Catholics and Protestants have spent a few centuries killing each other.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  People have been persecuting Jews since forever.  The Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas have been killing Israelis for decades.  Shiite and Sunni have also been killing each other for a very long time.  These people have hated each other so much that they just want to see the other dead.  Yet if you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Shiite and a Sunni baby from their parents and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t grow up wanting to kill each other.  They wouldn’t even know they were supposed to hate each other.

Europe was just itching to go to war.  Nationalistic fervor was just bursting at the seams.  Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, French, Russians and British were ready and waiting.  Filled with nationalist pride.  Just jonesing to open a can of whup-ass on anyone that wasn’t from their own great nation.  Having learned nothing from the Crimean War.  Or the American Civil War.  Thinking they would march their magnificent armies onto the field of battle, fight a glorious battle and watch the enemy throw down their arms and run away.  Even though tactics hadn’t changed much from the Crimean War and the American Civil War.  Though the weapons were far more lethal.  Making World War I one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  But had you taken a German, an Austrian, a Hungarian, a French, a Russian and a British baby from their parents at the turn of the century and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t have grown up wanting to go to war with each other.  As they wouldn’t know that they were supposed to hate each other.

Of all the Things the State did Poorly perhaps the Worst was being Husband and Father

When our parents grew up they often went to bed without locking the doors to their houses.  Even during the days of Prohibition when armed gangs shot each other in the street with automatic weapons.  Today we have deadbolts and alarm systems.  And metal detectors at our schools.  For kids today are taking guns to school.  And they’re shooting people.  This didn’t happen during the days of Prohibition when gangs were armed with Thompson 45-caliber submachine guns.  Why?  Because during Prohibition there weren’t violent video games, graphic violence in movies & television and rap & hip-hop songs glorifying gun violence.  So even though we have less lethal weapons on the streets today we have more gun violence than before.  Because kids have been so desensitized to violence that killing people just isn’t a big deal to them.  Raise these kids on a deserted island away from this violence in our pop culture, though, and they’re not going to kill indiscriminately.  Instead they’ll stay innocent kids longer.

Add to this violence in our pop culture our secular progressive culture.  The Left’s quest to remove religion and God from as much of our lives as possible.  And their attacks on Christianity.  For imposing their moral code on people.  And opposing free love and abortion.  They have gone so far as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from our government buildings.  And our schools.  Because teaching kids things like ‘Thou shall not kill” is a bad thing.  Or any other morality lesson.  For who’s to say what is right and wrong?  Of course when we teach our kids growing up that there are no moral absolutes it sure weakens the argument for them not to do bad things.  It detaches them from society.  And makes them lack empathy for their fellow citizens.  Making it easier to hurt them.  If you pulled these kids out of our public schools and put them and their parents on a deserted island away from this secular progressive culture and filled them with the fear of God for misbehaving they probably could sleep at night with their doors unlocked.  For hurting one another would be the last thing on their minds.

When LBJ passed his Great Society legislation it included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  An unmitigated disaster for poor people.  For it let men father and abandon their children.  Leaving women to turn to the state to act as husband and father.  And of all the things the state did poorly perhaps the worst was being husband and father.  It just decimated poor families.  Single mothers filled housing projects.  Their children, with no male role model, turned to the street.  Got into a lot of trouble.  And into drugs.  Even taking that behavior into their schools.  Which is part of the reason why metal detectors are needed today at our schools.  Forcing organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pick up the parenting slack.  Had these deadbeat dads lived on a deserted island untouched by AFDC there would have been less fathering and abandoning of children.  Like there was before AFDC.

Keynesian Policies have Historically Resulted in High Unemployment and Painful Recessions

After World War II the world went Keynesian.  Classical economics (that favored savings over consumption, low taxes, the gold standard, little government intrusion into the private sector and responsible fiscal policy as in DON’T spend so much) that made America a superpower went out the window.  In came the disaster we call Keynesian economics (that favored consumption over savings, deficit spending, printing lots of money, high taxes and a lot of government intervention into the private sector.  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge in the Twenties were the last of the classical economists.  Their policies gave us great prosperity.  JFK adopted policies of the classical economics variety to pull America out of a recession in the Sixties.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were big Keynesians whose policies destroyed America.  Ronald Reagan rebuilt America in the Eighties by returning to policies of the classical economics variety.  As George W. Bush did to pull us out of the bad recession caused by Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble bursting.

So the record shows the success of classical economics.  And the failure of Keynesian economics.  Yet about half the population voted for the Keynesian policies of President Obama in 2012.  Why?  Why did they vote for more of the failed policies of the past?  Because most Americans learn only of Keynesian economics in their economic courses.  While politicians, economists and the mainstream media endorse Keynesian policies as if they have a record of success.  They do this because Keynesian economics does something that classical economics doesn’t.  Empowers big government.  Sanctions class warfare.  Giving them the moral high ground when raising taxes.  And printing money.  Despite these actions causing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

President Obama won reelection for one of two reasons.  Either people want more free stuff.  Or they don’t understand economics.  Or the consequences of handing out all that free stuff.  For if they understood economics they would not have voted for a Keynesian.  For Keynesian policies have historically resulted in high unemployment and painful recessions.  So even if you’re voting for the free stuff you’d vote for the classical economics candidate.  For without people working there is no income to tax to pay for all of that free stuff.  But few people understand economics.  Which is lucky for President Obama.  In fact, few people understand the disaster that has been the liberal agenda as the liberals control the public schools, our colleges, the mainstream media and the entertainment establishment.  So few are learning the long record of liberal failures.  Which helps liberals win elections.  For you only know what someone taught you.  And if the liars are in charge of teaching us the only things we will learn are their lies.  Unless, of course, we can find some deserted island to grow up on where their policies can’t reach us.  Then when we come back we can make the world a better place.  A place with sound economic policies.  With no racism, no religious intolerance, no blind nationalist fervor, no culture of gun violence and no epidemic of deadbeat dads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study finds that the Liberal Policies Like that Favored by President Obama make People Unhappy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Money can’t buy happiness.  A new study proves it.  For it’s not buying the richest country in the world happiness.  So there is something else apparently that leads to a people’s happiness (see Canada among the happiest countries in the world by Tavia Grant posted 4/2/2012 on The Globe and Mail).

It finds the world has, broadly speaking, become a “little happier” in the past three decades, as living standards have risen. (One exception is the United States, where life satisfaction has not improved).

Interesting.  Life satisfaction in America hasn’t improved.  I wonder why.  And what are the things that make people more satisfied in life.  Here are some of those things according to this study.

•Happier countries tend to be richer ones. But more important for happiness than income are social factors like the strength of social support, the absence of corruption and the degree of personal freedom.

•Unemployment causes as much unhappiness as bereavement or separation. At work, job security and good relationships do more for job satisfaction than high pay and convenient hours.

•Behaving well makes people happier.

•Mental health is the biggest single factor affecting happiness in any country. Yet only a quarter of mentally ill people get treatment for their condition in advanced countries and fewer still in poorer countries.

•Stable family life and enduring marriages are important for the happiness of parents and children.

•In advanced countries, women are happier than men, while the position in poorer countries is mixed.

•Happiness is lowest in middle age.

Liberal Democrats are all for bigger government.  Continuously raising taxes to pay for it.  The federal budget has exploded as a result.  As has the debt.  For despite the vast wealth they’re taxing out of the private sector it isn’t enough.  And as it is anywhere where people manage large piles of money there is corruption.  The bigger the pile the bigger the corruption.  And so it is with government.  Just look at the billions thrown away on pork barrel spending on worthless projects like the Murtha Airport.  This kind of out of control corrupt pork barrel spending makes people unhappy.  Apparently they would be happier with a government that lives responsibly within their means like they have to.  At least, according to this study.

High taxes and onerous regulatory compliance costs are squeezing small business.  Millionaire entrepreneurs of yesteryear say they couldn’t do what they did today.  The explosion in new regulatory law just squashes innovation.  It’s simply too costly and too complicated to go into business.  There are so many laws that it impossible to know them all.  Unless you’re a lawyer.  And lawyers are about the only ones who understand these laws.  Or, at least, understand them enough.  So they can sue any business for violating some obscure law the business owner is unaware of.  And they do this all the time.  It’s legal extortion.  For business owners find it cheaper to settle out of court just to make the lawyers go away.  As a result this active interventionist government pushed by liberal Democrats is a drag on job creation.  Whose answer is more benefits for the unemployed rather than helping the job creators.  This tenuous job environment makes workers feel less secure in their own jobs.  And less happy.  According to this study.

Liberals attack religion and their moralizing.  They attack conservatives and their moralizing.  Liberals instead prefer fewer restraints placed on life.  For who is to say what is right and wrong?  So they favor relaxed drug laws.  Free contraceptives.  Abortion on demand.  And as much consequence-free fun as they can have.  In public places.  And in quiet neighborhoods.  Where property damage is just kids blowing off a little steam.  I mean, who hasn’t done a donut on a neighbor’s lawn because they told them to be quiet at 2 in the morning?  Well it turns out people prefer having quiet church-going people for neighbors.  Who treat people with respect and behave well when in public.  These are the people that make other people happy.  According to this study, at least.

LBJ was a big liberal Democrat.  His Great Society was a bonanza of welfare benefits for the poor.  Especially for single mothers.  The government said to these single moms, “Look, you don’t need a husband in your life.  We will provide for you and your children.  We’ll even provide public housing for you to live in.  So you don’t need a husband.  And your children don’t need a father.  We can be all of that for you.”  Well, the worse place to live was in public housing during the Seventies.  Where crime and drugs use was rampant.  With no stable family structure kids of single parents turned to the street.  And crime.  Taking that behavior into their schools.  Spreading the trouble.  Having the government take over the role of family was like introducing a cancer into a healthy being.  And it spreads still to this day.  The idea that family isn’t important.  And that government can provide.  But more government has only made people less happy.  At least, according to this study.

The policies of liberal Democrats encourage irresponsible behavior.  Consequence-free fun.  They’ve attacked religion and tried to remove it from everyday life.  To the point that people today have very little if any moral compass.  Young women have babies out of wedlock.  Some of these mothers sacrifice everything in a herculean struggle to raise their children.  Working and sacrificing everything for their children.  Even a happy family life with a husband and father that would have made children rearing easier.  Some single mothers are superheroes.  Some are not.  And neither as are happy as a family with two parents providing for and nurturing their children.  And having time to spend with them in their childhood because they’re not working a second or third job.

So this is why America has not improved in the area of life satisfaction.  Because of the extraordinary growth of liberal Democrat policies.  The very things that lead people to be less happy.  At least, according to this new study.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT105: “Since when did objectifying women become synonymous with empowering women?” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

With this Sexual Revolution came an Explosion in Pornography and Strip Clubs

The feminist movement began with an assault over wedded bliss.  Housewives were imprisoned as objects simply to serve one man.  Their husband.  Either by cooking and cleaning for him.  Having disgusting sex with him.  Or birthing babies for him.  And staying home to raise those little snot-nosed rug-rats while the husband went out and lived life.  The feminists saved them from this wedded ‘bliss’.  Gave them a get-out-of-jail-free card.  Birth control.  And abortion.  So that they, too, could go out and enjoy life.

So women said goodbye to motherhood and marriage.  They started careers.  And had a lot of sex.  Using birth control and abortion to prevent the gestation of any little rug-rats within their wombs.  Finally, women were liberated.  Empowered.  Instead of having sex with only one man they could have sex with as many men as they desired.  Which pleased a lot of men.  It was a sexual revolution.  One that the men were totally on board with.  For instead of having sex with only one woman they could have sex with as many women as they desired.  Objectifying women like they never did before.

With this sexual revolution came an explosion in pornography and strip clubs.  Feeding a lot of women into prostitution.  For that’s often the career path for old porn stars and strippers.  This objectification of their bodies has led to eating disorders.  As women and girls try to be as thin and pleasing to the opposite sex as possible.  And there was also an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases.  Including cancers.  Even one linked to abortion.  Breast cancer.  By interrupting a pregnancy during the cell changes in the breasts that prepare them to produce milk.  Leaving mutated cells in the breast tissue.  Which can apparently become cancerous according to some studies.

Birth Control and Abortion encourage Women to become Objects of Men’s Desire

Young people enjoy having fun.  And exploring their sexuality is a big part of that fun.  When they give in to their desires.  Without thinking about any long-term consequences.  We offer birth control to high school students.  Which empowers girls.  By encouraging them to have sex at ever younger ages.  Which is fun.  They like it.  They must.  For they keep doing it.  (And there’s nothing we can do about it.  Kids are going to have sex.  According to those in the know.)  Especially when it’s consequence free.  So some party more and study less.  These girls focus on their empowering sexuality.  Trying to be as pretty and sexy as they can.  To please the boys.  Which the boys like.  For they have one thing on their mind.  Sex.  And they love it when their classmates shop at Victoria’s Secret.  To be even more sexy for them.  Which the girls love.  Seeing how crazy they can make the boys.  And the boys love having these living and breathing objects for fun.  Rather than just in their pornography.

Life is a party around the high school years.  And then pretty and sexy girls go to college.  To enjoy that partying life away from Mom and Dad.  Especially on spring break.  They have so much fun with their empowering sexuality that videos of them empowering themselves end up on the Internet.  Other girls go on to work at strip clubs.  Where they empower themselves by having many drunken men fondled them each night.  Many of these strippers are drunk themselves.  Because it’s the only way they can make it through their shift.  By dulling all that fondling.

Interestingly, it’s the liberal Democrat feminists that make this all possible.  The champion of women.  Empowering them to objectify themselves.  By championing reproductive rights.  By making birth control and abortion readily available to encourage women to become these objects of men’s desire.  Anything to escape the hell of wedded bliss.  Even though their actions have helped to objectify women more.  Which begs the question.  Why do liberal Democrat feminists do it?

Liberal Democrats encourage Young Women to Objectify themselves to get the Youth Vote 

According to liberal Democrats the world is rife with racism and discrimination.  Despite over 30 years of their trying to end racism and discrimination.  They have failed.  And whenever they discuss issues of racism and discrimination today it is an admission that they have failed.  You’d think blacks would be upset about that.  But they’re not.  For despite this record of abject failure the Democrats get a large percentage of the black vote.  Pretty impressive for being a failure.  Now imagine if you actually deliver.

Democrats deliver for women.  They give them birth control and abortion.  And women are terrified of losing them.  Why?  Because the liberal Democrats tell them that only they can protect these rights for women.  It is the Democrats who champion women.  Empower them to pursue careers.  By giving them choice.  Control over their reproductive rights.  And scare them to think about a world where there are no reproductive rights.  A world ran by Republicans.  Scaring them with images of back alley abortions.  Warning them that Republicans will turn back the hands of time.  And outlaw pornography, strip bars, contraception and abortion.  And enslave women everywhere in wedded bliss.

But why encourage young women and girls to objectify themselves?  Because young people make bad decisions.  There is a reason why there is a legal drinking age.  Because young people make bad decisions.  Like having fun without thinking about long-term consequences of that fun.  So if liberal Democrats help them make bad decisions that let them enjoy sex without thinking about the consequences of sex they hope they can help them make another bad decision.  Voting Democrat.  Without considering the consequences of their vote.  Which young people do.  The youth vote is overwhelmingly Democrat.  Because they’re too busy having fun.  Want to continue having fun.  And the best way to do that is to empower young women to objectify themselves to please men.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #72: “Moms are a lot like CEOs. Only with more responsibility, longer hours and less pay.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 28th, 2011

Thinking and Deciding

Boy, do people like to demonize CEOs.  I mean, they really hate them.  These chief executive officers.  Overpaid and underworked.  And then there are all those stock options.  Making them bazillionaires.  By increasing the value of the company to shareholders.  Without a whit of concern for the little guy on the factory floor doing the work.  It just isn’t fair.  Sitting in their plush offices.  Flying in their private planes.  Staying in 5-star hotels.  Living in mansions while vacationing on some island paradise that they might in fact own.  Living champagne and caviar lives.  For doing what?

Actually, for doing quite a lot.  Mostly thinking.  And deciding.  Making decisions that will impact every employee of the company.  Now.  And years into the future.  Decisions that will determine if there is even a future.  For a corporation is like a ship.  It is large.  Complex.  And has momentum.  It can’t turn on a dime.  One decision today could steer that ship into open waters for clear sailing.  Or into an iceberg. 

The world is a changing place.  Nothing is static.  Including the economy.  And consumer spending.  For the consumer can be a fickle person.  We know what they’re buying today.  But no one knows what they’ll be buying tomorrow.  And that’s the problem CEOs face.  The things they’re making today will sell tomorrow.  Or later.  In fact, factories they build today will make things that will sell years later.  So the decision to build that factory had better been a good one.  Based on some good market research.  Objective analysis.  With no personal prejudices involved.  Such as laughing at new innovation.  Saying there’s no way it will replace the current industry standard.  Such as a phone company not getting in to the cellular business because everyone will always have a landline into their house.  In fact, they’ll have a few.  One for their phone.  One for their fax machine.  And one for their dial-up modem.  “And what could ever change that?” said the fat-cat phone executive while chomping on a cigar.  Shortly before the board of directors fired him.

Pay not Commensurate with Responsibilities

Moms are lot like CEOs.  They, too, have to look long-term.  And it starts with choosing a husband.  When they are ready to settle down and raise a family.  And they’re not going to waste their time with men who don’t want to settle down.  Like Beyoncé says, “if you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it” (Single Ladies).  It’s no longer about dating for fun.  It’s now about finding a life partner.  And women will choose carefully.  They’re looking for someone with a good job.  Someone who is responsible.  Someone they can trust.  Someone who is healthy and will sire healthy children.  Someone who is strong and self-confident.  Who can be both a provider and protector.  Perhaps someone who goes to church.  So they can bring their children up with strong morals.  They’ll start choosing their dates based on these criteria.  Then love can enter the equation.  Which it does.  And it’s often a deeper and more long-lasting love.  Because attraction is based on all of these things.  Not just physical appearance.

This decision is important to be a good mom.  Because it will affect the next 20+ years of her life.  And it will affect the lives of her children.  So she has to weigh a lot of things in making this decision.  Like a CEO’s vetting process choosing his or her officers.  Because it’s for the long haul.  She’ll work 7 days a week.  And must be available at all times of the day.  Even if she is sick.  Like a CEO.  Only NOT with pay commensurate with her responsibilities.  Unlike a CEO.  And those responsibilities include raising her children.  And managing the household.  While her husband works.  Old school.  Like Paula Cole says.  “I will raise the children if you pay all the bills” (Where have all the Cowboys Gone).

A CEO has a chief financial officer (CFO) to manage the finances.  Mom just wear another hat.  And manages the finances, too.  The husband works.  But he gives his wife the paycheck.  For although his earnings pay the bills, she writes the checks.  And balances the budget.  Which often take a little finesse.  Because there isn’t a lot of money in the beginning.  And raising children and owning a house can be very expensive.  So managing cash-flow becomes a fast learned skill.  Because groceries, school supplies, clothes, utilities, insurance, mortgage and taxes don’t all come due in pay periods equal to the amount of the paycheck.  Which means she has to put a little aside each pay period (like a sinking fund in corporate America) to pay the big things that come due at various times throughout the year.  Or tap her line of credit (i.e., credit card), making cuts in the monthly budget to service the new debt and pay down the high-interest loan as quickly as possible.  Oh, and she cooks and cleans, too.

“Are you wearing Clean Underwear?”

Some may belittle the classical housework of being a mom.  The cooking and cleaning.  But when raising children they can be the most important of her responsibilities.  Of all the animal kingdom, human offspring are the most helpless.  And they’re helpless for the longest time.  It takes 18 years before they leave the nest.  And they’re growing that whole time.  Fueling that growth with three meals a day.  Two if they buy lunch at school during the school year.  This is something a CEO doesn’t have to worry about with employees.  Being accountable for everything they eat or drink.  And not getting them sick in the process for food preparation is a dangerous business.  Especially when working with raw chicken.  So she’s health inspector.  And dietician.  Managing their growth with the family doctor.  Making sure they eat their vegetables.  Drink their milk.  Because it all matters.  To make sure their bones are strong and healthy.  And to have strong immune systems.  For the old maxim is true.  We are what we eat.  Which is a challenge for a mother.  Because kids don’t like eating healthy.  Or being clean, for that matter.

Yes, it’s true.  Mothers want their kids to wear clean underwear. But it’s not just to save them the embarrassment should their child be in an accident where someone may see his or her dirty underwear.  (Well, maybe a little.)  It’s because poor hygiene kills.  And there are few things more unhygienic than pooping.  These are some nasty germs.  They cause outbreaks of cholera when they contaminate drinking water supplies.  And cause E. coli food poisoning when transferred to our food supply (that’s why there are signs in restaurant bathrooms saying that all employees must wash their hands so they don’t kill anyone with their food).  Nasty stuff.  So mothers are fanatical about bathing their kids.  Making sure they wash their hands after using the bathroom.  And that they wear clean underwear.  Also not to pick up food that fell on the floor (that 5-second rule is a dad rule).  Or put things in their mouths that they shouldn’t.  And they’ll keep all their cleaning and plumbing supplies locked up and out of reach of their children.  Their medicines, too.  Because kids like to put things in their mouths.  And will eat or drink anything they find that isn’t a vegetable on a plate.

As protective as she may be, her child will most probably get sick.  Some other kid may sneeze in her child’s face.  Or some other kid may not wash his or her hands after using the bathroom.  Or use a door knob when they have a cold.  Or pass the measles to her child.  Then mother becomes nurse.  Carefully administering medicines.  Emptying barf buckets.  Cleaning her child and the bedding when he or she misses the barf bucket.  All the while cooking and cleaning.  And managing the household. 

Leading by Example

And the responsibilities never end.  There’re good manners to teach.  Honesty.  Morality.  Good behavior.  Inside the home.  And when out of the home.  The mother instructs constantly.  And sets a good example.  Dad, too.  When the kids are around they’ll watch their language.  Because they don’t want their kids to have potty mouths.  And Mom and Dad will treat each other with respect.  Because they want their children to grow up as ladies and gentlemen.  For boys to treat girls with respect.  Not to hit them.  Or objectify them.  And no matter what Mom may have done on spring break when she was in school, she will not do anything now that will set a bad example for her daughter.  Or give ideas to her son.  Like getting girls drunk so they make bad decisions is okay.

This is something moms share with CEOs.  Leading by example.  Because perception in the corporate world can make or break a company.  That’s why they have zero-tolerance policies for bad behavior.  Because a reputation of bad behavior (racist, sexist, hate speech, etc.) will give a corporation bad press that can take years to overcome.  Especially if it’s a high-level manager.  Or an officer.  In fact, it’s worse at that level because of the vetting process.  Like choosing a husband, these people are chosen for the long haul.  And bad behavior in these people reflects poorly on the CEO.  Because he or she chose them.   If your CFO is arrested for tax fraud it shows that you are a poor judge of character.  And have a poor handle on your business operations.  And if you’re CFO is committing tax fraud under your nose, you probably are doing a poor job.  And no doubt the board of directors will be looking for a new CEO.  As one of the best ways to get over a scandal is by cleaning house.

Being a CEO is hard.  So is being a mom.  There’s a lot of on the job training.  Which is more of just figuring things out as you go along.  You learn from your mistakes.  All the while being overworked.  And underpaid.  Working horrible hours.  With little sleep.  On call 24/7.  With no breaks or vacations.  Yes, there may be family vacations.  But Mom will still be working on those vacations.  Same responsibilities.  Just a different setting.  At least the CEO has a staff to handle things while on vacation.  At best a mom gets a quiet bubble bath while the kids are at school.  Or a quiet moment on the toilet.  Safe behind a closed door.  For a few quiet minutes. 

Moms and CEOs have their differences.  But their responsibilities are the same.  A corporation’s success depends on the good decisions of its CEO.  Just as the success of a family depends on the good decisions of Mom.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #28: “Politicians love failure because no one ever asked government to fix something that was working.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2010

THE TELEVISION SHOW Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. aired from 1964-1969.  It was a spinoff from the Andy Griffith Show.  Gomer, a naive country bumpkin who worked at Wally’s filling station, joined the Marines Corps.  And there was much mirth and merriment.  To the chagrin of Sergeant Carter, Pyle’s drill instructor (DI).  Think of Gunny Sergeant R. Lee Ermey’s Sergeant Hartman in the movie Full Metal Jacket only with no profanity or mature subject matter.  Sergeant Carter was a tough DI like Sergeant Hartman.  But more suitable for the family hour on prime time television.

Gunny sergeants are tough as nails.  And good leaders.  They take pride in this.  But sometimes a gunny starts to feel that he’s not himself anymore.  This was the subject of an episode.  And Gomer, seeing that Sergeant Carter was feeling down, wanted to help.  So he stuffed Sergeant Carter’s backpack with hay before a long march.  While the platoon was worn and tired, Sergeant Carter was not.  He was feeling good.  Like his old self.  Until he found out he was not carrying the same load his men were.  He asked Pyle, “why hay?”  He could understand rocks, but hay?  Because if he outlasted his men while carrying a heavier load, he would feel strong.  But knowing he had carried a lighter load only made him feel weak.

This is human nature.  People take pride in their achievements.  They don’t take pride in any achievement attained by an unfair advantage.  Self-esteem matters.  And you can’t feel good about yourself if you need help to do what others can do without help. 

AN OLD CHINESE proverb goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”  Let’s say I am a fisherman in a small village.  I catch fish to feed my family and sell/trade for other family needs.  There’s a man in my village who asks me for a fish each day so he can eat.  I’m a caring person.  So I give him a fish each day.  So a pattern develops.  Each day he shows up when I come in from my fishing.  He takes the fish and goes away.  It works out well for him.  He doesn’t have to work.  He can live off of my kind charity.  Then I move.  Without me being there to give him a fish each day, he no longer can eat.  And dies.  If I only had taught that man to fish. 

Kindness can lead to dependency.  And once dependent, you become lazy.  Why develop marketable skills to provide for yourself when someone else will provide for you?  The problem is, of course, what happens when that charity ends?  If you’re unable to provide for yourself and there is no longer someone providing for you, what do you do?  Steal?

Dependency and a lack of self-esteem are a dangerous combination.  And they feed off of each other.  This combination can lead to depression.  Behavioral problems.  Resentment.  Bitterness.  Envy.  Or a defeatist attitude.

These are often unintended consequences of government programs.  A failed program, then, has far reaching consequences beyond the initial economic costs of a program.

LIQUIDITY CRISES CAUSE a lot of economic damage.  If capital is not available for businesses to borrow, businesses can’t grow.  Or create jobs.  And we need jobs.  People have to work.  To support themselves.  And to pay taxes to fund the government.  So everyone is in favor of businesses growing to create jobs.  We all would like to see money being easy and cheap to borrow if it creates jobs.

But there is a downside to easy money.  Inflation.  Too much borrowing can create inflation.  By increasing the money supply (via fractional reserve banking).  More money means higher prices.  Because each additional dollar is worth a little less. This can lead to overvalued assets as prices are ‘bid’ up with less valuable dollars.  And higher prices can inflate business profits.  Looks good on paper.  But too much of this creates a bubble.  Because those high asset values and business profits are not real.  They’re inflated.  Like a bubble.  And just as fragile.  When bubbles burst, asset values and business profits drop.  To real values.  People are no longer ‘bidding’ up prices.  They stop buying until they think prices have sunk to their lowest.  We call this deflation.  A little bit of inflation or deflation is normal.  Too much can be painful economically.  Like in the Panic of 1907.

Without going into details, there was a speculative bubble that burst in 1907.  This led to a liquidity crisis as banks failed.  Defaults on loans left banks owing more money than they had (i.e., they became illiquid).  They tried to borrow money and recall loans to restore their liquidity.  Borrowers grew concerned that their bank may fail.  So they withdrew their money.  This compounded the banks problems.  This caused deflation.  Money was unavailable.  Causing bank runs.  And bank failures.  Business failures.  And unemployment grew. So government passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.  The government gave the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) great powers to tweak the monetary system.  The smartest people at the time had figured out what had gone wrong in 1907.  And they created a system that made it impossible for it to happen again.

The worst liquidity crisis of all time happened from 1929-1933.  It’s part of what we call the Great Depression.  The 1920s had a booming economy.  Real income was rising.  Until the Fed took action.  Concerned that people were borrowing money for speculative purposes (in paper investments instead of labor, plant and material), they put on the brakes.  Made it harder and more expensive to borrow money.  Then a whole series of things happened along the way that turned a recession into a depression.  When people needed money, they made it harder to get it, causing a deflationary spiral.  The Great Depression was the result of bad decisions made by too few men with too much power.  It made a crisis far worse than the one in 1907.  And the Roosevelt administration made good use of this new crisis.  FDR exploded the size of government to respond to the unprecedented crisis they found themselves in.  The New Deal changed America from a nation of limited government to a country where Big Government reigns supreme.

ONE PROGRAM OF the New Deal was Social Security.  Unemployment in the 1930s ran at or above 14%.  This is for one whole decade.  Never before nor since has this happened.  Older workers generally earn more than younger ones.  Their experience commands a higher pay rate.  Which allows them to buy more things.  Resulting in more bills.  Therefore, the Great Depression hit older workers especially hard.  A decade of unemployment would have eaten through any life savings of even the most prudent savers.  And what does this get you?  A great crisis.

The government took a very atypical moment of history and changed the life of every American.  The government forced people to save for retirement.  In a very poor savings plan.  That paid poorly by comparison to private pensions or annuities.  And gave the government control over vast amounts of money.  It was a pervasive program.  They say FDR quipped, “Let them try to undo this.” 

With government taking care of you in retirement, more people stopped providing for themselves.  When they retired, they scrimped by on their ‘fixed’ incomes.  And because Social Security became law before widespread use of birth control and abortion, the actuaries of the day were very optimistic.  They used the birth rate then throughout their projections.  But with birth control and abortion came a huge baby bust.  The bottom fell out of the birth rate.  A baby bust generation followed a baby boom generation.  Actually, all succeeding generations were of the bust kind.  The trend is growing where fewer and fewer people pay for more and more people collecting benefits.  And these people were living longer.  To stay solvent, the system has to raise taxes on those working and reduce benefits on those who are not.  Or raise the retirement age.  All these factors have made it more difficult on our aged population.  Making them working longer than they planned.  Or by making that fixed income grow smaller.

FDR used a crisis to create Social Security.  Now our elderly people are dependent on that system.  It may suck when they compare it to private pensions or annuities, but it may be all they have.  If so, they’ll quake in their shoes anytime anyone mentions reforming Social Security.  Because of this it has become the 3rd rail of politics.  A politician does not touch it lest he or she wishes to die politically.  But it’s not all bad.  For the politician.  Because government forced the elderly to rely on them for their retirement, it has made the Social Security recipient dependent on government.  In particular, the party of government who favors Big Government.  The Democrats.  And with a declining birth rate and growing aged population, this has turned into a large and loyal voting bloc indeed.  Out of fear.

A PROGRAM THAT straddled the New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Its original New Deal purpose was to help widows take care of their children.  When program outlays peaked in the 1970s, the majority of recipients were unmarried women and divorced women.  Because this was a program based on need, the more need you had the more you got.  Hence more children meant more money.  It also reduced the importance of marriage as the government could replace the support typically provided by a husband/father.  Noted economist Dr. Thomas Sowell blames AFDC as greatly contributing to the breakdown of the black family (which has the highest incidence of single-parent households).

With the women’s liberation movement, women have come to depend less on men.  Some affluent women conceive and raise children without a husband.  Or they adopt.  And the affluent no doubt can provide all the material needs their children will ever need.  Without a husband.  Or a father for their children.  But is that enough?

The existence of ‘big brother’ programs would appear to prove otherwise.  Troubled children are often the products of broken families.  Mothers search for big brothers to mentor these fatherless sons.  To be role models.  To show an interest in these children’s lives.  To care.  When no such role models are available, some of these troubled children turn to other sources of acceptance and guidance.  Like gangs.

AFDC has compounded this problem by providing the environment that fosters fatherless children.  And another government program compounds that problem.  Public housing.

POOR HOUSING CONDITIONS hurt families.  They especially hurt broken families.  Without a working husband, these families are destined to live in the cheapest housing available.  These are often in the worst of neighborhoods.  This is an unfair advantage to the children raised in those families.  For it wasn’t their fault they were born into those conditions.  So, to solve that problem, government would build good public housing for these poorest of the poor to move into.  Problem solved.

Well, not exactly.  Public housing concentrates these broken families together.  Usually in large apartment buildings.  This, then, concentrates large numbers of troubled children together.  So, instead of having these children dispersed in a community, public housing gathers them together.  Where bad behavior reinforces bad behavior.  It becomes the rule, not the exception.  Making a mother’s job that much more difficult.  And because these children live together, they also go to school together.  And this extends the bad behavior problem to the school.  Is it any wonder that public housing (i.e., the projects) have the worst living conditions?  And some of the highest gang activity? 

Government didn’t plan it this way.  It’s just the unintended consequences of their actions.  And those consequences are devastating.  To the poor in general.  To the black family in particular.  AFDC and public housing enabled irresponsible/bad behavior.  That behavior destroyed families.  As well as a generation or two.  But it wasn’t all bad.  For the politicians.  It made a very large constituency dependent on government.

THERE ARE SO many more examples.  But the story is almost always the same.  Dependency and a lack of self-esteem will beat down a person’s will.  Like an addict, it will make the dependent accept poorer and poorer living standards in exchange for their fix of dependency.  Eventually, the dependency will reach the point where they will not know how to provide for themselves.  The dependency will become permanent.  As will the lack of self-esteem.  Conscious or not of their actions, Big Government benefits from the wretched state they give these constituencies.  With no choice but continued dependence, they vote for the party that promises to give the most.  Which is typically the Democrat Party.

But how can you fault these politicians?  They acted with the best of intentions.  And they can fix these new problems.  They’ll gather the brightest minds.  They’ll study these problems.  And they will produce the best programs to solve these problems.  All it will take is more government spending.  And how can you refuse?  When people are hungry.  Or homeless.  Or have children that they can’t care for.  How can anyone not want to help the children?  How can anyone not have compassion?

Well, compassion is one thing.  When the innocent suffer.  But when government manufactures that suffering, it’s a different story.  Planned or not the result is the same whenever government tries to fix things.  The cost is high.  The solution is typically worse than the original problem.  And the poorest of the poor are pawns.  To be used by Big Government in the name of compassion. 

Of course, if Big Government were successful in fixing these problems, they would fix themselves right out of existence.  So as long as they want to run Big Government programs, they’ll need a stock of wretched, suffering masses that need their help.  And, of course, lots of crises.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,