[jonnycsd]

[quote=capeman]Another much much less likely scenario would be rates don’t peak at a reasonable/profitable level (much higher) and the currency collapses. Then money wouldn’t matter anyways in a Mad Max scenario like that. [/quote]

Why do you take it as a given that hyperinflation causes society to collapse? I was in Brazil when they had hyperinflation running 4 digits per year. Interestingly, you could still write checks for payments – and each check written had an interest rate assigned to compensate the seller for the week or so delay it took to clear funds. Within about 6 months, the Brazilian banking industry in cooperation with the government had revamped the process so that most checks cleared funds the same day they were written.

There was no chaos in the street – the busses ran, the markets sold food. It was very tough on the poor but society did not collapse. Now, after twice swapping out the entire currency they seem to have got it under control.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.

Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.

Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.

The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .

“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“

http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm

[jonnycsd]

[quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.

Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.

Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.

The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .

“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“

http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm

[jonnycsd]

[quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.

Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.

Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.

The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .

“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“

http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm

[jonnycsd]

[quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.

Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.

Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.

The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .

“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“

http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm

[jonnycsd]

[quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.

Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.

Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.

The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .

“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“

http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm

[jonnycsd]

The Police Policy Studies Council? Who funds them, the Police Unions? Not sure that I would trust them to have unbiased research. It certainly conflicts with Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Police Detectives make the list (after truck drivers, cashiers, construction workers and many others). The main hazard of being a detective? Car crashes, same as truck drivers. Firefighters don’t even make the list. Apparently Barbeque at the station, runs at the park, and very occasionally running into a burning building is not so dangerous as many believe.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

[jonnycsd]

The Police Policy Studies Council? Who funds them, the Police Unions? Not sure that I would trust them to have unbiased research. It certainly conflicts with Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Police Detectives make the list (after truck drivers, cashiers, construction workers and many others). The main hazard of being a detective? Car crashes, same as truck drivers. Firefighters don’t even make the list. Apparently Barbeque at the station, runs at the park, and very occasionally running into a burning building is not so dangerous as many believe.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

[jonnycsd]

The Police Policy Studies Council? Who funds them, the Police Unions? Not sure that I would trust them to have unbiased research. It certainly conflicts with Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Police Detectives make the list (after truck drivers, cashiers, construction workers and many others). The main hazard of being a detective? Car crashes, same as truck drivers. Firefighters don’t even make the list. Apparently Barbeque at the station, runs at the park, and very occasionally running into a burning building is not so dangerous as many believe.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

[jonnycsd]

The Police Policy Studies Council? Who funds them, the Police Unions? Not sure that I would trust them to have unbiased research. It certainly conflicts with Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Police Detectives make the list (after truck drivers, cashiers, construction workers and many others). The main hazard of being a detective? Car crashes, same as truck drivers. Firefighters don’t even make the list. Apparently Barbeque at the station, runs at the park, and very occasionally running into a burning building is not so dangerous as many believe.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

[jonnycsd]

The Police Policy Studies Council? Who funds them, the Police Unions? Not sure that I would trust them to have unbiased research. It certainly conflicts with Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Police Detectives make the list (after truck drivers, cashiers, construction workers and many others). The main hazard of being a detective? Car crashes, same as truck drivers. Firefighters don’t even make the list. Apparently Barbeque at the station, runs at the park, and very occasionally running into a burning building is not so dangerous as many believe.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[Author]

Posts