Globalization and the Future State of Men, Part I

Post image for Globalization and the Future State of Men, Part I

by Elusive Wapiti on October 7, 2009

I’ve been reading a lot about globalization lately. Friedman’s World is Flat. Scheve and Slaughter’s New Deal for Globalization. Haass’ Age of Non-polarity. Diamond’s Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State. And Mandelbaum’s Democracy Without America. All have been interesting. All have done well to paint a picture of an America that is declining, if not in absolute power (denoted, crudely, by the volume of guns, money, and ideas that a society has), then certainly in influence. A picture of an international system set up, by, and for America and her co-travellers that is in jeopardy. A mental image of how the technology of democracy…thought by some Neo-Kantian theorists like Fukuyama and Friedman to be the magic bullet that brings peace and prosperity to the whole world, if the unwashed would just accept it…is stopped in its tracks, and in some places is being rolled back in favor of less disorganized and more coherent (and authoritarian) political systems. And a picture about how international upstarts are gaining in a world that is most certainly not going to be unipolar or mutli-polar but apolar, at least for the short run. What will the world look like when the American Empire, must like the Athenian or Roman empires that preceded it, collapses under the weight of the infrastructure needed to keep it all together, and multiple competitors emerge each with their own ideas of what the new world order should look like? More pertinently for many of my readers, what will such a world look like for us as mortal, solidly beta guys?

One feature of the new world we are entering is that the heyday of our fathers, that featured good-paying jobs for (comparatively) not much labor and fat defined-benefit pensions, is no more. The last gasp of that old-school system died when GM, the daddy rabbit of big-name industrial behemoths that, in its later years, was derided as a health care company that made cars, was finally nationalized earlier this year. The IT revolution that ushered in this economic transformation that killed GM and Chrysler and scores of other staid, lumbering American industries, has accelerated to breakneck pace now that the relatively closed economic systems that characterized the post WWII era and much of the Cold War era have opened up to market competition. As a result, the high standards of living enjoyed by Americans, by virtue of their status of being the only survivor of a worldwide Thunderdome deathmatch in the 1940s and consequent exporter to the world, have been arbitraged away to places like China and India, which are full of 3 billion educated workers hungry for a bite of the good life. Friedman documents this process well…for as long as protectionism is out of style, the best American workers, mostly men, must compete head-to-head in Drucker’s knowledge economy with the best that Brazil, Russia, India, and China have to offer, to say nothing of lesser economic powers who will each claim their own pounds of flesh: Israelis, Irish, Finns, Estonians, and Singaporeans.

The result of such a competition will be rude and uncomfortable for many, I think. Perhaps not in this corner of the blogosphere, which allegedly boasts much higher than average IQs, but our less gifted brothers across the country will fail to reap their proportional share of the wealth as more talented Jews, Northeast Asians, and Nordic whites occupy the highest rungs of the social ladder, condemning a majority of NAMs to lower economic strata. Scheve and Slaughter in their article document rising income inequality in the country, something that I think is an excellent symptom of this globalization process that snuck up on us all while our country was sleeping. As the reader can see from the graph drawn from the Scheve article, incomes have only risen for the top few percent of the population, while those who have foolishly bought into the education industry’s marketing pitch have suffered from the double-whammy of falling incomes and heavy student debt. Interestingly, those that didn’t attend college at all have not seen their incomes fall, which suggests that non-portable service jobs which do not have high barriers to entry (i.e. marginally useful yet expensive sheepskins) such as plumbers and automotive technicians have remained steady. If those people kept their financial portfolios clear of debt from unnecessary consumption, they probably do okay. HS dropouts, of course, fall in the bottom of the pile, forced as they are to compete with Pedro for stoop labor jobs in places like the Imperial Valley or in the meat-packing plants of Colorado, Iowa, or Nebraska.

Speaking of Pedro, one thing I noted is that the majority of the pro-globalization, free marketeer literature features a blithe promotion of open borders. While those folks probably have the free movement of labor across borders in mind when they promote this concept, I suspect they don’t think much about what happens when third world laborers come to the US and stay, the social costs they incur (welfare, ER visits, crime, food stamps), the wage scales they lower, and the not insignificant adverse cultural impacts that is inevitable when mass migrations of aliens are injected into a host culture. If they had paid some heed to this issue, they may rethink their support, as this diversity of cultures reduces social cohesion, which then undermines the civic institutions that authors such as Mandelbaum cite as vital to the creation and sustainment of a free society (the thinking being that the government can’t be everywhere, and the government that tried to be everywhere–as would be the case when parallel civic institutions are ineffective or nonexistent–would erode freedom indeed). In other words, their support of open borders undermines the very economy that they are trying to “help” with an open borders policy. Therefore the debate really isn’t economics vs. security, as Scheve and Slaughter derisively dismissed critics of globalization’s impact on homeland security. No, it’s security and governance first, upon which all else rests, as Diamond pointed out.

Another men-impacting feature of globalization to consider is that globalization tends to benefit alphas and other apex-dwellers the most, while leaving betas and other lesser classes of men behind. We can see this phenomenon by noting who globalization selects to reward with the best incomes. It grants money and wealth to those who, in the global marketplace, add the most to the value chain of their corner of the knowledge economy, commensurate with their contribution.* Those who cannot or do not contribute to the knowledge economy on par with their peers are pushed lower on the pay scale, maybe even banished from the knowledge sector entirely. Manufacturing, according to Drucker, will eventually be nearly entirely performed overseas and, according to Friedman, will shrink radically as capital replaces labor and labor becomes more and more productive, meaning progressively less and less of it is needed. Those displaced by the shift away from manufacturing, or those who note the complexion of the knowledge-service divide, will likely be quite unhappy about their newfound lower standard of living and drop on the social scale. This will have the effect of exacerbating the already marked income inequality that Drucker warned us about, which I contend will inevitably lead to calls (such as that made by Scheve and Slaughter) for more progressive taxation policies and forced income redistribution to balance the condition of the haves to the have-nots. (Given how some of the rich are fleeing New York and other high tax places, somehow I don’t think that such a strategy will work.) The end result of all this displacement is that many traditionally “male” jobs will disappear, the good jobs somewhat predominantly occupied by alpha men, and the really good jobs occupied nearly exclusively by alpha men. The rest of the men, and nearly all the women, will sell their labor for cash in the service sector.

Demographically, the haves and have nots will tend to split along class lines, which is to say that they’ll tend to split along racial lines (and to a lesser extent, sex lines, but more on the gender factor later). The resulting black/brown vs. white social instability will be a terribly difficult problem for the government to handle, for in a global economy, American industries can ill afford the parasite drag from inefficiencies induced by government-sponsored anti-white, anti-Asian racism. They simply cannot afford, in the pure meritocracy that is a free market, such social overhead, in addition to the other onerous social burdens that government is wont to place upon companies. Companies will try to for a time, but the inevitable result is that many of those companies will eventually move offshore to places that do not require such burdensome practices. I don’t know how this will play out, but I do not think that the eloi will be tolerated well by the descamisado morlock underclass they dominate, not when obvious racial and ethnic differences only serve to accentuate and sharpen the envy and covetousness of those less wealthy than they.

Women, for their part, will benefit disproportionately in the globalized economy by the confluence of two phenomena: the glass floor, through which women rarely fall to the basement, and a gynocentric society optimized for females at the expense of males. One consequence of said gynocentrism is to retard academic development for men, which will artificially depress their ability to compete in the globalized economy with foreign men or women. Another consequence, alluded to earlier, is government-sponsored sexism that artificially infuses the labor market with underqualified women who displace better-qualified men for coveted high-paying jobs. That said, while their participation in the upper strata of society is unnaturally skewed upward, a larger proportion of women, compared to men, will occupy the service sector. But here’s where things get interesting. The present dating market is optimized for the pleasure of hypergamous many-to-one women and for promiscuous one-to-many men. The trend of globalization will tend to reinforce this primitive social ecology to the detriment of beta men, producing steadily more disaffected and disinvested men who will feel, not without some justification, that the blessings of the globalized economy have passed them by. Unfortunately, the one institution that would go a long way toward alleviating their condition, enduring marriage and family, is completely off the scope of all of the writers I’ve read thus far. While a few, notably Haass, warn of the hazards that unintegrated, alienated men and women pose to the stability of a society, all overlook the family, the fundamental building block of a free society, the pre-eminent and first-order civic institution and “counterweight to the machinery of government” that Diamond and Mandelbaum emphasize so much.

When all these factors are taken into consideration, the future for non-apex men looks rather bleak indeed.

Stay tuned for the next installment: A Couple Reasons for Optimism and A Conclusion.

* Now I’m not talking about the money-changers or the parasitic executive class. When I’m talking about workers, I’m referring to those who exchange value for value, who trade an honest day’s labor for an honest day’s pay.

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Firepower October 7, 2009 at 10:35

Thomas Friedman.

The celebrated, feted NYT author who pontificated in From Beirut to Jerusalem. The tome I was “encouraged” to read by my psycho-fascist liberal professors at university.

All those old evil baddies there in Tommy’s sacred pala-land? Gone. Replaced by new evil baddies… and not one problem solved. Except Thommie now has enough cachet to make a down payment on a Hampton Masterpiece, or go shopping at Bernie Madoff’s garage sale.

And, now he arrives on the scene to heap dictionaries full of brimstone at the socialist utopias his ilk so eagerly spawned.

Only egotistical academic superstar NYT authors and their erudite dilettantes think “a magic bullet” from a word processor solves a fucking thing.

Go ask Ho Chi Minh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalization/Gynocracy October 7, 2009 at 10:41

I have no research to bach up this intuition, but I suspect the plutocracy’s encouragement of feminism in the West is due to women tending to be more psychologically accepting of a globalized/one world government scenario.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul October 7, 2009 at 10:44

I will look forward to reading your next article. Just a point. Transferring industrial jobs overseas at least requires some physical effort in so much as plant must either be moved or constructed. Moving IT jobs ( by which I mean information managing jobs) require no such effort. So these jobs which you might think of as female service jobs could also depart.

By the way I think it is worth saying that you might call a beta person could be in other respects a very talented human being. A Guy who works in a grocery store might be a really good guitarist. A postman might be a good artist. Just because a man works with his hands does not really make him beta.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 7, 2009 at 12:08

“I have no research to bach up this intuition”
Try reading http://www.henrymakow.com. You will find all the evidence you need there that the Rockefellers (as a front for the Rothchilds) are the ones supporting ‘womens liberation’ and ‘feminism’ so that they can usher in their New World Order. He has written a whole book on the subject.

We are in a ‘silent war’. Benjamin Fullford posts his views in both Japanese and english. You can read them here.
http://benjaminfulford.typepad.com/benjaminfulford/

Few people know this silent war is even going on. But when senior Rockefeller managers start turning up dead in ‘apparent suicides’ you know that it is starting to get serious. Feminism is one small part of this ‘silent war’ but it is a very important part. Men have to be endlessly abused in order to break their will to fight and defend themselves. This is what is really going on.

Globalisation is just what the Illuminati are doing to create their one world government. Nothing is happening by chance. It is all well thought through and well orchestrated. Just look up Agenda 21 on the UN web site and how men have no role in the future. Try learning about codex alementarius by which they want to control food to reduce it’s nutritional value to weaken people and make them sick. It is supposed to go live at the end of this year. Not far away.

The only way to ‘fight’ globalisation is for us to refuse to participate in the global economic system….in some places like japan people have started web sites to swap credits…no money needed….a good example is care for the aged….since people have been deliberately scattered to break down family ties the children of elderly parents are not nearby…in Japan a scheme was started where you looked after someone elses parents who lived nearby and earned credits. Then someone who lived near your parents might look after your parents to be paid by your credits. No money, no taxes.

When we start trading with each other again and kick the guvment out of our trading we will soon put an end to ‘globalisation’. How can it be ‘better’ to grow food 5,000 kms away and ship it to markets when the same food can be grown locally. Our vegies are better travelled than most people. They only did this to gain control of our food supply.

The only people that globalisation really helps are the people at the very top…some people get a bit of a trickle down effect….but the other 95% are screwed. But it is not about money..it is about control…there is no money….it’s really worth watching the money masters to understand the money system

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=cubMSrWuDNPA-AadufnrCQ&q=the+money+masters+full&hl=en#

It is three hours but it is an excellent movie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 12:11

I highly doubt that women will benefit from more globalization. The opposite will occur, because :

1) Islam coming into the West, and setting up their own courts in Britain.
2) Most cultures in the world are partriarchal, and such cultures will always have a higher birth rate than a feminized culture.
3) It is becoming easier for an American man to expat to Asia, where he will live a better life as an expat.
4) The low-end service jobs that women work in can be outsourced, while manufacturing that men work in has little left to lose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anakin Niceguy October 7, 2009 at 13:34

I see some vagueness and imprecision in the use of the term “alpha.” What do we mean by Alpha? This term gets bandied about to mean anything from the dude who can get laid to the guy who has specialized, marketable skills. I think there is a disconnect here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 7, 2009 at 15:04

I think ‘alpha’ means anyone who wears a blue-suit, cape and wears his underpants on the outside.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko October 7, 2009 at 16:27

Fantastic post.
Your post describes what this graph represents. Unbalanced wealth extraction leads to a point where the elites cannibalize the masses or as Roissy says, “emergent phenomena of late cycle democratic republics.”

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jg_MEuahvwY/SbHSJ4WbtLI/AAAAAAAAABg/uoom19rteO4/s1600-h/Scurve.gif"unbalanced rates of wealth extraction from an economy

From this post.
<a href="http://utterlycorrelated.blogspot.com/2009/03/tale-of-securitized-cod-babylonian_07.html"Babylonian finance

We seem to be just over the apex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amusing October 7, 2009 at 18:12

It’s amusing that you somehow believe ‘only blacks’ will truly suffer from globalization.

Idiot. Everyone that isn’t Capital is meat for the machine.

As you can see from the governments own numbers on wealth distribution:
http://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm

The top 5% of the population has a total of 68.8% of the wealth of the United States. This is an average of 68.8%/5% or 13.8% of the wealth per percent.

The ‘bottom’ 95% of the population has a total of 31.2% of the wealth of the United States. This is an average of 32.2%/95% or 0.328% of the wealth per percent.

The top five percent have 42 times the wealth of the ‘bottom’ 95%.

Are 19 out of 20 people black now? Maybe 19 out of 20 people have below average intelligence? Yeah, that’s it!

I guess we are all black now, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Amusing October 7, 2009 at 18:23

I missed a column, the actual numbers are:

Top 10% has 68.8% or 6.88% per percent.

‘Bottom’ 90% has 32.2% or 0.357% per percent.

They top 10% has 19 times the wealth of the ‘bottom’ 90%.

Still outrageous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amusing October 7, 2009 at 18:33

Demographically, the haves and have nots will tend to split along class lines, which is to say that they’ll tend to split along racial lines (and to a lesser extent, sex lines, but more on the gender factor later). The resulting black/brown vs. white social instability will be a terribly difficult problem for the government to handle, for in a global economy, American industries can ill afford the parasite drag from inefficiencies induced by government-sponsored anti-white, anti-Asian racism. They simply cannot afford, in the pure meritocracy that is a free market, such social overhead, in addition to the other onerous social burdens that government is wont to place upon companies.

And this is where he said the nonsense I was contradicting.

I noticed new nonsense when reading it. The “Free Market”(which does not exist in most of America’s economy) is a “meritocracy”(not even true in a real Free Market).

I mean really. A “Free Market” is a freakish aberration in Government Regulated America. And the Government Regulation is by established business for established business.

For example, the SEC , Zoning Laws, Building Codes, and the FDA.

For example, SEC violations occur all the time. But if an established interest, for example, Bernie Madoff, wants to do whatever he wants to do, nobody at SEC even takes a look. I’m not saying Bernie was a specific exception, I’m saying ALL the Established Little Bernie’s out there are NEVER looked at. Upstarts however, are shown the error of their ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 7, 2009 at 19:00

I too find the alpha/beta distinctions and definitions a bit fuzzy.

The highest earners are not necessarily what I would call alphas in other scenarios. In certain fields, yes, but say, in technology…or interior design? We aren’t a society of hunters or warriors–where the natural alphas would also probably be the leaders–so the standards get kinda screwy.

I think that status hierarchies of men are a bit more fluid, depending on the man, the context and the group. Sometimes I am the alpha in a particular group, and I know exactly when I’m a sidekick or wingman to an alpha (my best pal is an alpha in most groups–but not all–by default). A psychologist friend of mine once made the point to me that men are always negotiating and renegotiating terms of dominance or submission within their various relationships with other men. I tend to agree.

If there’s a particular post somewhere you can point to that clarifies/summarizes your take on it the alpha/beta dynamic, I’d be interested in reading it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 7, 2009 at 19:06

Globalism is definitely bad for men, especially lower middle class American men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti October 7, 2009 at 19:09

@Paul, Anakin, Jack

I use “alpha” and “beta” in the sense that, on the socio-economic pyramid measured by salary, the alphas will occupy the top, say (pulling some number out of thin air) 10% of society.

Sorry for my part in muddling the language. There is some overlap between the terms as I use them and the PUA community’s application of them. I couldn’t think of any other, better terms to use.

@Fifth,

I think women will benefit more in the short term. But I agree that the long-term outlook is more balanced, as the matriarchal system which insulates them from globalization’s depredations will inevitably collapse. Once they can no longer count on the public trough as a source of resources, then things will equalize. At least, that’s how I see it happening. The factors you mention are certainly potent equalizers, tho.

@Niko,
Those graphs illustrate what Diamond had to say about the predatory state.

@Amusing,
“It’s amusing that you somehow believe ‘only blacks’ will truly suffer from globalization.”

No, I don’t belive that “only blacks” will suffer from globalization. I just think they’ll suffer disproportionately because of the twin effects of lower average cognitive abilty and counterproductive social habits.

Plenty of honkeys, crackers, and palefaces will find themselves behind the 8-ball as well.

And yes, the skewed distribution of wealth is troublesome and promises to make much mischief.

“The “Free Market”(which does not exist in most of America’s economy)”

No argument here. Do not mistake me for a mixed-economy cheerleader, please. I am quite aware just how far away we are from a free market.

“…a “meritocracy”(not even true in a real Free Market).”

Disagree. A truly free market rewards those who meet the needs of that market the best.

Jack Donovan October 7, 2009 at 23:15

Thanks for the clarification. I think “wealthiest” and/or “smartest and craftiest,” would suffice in place of “alpha” in your argument above.

All sorts of men seek wealth and find it for a variety of reasons; I wouldn’t say that alphas are always wealth-motivated. Sometimes, but not always. I don’t even know about most of the time. The military would be a standout example. Navy SEALS don’t make what CEOs make, but they’d sure as hell be the alphas in almost any group of men. A lot of wealth is also inherited or the result of money and grooming. There are many forms of status among men.

Men with the skills/abilities/aptitudes least valued by the 2nd world bureaucracy will be most successful, the majority of men will be in trouble. Blue collar men–a lot of big, strapping, authoritative, hard working, mechanically inclined, hard dudes–are already losing. They’re the ones who would kill our food, build our houses and fight our enemies in a sane world. At the moment, our society values bureaucrats who like to sit in conference call tea parties all day and execute passive-aggressive political maneuvers. Women– natural middle managers–are great at this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 7, 2009 at 23:17

This sentence above doesn’t make sense
“Men with the skills/abilities/aptitudes least valued by the 2nd world ”
unless least is changed to most. Semicolon after successful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 8, 2009 at 00:02

I have no research to bach up this intuition, but I suspect the plutocracy’s encouragement of feminism in the West is due to women tending to be more psychologically accepting of a globalized/one world government scenario.

It has nothing to do with women being more accepting of one world government. Women aren’t. Women are more accepting of living without freedom. It doesn’t matter if its a one world government or a local tyranny.

But I agree that the long-term outlook is more balanced, as the matriarchal system which insulates them from globalization’s depredations will inevitably collapse. Once they can no longer count on the public trough as a source of resources, then things will equalize. At least, that’s how I see it happening.

This is correct. Women aren’t really benefiting from globalism. They are benefiting from socialism. The public trough is going to be empty soon. After all, it already nearly is in California.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti October 8, 2009 at 05:12

“Women are more accepting of living without freedom.”

And that, boys and girls, is the take-away lesson o’ the day. Call it an extension of their need for security. They’ll trade freedom for a gilded cage in a heartbeat.

Kelsey October 8, 2009 at 07:59

I had the chance to spend a significant amount of time with female garment workers in Cambodia, China, and Bangladesh. Most of them have moved from a life in the country farming to factories in large cities. They are bread winners. They spend 90% of their income on their families as opposed to men who spend 30-40%. The more they earn and the more they are educated the fewer children they have.

It’s the rise of women in developing countries that’s likely to have the most significant influence on our lives in the future. To worry about how the feminist movement in the West will change our lives seems silly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amusing October 8, 2009 at 08:26

Disagree. A truly free market rewards those who meet the needs of that market the best.

Fine. Let’s imagine a completely free-market, a Happy Free Market. In this peaceful free-market, the Grape Growers of Happy-Land have the best farmland, and their grapes are the best. The Grape Growers of Cheery-Land are better farmers, but their land isn’t nearly as good. Their grapes are universally agreed to be second rate.

Is the ‘meritocracy’ of the Free Market is ‘rewarding’ the land of Happy-Land, or it’s people? And what is doing the work? The people of Happy-Land, or their land?

This is, of course, a meaningless example. As it is purely theoritical.

Oil.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Φ October 8, 2009 at 08:33

Another book on globalization you should consider is World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, by Amy Chua. This book deals with the rise of economically dominant minorities and the resentment they inspire in the age of globalization. A real eye-opener for me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 8, 2009 at 10:17

Anakin,
“What do we mean by Alpha? ” If you need to ask what an Alpha is you know you are a beta… ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 8, 2009 at 10:30

Amusing,
actually, it is much worse than your figures describe. What most people don’t know is that there is no money and you can’t actually own anything in the west until you complete a UCC 1 Financing Statement. 100% of the worlds wealth is owned by the global elite. The rest of us use debt notes or brightly coloured copyrighted paper worth precisely nothing. Do you know there is no money in circulation in the west? Do you know the EURO is only copyrighted paper? It is not even a debt note! The USD is a debt note. The GBP is a promisory note. None of them are ‘money’.

We are all ‘have nots’…we just have the illusion of some ownership…;-) If you don’t believe me ask yourself how the court took my house off me against my will in my divorce case…it’s because I never owned the house in the first place.. ;-)

“Women are more accepting of living without freedom.”
“They’ll trade freedom for a gilded cage in a heartbeat.”

Women have never had freedom because they are children and are unable to be responsible for themselves. Freedom requires responsibility and accountability.

It is a dirtly little secret that women have the mental capacity of a boy about 7-10 years old. Hence they NEED someone to take care of them just like a small boy would. I am sure most have heard of ‘Lord of the Flies’. Small boys cannot run a society, nor can women.

The bad guys running the planet know this which is why they gave women the vote and then offered them ‘socialism’. They know women buy this every time. All they did was offer women ‘state as a husband’ and they bought it. It will be much to their detriment.

Has anyone read their Roman history and realised why the Roman empire fell? Taking care of fetted women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 8, 2009 at 10:30

Yawn. Nothing new to see here folks–just the same paleo/Buchanan/Perot crap we’ve been reading for the last twenty years. EW, you think you’ve just discovered all this NOW??

The reality is that the world which you described–one of high-wage unionized low-skill jobs in auto plants and steel mills was the aberration, not the norm. It existed only from about 1946-1973. That means a whole generation has ALREADY grown up under the return to the status quo ante, and has no experience with $75/hour to install bumpers on Ford Escorts, such guys living in comfortable ranch houses with boats, rec vehicles, and all kinds of other toys.

One major contributor to skewed income distribution that you missed is the advent of “assortative mating”, in which two doctors/law partners/tenured faculty, etc. marry each other. In times before, that wouldn’t have happened because women were not part of that in sufficient numbers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
sestamibi October 8, 2009 at 10:42

By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, in the meat packing belt Pedro is being replaced by Aideed and Mohammed from Somalia, and he’s really pissed about it. I guess these are jobs Mexicans just won’t do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 8, 2009 at 10:54

By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, in the meat packing belt Pedro is being replaced by Aideed and Mohammed from Somalia, and he’s really pissed about it. I guess these are jobs Mexicans just won’t do.

That’s funny.

Happened here in Seattle at Oberto, an old Italian sausage factory, and the Somalis sued because they were told they couldn’t walk off the job to do their prayers (but isn’t it haram to handle pork sausage?). This being Seattle, Oberto settled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 8, 2009 at 11:02

Probably not haram to handle, but only to eat, right?

One major contributor to skewed income distribution that you missed is the advent of “assortative mating”, in which two doctors/law partners/tenured faculty, etc. marry each other. In times before, that wouldn’t have happened because women were not part of that in sufficient numbers.

It’s very true that this skewed income distribution very much. It’s one of the main drivers for the great increase in wealth in the most educated classes during the period EW is describing here: the trend to double professional incomes. This has, in effect, in quite a few metro areas, priced the “little people” out of the housing market, forcing them into multifamily, perhaps a small town home, or deep into exurbia. It’s also the reason, I think, why that small demographic slice has the lowest divorce rates of any: they both have too much to lose from a divorce, such that the economic opportunity cost of getting divorced is much higher for both people. It’s what the feminist economist Betsey Stevenson has described as the “consumption marriage” — i.e., one where the “glue” that holds the couple together is not a division of labor or even abiding love, but the raw consumptive power of the combined incomes and the “goods” that brings for each spouse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 8, 2009 at 11:25

People have always tended to marry within their own “class.” Aristocrats would marry their sons and daughters to the sons and daughters of other aristocrats. Professionals would not condone a marriage between children of either sex and a member of the working classes. It was a way of using marriage and family ties as a means of consolidating generational wealth.

The woman’s personal income has simply taken the place of a dowry as her means of adding wealth to the union. Instead of giving the cash to the husband directly, the parents spent it on college for the girl with the intention that it would be a compounding investment.

Middle and upper income people have always understood that marriage was essentially a business arrangement, not just between two people but also between two families or social groups. Since the pooled assets of the marital partners also had a lot of stakeholders beyond the core pair, there were a lot of outside pressures to keep the partnership intact.

Indulgence in short term gratification of appetites has always been considered by the upper classes to be a hallmark of the lower classes. Thus, the emphasis on “romance” as the core factor in marriage, with the resulting fragility of the union and the high rate of marital disintegration, is typically a lower class phenomenon. Wealthy men had one woman to bear their heirs, and other women to satisfy their sexual needs.

Keynesian economics subtly shifted the goal everyone was encouraged to pursue from the actual long-term accumulation of wealth to participation in the velocity economy with the goal of making the $$$ circulate faster and faster. Post-WWII industrial production required several means to prevent reaching a saturation point where there was no more market for their output. Planned Obsolescence and Conspicuous Consumption set the stage for perpetual dissatisfaction with one’s current state of affairs, and positioned the remedy as a perpetual process of acquisition and consumption.

This was really the only way that the huge social mass of the boomers could be absorbed into the culture and still experience the kind of prosperity they experienced as children and expected out of life. While a great deal of money may have passed through many of their hands, in terms of true wealth they seldom have as much relative to their social status as previous generations did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 8, 2009 at 12:09
AC October 8, 2009 at 12:18

Seems to me you’re conflating “apex men” with alpha males. In a globalized world, the returns to intelligence and technical skills are much higher, while the returns to social dominance will increase by a smaller amount. So your “apex men” may well be geeky Bill Gateses, as well as Gordon Gekkos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
novaseeker October 8, 2009 at 13:31

Interesting, I didn’t know it was haram to handle pork.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 8, 2009 at 13:47

Technically, you may touch it (as in discarding of it), but if you are an observant Muslim you are not supposed to distribute haram products. I go to a local gyro restaurant run by some observant Muslims from time to time, and they are very strict about no alcohol and no pork served in the restaurant.

I bring this up because the Somalis are pretending to be very observant, but they are still choosing a job where they handle pork. A woman in a town near here sued because she wanted to wear a veil at work, where her job was a cocktail waitress!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
novaseeker October 8, 2009 at 13:57

Heh — those veiled cocktail waitresses really bring in the tips.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fb October 8, 2009 at 15:31

Elusive Wapiti, great post, thanks. Also thanks for responding to Anakin re the “alpha” ambiguity. It’s a contested term. Language is a dynamic, living, messy thing with a mind of its own.

@Globalman: ‘Try reading http://www.henrymakow.com. You will find all the evidence you need there that the Rockefellers (as a front for the Rothchilds) are the ones …

We are in a ’silent war’. Benjamin Fullford posts his views in both Japanese and english. …

Few people know this silent war is even going on.’

I frequently send in factual error corrections to Makow. He rarely posts retractions. Makow usually gets things right, but he often relies on hired help, and his hired help often fails to check facts.

Now – I don’t trust Rockefellers and Rothschilds. But I think Makow likes to make a picture that’s excessively neat, and he discards important clues in the process.

Fulford is an investigative journalist, and more power to him, but he’s not very level-headed, IMHO. His columns are noteworthy, but I think he’s not a very good critical thinker.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti October 8, 2009 at 16:40

“EW, you think you’ve just discovered all this NOW??”

Globalization has been happening longer than the United States has been around. As for me, I’ve only gotten around to reading about it in detail recently. That’s not to say that I wasn’t aware on a general level that something was awry, but reading Friedman and all those other guys isn’t part of one’s core schooling when one is a tech major in college and operates heavy machinery for a living.

“, in the meat packing belt Pedro is being replaced by Aideed and Mohammed from Somalia, and he’s really pissed about it.”

I can attest to that. You should see what Grand Island Nebraska and Greely Colorado look like.

“One major contributor to skewed income distribution that you missed is the advent of “assortative mating”, in which two doctors/law partners/tenured faculty, etc. marry each other”

I didn’t miss it. It’s in Part II to this post. And I’ve posted about it before at my blog. It’s not like I just discovered all this today, after all.

Elusive Wapiti October 8, 2009 at 16:55

@Amusing wrote:

“Is the ‘meritocracy’ of the Free Market is ‘rewarding’ the land of Happy-Land, or it’s people? And what is doing the work? The people of Happy-Land, or their land?”

Who cares? Let the better farmers of Cheery Land find another crop to grow. I don’t feel like getting into the business of conducting value judgements on HappyLanders relative to CheeryLanders based on the accident of their birth. That’d be like me hating on Bavarians because they make cars that I like. Or envying Saudis because they sit on so much oil. Or not.

@Φ,

I’ll have to grab that book. I suspect that precisely that same phenomenon happened in Europe in the Middle Ages between the whites there and the talented minority of Jews in their midst. When a small minority in society has all the stuff the majority wants, look out.

Although I strongly suspect that religious differences regarding usury banking at the time had something to do with the schism between the whites and the Jews as well.

@ Globalman wrote:

“The bad guys running the planet know this which is why they gave women the vote and then offered them ’socialism’. They know women buy this every time. All they did was offer women ’state as a husband’ and they bought it.”

Yup. What is not well known is the quantity of female support ole Adolf had in his rise to power.

Black Economic Empowerment October 9, 2009 at 05:41

He provides an excellent summary of the current problems with globalization, and a number of suggestions for improvement. Black Economic Empowerment

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: