Why American boys are failing at school—and men are losing in life

[Imback]

It's like you have no fukking clue what is being discussed. It doesn't matter who makes the decisions in two-parent households. The question was whether capitalists would want to take money away from men so that women will spend it instead. If you think that women were already the ones making the decisions, that sabotages the entire argument, because there's zero need to interfere if the women are already in control..

Single women spend more on consumer goods and men spend more on speculative investments. Your statement

If you can get the first group to have as much money as the second, the money comes through via a repetitive cash drain, instead of a speculative one as a corporation.

Common sense

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Single women spend more on consumer goods and men spend more on speculative investments. Your statement

No, this was my actual statement:

In reality, men spend more on cars, entertainment, and food than women do. Women spend more on clothes and consumer goods. Men invest in the stock market more, women are more likely to save for a down-payment on a home. Women put a higher % of their pre-tax income into retirement plans.

Notice how you omitted everything that didn't fit your narrative? Is that how you got so deep in the red so quick?

If you can get the first group to have as much money as the second, the money comes through via a repetitive cash drain, instead of a speculative one as a corporation.

Common sense

Only if you ignore that single women save more for retirement, save more for mortgage, and spend less on cars, entertainment, and food than single men do. Then suddenly your entire narrative falls apart.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Of course women not having babies improvises capitalism. In America it has.

Our youth rate has increased since 1965 not decreased. So effectively we are adding more children for women to buy for, while also increasing the rate of single women spending money on themselves.

lol - you're both really bad at statistics and completely contradicted yourself. You're now trying to claim that "adding more children for women to buy for" helps capitalism, when previously you claimed that "now they're buying for 1 instead of 5" was what the capitalists wanted.



* US fertility rates have been dropping since 1960 and are currently at all-time lows.

* % of population under 14 has been dropping since 1960 and is currently at an all-time low.

* % of single-person households are at all-time highs, and women in said households are saving more for mortgage/retirement and spending less on food, cars, entertainment, and speculative investments than men in such households are.



Stop the idiotic conspiracy theories. Claiming that the clothing and consumer goods industries secretly control the country, but that they don't want women to have families, and have thorough some mysterious means steered education towards women, is just nonsense.

And why exactly did Wall Street, the auto industry, the oil industry, the food industry, and the entertainment industry let it happen, considering that all of them benefit more from single men than single women? Aren't they far more powerful than clothing and consumer goods? And haven't the leaders in clothing and consumer goods changed dramatically over the decades anyway, so a conspiracy that took 40 years to yield fruit wouldn't even help those currently in power?

 

[Imback]

lol - you're both really bad at statistics and completely contradicted yourself. You're now trying to claim that "adding more children for women to buy for" helps capitalism, when previously you claimed that "now they're buying for 1 instead of 5" was what the capitalists wanted.



* US fertility rates have been dropping since 1960 and are currently at all-time lows.

* % of population under 14 has been dropping since 1960 and is currently at an all-time low.

* % of single-person households are at all-time highs, and women in said households are saving more for mortgage/retirement and spending less on food, cars, entertainment, and speculative investments than men in such households are.



Stop the idiotic conspiracy theories. Claiming that the clothing and consumer goods industries secretly control the country, but that they don't want women to have families, and have thorough some mysterious means steered education towards women, is just nonsense.

And why exactly did Wall Street, the auto industry, the oil industry, the food industry, and the entertainment industry let it happen, considering that all of them benefit more from single men than single women? Aren't they far more powerful than clothing and consumer goods? And haven't the leaders in clothing and consumer goods changed dramatically over the decades anyway, so a conspiracy that took 40 years to yield fruit wouldn't even help those currently in power?

Thats how I know you're on the older side. No one looks at fertility rates for capitalism.

It's youth rates.

How do you make sure that we have a monetizable child by age 5.


Youth Rates by Year

Fertility rates are like 1980's thinking.


We not only have replaced the native women who don't have kids anymore with immigrants quickly, we have increased the number of children. So America has increased the number of households that buy consumable products.

So yes, single women have increased capitalism not decreased it.

You have zero idea what you're talking about

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Thats how I know you're on the older side. No one looks at fertility rates for capitalism.

It's youth rates.

How do you make sure that we have a monetizable child by age 5.


Youth Rates by Year

Fertility rates are like 1980's thinking.


We not only have replaced the native women who don't have kids anymore with immigrants quickly, we have increased the number of children. So America has increased the number of households that buy consumable products.

So yes, single women have increased capitalism not decreased it.

You have zero idea what you're talking about

Those are raw numbers, not "rates", you dummy. The raw #'s only went up because population increased due to immigration. The fertility rates and youth rates have been decreasing since 1965, I already posted that.

And you had literally nothing else to say about all the other holes in your argument?

I don't know who you are but you're welcome making a name for yourself with this bullshyt and it ain't a good one.

 

[ogc163]

Is there any way mods can come in here and clean this thread up?

 

[Imback]

Those are raw numbers, not "rates", you dummy. The raw #'s only went up because population increased due to immigration. The fertility rates and youth rates have been decreasing since 1965, I already posted that.

And you had literally nothing else to say about all the other holes in your argument?

I don't know who you are but you're welcome making a name for yourself with this bullshyt and it ain't a good one.

Holes in my argument.

Your argument was that since the fertility rates were decreasing that means thats bad for capitilism. Thats not the case, that was just a wrong statement.

There are now the more children for capitalists to take money off of AND more single women for capitalists to make money off.

There are no holes in my argument.


your assumptions about there being a decrease in monetizable households due to the increase of single women is just wrong. It's been a net add to capitalism, a GIGANTIC add to capitalism.

Stop the idiotic conspiracy theories. Claiming that the clothing and consumer goods industries secretly control the country, but that they don't want women to have families, and have thorough some mysterious means steered education towards women, is just nonsense.

This is what you said.

You stated I'm posting conspiracy theories because I understand math better than you?

They have steered women towards being single because its one the best ways to grow capitalism in this country. We have already accounted for their lack of children due to immigration. Its not a conspiracy its a reality.

And why exactly did Wall Street, the auto industry, the oil industry, the food industry, and the entertainment industry let it happen, considering that all of them benefit more from single men than single women? Aren't they far more powerful than clothing and consumer goods? And haven't the leaders in clothing and consumer goods changed dramatically over the decades anyway, so a conspiracy that took 40 years to yield fruit wouldn't even help those currently in power?

Within the black community.

Women watch more TV, they buy higher priced food, and single women are a NET add to your baseline.

And Idk why its called a consipiracy. Its just a reality, the biggest net add to the consumer base are single women.

Changing entire indstries and marketing practices does take a long time.

It took Coke 30 years to learn to market to blacks. Is that a conspiracy?


Was it a conspiracy to introduce DEI programs to colleges, that has taken 40+ years to get traction.


Widespread systematic changes taking 40 years, is par the course.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Virtually everything you said was wrong, but at this point, if I keep going I'm going to be the idiot.

You stated I'm posting conspiracy theories because I understand math better than you?

Breh, you're making math errors that I would have caught a good twelve math classes ago. You don't even know the difference between rates and raw #'s yet you're trying to talk down to someone. Give it a break, you've got to realize when you're trash talking effectively and when you've just started to embarrass yourself.

Your arguments were ridiculous and your attempts to juelz once facts contradicted your narrative were even sillier. Please spend more time learning and less time speculating.

 

[Imback]

Virtually everything you said was wrong, but at this point, if I keep going I'm going to be the idiot.





Breh, you're making math errors that I would have caught a good twelve math classes ago. You don't even know the difference between rates and raw #'s yet you're trying to talk down to someone who was high scoring Differential Equations midterms at one of the top STEM schools in the country. Give it a break, you've got to realize when you're trash talking effectively and when you've just started to embarrass yourself.

Your arguments were ridiculous and your attempts to juelz once facts contradicted your narrative were even sillier. Please spend more time learning and less time speculating.

So if I used the word "youth population" would that make you feel better?

The youth population has stayed stagnant with subtle increases, even with the falling fertility rates of the country.


So your assumption that bc fertility rates were falling and that being a bad thing for capitalism is flat out wrong.


Also Mr. Top STEM guy, those raw numbers are the numerator for "youth rate". I figured you would know to add the denominator on your own, which is total population. Easily googeable.

I didnt know you wanted me to talk you through the calculation and would chastise me for not doing so.


My bad Mr. Stem guy. America population is easily googleable. I didnt know you couldnt do it

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Also Mr. Top STEM guy, those raw numbers are the numerator for "youth rate". I figured you would know to add the denominator on your own, which is total population. Easily googeable.

I didnt know you wanted me to talk you through the calculation and would chastise me for not doing so.


My bad Mr. Stem guy. America population is easily googleable. I didnt know you couldnt do it

And if you did that calculation, you'd realize that rate has been falling since the 1960s, which is what I already pointed out to you four comments ago.

 

[Imback]

And if you did that calculation, you'd realize that rate has been falling since the 1960s, which is what I already pointed out to you four comments ago.

How much has it fallen significantly? You know when to obfuscate information when it suits you.

And whats the driver of it going down? Bc youth population has increased.

We're adding more "SINGLE ADULTS" to the adult population.

We aren't losing youth consumers, we're adding more adults.

Hence, that's why single women being a main driver for capitalistic consumer growth in America not being a conspiracy. It's our economic reality.

And capitalists are focusing on that, which has lead to the downfall of the support of men.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Hyper capitalism dumbass

So yes, single women have increased capitalism not decreased it.

You have zero idea what you're talking about

Holes in my argument.

Your argument was that since the fertility rates were decreasing that means thats bad for capitilism. Thats not the case, that was just a wrong statement.

There are now the more children for capitalists to take money off of AND more single women for capitalists to make money off.

There are no holes in my argument.

I have to lol remembering this conversation where you were posing as if you were anti-capitalism, but now in other threads you're propping up uber-capitalist Dave Ramsey as a "biblical" thinker and shytting on "socialist" health care in favor of the American health care system.

It looks like you were just another fukking right-winger trying to front as something else.

 

[Imback]

I have to lol remembering this conversation where you were posing as if you were anti-capitalism, but now in other threads you're propping up uber-capitalist Dave Ramsey as a "biblical" thinker and shytting on "socialist" health care in favor of the American health care system.

It looks like you were just another fukking right-winger trying to front as something else.

What did I say that was anti capitalism?

 

[88m3]

Opinion | Mississippi Is Offering Lessons for America on Education

The state shows that poverty is no excuse for failing to teach kids to read.

www.nytimes.com

 

[WIA20XX]

Interesting Takeaway from the OpEd

The school superintendent in the town of Hollandale, Mario Willis, told me his high school graduation rate was 97 percent, and he explained how his school fights to keep kids. The other day, he said, he had a call from the high school principal about an 18-year-old senior who was dropping out.

The student lived in poverty and had a single mom who was unemployed, so the family’s economic situation was desperate. Not seeing a way out, the young woman left school and took a restaurant job.

That’s when the school went all out to bring the student back. School officials repeatedly visited the young woman at home. They spoke to her mother, and they talked her employer into arranging work hours for her after school.

So now she is back in school, on track to graduate.

The school's job is done (and state and fed funds are secure), but the story doesn't end for a lot of folks in MS after graduation.

She still needs additional training to really become a "success" in the overall capitalist society that we live in.

And we need to find out why her single mom couldn't be the waitress to bring in funds....