I actually see what he's arguing, but I think the issue with @Still Benefited is that he is underestimating the amount of work required to supplant white employment and white welfare for black women en masse.
. He is hypothesizing that black men becoming more productive can displace what white employment and white people's welfare offer black women. Effectively us becoming a better value proposition.
In his earlier post he suggested
that getting a second job would work .On a literal dollar for dollar value, This is correct. The median income for black Americans is only $41,000 on an individual, non household basis. So getting a second identical job bringing in $82,000 would make up for whatever the black woman would get from being out in the world.
But unfortunately, you would need more than the dollar for dollar value in order to overcome, the psychological barrier. In microeconomics this is called the "switching cost". What he is suggesting is economic domination. Because of the obvious psychological needle that this would be, You must compensate a black woman more. This is how you get them to join you.
I Obviously don't have hard numbers, but I would venture as far as saying that
you're looking at three times productivity or more. So if a single second job get you double productivity, then you actually need three jobs using his example which isn't feasible.
Instead of getting more jobs you could also upskill to get a single job bringing in $123,000. But this requires a complete cultural shift in black men. We would have to convince a large amount of black men to become economically productive for the sole purpose of economically dominating our women.
Even if I knew @Still Benefited 's strategy would work with 100% certainty, I would personally struggle with this cultural shift. I'm ashamed to admit, that at these higher levels of productivity, I would be far more tempted to just keep all of that productivity for myself and throw the entire family structure in the bushes. Effectively what the East Asians and whites have done already in their societies.
As a loosely related side note,
I know it sounds crazy upon first viewing to give the vast majority of your income to the woman. my example was something like 66% of it for both income replacement and the switching cost of economic dominance.
But as I was typing this out, I realized this is actually a great defense against divorce court.
Hear me out here.... if even the most generous divorce Court were to give her half of your income she would actively be worse off than she was with you. In theory , you could keep scaling your productivity until some point at which staying with you even surpasses the child support allowance from a court.
@Robbie3000 are you at all embarrassed that you thought some 2,000 year old sand war in Palestine was more important than what would actually happen by letting Trump take control of America?
"Let's Lose For Palestine" seems to have been a massive failure. given that Trump is massively pro-israel anyway
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.