Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Macrosocio-sexuality

Dr. Helen draws our attention to changes in the rental market:
[A] shift in demographic trends will likely favor the rental apartment market for the foreseeable future. It is all about women….

“What drives demand for single family homes is, ‘Oh honey, I’m pregnant,” says Buck Horne, a housing analyst at Raymond James. But those words are being uttered less and less. Horne claims the shift in female education, marriage and fertility rates will drive rental apartment demand going forward. He points to a growing educational imbalance, that is, 3.1 million more women enrolled in college than men and 4 million more college-educated women in the workforce than men.
Now, if one is able to understand how women's cumulative socio-sexual preferences affect the housing market and the economy, how is it possible that one is not able to understand that those preferences will also affect the governance of a nation as well as the scope of human liberty deemed legally permissible?

And if one is capable of understanding that those effects on the housing market and the economy may not be beneficial, how is it difficult to grasp that the effects on government, human liberty, and civilization itself may also be negative?

36 comments:

Fifty Seven said...

Of course, people are also looking at a future which involves lower pay, less certainty of continued employment, higher taxes and health care costs (thanks to You Know Who). They also may be afraid of another financial crunch and the Foreclosure II: Electric Bugaloo which might follow it.

I'm not disagreeing with you; just saying there are probably more factors at play here.

Wendy said...

One could also suggest that those who have no children have no problem passing on debt to other people's children.

Brendan said...

I think these kinds of people are perfectly capable of connecting these dots, but are afraid to do so in the sense of it being politically taboo.

Anonymous said...

blow up birth control factories



Tilikum

A said...

Women are definitely led around by their biology more so than men, even weak beta men. I recently immigrated to Canada, just one week ago I got my permanent residency. I've been applying and hunting for jobs like crazy and may have a friction job this Monday. My wife has been getting contracts that go from 6-12 months and has been supporting me during this transition. Collectively we hold 100k+ in student loan debt and we are approaching 30 (we both fucked up our early to mid 20s because we were fuck-ups). As soon as I was able to legally work, my wife has been asking about having kids, she's desperate to have kids before she turns 30 (this year), and she wants a house when we have kids. Nowhere does it seem to enter into her mind that to have both kids and a house (which are all 150k+ in the area) is financial suicide. We simply wouldn't be able to afford to live, but she is the type (and a lot of fucking women seem to be this way) to throw caution to the wind and make the feelings Disney/romcom-style decision and flush everything down the toilet for a few things that seem like a good idea biologically: procreating and nesting.

I get why she feels this way, I don't begrudge her for her lack of basic understanding of mathematics, I didn't exactly marry her for her logic skills. And, if it weren't for me, she'd absolutely slip into the modern progressive quicksand of intellectual laziness and economic ignorance. She was definitely liberal minded (she even had a liberal pride, because she thought liberals accepted everyone, and when you accept everyone you are therefore superior to those who don't, never mind why they don't) when I met her, but over the years she has come to realize how fucking stupid liberals and conservatives are and how nothing they do will change anything for the better, and what a circus it is to watch them debate gay marriage and abortion endlessly while the central bank bends them over and takes away their lifestyle.

Oh, and lest I wax solipsistic I should add that this is just my personal view and doesn't extend to every female, it is just what I have noticed in my wife, her mother, my mother, my sisters-in-laws, my female teachers, my female co-workers from past jobs, and almost every woman I've ever come into contact with on the internet.

Lastly, it's hilarious to see how the rental market is growing only because society has shifted in a couple of factors directly affecting women. I'd rent all my life if I could, but I also don't want to hear my wife nag about wanting to own a home. Unfortunately for me, I am not an Alpha snowflake and would hear the nagging, but I can read the writing on the wall clearly enough.

A said...

P.S. - I should probably stop posting comments that are longer than the freaking OP.

Sebastian said...

@ Wendy: You are absolutely correct, which is why the childless, homosexual economist John Maynard Keynes, the intellectual architect of over-leverage, famously said "In the end, we are all dead.". Speak for yourself buddy! The entire premise of modern economics is that the world ends with your death.

VD said...

As soon as I was able to legally work, my wife has been asking about having kids, she's desperate to have kids before she turns 30 (this year), and she wants a house when we have kids.

Have the kids, put the house on hold. You can't put the kids off, the house can wait. Don't worry about the expense of children, such things have a way of sorting themselves out.

Anonymous said...

The fallacy is that college = greater income. This is factually incorrect. Most liberal arts degrees won't generate more for new grads than 25-35k, which is what you would be making if you were a good employee at Walmart for 4-6 years and worked your way up to dept. manager or asst. manager.

And that is for people who actually land jobs. A good minority ends up as receptionists/clerks making 20k. Not exactly the type of money you can buy a house/condo with when you are carrying 30k+ debt as well.

I bet if you were to section off majors that could actually pay back their student loans like STEM, and even including female dominated Nursing, Pharmacy, etc. men still hold the advantage.

Meaning, men are still needed to buy homes and women without committed men (aka carousel riders) aren't capable of owning homes.

Desiderius said...

Sebastian,

Good call.

Late Numenor.

Anonymous said...

@ A

I would second having the kids, risks go up the longer you wait. They are also cheaper than you might think.

First, don't fall into the trap where you think something is needed when it isn't. Buy a car seat on the cheaper end, get some Desitin, and after that ask yourself "did this exist 100 years ago"

Second, people will give you a lot of stuff.

Third, you will find opportunities to barter instead of using $$ with other parents. Which is a double bonus because its tax free transaction.

Jimmy said...

I rented before. It is quite a horrible existence to live in a overpriced small apartment. A house is more secure with payments that can go down if properly refinanced.

More rentals by women means nothing to me. Many singles share apartments by preference. A lot more money is made by investors by the construction of 2 or 3 bedroom apartments. There are much less single suite apartments and they are quite expensive.

I guess the future is more singles living in shared arrangements or buying their own homes and renting the rooms out.

. said...

@A,

My great-grandfather lived in a one-room apartment. He had FIVE KIDS in that room. Don't let the lack of a house hold you back!

Anonymous said...

The other issue is that buying now is idiotic. The Fed ZIRP policy, and its indefinite, monthly purchases of MBS have stabilized the Housing market and prevented it from finding bottom. Real Estate is local and there are still large areas of the country where home prices are greatly in excess of their historical averages, and this is even with the shadow inventory being kept off the market by banks not wanting to list, foreclose, or by people that can't sell because they are underwater.

Fed policy is clearly unsustainable and while it could probably go on another decade (see Japan) there is significant risk of homes in many markets losing 20% of their value in the next 5 years. Unless you plan on planting roots and being someplace for 10+ years where you can take advantaged of fixed rate "rent control" as a means of offsetting short to mid term losses buying is fundamentally stupid.

SarahsDaughter said...

Don't let the lack of a house hold you back!

As well, don't let the "I need everything to be perfectly perfect" hold you back. It never gets perfectly perfect. My youngest was 9 before we owned our own home.

1st world problem.

Joe Blow said...

Renting is associated with greater socioeconomic instability and a lack of ability to be upwardly socially mobile and provide for one's self in retirement. The more single moms who rent, the poorer and less upwardly mobile the country will be as a whole.

Looks like we're gonna need a bigger social security system...

Anonymous said...

In the last election, the male vote gapped 18 points between Single/Married. Single men want BigGov security.
Agreeing with Wendy above, both men and women without children may have no problem passing on debt to other people's children.

A said...

Hmm, your responses have definitely made me reconsider my initial decisions, which fall into the category of "perfectly perfect."

dudemanhey said...

Anonymous said-
"I bet if you were to section off majors that could actually pay back their student loans like STEM, and even including female dominated Nursing, Pharmacy, etc. men still hold the advantage.

Meaning, men are still needed to buy homes and women without committed men (aka carousel riders) aren't capable of owning homes."

Not sure about this. Anecdotally, i know of a number of young, single HR/lawyer/teacher types that have made enough to buy houses in the resaonably priced real estate area that i reside in NC.

However OWNING a home needs a man. Very few young single women earning enough to buy a home realize how much goes into paying taxes, repair, up-keep, etc. Much less know how to physically do those maintence things themselves.

Heh said...

However OWNING a home needs a man. Very few young single women earning enough to buy a home realize how much goes into paying taxes, repair, up-keep, etc. Much less know how to physically do those maintence things themselves.

The single woman across the street hasn't taken her Christmas lights down yet. I suspect she is waiting for help from the person who put them up in the first place (her dad).

dudemanhey said...

another Anonymous said-
"In the last election, the male vote gapped 18 points between Single/Married. Single men want BigGov security.
Agreeing with Wendy above, both men and women without children may have no problem passing on debt to other people's children. "

It's disconcerting just how many people from all walks of life - married, self-proclaimed "Republicans" & "conservatives" included - ultimately want that "BigGov security" when you really get down to individuals' civil & political personal preferences.

I would say those desires are a product of many factors, including the feminization of males and an overall decline in the financial security of many considered "middle class"

JCclimber said...

Living in the San Francisco area, it is absolutely 100% certain that if you meet a lesbian couple, they will be laboring under the terms of a pretty hefty mortgage payment.

Two women, both of whom have that instinct to own a home, with no man to counter reason about ability to pay and economic downturns and so on....

But at least they aren't bitching too much about being house poor and underwater. Because they don't have a man to blame for their decision. (although one made a feeble attempt to blame her father for not stopping her, before realizing about 3 minutes into it that it made her sound like a 5 year old girl).

Anonymous said...

@dudemanhey,
No evidence in the last election for your thesis, "many people from all walks of life-married self-proclaimed Repubs & conservtives ultimately want BigGov security"

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-gop-s-other-problem-marriage-gap-huge-in-2012-but-marriage-declining

The marriage gap trumps the homeownership gap trumps the gender gap. Returning to Dr. Helen's housing analyst, the last election revealed a home ownership gap, so this prediction is already revealed.

dudemanhey said...

@Anonymous

Voting GOP doesn't mean that an individual doesn't want that BigGov security. I know lots of "Republicans" who say they are against "big government" etc, but when discussing the nitty-gritty of what policies they support/take advantage of with them, it becomes eveident that ultimately they, too, favor big daddy gubmint subsidizing them to an extent.

Voting for Romney didn't mean that you're against big governmnet. It meant that you're part of the problem.

Maldek said...

@A

Your wife can see the wall right in front of her eyes. She picked a beta (that would be you) as provider. Now she wants to have her babies and that fast. There is no easy way around it - besides, kids are a good thing you know.

Now regarding your wife my viewpoint is different. She took the beta and now she expects you to take care of her and her children. She might have high standards you may not be able to meet. Dont even try.

No house. No mortgage. No expensive shit that looks stylish and hip but nobody really needs.
You will be responsible for your entire family. That means kids first, then wife second.

All the money you are wasting to meet your wifes demands is money you will not be able to give to your kid(s) later. Make that crystal clear to her. If she didnt loose most of her brain cells riding the carusell and using drugs, she will understand and value the interest of her children higher than her need for a nest and status.

If she doesnt - dump her. SHE is the one with the wall problem after all, not you.

Anonymous said...

@dudemanhey,
"I know lots of.." is no substitute for pre- and post-election demographics. The electorate knew of Romney's view of the 47% takers. A vote for Romney was a vote against the 47% and the BigGov that supports them.

ajw308 said...

Look at Hugh Hefner's women and wife.

So much potential "Ewww" factor there, yet how much is produced?

Panzerdude said...

Regarding the "kids" discussion.

When I was 30, just married with no kids, the prospect of having and affording kids and a house seemed insurmountable. My wife made more than I did and even with both incomes, I concluded kids and a house...no way.

To make matters worse, when I was 32 we concluded that if we have kids, it would be best to home school. Of course, that would mean losing her income all together.

Kids and a house and just one income? All impossible.

Now fast forward almost 20 years. We have 3 fantastic boys, a house and have home schooled for their entire education (the oldest is 16) all on my income alone.

Can I explain how? No, other than to say that God provides. Since He told us to be fruitful and multiply, I have learned to trust that when He asks us to do something, He then provides the means for doing that "something".

Of course, this all requires a strange concept...faith in God. But that has thus far provided for more than I could have ever dreamed of back when I was a narcissistic 30 year old.

SarahsDaughter said...

Hmm, your responses have definitely made me reconsider my initial decisions, which fall into the category of "perfectly perfect." - A

This is good to hear. Also consider your wife's declining fertility. It has come as a bit shocking for me. I got pregnant nine months after we married age 20 again at 24, and 25, miscarried at 29 and haven't been able to get pregnant again. Doctors have checked everything, all is fine except for the fact that I only ovulate once every three months or so. I've heard this isn't uncommon.

Doorstop said...

Well stated, Panzerdude! I can't speak for myself (single, with no immediate prospects) but my parents are both devout Christians and told me they made the decision after they were married that they'd have as many kids as God provided, and believed that He would also provide the reset. And my father made the decision to homeschool shortly after I (their oldest) was born.

Fast-forward 33 years- my parents have raised 11 children and homeschooled all of us (only one is a still minor, and she'll be done with her high school curriculum soon). My father was the sole breadwinner, and could not always find work, and when he did draw a paycheck I don't think he ever earned more than $15 an hour. I have no idea how my folks made ends meet, and I don't think they really know either. But when my father says "God is faithful" (and I've seen him say it, in awe and misty-eyed) his words carry some weight!

As for their chidlren- we're all doing well. My four brothers all have engineering degrees and are gainfully employeed, my closest sister has a master's degree and runs a library, and my next sister helps run a large orphanage in Haiti. The rest are still in school. I have a suspicion that God also helped us children succeed to thwart all the naysayers who mistook my parents' faithfullness for foolishness while we were growing up :)

PC Geek said...

While children are undoubtedly a blessing from the Lord, I see nowhere in Scripture where you are guaranteed that God will provide for every child you decide to have, or that God is directly 'providing' kids as opposed to the normal workings of biology based on the laws of physics and chemistry that he made, and our own God-given free-will.

Hyper-natalism is not counter-Scripture, but it is not supported there either.

We live in a very different cultural environment, and agricultural societies both needed, and could have, far more children than industrial ones.

By all means have lots of kids (I am still quite young but I want a bunch of little ones myself) but there is nowhere in Scripture that states we are to put aside fiscal prudence when we come to have faith in the Lord (save a specific order of his that would countermand what would normally be the prudent course of action).

If you can't afford a lot kids, there is no Scriptural basis to simply assume that you should just have as many kids as biologically possible, with the assumption that God has automatically blessed your efforts (maybe He has but don't assume He did unless He has told you such) and that He is now somehow going to provide for you.

I am glad that it turned out well for the posters that I see here...but it surely didn't for everyone. (I know some examples of people with lots of kids having tremendous difficulties, and they are as thrifty and responsible as all get out.)

ajw308 said...

Amen Doorstop, He'll do that.

Pepper said...

It's amazing how much of the citizenry (myself included) fails to understand simple cause and effect. Honestly, I become more skeptical regarding citizenship and voting rights because of the level of general ignorance that is out there. Ignorance that is fueled by mass media. There are many votes I wish I could retract now. First, I know very few voters who actually understand the constructs of our state or federal governments. Second, very few citizens understand basic economics. Third, there are too many important pieces of legislation on the ballot in my state; the amount of research needed to make an informed decision probably exceeds the amount of time voters use to educate themselves. And, I have to include myself on this list unfortunately. I have made a conscious effort to self educate over the past 8 years or so, but I still make bad choices. Granted, my ignorance is not directly related to my gender, but opening up the voting roles has not helped our nation or states at all...

DB said...

Of course, this all requires a strange concept...faith in God.

Not actually true. I'm an atheist who treats kids as something close to a terminal value; we're pretty rare, but we might become more common as other types of people breed themselves out of the population.

Doom said...

There is a reason why islam is gaining power and why, for those more pagan of origin among Christendom, some men give a measure of acknowledgment to such creeds. Women shouldn't be crushed, true. But if the choice is between crushing the feminine or letting it rule, crushing it is the only choice. *pissing on women as co-rulers* Fucking them, easily, on the side. Cunts!

Anonymous said...

"Now, if one is able to understand how women's cumulative socio-sexual preferences affect the housing market and the economy, how is it possible that one is not able to understand that those preferences will also affect the governance of a nation as well as the scope of human liberty deemed legally permissible?"

So, VD, what is YOUR solution? What do YOU propose we do before our country falls to pieces because of the apparent ineptitude of women? You talk about their problems, now discuss in detail how to address them, mind you within the framework of our Constitution and our laws. Remember, now, we are talking about the real world, not some fantasy land where you can magically turn back the clock.


"Women shouldn't be crushed, true. But if the choice is between crushing the feminine or letting it rule, crushing it is the only choice."

Says the enlightened alpha male. I bet you dollars to donuts Doom's significant other runs the show in his household...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.