I’m a 24 year old woman and I was trying to explain these sentiments to my 44 year old liberal husband earlier today. I told him to watch D@W’s videos featuring Harriet Fraad to better understand better the connection between capitalism and the strain/detriment it has on marriages, families (both nuclear and non-nuclear) and our reduced quality of life in general. Thank you both, Professor Wolff and Harriet Fraad. You are my modern day heroes. Proud watcher and supporter of D@W since 2016.❤
@@ALL_CAPS__ I wasn't assuming that - I'm stating a factual age difference at the time for perspective. No judgment - it's just an reality. Interesting how you projected I was insinuating that.
@@jjutt87 yes, you stated a mathematical fact with the undertones of an under age timeframe. Why didn’t you use 20 or 22? The words we use have meaning and context when in a specific order. It’s safe to assume that anyone that regularly listens to democracy at work can do simple math of 20 years.
Capitalism is "making the modern family a luxury good". Drs.Wolff and Fraad thank you for this deep analysis and discussion. Class-based terms like "high value woman/man" and "power couple/couple goals" really speak to this phenomena and deserve more attention.
Stop LYING. Women never had to be " high value ". The term " high value woman " doesn't exist.... They assumed " high value " by default. Only women want to be the " power couple ". TV bull.
🟤👠🌰🤎🕳💩 Are we meant to replace population to provide servant class to pick up their dogs' shit. Which they leave everywhere here. Not in NYC so I hear.
@@kevinhagen7808 Dog ownership definitely is too expensive for me. I'm an older senior who loves dogs. I'd be so happy for the companionship of having a little dog to walk. It's good for my health, both physical and mental. When my last dear doggie died I decided I could not afford another. My income from social security, which is all I have except a $165/month pension, is insufficient to stretch far enough for my own basic needs, let along for an animal. Have you considered the cost of vet fees? Even with pet insurance I can't afford that for a dog. My own dental bills are too much and I'm constantly in debt just keeping up with that. Actually, it does not make sense to have beautiful dogs and cats killed each week and to have many charities rehoming unwanted stray animals and unwanted pets when there are so many lonley elders who would gladly provide a home and care for a dog or cat if the cost were subsidized in part or completely. Retired folks and pets are a match made in heaven. We could solve two problems at once with subsidized pet ownership. I'm dreaming, ofcourse. This society won't even subsidize dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids for old human beings. So dogs must die and elders must do without good health.
Dr. Wolff is a fine economist. Among the best. But he is among the rarest of the rare: a great and good human being. Would that we had more like him. Someday.
I got married when I was 18. My father in law demanded it because I had sex with his daughter. At the time we were part of a fundamentalist Christian religion. We made the mistake of thinking that when we had children we would be supported by this community. We ended up having four children. It turned out that our community abandoned us when we became too "liberal". They wouldn't even give us a job in our small town. I got a reputation as a "liberal" and "atheist". They drove us out of town. So here we are living with four children in a small public housing unit and can't even qualify for a five hundred dollar loan. I suspected some hardship in America, but I never expected this kind of active savage attack upon myself and my family. It has left both my wife and myself with little to live for. We used to enjoy camping, but every time we try that we get harassed by the police. I hate this country with a deep and passionate hatred.
26:24 "Living with a man takes 7 hours more of domestic labor." Read my lips: pfffffftttttt!! 😑 28:00 "So the irony of modern capitalism is to make the traditional family a luxury good." Very well put by Dr. Wolff. I'd been struggling to describe this phenomena. But I remember when celebrities having babies started becoming "news" and they started flaunting photos of their stomachs and their babies wearing expensive clothes...I felt feeling like that was the beginning of the lowest of the low for American society.
if I had been drinking something when the "7 hour" statistic was stated, I would have spit it out! I'm ashamed that I understand how perfectly true that is these days. reminds me of a line from one of Hannah Gadsby's specials: "do you know what the phrase 'boys will be boys' means?... we are not preparing our boys for the real world!" I'm obv leaving out a lot of what she said, and - like you - I have struggled to put into words this phenomenon that this world is experiencing. this video contains some incredible truths, so incredible that our language may be limited in expressing fully what they are. I hope someone can put into words these thoughts better than I am able at this time! 😵💫
When my partner died I did not find I had 7 hours a day less work to do, even though for the last 7 years he was in a bad way. It was only afterwards I began to see how much he had done and why the bathroom had stayed so clean. He was just an ordinary man with the ordinary prejudices and expectations of the times and if that altered over time he never made a thing of it so possibly I never noticed. Often I think I have more to do now.
How is "modern capitalism"...capitalism? What was "ancient capitalism"? There was a point in "ancient capitalism" where one income was sufficient to support a family, and the minimum "living wage" was 25 cents/per hour. That ancient date was 1939. So what happened to create "modern capitalism"? One also has to question Mr and Mrs Wolff who lived through this period why they seem completely ignorant as to the causes of this transition?
@@LateNightwithStudBuyers I'm a 73 year old man. I was an RN for 38 years and worked in hospitals at the bedside for 45 in total. I have observed the power dynamics of relationships between men and women quite a bit. I think to put it in other words, what you are seeing is not a phenomenon, but merely something women don't recognize the same way men didn't give a second thought to being seen as "boys will be boys" until they could be sued in the workplace for it. It is this: "Girls will be girls. And, we are not preparing them for the real world." Quotation marks are mine for effect. Face it, until you can afford the 9 staff assistants, you may have to toil, if only for your own survival- man or woman.
Less than half of people get married today. Nearly half of marriages end in divorce. That's about a 25% success rate. I'd call that a failed institution.
Capitalism is dying. And it needs to. We MUST focus on what we want next. A much more equitable society. A much more compassionate society (minimize causing suffering for ALL Sentient beings). A much healthier society (mentally & physically). A much cleaner society (minimize pollution). A much more loving society. A much more relaxed society. Etc, etc, etc.
It sounds like you are a proponent of socialism. 1. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. 5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Abolish "work to live" is a good start. Imagine human beings can have time to enjoy their hobbies, play sports, go somewhere to explore, etc. That is a life on 🌎.
I have watched harriet fraad on yt on other occasions, and i find she has a fresh perspective on what it is like to live in an increasingly capitalist society. I find it soothing to listen to macroeconomic explanations that drum out the negative rot in my mind. I opted out of being a family man mostly because i well remember how my father worked himself to the bone in order to get by. If freedom for women also means that men do not need to be wage slaves in the future, than i am all for it. In the meanttime, i will gladly do without the flashy toys we are all supposed to have in order to be loved (cars, apartments, upward bound social trajectories, shares, ect ect).
Such a vital conversation - marriage/children are a luxury item as my career has been saddled with student loan from 2008, to credit card debt, and a career that's on the ropes.
I've been saying for years (and as I am over 70, this is not an inconsiderable length of time) that the left in the USA needs to form a coalition of cooperation at least until we have moved the USA much farther to the left. At which time, our differences will actually matter. Because right now, they don't. Thanks Dr Wolff!
It was not capitalist greed that necessarily got many women into the work force. It was the prevalence of spousal abuse, and a need and a means to equalize the power dynamic between men and women. The power men held over women because they controlled the finances in the home and in society overall was oppressive. Men lorded it over women that they were the bread winners so women better kowtow to them or they wouldn't eat. That is why my mom (born in 1923 and had never heard of Feminism) drummed it into my head to get an education, job skills and be financially independent so I would NOT be beholding to a man for my sustenance because she suffered financial abuse in her marriage.
So, even in 1923 it was better to have more money, get an education and be financially independent. I wonder where men got their financial independence, as there was not much money in beating your wife (your slaves, your cart horse, etc.)? It's still the system. The beatings have changed, but they are still there- for men and women.
@@mama-nono3652 Yeah but it WAS the capitalist explosion that opened up more office and service jobs to women as well as more women wanting a life outside of the confines of a relationship or marriage... they rightly figured,, if a guy has a job sure she'll stay home and whatever but what for? She wants her own money,, can't blame anyone for that...
My mother had a college degree, RN. But in the day when a family could pay the bills on one salary my father convinced mother to stay home. Like many women in the 1950's & 60's. Even so both my father and mother wanted me to acquire job skills. Dad said "you might need something to fall back on someday". Practical advice that i imagine stemmed from having witnessed bad marriages.
@@beccabythebay Any parent not preparing their daughters to be self-sufficient is setting them up for abuse and hardship. But I also think that this preparation should be done not for "just in case" the "man plan" doesn't work out, but because EVERY PERSON should develop and express their gifts, skills and talents, and have autonomy to direct their own lives. I was a nurse. I worked at that job for over 30 years because it gave me a sense of fulfillment, personal accomplishment and an identity in my own right, unrelated to my relationship to a partner. Women should keep a foot in the larger world for a healthy balance.
The marriage phenomenon is quite simple... Marriage is largely an accessory to children. People have less money and can't support children. People get married less. Then, for some reason, instead of men and women realizing that they are collectively failing to create an economy that can support children, men and women get fooled into gender divides when dealing with their loneliness. So we are blaming the opposing gender for our loneliness, rather than organizing together to fix the underlying driver of the loneliness. This is just one culture war of many, including, but not limited to race, religion, nationality, pro-life/pro-choice, pro-vax/anti-vax, capitalist/socialist, Democrat/Republican, etc. So long as humans prioritize their identity as part of a subgroup of humanity instead of prioritizing their human identity, we will remain too divided to create an economy that can sustain us in the long-term.
While I agree that money plays into it, I think it has more cultural elements... Because it doesn't make sense that money alone would prevent men and women from meeting and marrying, wherein they would get tax benefits and mutual support (ideally).
@@cev12 I would say it factors in more so on the woman's side compared to the men's side. Women are much pickier today especially with the high inequality we have economically. Men don't care how much a woman makes but women do care how much a man makes. This is the key reason why a lot of people are single because the women are deciding they are very few men who they find financially viable.
I just finished reading Wendell Berry's book of essays written in the early 1990s where he describes our economic system's destruction of the family and how, without family, we don't have community. Without community, we don't have a true support system. Capitalism in its current form (predatory, elitist) has reached an end point, and I appreciate the in-depth reporting of Wolff and Fraad on these issues we can so plainly see.
Its not quite true though. The support systems of communities have always been very conditional. Conformist. Had to change. We'll adapt and hopefully not with new repressive systems and there's a vocal group of political correctness haters who see it that way. They have their own precious identity they want respected too.
Capitalism in its current form is NOT CAPITALISM! Consider the logic...if the central question of all economic systems revolves around the ownership of the "means of production", and the object of the discussion has nothing to do with "production"...then how can it be capitalism?
I am glad that we have progressed as a society that women do not have to marry any longer out of necessity or social obligation. We have a long way to go for equality. But on long enough timeline, progression always wins.
No offense, but down here on Earth, if having twice as many people working at the expense of family, education and health to support a monied elite is a win for progress, the average female in kindergarden today will not live long enough to benefit.
@ALL_CAPS__ Until their hypergamy bites them in the butt depending a man with more money than them in order to be married. Hate to be that guy, but Twitter, TikTok and TH-cam has exposed women truly don’t want the equality as they preach.
@@breft3416 no offense at all. You are not wrong on your general point. Just not exactly what I was speaking of. My point was we have progressed as a society from women having to be financially tied to man, or anybody for that matter, to survive in today’s world on her own. If I’m understanding you correctly, your point is more a systematic systemic indictment of capitalism. Which is indeed correct. Intersectionality is very much a thing and effect multiple facets of life.
@ALL_CAPS__ Until a good majority of them are crying in their car why men aren’t checking for them, or the collective of them complaining they can’t find a man who makes more than them.
@@345optimusprimenah. That’s more of a societal norm thing that needs to change. Neither man or woman should ever need the other financially, they should want to be with each other by choice. Emotionally and socially it’s a different thing, although, we do need to teach people maturity in that regard as well. We are social and communal creatures by nature. So we all need unconditional love and acceptance on some level. Some more than others.
(There is always a hidden feminist undercurrent with anything Dr Fraad says, and I don't like it. It distracts from the economic message of the channel. I think she is carrying some personal family trauma with her, and is spreading it to others.) It is very simple : if you want women to have babies, you have to put them back in the home where they belong. Whether you accept it now while there is time, or later when it's too late, is up to you. I should also add that husbands also do serve their wives: by going out there and putting their lives in danger and bringing home the resources needed to survive. This narrow-minded view of the married woman *gasp* serving her husband is a 20-th century TV trope, and it has got to go.
Thank you Dr Fraad for the thoughtful insight. In this modern economy, if you are at the bottom, it is advisable not to tie the knot. You will be stuck in your mundane job with no increase in pay for years because you have a family to support. You can lose your job if your employer is not doing well or he wants to relocate where the wages are low.
The question of marriage is an interesting one. It is no coincidence, that the bourgeios family model with a working husband and a mother at home collapsed at the same time, the Fordist industrial organization collapsed. On the one side workers didn't have anylonger the prospects of having a stable union job with a wage, that allowed reasonable planning and long term commitment to a family and a place to work and live. The same moment capital became more mobile, both literally with the advancements of transportation and commincation technology and financially with mergers and aquisition, people had too. On the one hand it freed women (at least partially) from the dependency of men, as the were recognised as a potential and necessary labor force. With this financial independence marriages became less necessary. On the other hand work relations became much more fluid and demand of people a much greater flexibility in order to survive. The decrease of marriages must also be to an extent be contributed to the fact that "carreer paths" don't line up. Many things a housewive would do became (at least) partially highly commidified services like elder care, child care, cooking, buying groceries, even child bearing in the case of surrogacy with the super rich. This continued push for commodification seized upon and enforced the social tendencies were marriages are no longer necessary or wanted. Commitment to a partner is much less desireable and much less needed to manage live. Many women don't want to do the traditional labor, that is implied with child bearing and those who do are presented with a reality in which being pregnant and caring for children means splitting energy between job and child in an evironment, where global competition and frequent job changes to get ahead in the carreer doesn't allow absense from work.
@@qjtvaddict Not from what I see. Or dont see, because they have to stay locked in their dwellings working longer hours since there's that extra time not spent commuting it is expected of them, they eat at their desks and at zoom meetings. Being at a desk all day is exhausting physically, getting out some days to go and get a coffee is a luxury. In an office you're expected, or used to be, to get up and walk around and go outside too, the healthy side effect of smoking. Working from home looks like a con from the outside. Another after effect gift of Covid19.
@@qjtvaddictyou cannot give children the attention they need to become a well rounded, capable individual if you're on your computer for long hours. Ask the mothers who have tried it. It's a disaster.
For one thing, thank you Wolfe for mentioning the plight of men in this situation, and for pointing out the tragedy of the population reduction we are now facing. As much as I want to blame capitalism in the abstract for the problems we face in marriage, and population reduction, I cannot help but notice that it's the poorest people having children. The diachtomy between the Gobal South, and North tells me the problem is only partly economic, and the problems in the Global North stem from in the greater part from mass media, and the consumerist culture that pervades there. People are bad with money because they lack financial education, and have expectations created for them by mass media they cannot fulfill, and the selfishness that kind of marketing generates, lowers their interest in good work for good results. That's the real reason everything is falling apart.
Anybody should be able to decide for themselves if they want to commit to a single partner or not. However under Capitalism you really don't have a choice as freedom only means to live under unstable conditions, that don't allow that kind of commitment any longer.
@@123456789987o Right. If I got in a car accident would my loved one be able to visit me in the hospital? In the age of the Internet there should be ways around this kind of nonsense.
In the olden days people did not do it for that reason or something finance related. If people feel the need to make a public commitment and throw a party they should be allowed to do it and not penalised for it.
One more comment: I realize that most contemporary economists and capitalism supporting historians like to laud the "traditional nuclear" family, but in fact, that's not what human beings are evolved to thrive under. And it's why, especially under Capitalism, human beings are now suffering more and more with the insidious trauma that Dr Gabor Maté calls small-t trauma (as well large-T trauma).
Do you really think that Labour is a left wing party? Have you been paying any attention? Kept two child benefit cap, “found” £20 billion hole in budget that they are patching with austerity.
Is it only me who thinks, that this woman cannot understand what love and living together actually is. And the words she uses are very cold. Richard wolf is great as always.
Indeed he is not. A great photo exists of the two of them walking into the place together, just after election, and it looks like Keir is telling Rishi everything is going to be alright, just like before, as they stroll in looking confident and happy, the best of friends.
Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations. When and where is the Left or the Right advocating mandatory accounting/finance in the schools? Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik. What is Net Domestic Product, NDP?
'The family as a luxury good'! Stunning, but apparently true. Talk about unintended consequences of change! Or, as Economics the Dismal would have it, 'Externalities'. AKA: Your problems are not our problems. They're yours.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Social Security was and remains a ponzi scheme.
@@jgalt308there are few bigger red flags in life than a username that references ayn rand. not here to engage you or your nonsense on any level. my comment is only put here in the hope that it plants a seed in your brain which allows you to someday move onto your next stage of development. best of luck 💔
@@LateNightwithStudBuyers You mean you can't engage, as facts are facts while your assumptions are irrelevant...and you obviously have no control over them.
As an example a warehouse worker, a chef earning £1,200 in wages in a month here in the UK. If they are renting privately for accommodation and their rent is £1,200 a month. That's all of their wages for a month gone in the rent. They have no money left for food, clothing, utility bills and other living expenses. Forget about getting and saving a deposit and going onto the housing ladder they can't. Forget about paying for a wedding, marriage and having babies and children they can't. If you look at the happiness index in a society they are not happy constantly stressed and everything seems unaffordable even while working and having a job.
Hm. Just an observation after reading the comments, that I think the lack of marriages is partly financial, but more cultural. The women I know want to get married, but are not finding men who are decent human beings... a lot of irresponsibility and self-centeredness. But many more women would get married, given a good option.
Been the odd man out my whole life. It's been divide and conquer since I hit the ground. I have yet to taste equal opportunity, regardless of race or gender, now I'm 68 so I expect even fewer considerations.
Divide and conquer strategies are the foundation of everything that's wrong with the world. If everyone understood them and how to resolve them, there would be no problems. Unfortunately most just fall for them. If I was king, voting rights would only be given to those who understood divide and conquer strategies intricately.... Only half joking.
Good for you. I don't know what will be on my ballot. If the Greens get 5% supposedly they win all kinds of prizes - like attending the presidential debates.
No, your UN population statistics quoted by are bogus. Their mid model is peaking at around 10.4 billion people in the 2080s with a slight curve and turning around 2100. However they not fully capture the impacts of climate change, food shortages, wars, migration and natural disasters, leading to potential an overestimation of future population sizes.
How does women and men having competing need for spare time (eg travel, play, socializing, ...) play into the lack of time/desire to have children? Do upper class people have higher fertility rates when compared to the working class? Also, TFR seems to be dropping also in countries with strong social welfare? How does capitalism explain this?
It is not a "dire state" when a countries population drops because of fewer births. It is a wonderful event. Overpopulation is causing massive destruction of our ecosystems and driving species extinct and of course massive pollution by CO2 and other pollutants. The United Nations says by 2100 the world population will be 11billion. Now 8 billion. Yes, birth rates are going down but it takes many, many ears before populations go down. There are limits to growth for the planet. And we are heading to that dangerous point.
this is all hyperbolic theories which have been debunked for many decades, but the rich keep selling it to the rest of us. Have you NOT noticed that the people in power are doing zero to change the things you brought up? Anyways.
This is such a bad point, we don't have overpopulation, we have an unequal distribution of resources, we have way, way more space and resources than we need we just use it inefficiently
Yes, Labour got a huge majority in the UK with a very low voter turnout. Starmer got three million fewer votes than when Jeremy Corbyn was last leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn won his seat as an independent than Stramer got in his riding.
I have no real problem with increasing the taxation of individuals with high incomes, although I would prefer that the highest rates are reserved for income DERIVED from speculation and rent-seeking privileges rather than income EARNED by producing goods and services. A good starting point to the elimination of any special treatment for so-called CAPITAL GAINS on the sale of financial assets and land. Actual capital goods do not appreciate in value over time, they depreciate. For example, the value of a residential property is best defined as replacement cost, less depreciation. So, what might progressive tax reform look like. We should start by eliminating all individual incomes up to some amount, e.g., the national median income. Then, eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. To be sure, some earned income will be taxed. But, I feel safe in saying this will in no way affect the living standard of those taxed. What about the business profits tax? Some states have already figured out the wisdom of imposing a graduated tax on gross revenue. We know far more jobs are created by small businesses than by large corporations heavily invested in automation. Let's exempt some level of gross revenue to incentivize small businesses. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher levels of gross revenue. We don't want to kill business with confiscatory taxes, but this new structure will reward efficiency, as the compensation packages to executives will not long be a deductible expense.
It's a pity that Harriet got cut off like that. At least for TH-cam surely the length of the program is quite irrelevant, or? I'm curious though about the numbers. In non western-imperial countries, like China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, what are the statistics for marriage like? How do the Chinese for example take care of their children and their elders? My late Aunt from Austria who was a lifelong communist and part of the Austrian resistance during WW2 never married and had instead several long term boyfriends and no children herself. From a classical communist perspective marriage is a bourgeois construct and total farce. When I told my father, who was also left leaning, I was going to get married he replied "why do you want to do that for?" I'm still happily married after 35+ years. Although I do agree with my father and aunt about marriage. It's just a construct of class divides
Starmer' 'Labour' is not in the least an left wing party - it is merely a watered down Tory party! Ye malign the left wing to, in any way, describe it as a mildly left party! Yech!
1) Less and less people are being married because of bad economic conditions not capitalism (in some poor countries the inverse is happening, and we see population spikes because of less individual complexity). People after the WW2 (simply because of the economy reset) were experiencing improving living conditions and population increased. 2) The Marriage problem is also not entirely a capitalist problem but a status problem (ambitious pretty woman wants a male with wealth etc.). And guess where the need for status comes from: Individual (Psychology, social animal). 3) I don't think people were happy in the soviet union either during hard economic times. 4) Don't use other terms to describe different variables underneath. Simple as that. By doing so you just make things even more complex. You can't imagine how much less confusion would be out there if people focused on details. 5) Capitalism doesn't make the family a luxury but free market does. 6) This woman is a feminist and in favor of the women's liberation movement (Rockfeller funded program to tax the other half population since they were staying at home cleaning, and introduce his foundations as a way to brainwash people). Richard being biased towards this fake leftist cult (funded by elite) is what drives more serious people from his analyses imo. Better describe things as they are rather than what is trendy and might appeal to people. Truth, logic is not based on what a lot of people believe.
An absorbing discussion about a neglected issue of society, the important role of women as mothers and spouses rearing new generations of children. The economics of the family are overlooked by the right wing in politics
That same woman told them that thier " happiness " was all that matters. I'm happy watching TV all day and smoking but nobody's telling me " as long as your happy 😊 "
I'm in mid-20s and if we're talking about marriage, lets also talk about issues in dating. Finding a boyfriend that is left leaning is very hard because many younger men are now conservative, moderate, or simply uninterested to care about politics. I feel in order to truly find someone to date you'll have to settle in order to be together. Also, lets not forget that a lot of women are now making more money, and its difficult to find a compatible partner. I'm still trying to have hope that the right person comes my way, but it feels like slim pickings out here.
Hudson and Wolff 3rd Round...The Shocking Truth Behind the End of Financial Colonialism Aw, despite the filibustering by Wolff, he still runs smack dab into the "industrial capitalism" haymaker for the third time. The audience still hasn't picked up on it, as indicated by the comments, still believing that the "discussion" is one of similar understanding...when it never has been, and missing all the other clues along the way that indicate the stark differences between them, including the interpretation of Marx's expectations of "industrial capitalism". To be clear, "industrial capitalism" is the only kind of capitalism, while all other descriptions or combinations of words with it are NOT since all other "variants" involve conditions that pre-existed "industrial capitalism"...to include the form of government, credit, money, debt, and usury. The term itself didn't appear until 1850, and was introduced by a socialist. Hudson has made this clear again... Wolff"s rhetoric relies on it's not being clear and never acknowledging it. "Marx used the word "exploitation" to focus analytical attention on what capitalism shared with feudalism and slavery, something that capitalist revolutions against slavery and feudalism never overcame." - Richard D. Wolff Yet in this episode, Wolff clearly states that slavery was overcome and then claims that it resulted in "feudalism". But it was not industrial capitalism that caused this...but the pre-existing rentier class that re-asserted itself, destroying it...and expanding into the F.I.RE sector and the subsequent "de-industrialization" that followed. ( Hudson, again ) Wolff treats us to the wonders of "competition" and the claim that the U.S. ( & the West ) cannot compete with the BRICS. He then mentions the "cheap labor" element, later as the reason. ( but not the "exploitation" of it. ) We then have Hudson referencing "mixed economies" and the "many types of socialism. " also probably missed by the audience. Of the BRICS, only China has a comparative GDP, and only Russia has the "resources" that can contribute to "positive growth". China's rise is entirely due to "industrial capitalism" and the "exploitation of cheap labor"... but "cheap labor" is available elsewhere, and lifting its population out of "extreme poverty" did not and has not reduced the levels of "inequality" in its population...so it has already fallen into the "rentier trap" of finance and real estate...and its manufacturing sector is losing its capital inflows from "foreign sources," and it's the population can not afford its switch to "high-end production," so it still relies on " export consumption," but from whom? This brings us to the stated topic of "financial colonialism"...in a world of "fiat" thanks to FDR and the examination of the "belt and road" initiative. How is this NOT financial colonialism? China is not doing this for free...so what are they offering, and what are the terms? What are the consequences of failing to meet those terms? In terms of "actual colonialism", what have been the consequences of those nations that have become "independent" of it? Then there is the problem of the U.S. and the present insanity of the collusion of the "rentier class" and "the government"...that is now directed externally and internally...and the history of this transition... which can only be alluded to by Hudson, while Wolff remains clueless. The U.S. has been an unconstitutional criminal enterprise since 1939...with the de facto introduction of "fiat" in 1934 and its de jure confirmation in 1971. Since 1939, inflation has been constant, hitting 300% by 1970, and 600% by 1980. and now stands at 3 685.24% by government calculations..when it was only 67% in 1939, and since the U.S. was "debt free" in 1836, the historical highs were 95% in 1865 and 115% in 1926. In terms of "lawful money," which is still a thing in the U.S. the inflation rate as of today's opening is 5,773% in terms of the "official price" set in 1974. It is interesting to see Wolff's acknowledgment of the U.S. industrial dominance post WWII but fail to recognize the consequences of the decline that begins in 1950, when the U.S., as the largest creditor nation, becomes a debtor nation in 1971 and the largest debtor nation by 1984. while failing to connect the dots between the rising production costs, de-industrialization, and the inability to compete in the present. This is in addition to all the other stupid things this criminal government has done domestically. We return you now to your REGULAR PROGRAMING.
![Global Capitalism: On Labor - A May Day 2024 Special [May 1st, 2024]](/img/n.gif)
I’m a 24 year old woman and I was trying to explain these sentiments to my 44 year old liberal husband earlier today. I told him to watch D@W’s videos featuring Harriet Fraad to better understand better the connection between capitalism and the strain/detriment it has on marriages, families (both nuclear and non-nuclear) and our reduced quality of life in general.
Thank you both, Professor Wolff and Harriet Fraad. You are my modern day heroes. Proud watcher and supporter of D@W since 2016.❤
Bad move marrying a 44-year-old you fucked up
@@SlumCut6661 20yr is wild! Your parents were okay with that?? When you were 16 he was 36 🤯
@@jjutt87 why would you assume they met when she was under age? Seems like a bit of a stretch.
@@ALL_CAPS__ I wasn't assuming that - I'm stating a factual age difference at the time for perspective. No judgment - it's just an reality. Interesting how you projected I was insinuating that.
@@jjutt87 yes, you stated a mathematical fact with the undertones of an under age timeframe. Why didn’t you use 20 or 22? The words we use have meaning and context when in a specific order.
It’s safe to assume that anyone that regularly listens to democracy at work can do simple math of 20 years.
Capitalism is "making the modern family a luxury good". Drs.Wolff and Fraad thank you for this deep analysis and discussion. Class-based terms like "high value woman/man" and "power couple/couple goals" really speak to this phenomena and deserve more attention.
Stop LYING.
Women never had to be " high value ".
The term " high value woman " doesn't exist....
They assumed " high value " by default.
Only women want to be the " power couple ".
TV bull.
Even dog ownership is turning into a luxury status.
😂
🟤👠🌰🤎🕳💩 Are we meant to replace population to provide servant class to pick up their dogs' shit. Which they leave everywhere here. Not in NYC so I hear.
Right?!
@@kevinhagen7808 Dog ownership definitely is too expensive for me. I'm an older senior who loves dogs. I'd be so happy for the companionship of having a little dog to walk. It's good for my health, both physical and mental. When my last dear doggie died I decided I could not afford another. My income from social security, which is all I have except a $165/month pension, is insufficient to stretch far enough for my own basic needs, let along for an animal. Have you considered the cost of vet fees? Even with pet insurance I can't afford that for a dog. My own dental bills are too much and I'm constantly in debt just keeping up with that.
Actually, it does not make sense to have beautiful dogs and cats killed each week and to have many charities rehoming unwanted stray animals and unwanted pets when there are so many lonley elders who would gladly provide a home and care for a dog or cat if the cost were subsidized in part or completely. Retired folks and pets are a match made in heaven. We could solve two problems at once with subsidized pet ownership. I'm dreaming, ofcourse. This society won't even subsidize dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids for old human beings. So dogs must die and elders must do without good health.
Honestly!
Professor Wolf! Since the Greek crisis I'm watching y and only y! Thank y very much for staying as y are!
Dr. Wolff is a fine economist. Among the best. But he is among the rarest of the rare: a great and good human being. Would that we had more like him. Someday.
Thankyou to both Dr's
I got married when I was 18. My father in law demanded it because I had sex with his daughter. At the time we were part of a fundamentalist Christian religion. We made the mistake of thinking that when we had children we would be supported by this community. We ended up having four children. It turned out that our community abandoned us when we became too "liberal". They wouldn't even give us a job in our small town. I got a reputation as a "liberal" and "atheist". They drove us out of town. So here we are living with four children in a small public housing unit and can't even qualify for a five hundred dollar loan. I suspected some hardship in America, but I never expected this kind of active savage attack upon myself and my family. It has left both my wife and myself with little to live for. We used to enjoy camping, but every time we try that we get harassed by the police. I hate this country with a deep and passionate hatred.
26:24 "Living with a man takes 7 hours more of domestic labor." Read my lips: pfffffftttttt!! 😑
28:00 "So the irony of modern capitalism is to make the traditional family a luxury good." Very well put by Dr. Wolff. I'd been struggling to describe this phenomena. But I remember when celebrities having babies started becoming "news" and they started flaunting photos of their stomachs and their babies wearing expensive clothes...I felt feeling like that was the beginning of the lowest of the low for American society.
if I had been drinking something when the "7 hour" statistic was stated, I would have spit it out! I'm ashamed that I understand how perfectly true that is these days.
reminds me of a line from one of Hannah Gadsby's specials: "do you know what the phrase 'boys will be boys' means?... we are not preparing our boys for the real world!"
I'm obv leaving out a lot of what she said, and - like you - I have struggled to put into words this phenomenon that this world is experiencing. this video contains some incredible truths, so incredible that our language may be limited in expressing fully what they are.
I hope someone can put into words these thoughts better than I am able at this time! 😵💫
When my partner died I did not find I had 7 hours a day less work to do, even though for the last 7 years he was in a bad way. It was only afterwards I began to see how much he had done and why the bathroom had stayed so clean. He was just an ordinary man with the ordinary prejudices and expectations of the times and if that altered over time he never made a thing of it so possibly I never noticed. Often I think I have more to do now.
@@jillfryer6699I’m so sorry for your loss, friend. Please take care. ❤
How is "modern capitalism"...capitalism?
What was "ancient capitalism"?
There was a point in "ancient capitalism" where one income was sufficient to
support a family, and the minimum "living wage" was 25 cents/per hour.
That ancient date was 1939. So what happened to create "modern capitalism"?
One also has to question Mr and Mrs Wolff who lived through this period
why they seem completely ignorant as to the causes of this transition?
@@LateNightwithStudBuyers I'm a 73 year old man. I was an RN for 38 years and worked in hospitals at the bedside for 45 in total. I have observed the power dynamics of relationships between men and women quite a bit. I think to put it in other words, what you are seeing is not a phenomenon, but merely something women don't recognize the same way men didn't give a second thought to being seen as "boys will be boys" until they could be sued in the workplace for it. It is this: "Girls will be girls. And, we are not preparing them for the real world." Quotation marks are mine for effect. Face it, until you can afford the 9 staff assistants, you may have to toil, if only for your own survival- man or woman.
Less than half of people get married today. Nearly half of marriages end in divorce. That's about a 25% success rate. I'd call that a failed institution.
Maybe it’s time to put it to rest
What can one expect in a failed country?
Now we have become slaves of the Western agenda. All households work to pay taxes not work for family
It used to be a religious institution, now its a Government institution.
Capitalism is dying. And it needs to. We MUST focus on what we want next. A much more equitable society. A much more compassionate society (minimize causing suffering for ALL Sentient beings). A much healthier society (mentally & physically). A much cleaner society (minimize pollution). A much more loving society. A much more relaxed society. Etc, etc, etc.
It sounds like you are a proponent of socialism.
1. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Abolish "work to live" is a good start. Imagine human beings can have time to enjoy their hobbies, play sports, go somewhere to explore, etc. That is a life on 🌎.
More than equality, FREEDOM from these supposedly Western advanced countries
Great educational videos about how the economy works. It is easy to understand professor Wolff.
I have watched harriet fraad on yt on other occasions, and i find she has a fresh perspective on what it is like to live in an increasingly capitalist society. I find it soothing to listen to macroeconomic explanations that drum out the negative rot in my mind. I opted out of being a family man mostly because i well remember how my father worked himself to the bone in order to get by. If freedom for women also means that men do not need to be wage slaves in the future, than i am all for it. In the meanttime, i will gladly do without the flashy toys we are all supposed to have in order to be loved (cars, apartments, upward bound social trajectories, shares, ect ect).
Thank you for talking about this.
Thank you, Professor Richard Wolff and Dr. Fraud for this meaningful expertise in both your fields.
GREAT show. Informative, Useful, and Spiritually enlightening.
Such a vital conversation - marriage/children are a luxury item as my career has been saddled with student loan from 2008, to credit card debt, and a career that's on the ropes.
Always get chuckle the way Richard interviews his wife
I thought today they might've been going to discuss how they make their own marriage work.
They look like such a cool 😎 couple - very professional.
@@greendragonspirit1646 and clearly don't talk to one another.
I've been saying for years (and as I am over 70, this is not an inconsiderable length of time) that the left in the USA needs to form a coalition of cooperation at least until we have moved the USA much farther to the left. At which time, our differences will actually matter. Because right now, they don't.
Thanks Dr Wolff!
It was not capitalist greed that necessarily got many women into the work force. It was the prevalence of spousal abuse, and a need and a means to equalize the power dynamic between men and women. The power men held over women because they controlled the finances in the home and in society overall was oppressive. Men lorded it over women that they were the bread winners so women better kowtow to them or they wouldn't eat. That is why my mom (born in 1923 and had never heard of Feminism) drummed it into my head to get an education, job skills and be financially independent so I would NOT be beholding to a man for my sustenance because she suffered financial abuse in her marriage.
So, even in 1923 it was better to have more money, get an education and be financially independent. I wonder where men got their financial independence, as there was not much money in beating your wife (your slaves, your cart horse, etc.)? It's still the system. The beatings have changed, but they are still there- for men and women.
Brilliant comment and factual indeed.
@@mama-nono3652 Yeah but it WAS the capitalist explosion that opened up more office and service jobs to women as well as more women wanting a life outside of the confines of a relationship or marriage... they rightly figured,, if a guy has a job sure she'll stay home and whatever but what for? She wants her own money,, can't blame anyone for that...
My mother had a college degree, RN. But in the day when a family could pay the bills on one salary my father convinced mother to stay home. Like many women in the 1950's & 60's. Even so both my father and mother wanted me to acquire job skills. Dad said "you might need something to fall back on someday". Practical advice that i imagine stemmed from having witnessed bad marriages.
@@beccabythebay Any parent not preparing their daughters to be self-sufficient is setting them up for abuse and hardship. But I also think that this preparation should be done not for "just in case" the "man plan" doesn't work out, but because EVERY PERSON should develop and express their gifts, skills and talents, and have autonomy to direct their own lives. I was a nurse. I worked at that job for over 30 years because it gave me a sense of fulfillment, personal accomplishment and an identity in my own right, unrelated to my relationship to a partner. Women should keep a foot in the larger world for a healthy balance.
The marriage phenomenon is quite simple... Marriage is largely an accessory to children. People have less money and can't support children. People get married less.
Then, for some reason, instead of men and women realizing that they are collectively failing to create an economy that can support children, men and women get fooled into gender divides when dealing with their loneliness. So we are blaming the opposing gender for our loneliness, rather than organizing together to fix the underlying driver of the loneliness. This is just one culture war of many, including, but not limited to race, religion, nationality, pro-life/pro-choice, pro-vax/anti-vax, capitalist/socialist, Democrat/Republican, etc. So long as humans prioritize their identity as part of a subgroup of humanity instead of prioritizing their human identity, we will remain too divided to create an economy that can sustain us in the long-term.
While I agree that money plays into it, I think it has more cultural elements...
Because it doesn't make sense that money alone would prevent men and women from meeting and marrying, wherein they would get tax benefits and mutual support (ideally).
@@cev12 I would say it factors in more so on the woman's side compared to the men's side. Women are much pickier today especially with the high inequality we have economically. Men don't care how much a woman makes but women do care how much a man makes. This is the key reason why a lot of people are single because the women are deciding they are very few men who they find financially viable.
I just finished reading Wendell Berry's book of essays written in the early 1990s where he describes our economic system's destruction of the family and how, without family, we don't have community. Without community, we don't have a true support system. Capitalism in its current form (predatory, elitist) has reached an end point, and I appreciate the in-depth reporting of Wolff and Fraad on these issues we can so plainly see.
Its not quite true though. The support systems of communities have always been very conditional. Conformist. Had to change. We'll adapt and hopefully not with new repressive systems and there's a vocal group of political correctness haters who see it that way. They have their own precious identity they want respected too.
Capitalism in its current form is NOT CAPITALISM!
Consider the logic...if the central question of all economic systems revolves
around the ownership of the "means of production", and the object of the discussion
has nothing to do with "production"...then how can it be capitalism?
@@jgalt308 very funny. you never disappoint with the wild false commentary.
@@The1Elcil You are calling Michael Hudson a liar?
Mexico should just join BRICS instead of being subject to US Government caprices.
Do you know what will happen if they did that.
The concept of the nuclear family has imploded
Always an eye-opener with Dr. Fraad.
I am glad that we have progressed as a society that women do not have to marry any longer out of necessity or social obligation. We have a long way to go for equality. But on long enough timeline, progression always wins.
No offense, but down here on Earth, if having twice as many people working at the expense of family, education and health to support a monied elite is a win for progress, the average female in kindergarden today will not live long enough to benefit.
@ALL_CAPS__ Until their hypergamy bites them in the butt depending a man with more money than them in order to be married.
Hate to be that guy, but Twitter, TikTok and TH-cam has exposed women truly don’t want the equality as they preach.
@@breft3416 no offense at all. You are not wrong on your general point. Just not exactly what I was speaking of.
My point was we have progressed as a society from women having to be financially tied to man, or anybody for that matter, to survive in today’s world on her own.
If I’m understanding you correctly, your point is more a systematic systemic indictment of capitalism. Which is indeed correct.
Intersectionality is very much a thing and effect multiple facets of life.
@ALL_CAPS__ Until a good majority of them are crying in their car why men aren’t checking for them, or the collective of them complaining they can’t find a man who makes more than them.
@@345optimusprimenah. That’s more of a societal norm thing that needs to change.
Neither man or woman should ever need the other financially, they should want to be with each other by choice.
Emotionally and socially it’s a different thing, although, we do need to teach people maturity in that regard as well. We are social and communal creatures by nature. So we all need unconditional love and acceptance on some level. Some more than others.
This might be one of the best videos so far.
(There is always a hidden feminist undercurrent with anything Dr Fraad says, and I don't like it. It distracts from the economic message of the channel. I think she is carrying some personal family trauma with her, and is spreading it to others.)
It is very simple : if you want women to have babies, you have to put them back in the home where they belong. Whether you accept it now while there is time, or later when it's too late, is up to you.
I should also add that husbands also do serve their wives: by going out there and putting their lives in danger and bringing home the resources needed to survive. This narrow-minded view of the married woman *gasp* serving her husband is a 20-th century TV trope, and it has got to go.
Thank you Dr Fraad for the thoughtful insight. In this modern economy, if you are at the bottom, it is advisable not to tie the knot. You will be stuck in your mundane job with no increase in pay for years because you have a family to support. You can lose your job if your employer is not doing well or he wants to relocate where the wages are low.
The question of marriage is an interesting one. It is no coincidence, that the bourgeios family model with a working husband and a mother at home collapsed at the same time, the Fordist industrial organization collapsed. On the one side workers didn't have anylonger the prospects of having a stable union job with a wage, that allowed reasonable planning and long term commitment to a family and a place to work and live. The same moment capital became more mobile, both literally with the advancements of transportation and commincation technology and financially with mergers and aquisition, people had too. On the one hand it freed women (at least partially) from the dependency of men, as the were recognised as a potential and necessary labor force. With this financial independence marriages became less necessary. On the other hand work relations became much more fluid and demand of people a much greater flexibility in order to survive. The decrease of marriages must also be to an extent be contributed to the fact that "carreer paths" don't line up. Many things a housewive would do became (at least) partially highly commidified services like elder care, child care, cooking, buying groceries, even child bearing in the case of surrogacy with the super rich. This continued push for commodification seized upon and enforced the social tendencies were marriages are no longer necessary or wanted. Commitment to a partner is much less desireable and much less needed to manage live. Many women don't want to do the traditional labor, that is implied with child bearing and those who do are presented with a reality in which being pregnant and caring for children means splitting energy between job and child in an evironment, where global competition and frequent job changes to get ahead in the carreer doesn't allow absense from work.
Then remote work came along giving women back their flexibility
@@qjtvaddict Not from what I see. Or dont see, because they have to stay locked in their dwellings working longer hours since there's that extra time not spent commuting it is expected of them, they eat at their desks and at zoom meetings. Being at a desk all day is exhausting physically, getting out some days to go and get a coffee is a luxury. In an office you're expected, or used to be, to get up and walk around and go outside too, the healthy side effect of smoking. Working from home looks like a con from the outside. Another after effect gift of Covid19.
@@qjtvaddictyou cannot give children the attention they need to become a well rounded, capable individual if you're on your computer for long hours. Ask the mothers who have tried it. It's a disaster.
What a great discussion! Thanks
Thank you both for this thought provoking presentation-
The Labour party won an overwhelming majority with only 34 percent of the popular vote. Something is askew in British democracy.
'Labor and Tories = two sides of the same coin', George galloway.
Unless the buying of political favors is destroyed, there will be a uniparty.
For one thing, thank you Wolfe for mentioning the plight of men in this situation, and for pointing out the tragedy of the population reduction we are now facing. As much as I want to blame capitalism in the abstract for the problems we face in marriage, and population reduction, I cannot help but notice that it's the poorest people having children. The diachtomy between the Gobal South, and North tells me the problem is only partly economic, and the problems in the Global North stem from in the greater part from mass media, and the consumerist culture that pervades there. People are bad with money because they lack financial education, and have expectations created for them by mass media they cannot fulfill, and the selfishness that kind of marketing generates, lowers their interest in good work for good results. That's the real reason everything is falling apart.
Because of the 'forever wars' even the poor are having less and less children.
Marriage is an unneeded commitment. We only did it for the tax relief which is out of date but there it is.
Anybody should be able to decide for themselves if they want to commit to a single partner or not. However under Capitalism you really don't have a choice as freedom only means to live under unstable conditions, that don't allow that kind of commitment any longer.
What tax relief?
@@jgalt308 Are you married? If so do you send in taxes? Or are you so poor you get taxes back? If you truly don't know google it.
@@123456789987o Right. If I got in a car accident would my loved one be able to visit me in the hospital? In the age of the Internet there should be ways around this kind of nonsense.
In the olden days people did not do it for that reason or something finance related. If people feel the need to make a public commitment and throw a party they should be allowed to do it and not penalised for it.
Marriage is for divorce
Thanks!
Labour Party in uk under Starmar is not left, it centre right. That is why we had 5 independents win. Starmar purged many left leaning MPs.
The left-right notion in the US, is so skewed as to be a totally useless metric. They often conflate "liberal" with "left" and "left" with "communist"
One more comment: I realize that most contemporary economists and capitalism supporting historians like to laud the "traditional nuclear" family, but in fact, that's not what human beings are evolved to thrive under. And it's why, especially under Capitalism, human beings are now suffering more and more with the insidious trauma that Dr Gabor Maté calls small-t trauma (as well large-T trauma).
Thanks!
Thank you for the insights
Do you really think that Labour is a left wing party? Have you been paying any attention? Kept two child benefit cap, “found” £20 billion hole in budget that they are patching with austerity.
Is it only me who thinks, that this woman cannot understand what love and living together actually is. And the words she uses are very cold.
Richard wolf is great as always.
Keir starmer isn't exactly a step up from rishi sunak.
Indeed he is not. A great photo exists of the two of them walking into the place together, just after election, and it looks like Keir is telling Rishi everything is going to be alright, just like before, as they stroll in looking confident and happy, the best of friends.
The group I'm in favors Jill Stein. The professor should have her on
Hvala.
Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations.
When and where is the Left or the Right advocating mandatory accounting/finance in the schools? Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik.
What is Net Domestic Product, NDP?
'The family as a luxury good'! Stunning, but apparently true. Talk about unintended consequences of change! Or, as Economics the Dismal would have it, 'Externalities'. AKA: Your problems are not our problems. They're yours.
Thank you ❤
shoutout to charlie
16:34 Interview Starts 🎉
Soc security: remove the cap on tax as the income goes up and include all income from all sources.
A ponzi scheme is still a ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money.
Social Security was and remains a ponzi scheme.
Always interesting to see people who are ignorant of history...and have
no clue what social security is.
@@jgalt308there are few bigger red flags in life than a username that references ayn rand.
not here to engage you or your nonsense on any level. my comment is only put here in the hope that it plants a seed in your brain which allows you to someday move onto your next stage of development.
best of luck 💔
@@LateNightwithStudBuyers You mean you can't engage, as facts are facts
while your assumptions are irrelevant...and you obviously have no control
over them.
We perfectly know all this ,problem is what to do about it?
Marriage is breaking down because there needs to be justice for all in all aspects of society in all aspects of life
As an example a warehouse worker, a chef earning £1,200 in wages in a month here in the UK. If they are renting privately for accommodation and their rent is £1,200 a month. That's all of their wages for a month gone in the rent. They have no money left for food, clothing, utility bills and other living expenses. Forget about getting and saving a deposit and going onto the housing ladder they can't. Forget about paying for a wedding, marriage and having babies and children they can't. If you look at the happiness index in a society they are not happy constantly stressed and everything seems unaffordable even while working and having a job.
I fucking love this guy..
Hm. Just an observation after reading the comments, that I think the lack of marriages is partly financial, but more cultural. The women I know want to get married, but are not finding men who are decent human beings... a lot of irresponsibility and self-centeredness. But many more women would get married, given a good option.
I think the Brits regret leaving the EU. It's sad the people voted to leave bc of propaganda.
Kenya is not divided by any politics, Kenyans together as one for peace and Peaceful Co-existence
Cat ladies dont spread your hate if your miserable in your 40s
😂
Tks. much
Been the odd man out my whole life. It's been divide and conquer since I hit the ground. I have yet to taste equal opportunity, regardless of race or gender, now I'm 68 so I expect even fewer considerations.
At least you can see things clearly and you've probably worked out how to look after yourself. As long as you don't get too cut off.
Divide and conquer strategies are the foundation of everything that's wrong with the world. If everyone understood them and how to resolve them, there would be no problems. Unfortunately most just fall for them. If I was king, voting rights would only be given to those who understood divide and conquer strategies intricately.... Only half joking.
I'm strategically voting Green within a solidly red state.
How is that strategic?
Good for you. I don't know what will be on my ballot. If the Greens get 5% supposedly they win all kinds of prizes - like attending the presidential debates.
So you're saying there are more than two parties in the U.S.?
Waste of time
@@TacticalMayo I've already explained how it matters in the comment above.
No, your UN population statistics quoted by are bogus. Their mid model is peaking at around 10.4 billion people in the 2080s with a slight curve and turning around 2100. However they not fully capture the impacts of climate change, food shortages, wars, migration and natural disasters, leading to potential an overestimation of future population sizes.
How does women and men having competing need for spare time (eg travel, play, socializing, ...) play into the lack of time/desire to have children? Do upper class people have higher fertility rates when compared to the working class?
Also, TFR seems to be dropping also in countries with strong social welfare? How does capitalism explain this?
Hello from derry
💪🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
People are too poor to remain married. Everyone is miserable when they are too poor and that causes marriage to fail.
15:41 10000% people we need to unite
I say it all time
It is not a "dire state" when a countries population drops because of fewer births. It is a wonderful event. Overpopulation is causing massive destruction of our ecosystems and driving species extinct and of course massive pollution by CO2 and other pollutants. The United Nations says by 2100 the world population will be 11billion. Now 8 billion. Yes, birth rates are going down but it takes many, many ears before populations go down. There are limits to growth for the planet. And we are heading to that dangerous point.
Overpopulation is a myth. It's not really even possible. Birth rates will adjust to the resource capacity of the planet, more or less.
this is all hyperbolic theories which have been debunked for many decades, but the rich keep selling it to the rest of us. Have you NOT noticed that the people in power are doing zero to change the things you brought up? Anyways.
This is such a bad point, we don't have overpopulation, we have an unequal distribution of resources, we have way, way more space and resources than we need we just use it inefficiently
This woman told truth about Guiné-Bissau reality. I am guinean and i reafirm what she said.
The whole planet is now dealing with the results of single mothers, raising (sheep) children.
Good Job!
Zakayo team Revenue collectors and the rest to be the Fishers of men and women
Yes, Labour got a huge majority in the UK with a very low voter turnout. Starmer got three million fewer votes than when Jeremy Corbyn was last leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn won his seat as an independent than Stramer got in his riding.
I have no real problem with increasing the taxation of individuals with high incomes, although I would prefer that the highest rates are reserved for income DERIVED from speculation and rent-seeking privileges rather than income EARNED by producing goods and services. A good starting point to the elimination of any special treatment for so-called CAPITAL GAINS on the sale of financial assets and land. Actual capital goods do not appreciate in value over time, they depreciate. For example, the value of a residential property is best defined as replacement cost, less depreciation.
So, what might progressive tax reform look like. We should start by eliminating all individual incomes up to some amount, e.g., the national median income. Then, eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. To be sure, some earned income will be taxed. But, I feel safe in saying this will in no way affect the living standard of those taxed.
What about the business profits tax? Some states have already figured out the wisdom of imposing a graduated tax on gross revenue. We know far more jobs are created by small businesses than by large corporations heavily invested in automation. Let's exempt some level of gross revenue to incentivize small businesses. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher levels of gross revenue. We don't want to kill business with confiscatory taxes, but this new structure will reward efficiency, as the compensation packages to executives will not long be a deductible expense.
Does that 7 hours include the time for forced, exhausted intimacy?
That's called rape where I come from.
It's a pity that Harriet got cut off like that. At least for TH-cam surely the length of the program is quite irrelevant, or? I'm curious though about the numbers. In non western-imperial countries, like China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, what are the statistics for marriage like? How do the Chinese for example take care of their children and their elders? My late Aunt from Austria who was a lifelong communist and part of the Austrian resistance during WW2 never married and had instead several long term boyfriends and no children herself. From a classical communist perspective marriage is a bourgeois construct and total farce. When I told my father, who was also left leaning, I was going to get married he replied "why do you want to do that for?" I'm still happily married after 35+ years. Although I do agree with my father and aunt about marriage. It's just a construct of class divides
Lawyers rule America. Marriage is a legal contract. Letters make money from destroying marriages. Where's the problem?
Starmer' 'Labour' is not in the least an left wing party - it is merely a watered down Tory party! Ye malign the left wing to, in any way, describe it as a mildly left party! Yech!
1) Less and less people are being married because of bad economic conditions not capitalism (in some poor countries the inverse is happening, and we see population spikes because of less individual complexity). People after the WW2 (simply because of the economy reset) were experiencing improving living conditions and population increased.
2) The Marriage problem is also not entirely a capitalist problem but a status problem (ambitious pretty woman wants a male with wealth etc.). And guess where the need for status comes from: Individual (Psychology, social animal).
3) I don't think people were happy in the soviet union either during hard economic times.
4) Don't use other terms to describe different variables underneath. Simple as that. By doing so you just make things even more complex. You can't imagine how much less confusion would be out there if people focused on details.
5) Capitalism doesn't make the family a luxury but free market does.
6) This woman is a feminist and in favor of the women's liberation movement (Rockfeller funded program to tax the other half population since they were staying at home cleaning, and introduce his foundations as a way to brainwash people). Richard being biased towards this fake leftist cult (funded by elite) is what drives more serious people from his analyses imo. Better describe things as they are rather than what is trendy and might appeal to people. Truth, logic is not based on what a lot of people believe.
How do you know the majority of American women are not married “by choice “?
WHY WOULD THE GOVENOR OF GEORGIA SUDDENLY DECIDEVNOT TO CONTINUE PAYING PART B OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR SOMEONE DISABLED???
Where did our boy David Harvey go?
Do you how much of Ukraine USA corporations have purchased?
Singapore
Asian tigers and the making of economic Miracles, Forward Ever Backward Never, Kenya is alongside
Brilliant segment but I can't help but sense that the second half of this segment felt like a dogwhistle.
An absorbing discussion about a neglected issue of society, the important role of women as mothers and spouses rearing new generations of children. The economics of the family are overlooked by the right wing in politics
That same woman told them that thier " happiness " was all that matters. I'm happy watching TV all day and smoking but nobody's telling me " as long as your happy 😊 "
Unmarried people creates a bigger market for consumption which profits Capitalist.
✌🏽✌🏽
Unbalanced taking, no responsibility by the top one percent, need to provide back up services for families
2024
The "new system" will have to be designed and instigated by middle & lower class; upper class and uber-wealthy like things as they are.
Uni party? Donor class?
I'm in mid-20s and if we're talking about marriage, lets also talk about issues in dating. Finding a boyfriend that is left leaning is very hard because many younger men are now conservative, moderate, or simply uninterested to care about politics. I feel in order to truly find someone to date you'll have to settle in order to be together. Also, lets not forget that a lot of women are now making more money, and its difficult to find a compatible partner. I'm still trying to have hope that the right person comes my way, but it feels like slim pickings out here.
When she says women is she talking about white women.?
I need to go to Japan lol
Doesn't Elon Musk have 10 kids from 3 wife/girlfriends?
Jackson Kevin Hernandez Sandra Clark Laura
Hudson and Wolff 3rd Round...The Shocking Truth Behind the End of Financial Colonialism
Aw, despite the filibustering by Wolff, he still runs smack dab into the "industrial capitalism"
haymaker for the third time. The audience still hasn't picked up on it, as indicated by the comments,
still believing that the "discussion" is one of similar understanding...when it never has been,
and missing all the other clues along the way that indicate the stark differences between them,
including the interpretation of Marx's expectations of "industrial capitalism".
To be clear, "industrial capitalism" is the only kind of capitalism, while all other descriptions or
combinations of words with it are NOT since all other "variants" involve conditions that pre-existed
"industrial capitalism"...to include the form of government, credit, money, debt, and usury. The term
itself didn't appear until 1850, and was introduced by a socialist. Hudson has made this clear again...
Wolff"s rhetoric relies on it's not being clear and never acknowledging it.
"Marx used the word "exploitation" to focus analytical attention on what capitalism shared with feudalism
and slavery, something that capitalist revolutions against slavery and feudalism never overcame."
- Richard D. Wolff
Yet in this episode, Wolff clearly states that slavery was overcome and then claims that it resulted
in "feudalism". But it was not industrial capitalism that caused this...but the pre-existing rentier class
that re-asserted itself, destroying it...and expanding into the F.I.RE sector and the subsequent
"de-industrialization" that followed. ( Hudson, again )
Wolff treats us to the wonders of "competition" and the claim that the U.S. ( & the West ) cannot compete
with the BRICS. He then mentions the "cheap labor" element, later as the reason. ( but not the "exploitation" of it. )
We then have Hudson referencing "mixed economies" and the "many types of socialism. "
also probably missed by the audience.
Of the BRICS, only China has a comparative GDP, and only Russia has the "resources" that can contribute to
"positive growth". China's rise is entirely due to "industrial capitalism" and the "exploitation of cheap labor"...
but "cheap labor" is available elsewhere, and lifting its population out of "extreme poverty" did not and has not
reduced the levels of "inequality" in its population...so it has already fallen into the "rentier trap" of finance
and real estate...and its manufacturing sector is losing its capital inflows from "foreign sources," and it's
the population can not afford its switch to "high-end production," so it still relies on " export consumption," but from whom?
This brings us to the stated topic of "financial colonialism"...in a world of "fiat" thanks to FDR and the examination
of the "belt and road" initiative. How is this NOT financial colonialism? China is not doing this for free...so what
are they offering, and what are the terms? What are the consequences of failing to meet those terms? In terms
of "actual colonialism", what have been the consequences of those nations that have become "independent" of it?
Then there is the problem of the U.S. and the present insanity of the collusion of the "rentier class" and
"the government"...that is now directed externally and internally...and the history of this transition...
which can only be alluded to by Hudson, while Wolff remains clueless.
The U.S. has been an unconstitutional criminal enterprise since 1939...with the de facto introduction
of "fiat" in 1934 and its de jure confirmation in 1971. Since 1939, inflation has been constant, hitting 300%
by 1970, and 600% by 1980. and now stands at 3 685.24% by government calculations..when it was only 67%
in 1939, and since the U.S. was "debt free" in 1836, the historical highs were 95% in 1865 and 115% in 1926.
In terms of "lawful money," which is still a thing in the U.S. the inflation rate as of today's opening is 5,773%
in terms of the "official price" set in 1974.
It is interesting to see Wolff's acknowledgment of the U.S. industrial dominance post WWII but fail to
recognize the consequences of the decline that begins in 1950, when the U.S., as the largest creditor nation,
becomes a debtor nation in 1971 and the largest debtor nation by 1984. while failing to connect the dots
between the rising production costs, de-industrialization, and the inability to compete in the present.
This is in addition to all the other stupid things this criminal government has done domestically.
We return you now to your REGULAR PROGRAMING.
Too long, opinion neglected
Worth reading. Not repetitive like some of the long winded types.
Open up immigration and you get more workers to pay into the system. Population problem solved.