Phantom Wealth & The Return of the Patriachy

[Cognisant]

To understand phantom wealth let's start with real wealth, the game Factorio demonstrates real wealth.

Spoiler

Effort yields resources, using those resources intelligently yields more resources, you use those resources to build infrastructure which accelerates the acquisition of resources. With the wealth of resources gained from that you continue building infrastructure and do research to increase the efficiency of your resource gathering and infrastructure building. This feedback loop grows wildly out of control until we're all living in a post scarcity civilization aboard a vast armada of incomprehensibly huge ships spreading out across the galaxy like swarming locusts strip-mining everything in our path.

Phantom wealth is making money through being an obstruction to humanity's glorious ascendance, someone who takes out a loan with a minimum deposit to invest in inner city real estate solely for the purpose of leasing that property to pay off the loan until they've accumulated enough equity to take out another loan on another property, for example. This is "phantom" wealth because although the person doing it is becoming wealthier their activity is contributing nothing to society. Indeed people engaging in such activity are actively detrimental to society because not only are they a drain on resources that could have been better utilized elsewhere, their exploitation of young workers who don't have much choice other than to rent where they can get work is disincentivizing productive people from being productive.

Young people are in a race against inflation (which raises the price of real estate and living) to save up enough money to get into the exorbitantly expensive property market, which is so exorbitantly expensive because investors know young people need somewhere to live while they work so they're buying up all the entry level housing because that's what they can lease the most reliably. Meanwhile employers are refusing to raise wages to keep up with inflation because they're all doing it and they've all got to compete with each other and of course they just don't want to, if they raise the wages just a bit every few years that's enough to keep the workers happy even though they're still poorer than ever.

Now the problem is this can't keep going forever and we're seeing the consequences, "developed" nations have aging populations because young people can't afford children and those that have children become the working poor and being poor is expensive. Productive citizens get educated to pursue opportunities, they retrain to keep up with the changing demands of the workforce, they have access to healthcare and have a healthy work/life balance, but the working poor don't, they spiral into destitution and rely on charity and government support just to survive.

So how does this relate to the return of the patriarchy?

Women have an option that men don't, and men have an option that women don't, we are currently in a time of relative gender equality but we are coming up to a fork in the road and each gender is going to take it's own path.

As I explained in the Dating Apps thread women have the option of seeking out men who are older and more financially established and that's a very sensible thing to do, these are the men who aren't some landlord's serf, they've spent their youth in the workforce saving money to establish themselves in society. Women instinctively understand that even a 50yr old man is probably still fertile and what matters more than his looks is his ability to support her which is especially important if she intends to have children without joining the ranks of the working poor.

But this doesn't work in reverse, a woman who spends her youth working her way up and becoming established will find her dating pool drying up as fast as her fertility and the guys that want her at 35 aren't interested in having kids. Also women don't really want equality or they do but they want the Communist kind where some people are more equal than others. Women want men who are taller than they are, better educated than they are, more successful than they are, funnier than they are, more social than they are, more respected than they are. Which after a woman has passed her prime is just not going to happen anymore because those guys can do better and by better I mean younger because men select for attractiveness (fertility) over almost anything and everything else.

Spoiler

That's unfair but remember this all revolves around reproduction.

On the other side of things being a young man sucks, unless you're born into wealth or particularly attractive your choices are either work hard and save for the next 10-20 years until you've established yourself or just resign yourself to being a loser for life.

Spoiler

But if you do the work and save hard and join the ranks of the fiscally responsible, CONGRATULATIONS here's your patriarchy membership card

Older guys who have worked their way up to get themselves into an advantageous position, they've taken a lot of shit to get where they are and they don't want to take it anymore and they don't have to because wherever there is inequality and desperation (everywhere) they are free to choose. This is how the big bad old patriarchy became what it was, this is why men have been economically dominant for most of human history and the only reason it was different recently was the fallout from the post-WWII economic boom.

This isn't a crisis, this is a return to the status quo.

The culture is already changing, girls who have grown up on feminist indoctrination are now women in the real world where things cost money and they're going on dating sites where they pursue the guys who have the money. These guys want wives and mistresses and they'll happily fuck feminists but they won't marry them, they want wife material and they can shop around for it. And women are adapting, Gen Z in particular are quite savvy because they've grown up on the sidelines watching and learning and indoctrination only works when you don't hear both sides of the story but they are and they're coming to their own conclusions.

The pay gap might not be real but the workforce is absolutely a game rigged in men's favor, women don't get anything out of competing with men, no matter how successful men just don't factor a woman's wealth into her attractiveness much less her desirability as a long term partner. Indeed it can work against her because everyone knows successful women have high standards, they expect their man to be as successful or more successful than she is which will be a point of contention and possible cause of infidelity.

This thread was originally going to be about how western civilization has lost its way with the pursuit of phantom wealth to the detriment of real wealth but as prior threads have demonstrated nobody gives a damn about economics but everybody loves talking about the dating market and social causes.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not rich, I'm on disability. but I own my own house. I'm 33 but I've never had a girlfriend.

 

[Cognisant]

It's not like having real estate entitles you to anything, you still need to play the dating game.

Furthermore I'm not saying any of this is how things ought to be, I would much rather live in a society that revolved around the pursuit of real wealth to the exclusion of phantom wealth.

When an author writes a fictional novel they're creating real wealth for society, that book may not contain anything of practical value but the existence of it serves as an incentive for people to work more, earn more and thus be able to afford the things they want. Whereas the exploitation of the real estate market robs people of that incentive, instead of working to be able to afford a high standard of living they're working as hard as they can just to survive.

Or in the case of people "lying flat" learning to survive on as little as possible to avoid working because they don't see that work as being worthwhile.

 

[Haim]

This view is unrealistic to current time, the age of marriage is not that much different for what you describe to matter at a grand scale.
Can we view society at less simplistic term such as Patriachy, there is cause and effect not slave and owner, to say everything is due to some sort of discrimination just make it harder to see the cases where it really as such.
The real estate value to society is debt, debt cause work, if people do not have to pay rent they can just not work. So what we need is to reduce the work needed by a human and not be too much more fucked by being dependent on tech.

 

[Cognisant]

This view is unrealistic to current time, the age of marriage is not that much different for what you describe to matter at a grand scale.

What do you mean, the age of people getting married, the age at which people get married, the relative ages of people in marriages, and why doesn't it matter?

Can we view society at less simplistic term such as Patriachy, there is cause and effect not slave and owner, to say everything is due to some sort of discrimination just make it harder to see the cases where it really as such.

Indeed change on such a large scale isn't a conspiracy but I'm using that term because I want to be alarmist, I want people to understand that the state of society isn't just some background narrative to their lives that they have no control over and they don't need to be involved in or account for. Phantom wealth is a problem and it's a problem that if we don't get it under control now is going to lead to more problems in the future.

The real estate value to society is debt, debt cause work, if people do not have to pay rent they can just not work.

Yeah and slaves work for free so if we used exploitative high interest loans to make everyone a debt slave the economy will be highly efficient, right? NO! Work is not something that can be defined so literally as work done in a purely physical sense, like people running in hamster wheels generating an amount of energy in Watts. Real work includes innovation, taking risks, adapting to opportunities, you don't get work like this out of a slave because they're focused solely on the immediate goals of survival. Productive citizens have spare time and resources to invest on innovation, on taking risks, on seizing opportunities, this is why the US has all the entrepreneurs while China does all the manufacturing.

How would Steve Jobs have started Apple from his workshop in a garage if he had neither a garage to work in nor the time to do so? Even if 99% of people who try to innovate or simply start a new business fail the success of the 1% make it a worthwhile investment for society, it's how society moves forward.

So what we need is to reduce the work needed by a human and not be too much more fucked by being dependent on tech.

Tech is an enabler, don't blame the tech, blame the people using it to fuck you.

 

[Daddy]

This is why the human race fails in the end - there's always humans that seem to take wealth and power at the expense of other people. Humans are only truly compassionate to those in their close circle; everyone else is fair game for exploitation because they don't really have to care. And even when they do care, it ends up being much easier and practical not to.

There's really not very many that will devote their lives to the world outside their families and friends, even if they are rich and powerful enough to do so, or religious enough to lead a life like that. Hell, the rich and powerful usually get that way through exploitation to begin with, so it's often ironic when they suddenly become philanthropists and paint themselves in some positive light. I mean it's funny how in the US we have labor unions and supposedly all these protections to help keep us from getting exploited, especially young children, but then we have no problem buying goods from China that exploits their workers to the max. It makes zero sense, unless you realize it's because we don't have to care, and so we don't.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

But if you do the work and save hard and join the ranks of the fiscally responsible, CONGRATULATIONS here's your patriarchy membership card

This I think is a logical point, and I agree with it. Women are certainly more vulnerable because of societal expectations and their biology. But, and I don't know if this would be limited to more "prepared" women, but I'm fairly certain women can pursue both avenues. It is not an either-or pathway. Sure if you have a 60+ hour workweek dating and mating is difficult for either gender, but a woman can definitly land a viable mate while they are focusing on their career. In fact the fact that they are focusing on their career (splitting bills) does make them more attractive.

Said man who as you said is struggling to get permanent housing will not appreciate a bimbo who does not pull their weight in some way. It's evolutionary rationality. You can say that the bimbo will just opt for a higher status mate that won't care but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume they will always have access to one and or that said relationship will always be fulfilling for them. Them including the higher status male. You forget that what one perceives as higher status is subjective. I have a friend who is even by pornstar ratings is a 8-9 and she got knocked up by a druggie alcoholic who rents an ghetto apartment and has to borrow his mom's car. He's 10 years older than her and has "fucked a lot of people" but she has realized to late that she fucked her game up so bad, and think she still doesn't realize how much so.

The ruling class wants as broad a workforce as possible, so they are incentivized to shift burden onto the whole population. Traditions, customs, and ideals be damned.

This is "phantom" wealth because although the person doing it is becoming wealthier their activity is contributing nothing to society.

Do you mean someone that is just selling space in a building with no other addition? Or, like if you developed a plot of land and built a carwash and lease that out, when there is another carwash down the street, does that still fit this criteria?

I think this just arises from chaos, and I think you're appealing to some sort of maximum allocation of time and resources, which sounds awesome but would be an authoritarian nightmare.

I do think it is hilarious how competition is the chief reason humanity is awful yet we still champion it as one of the highest virtue. (I think Gen Z is changing that)

 

[Cognisant]

But, and I don't know if this would be limited to more "prepared" women, but I'm fairly certain women can pursue both avenues. It is not an either-or pathway.

This is true, for now, however it's a matter of society's real wealth, in a society where real wealth is abundant you can have a part time job and still be able to support yourself and have disposable income to spend on the things you want. This is because real wealth is the cost of living being cheap, when comparing the relative wealth of people at say 25 over several decades you have to adjust for inflation and wages and what those wages actually buy.

When you do this what you find is that real wealth has been steadily going down over time, indeed do I really have to convince you that the cost of living has been going up?

The more real wealth goes down the harder and longer people need to work to establish themselves and women can do that now (although it's not as easy as it used to be) because we still have a lot of real wealth but as that changes equality becomes increasingly unaffordable.

Said man who as you said is struggling to get permanent housing will not appreciate a bimbo who does not pull their weight in some way.

No but you're cherry-picking your example, this is a guy who is not well established and that the bimbo doesn't want to work at all, if he's not happy with this arrangement he can work to become more established and/or seek a woman who is less of a useless bimbo.

You forget that what one perceives as higher status is subjective. I have a friend who is even by pornstar ratings is a 8-9 and she got knocked up by a druggie alcoholic who rents an ghetto apartment and has to borrow his mom's car. He's 10 years older than her and has "fucked a lot of people" but she has realized to late that she fucked her game up so bad, and think she still doesn't realize how much so.

This only proves that she's an idiot and I acknowledge that such idiocy is distressingly common but I wouldn't go so far as to say this is what women are like in general and even if that were the case it's not going to stay that way. She can afford to be an idiot because she lives in a wealthy society and that's equally true for him, because in a poorer country he'd be dead.

The ruling class wants as broad a workforce as possible, so they are incentivized to shift burden onto the whole population. Traditions, customs, and ideals be damned.

It's really not a matter of tradition and I'd argue it never really was, people live the way they do largely as an adaptation to their economic circumstances. Indeed I don't think there was ever a point in human history when only men worked and women weren't productive at all, rather there was men's work and there was women's work.

I can see a future where the service sector (so called "unskilled" labor) is almost exclusively women whereas roles that require a tertiary education become almost exclusively men. Because only men can afford the time/money expense of that tertiary education, a five year investment is a lot more worthwhile when you're going to spend the next 5-15 years focused on earning money. Whereas for a woman participation in the workforce is a necessary distraction from her real business of finding and appealing to the guy that's going to support her.

Do you mean someone that is just selling space in a building with no other addition? Or, like if you developed a plot of land and built a carwash and lease that out, when there is another carwash down the street, does that still fit this criteria?

People move to cities because that's where the work is and if you're looking to buy a place you'll notice the price goes up the closer a property is to that city's CBD or convenient public transport. This is also true for major universities and that's why investors buy these properties, because they know there are people who need to go to these locations and they need to live somewhere, ideally somewhere close to the place they go to every day.

The problem is when too many investors invest in a given area the market becomes speculative, it's not a matter how much the property is worth it's how much they can make you pay before you refuse to live there and they adjust their prices until they find that peak. Unfortunately they then use this money to buy more properties further out until they can speculate on those too and over time it's just getting worse. Investor's don't buy housing at its real market value they buy it based on the returns they'll get 5-10 years down road, this makes real estate ridiculously expensive, forcing more people out of the housing market which fuels yet further price speculation.

This isn't just real estate they do it with groceries too, they do it with everything, everyone's looking for ways to make their money work for them which is really just using their money to exploit someone else into working for them.

Which wouldn't be a problem (employing people do to stuff generates real wealth) except that these activities make money but they don't generate real wealth, the high value of housing encourages property development but even that is being controlled and speculated on, it's like our whole monetary system is built around finding new ways to screw over the ever diminishing number of people generating real wealth.

I think this just arises from chaos, and I think you're appealing to some sort of maximum allocation of time and resources, which sounds awesome but would be an authoritarian nightmare.

One residential property per person, residential properties cannot be owned by companies or any other form of investment fund, this policy would go a long way to fixing the issue.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[EndogenousRebel]

we still have a lot of real wealth but as that changes equality becomes increasingly unaffordable.

Okay I think I see what your positing here but it's kinda not doing it for me unless you're implying women will be subjugated by our unregulated economic policies.

This only proves that she's an idiot and I acknowledge that such idiocy is distressingly common but I wouldn't go so far as to say this is what women are like in general and even if that were the case it's not going to stay that way..

people live the way they do largely as an adaptation to their economic circumstances

My point meant to be that she's not that stupid (comparatively) and she's still obsessively demanded to be in this relationship over the course of 2 years simply because he projected himself as some sort of social elite. You can't predict what someone's gonna do.

Indeed I don't think there was ever a point in human history when only men worked and women weren't productive at all, rather there was men's work and there was women's work

I was writing in reference to the ruling class/culture trying to strip us of individuality and humanity. Have you seen hustle culture? That shit is psychotic.

I can see a future where the service sector (so called "unskilled" labor) is almost exclusively women whereas roles that require a tertiary education become almost exclusively men

Yeah, I mean people want different things in life. Hypothetically if this reality we're to manifest, and if you're saying that this is the dominant strategy to meet an end women want, then I'm sure many would disagree.

The highest paying working class jobs are in construction and many women I know are going into that field, though obviously with many disadvantages relative to men. This is something that would be unheard of prior to the last 30 or so years.

If people are free to do what they want and they see changing tides that will inhibit them, in most cases (unfortunately not all) they will not be complicit in their vanquishment.

it's like our whole monetary system is built around finding new ways to screw over the ever diminishing number of people generating real wealth.

One residential property per person, residential properties cannot be owned by companies or any other form of investment fund, this policy would go a long way to fixing the issue.

Yeah the Big Data behind how finely big corporations can define and limit supply and demand is just plain bullying the individual.
I can definitely see zoned areas that are immune to commercial enterprise as a good compromise that will never be considered.

 

[Black Rose]

you still need to play the dating game.

Before social media got big. I remember when you had to leave your house to find things to do not tied to connecting online to do things. In my area, the places to hang out were bars and the mall.

I met one girl at the mall in 09 but that's it (failed to follow through on a date never met her again), never went to any bars.

Now a sad fact of the matter was I never had friends in high school and I wasn't in college long enough to make friends. I never had a social network I could pool from.

All his is tied to my mental health. And physical health.
In my 20's were the worst parts of my life. the most exhausting.
just because I was socially disconnected. and I could not go to school anymore.

If I can't meet people I can't tell if I like them.
And when I meet them I need to be in the right state of mind.

Overall I just need to be relaxed. and go places.

age does not really matter to me where I just want someone I like. I can tell a person's personality very accurately. I just need to meet people to find the right one.

Dating apps I don't like. I need to be in person. I have a limited range of movement.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[Black Rose]

If the middle-class threshold is 48,000 a year then I am getting less than 9,600 a year in disability.

 

[sushi]

what the hell is wealth anyway?

everything resources starts from nature form and get modified by labor humans, into some manufactured form. That is why labor theory of value is true is certain extent. Bankers just manipulate the supply and demand of money for their own beneift, and charge people interest over principle.

and it narrows back to the point: is money fair and meritocratic?unlike other exploitative systems.

 

[Cognisant]

Hence why markets need to be regulated, otherwise people get rich off breaking the system which is ultimately to everyone's detriment.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You need assets to have something real.
Everything else that does not bring money is just a expense.

It does not matter how beneficial it is as long as it has no + sign means you have expense.

Most people today don't have anything in terms of money.

House is expense. Your job is time expense so you can pay all other expense.

We have machines and other people to do the work so we can have money cough cough

TO put simply yes you are a sort of happy slave so long as you have no assets.

Its not what peoples say, because its sort of obvious and it might hurt some poor persons or or some rich guys persons feelings.

Reality is most of the work we do today is inflated nontheless and pointless.

Job market is full of people who work to basically produce nothing. Sad but true.

Shifting papers from one side of the table to other side of table is a legit job I am not saying its bad, I am just saying you have no assets if you are regular hard working joe no matter how proud of it you are.