~ archived since 2018 ~

Men are only loved for what they bring to women

mgtow_ta15

September 13, 2015

55 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

http://imgur.com/eUrPmAv

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Men are only loved for what they bring to women
Author	mgtow_ta15
Upvotes	55
Comments	16
Date	September 13, 2015 11:41 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/3kuekn/men_are_only_loved_for_what_they_bring_to_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/men-are-only-loved-for-what-they-bring-to-women.623694 https://theredarchive.com/post/623694

Comments

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

wash out

My what a nice little euphemism.

Google has been sued for age discrimination several times (and chose to settle out of court each and every time) -- and we know from those cases (also ironically enough confirmed by googling "google employee average age") that the AVERAGE age of Google employees is 29 (think about that for a minute -- especially that they're not McDonalds are don't exactly have a lot of teenagers on staff -- which means they're aren't a lot of 18 & 19 years olds who are heavily biasing that age downward... if you figure the basic "youngest" hires are say 22 or 23, that means Google must ditching the majority of it's people before they hit age 35, and pretty much must be {almost categorically} not hiring anyone much over 30... they really can't be having many people hang around even up to age 40, and they're definitely not hiring many people who are much over that age: IOW if you're approaching mid-40's {like ironically the founders themselves are now} or 50+ don't even bother to apply, regardless of your qualifications).

Oh and also the median for the "tech industry" as a whole is somewhere between 39 and 43 (depending on who you ask & how you construe the "tech industry").

Plus keep in mind that while that low age range might have been plausible as "inadvertent" when Google was a tiny 50 or 100 employee startup company basically employing ONLY recently graduated comp-sci developers (and with the founders basically being a couple of recent college grads themselves) -- currently that "core" group of Google developers (which may still be the uber-hip latest-greatest comp-sci grads) is actually relatively tiny... the majority of Google is rather a lot of mundane office & IT positions, along with a whole host of other professions (engineers, etc).

And of course they (along with Adobe, Apple, eBay, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, Pixar) been caught cold actively colluding to violate a number of other non-discrimination employment laws.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

on the forefront of the ever changing tech industry

That might have been a good description of Google back in say circa 2000, but not anymore.

The vast majority of Google's employees NOW... are not doing "innovative cutting edge algorithm development" -- in fact even most of those who ARE involved in code development (or associated areas, UI design, etc) are basically doing "tweaking" & refinement of what is now essentially "legacy" code (something that quite arguably calls more for disciplined experience than it does "genius"). And then of course there are all of the far more mundane "management" jobs related to basic facility management, HR, accounting, etc. (does a 25 year old REALLY trump a 50 year old when it comes to those positions? I doubt it.)

The company (and here we're just talking "Google" proper, not the conglomerate now known {recently renamed} as "Alphabet, Inc") has somewhere around 60,000 employees.

The "cutting edge" employees are under the other "divisions" (Google X, Google Ventures, etc).

Granted that is far shy of say Wal-Mart's 2+ million, or McDonald's ~500,000 or even Apple's ~115,000.

But of course THOSE companies all have low-skill retail operations -- so ironically you would actually expect THEM to skew lower in terms of average employee age, since they can (and do) hire people directly out of high school.

Also go search any of a variety of articles about "Why Google Employes Quit" etc. -- apparently, despite all of the "perks", overall the company culture (i.e. how most employees are actually treated on an interpersonal basis) is actually pretty damned shitty* (oh, and that apparently includes pay -- yes pay -- lots of people actually take pay cuts in order to have "Google" on their resume {and one presumes that they also possibly think the perks -- aka "tax free" goodies -- might make up for the reduced pay; the actual result turns out to not be so Nirvana like}).

* I personally know a couple of people (all young, late 20/early 30 something guys) who did this within the last several years -- one ended up regretting it and leaving almost immediately, like within 30 days (lucky for him, prior to taking the Google spot, he'd been in the process of being recruited by NetFlix -- and they made him a sweet offer... so off he went: he's much, MUCH happier over there) -- oh, and the others only lasted about 2 years (more or less), and from what they describe it wasn't so much "burnout" as it was frustration at a rather "bizarro-world" mentality, constantly and inexplicably changing priorities {off then on then off again, then on again, etc} as well as massive ego & status battle shit, etc. -- basically big-corporate dysfunctional nonsense times 10.)

Oh, and all of them -- along with a couple of other guys who either didn't make the cut (or if you believe them, rejected an offer) -- say that the recruiting/interview process is really drawn out, and fuster-clucked in really bizarre ways; more akin to being indoctrinated into some weird cult and/or determining if you will "fit" and become a "true believer" in various abstract inanities than it was like any other hiring experience they've ever encountered. (The ones who worked there said that in hindsight, they probably should have taken that as a big "red flag" warning.)

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It seems that taking a pay cut to work at a "special" company is very common.

Yeah... it comes from the "startup" companies where it was (at least ostensibly and for initial employees) justified by the concept that by working for the lower wages/salaries employees would be compensated with stock (or options) that they would be able to cash-in post IPO -- so in that sense they were contributing or "investing" a form of "capital" (the discounted/additional labor) that would help fund & thus drive the business on towards greatness -- and as with all capital investments, there was risk the investment would be lost if things didn't pan out.

The problem of course is THAT concept really only works for those who DO come in "on the ground floor", who have negotiated adequate amounts of stock/option compensation (and are wise enough NOT to fall for the equivalent of "Hollywood" accounting, so see their "investment" watered down by things like orders of magnitude larger expanded stock issues, delayed by the IPO being pushed back/off, or even potentially turned into worthless paper by some private merger/sale of the company where only the original founders actually get to "cash out").

It most definitely DOESN'T work for the later "rubes" who are brought on board at those same (relatively) low salaries, but also sans the contracted stocks/options (or duped into thinking they MIGHT get something... only to find it isn't worth much).

I personally would rather take a decent wage and live in a place that doesn't have a ridiculous cost of living. It seems to me that California is a super overrated place to live. My dad had the choice to move to California when they moved his job there and he basically said "you're not gonna pay me more? Fuck that."

Same sentiment here.

Yeah, years back (early to mid 90's) I had a couple of offers/options to head out to California ... and in my case at a substantial salary increase (with of course promises of a lot more).

But even then (and things in California were a LOT cheaper then) I did the research and the math... and with the higher cost of living (and having friends who had already made the move I got the skinny on things they hadn't anticipated, things most people don't think about -- like car insurance which is INSANELY higher, and of course the gas taxes, water bills, etc) -- end result is that, at least as I computed it, the whole thing would (at best) have basically been a flat lateral move in terms of annual income (but with the likelihood of a helluva lot more intense work).

Then I added in that ALL of my family is back here, so that would have meant frequent trips back (at least a couple times per year on holidays; and airline travel was a lot more expensive back then); as well as probably lots of long distance phone bills (remember this was pre-internet, pre-Skype, and REALLY early brick-cell-phone era).

Plus of course, I added in that I (really, and I mean really) just don't like living in densely populated, high traffic, urban areas -- I've done it working on various projects, and while I understand the appeal for others -- well I basically came to the conclusion that *I* am a rural/country boy, I need to be surrounded by trees and farm fields, and can't really take more than a few days of "city" life (seriously, I start bouncing off the walls, it's almost like a sort of "closing in" claustrophobia -- I really don't even like living "in town," places people would call "small towns" {really small towns}, nor even when I can live on the marginal outskirts of them).

Some people (people who know me & my work fairly well, etc) have told me that I made a HUGE mistake, and that with my skills and talents I could have cashed in "big time" (like during the dot-com era) -- but I don't regret it and I really don't think I would have/could have -- not unless I almost totally gutted my personal/business "ethics" (and been willing to play dirty and fuck other people over on a rather massive scale)... something I would have been very unlikely/reticent to do.

As I've noted elsewhere, I much prefer a quiet life -- low drama, etc. -- same sorta mentality goes with the MGTOW I think...

[–]MaunaLoona0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As long as you can opt out of this benefit (and I don't see why you wouldn't be able to) there's no grounds to sue.

An opt out (which I doubt exists by the way, at least as anything that is directly offered to the employee as an option -- IOW there is likely no explicit opt-in/opt-out choice presented) would eliminate the basis for a "they're putting my life at risk" lawsuit.

But such an "opt-out" wouldn't affect (at all) the basis of an age-discrimination lawsuit (which is generally only initiated by people who were NOT hired) -- since the discrimination (i.e. the tendency of the company to specifically avoid hiring older workers due to the potential additional cost on the part of the employer) would exist by default, the employer not being able to know which option the employee would choose.

[–]654645assd64545-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aerovirus227 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bsutansalt6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link