In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, fathers wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> Thank you for presenting "The Hague" -- Our Final Solution to their Final 
> Solution.
> From: Richard Hague 
> A lot of the facts and figures regarding the rate of increase of our jail
> population, fatherlessness, divorce, etc., should stand out like a lot of
> bad handwriting on the walls.  Please consider a fact that the media
> itself admits:  there will be only two people working for every person on
> social security within 20 years.  

This assumes that everyone will retire at 65, will be able-bodied until 
then, and will have 1.5 productive children per biological couple.

Here's the bad news:
	To many undereducated men are disabled due to injuries in the 
	Constriction or Labor fields.

	To many women will be turning 55 just as their children "leave the 
	nest".  They will not have an education and they will not have 
	child-support.  They will end up "disabled" on Social Security.

	The children would actually have to support a MINIMUM of 3 
	households, their own, their mother's, and their father's.

	The children may be compelled - by law, to support their mothers.
	(look at some of Colorado's statues).

	Leading-edge baby-boomers (born 1945-1950) will take early 
	retirement, causing a huge drain on the capital pool, causeing a
	free-fall in stocks and bonds, and skyrocketing interest rates.

	Internet related outsourcing to countries like India will displace
	many corporate employees who will have lost both their intellectual 
	property rights, and their pensions in corporate takeovers.

	The suicide rate, drug addiction rate, homicide rate, and other 
	side-effects of fatherless homes will eliminate 20-30% of the
	potential work force.  In addition, these children will not have the 
	work ethic.  Hard work and discipline will be a "sucker's game".

	A more realistic projection is that each working person will be 
	carrying the financial burden for between 5 and 7 people including
	parents, step-parents, ex-wives, and children.  The ratio could even
	be as high as 20/1 by 2010.

	The housing industry will collapse, leaving trillions in loans that
	are undercollateralized due to sudden drops in values of Condos, 
	Co-ops, Multi-bedroom homes, and commercial real-estate.  People who
	had planned on using the "Profit" from their homes will instead find 
	themselves bankrupt and in default.

> We are in really big trouble if we don't
> make every child count.  Every one of them that ends up in jail makes it
> that much more difficult for the ones on the outside carrying the load
> unless, of course, their intention is to exploit prison labor (there may
> be no economic choice).

	You don't want to go there either.  It takes $200/day to feed, 
	cloth, shelter, guard, and secure a prisoner.  States like Texas
	are importing prisoners because the heating costs are lower in 
	Dallas or Houston than they are in Montana or Minnesota.

> If you add in the government debt and deficit
> factors, another media/government admitted prediction is a 60 to 80
> percent tax rate for our working children.  I'm sure they were only
> accounting for the present rate of growth of the deficit and projected
> social security costs.  

	Worse, they are using the most optimistic of projections (entire 
	population waiting until age 65 to retire - many even base retirement on 
	age 70).  They don't take into account carpel-tunnel syndrome, or 
	the loss of our highest-yield/lowest-cost (the homosexual population)
	to AIDS.  What will happen when 2 million dual-income single-rate 
	households (average $40,000/year/household in taxes) have died?

> They don't seem to understand that each inmate not
> only costs however much per year they say it costs, but also costs our
> economy his productivity (maybe they should try a per-capita productivity
> calculation when comparing us to other countries).  

	Figuring a gross cost of $200/day, and a loss of income of $400/day
	and a lost productivity (11/1 in Rochester NY) of $2000/day, the
	economy would suffer a net LOSS of $2600/day.

> I see no reason why we should work our lives away just to pay high tax rates
> in our old age to support the freeloaders and screwed up social policy of today.

	The sad thing is that the freeloaders of tomorrow will be the children
	of today.

> If a company you were working for was doing things like our country is doing
> (ie:  taking money from you to favor others who screw you and going
> heavily into debt to do it), would you realistically expect to retire from
> this company?  

	Take a good look at what's going on in corporate America these days!
	We have corporations raiding the pension funds to fund mergermania.  
	We have outsourcing, downsizing, and contract-labor used to provide
	low-cost labor - the low cost is a function of lost benefits, insurances,
	and pensions.

	We have corporations paying Microsoft 80% profit margins even when
	we have to put people out of work to pay for it.  We have corporate 
	exec's purchasing based on who buy's the nicest "lunch".

	Corporate America has replaced ethics (doing what's best for all 
	concerned) with integrity (doing what you say you are going to do).
	It becomes more important to be able to say "I said I'd cut costs
	buy 20% and I did" even if you had to resort to software piracy,
	forced overtime of saleried employees, and forcing employees to pay
	business expenses out-of-pocket by rejecting purchases and T&E you
	only authorised verbally.

> Would you expect this company to be solvent enough to
> survive that long even if you could trust them with your retirement
> account? 

	Most people don't even think in terms of pensions.  Most want stock 
	options, 401Ks, or IRA's and want the savings invested in mutual funds 
	(spread across international corporate interests).  The children of 
	divorced parents don't even trust their own parents (children know that 
	mom "screwed daddy" out of kilobucks).

> I SUGGEST WE ALL, AND OUR CHILDREN, HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE AND EVERYTHING TO
> GAIN BY REBELLING.  Here's my idea: 
> 
> Make our voices well heard.  If they don't listen, we have several choices
> including: 
> 
> 1.  Sit back, let the thing continue, and work for Aunt Sammie until we
> die. 

Divorced men, 40-50, highest risk for a massive heart attack.  Divorced 
men, 25-35, second highest risk for suicide.  Male children of 
single-parent (mother headed) families - highest risk for suicide, drug 
overdose, death by violence (homocide).

> 2.  Simply quit working, live off the land, survive, and work for
> ourselves until we die. 

New York City is filled with men waiting to die.  All they want is enough 
money to get drunk enough so that they can't feel themselves freezing to 
death.  It doesn't even make the papers when some guy goes for a swim in 
the Hudson River (in his overcoat, quart of scotch in the bloodstream,
a gram of heroin up his arm).

> 3.  Treat the whole thing as a temporary job:  make and save what we can
> from it and get the hell out (yes, defect and give up our citizenship like
> some of the wealthy corporate heirs of our country have already done in
> order to avoid taxes on their estates - these people have seen the writing
> on the walls for a long time). 

I'm game, any reccomendations?

> 4.  Make it known worldwide that there are 18,000 or more educated, hard
> working, American men in this country each looking for a better life in a
> country that believes in individual responsibility, family values, good
> education, and economic excellence.  Yes, give up hope and essentially
> colonize another land that has the resources that really matter in today's
> world.  Yes, go work for the more responsible company for maybe a modest
> but at least a comfortable retirement and, most important, a real family
> and real pride in seeing our children grow up responsibly. 

Let's try 18,000,000 men.  We could also converge on a state far away from
Washington and elect a "family oriented" legislature that would support the
concept of "responsiblity for choice", that would simply refuse to enforce
unconstitutional laws, that would discourage divorce and encourage remarriage
and adoption.  Texas seems like the most likely candidate.  New Mexico or
Arizona would be good second choices. If you like cold weather, Wyoming and
Montana seem more "civilized" toward responsible men. 

We now have telecommuting, virtual corporations, and the ability to buy 
and sell anything from stocks to houses via electronic brokerage.  What 
would happen if Manhattan, Boston, or Los Angeles suddenly discovered that
every productive adult in the city had moved out of state?

This is beginning to sound like a call to succeed from the Union.  I'm not
sure I like the idea of being identified with the "Confederacy" and the 
"Klu Klux Klan".

> Someone wise (not me) once said that failing to plan is planning to fail. 
> At least have a plan. 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Hague
> 
> "It doesn't get any better than this!"      - Al Bundy
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Mar 14 01:21:47 1996