How does the prioritization of investment over labor make a non-nuclear family lifestyle difficult?
Nuclear-family bias in law and custom is a real thing all on its own. I'm not sure what capitalism has to do with it, but I'd be fascinated to hear you expound on that if you feel like rambling.
From a purely secular-civil standpoint, an important function of religion is to offer solace and comfort regarding the finite nature of life.
Folk who repeat the phrase with sincerity are professing a belief in the God alluded to in the phrase, who watches over each human specifically. For those believers any obstacle which occurs is either a challenge they are meant to overcome or a fate they should accept the way Jesus of Nazareth accepted crucifixion.
For those who don't believe in Jesus, the God of Abraham, or that They are micromanaging our lives, the phrase is an annoying thought terminating cliche and dismissive platitude.
I'm not sure slapping them is necessarily appropriate, though.
It sounds like your training course needs to be updated. The skillsets taught in school are substantially different today than they were 20 years ago.
Just be glad you don't work in IT. It's even worse when the ignorance of older generations has been replaced by brand new ignorance of younger generations.
There was exactly one generation of students who used floppy disks in school.
God said no such thing.
The Roman Catholic Popes and cardinals are the ones who said "no divorce."
When Moses wrote down the law, the rule was was "ok, divorce if you must."
According to the Gospels, Jesus (God) appropriately said "divorce is bad, and leaving your wife for a younger model is just adultery with extra steps."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19&version=NIV
(Matthew 19, the aforementioned gospel.)
https://www.insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/what-did-jesus-say-about-divorce
(A Texas pastor opining on the topic. A bit too anti-sex for my taste, but a fair sample of Texas conservative Christendom.)
"President barely passes budget despite his party holding both chambers of Congress" isn't a major anything.
It is a despicable continuation of the November 2024 disaster, but this isn't anything worse than what anyone with any wisdom at all saw coming seven months ago.
(It is less-bad than it could have been, in the way that food soaked in piss is less-bad than food smeared with feces. Small victories, though...)
1: what the frick are you doing in Excel that needs even 10^2 columns? Rows go up to 2^20 (~10^6), and the thing starts to run like ass way before that.
2: Excel does have a RXCX format, if you really do need to go out hundreds of columns.)
3: feel free to ignore. Bitching about being forced to use the wrong tool is definitely more stress than anyone needs.
If you think that's bad, look at what "1" means.
(And, honestly, at least windows' "last big calendar change" and excel's "start of the century when we wrote it" are reasonable points. The unix "let's make it recent so we can fit an absurdly small unit as an integer!" Epoch is just... Weird.)
"this job requires specialized training we're not willing to provide" is the same management failure as "the wages offered for this job are not sufficient to attract workers."
Raise the latter, and give the former with a reduced wage for a set number of years.
If you're dealing with relationship advice, the differences from one person to another are substantially greater than those which separate men and women. Even if we ignore transgender and same-gender relationships, or how a huge portion of western society's gender differences are just toxic sexism.
"How can I (M) suggest $FETISH to partner (F)" is essentially the same question if you swap the genders, make them both F, or make them both M. And to the extent that they aren't, many of the answers and clarifying questions will be.
In a winner-take-all election, anything but a vote for the runner-up is an endorsement of whoever wins.
Yes, this system is stupid. But we're not going to ever fix it by pretending that the rules of the game aren't what they are. Any eligible voter who didn't vote for Trump or Harris make a clear statement that Donald and protect 2025 were just fine by them. Regardless if they stayed home, voted for a vanity campaign, or just left the POTUS choice blank.
Thank you for your response.
So, your line from "capitalism" to "nuclear family bias" starts at "line must always go up" and passes through a "more adults is less efficient" principle. Ok, I can understand that picture.
I think you're wrong about what "capitalism* means, but not in a way that matters for this discussion.
What I'm confused about is who is asserting that a multi-adult household is less efficient. You aren't, and I'm not, but that sounds like a economic paper trying to smuggle in "christian family values" in the way that creationism tries to smuggle religion into other fields of science.
I honestly just don't get that argument, as multi-adult households are the norm in a lot of nations and a big reason for the shift towards multi-generational households in western societies is the increased wealth gap, where the rich support their extended families and entourages while the poor make do with less. Stable households with more than three adults are literally more efficient by any measure anyone cares to name.
My opinion is that the bias against them comes in large part from America's "middle class" myth, (with working men each having their own fiefdoms), and partly from a belief that they are either inherently less stable or cause instability elsewhere.