Three things happen.
1. If you are one of ten or less people in a large company who does a job for $200k you likely work closely with decision makers, C levels, executives, JR. Executives. People know your name and face. You’re “that guy/gal.”
But start doubling and quadrupling and so on the number of workers and the chances of you getting face time with people who make decisions, the chances of them seeing you as a person or getting the chance to personally or professionally be valued first hand by people who make decisions- it goes down.
2. As this is happening you are being devalued. In most countries being a Doctor is tough. Lots of school, lots of money, lots of certifications. A relatively small number of people can be doctors. Doctors are therefore worth a lot generally. They are seen as rare and “special” despite many being quite dumb in generally or even incompetent at their jobs. Despite that fact that many of the things they do could be done by almost anyone with…

But it wouldn’t be $100k for two people or $50k for 4. Why? There isn’t enough work for that many. Many of these sweet jobs are a bit of a joke as dude says.
There is often barely enough work to give one person while trying to justify a salary like that.
So if you suddenly have 4 people doing the work of one, each doesn’t get a quarter salary because now it becomes very hard to hide or justify that the job isn’t a joke. What do those 4 people say they do all day when one person can do the work in a day or less already? So the pay gets cut. After the pay gets cut- you probably end up getting more and more added to the job because people paying the checks look at you more and more as having free bandwidth and the tasks as simple so it is “no big deal” to add more work.
So now you’re doing more work, more is expected, and you’re not just making less total, you’re making less for the amount of work that you do.

that a specific dog can enjoy hugs. We must be a bit skeptical of the owner or young child who claims adamantly that “Bailey LOOOOOVES hugs!” But… the dog could. That’s a bit of how we got to the dogs we have today no? So much of dog behavior and dog human interactions differ from wolves and true wild dogs with humans. Mutations and adaptations- a pup which was less aggressive or more conditioned and so forth, over generations, and now you have a golden retriever that gets along much better with the family than a timber wolf likely would.
If humans live in water, dogs adapt. If humans live in the desert, dogs adapt, and there is a case for the opposite as well.
So then- it would not be a fact to say this dog is not having the time of its life, that would be speculation.

So the study of canine cognition and understanding the thoughts and emotions and being able to have meaningful and more complex communication with our 4 legged friends is an ongoing science. It is as ignorant to say a dog enjoys something speculatively as to say they dislike it.
To even attempt such judgments generally requires more data than a snap shot or brief description. It is fairly safe to assume a dog won’t enjoy being beaten or swimming in lava- statistically you’d be right the majority of the time- probably every time- assuming a dog wouldn’t enjoy that. Will a dog enjoy hang gliding or scuba diving or riding on a motorcycle? Depends on the dog and circumstances I suppose. Even the concept of hugs- generally hugging a dog is a “no-no,” and in general canine behavioral theory dogs would be disinclined to like hugs or understand them as humans do. In general observation most dogs show signs of what we know as distress when being hugged. Most. It is theoretically possible

For example there- a dog who’s “mommy” was traveling and the dog happened to pick up their slippers and walk into the bedroom with them as the female care taker came home might in the future perform this behavior anytime their caretaker travels or is away from them attempting to “summon them” as it seems the dog has associated the act of carrying the slippers into the room as the cause for their previous return as opposed to coincidence.
A dog which was once stung by a bee that was inside a soda can might avoid soda cans as they don’t seem to understand the can wasn’t the cause of the unpleasant event but the bee was.

for the anticipation of a future reward or avoid the pleasant in anticipation of a future unpleasantness. For example- a dog that dislikes it medicine can be “tricked” to take it by placing the medicine in cheese- but if it discovers the trick it may avoid cheese even without medicine as it will associate the two. Likewise, it is well documented that if you take a dog for walks to use the bathroom, and then immediately return home once they do their business, dogs can learn to hold their business because they associate doing their business in a walk with the walk ending.
You can see in these examples an ambiguity of wether there is a greater understanding of the situation or a simple stimulus response tied to perceived cause and effect. Such behaviors are noted academically and anecdotally by both researchers and care takers.

Of course even that is speculative. Perhaps the dog eager to get in the car strongly dislikes car rides but just strongly likes being with you, or associates car rides with getting to see new places or go places like the park and so it hates the ride but is eager for the destination. Conversely, a dog which won’t get in the car might enjoy the ride but associates rides with things it dislikes such as a vet or groomer, or it is scared of the car but enjoys the car ride. We can see similar behavior in humans- toddlers even- I knew a toddler that would cry when getting in the car but actually loved riding in cars- they just hated the car seat and being strapped in. Another toddler would get excited at the sight of merry go rounds but cry and want off if you put them on it, then beg to go back on.
There is a question to the complexity of dog cognition and wether they are capable of making such links but evidence supports that dogs can form these types of associations and do the unpleasant

We can’t ask the dog if it is having the time of its life with any hope of a useful answer. We can observe behaviors and make assumptions. Dogs use body language and to a lesser degree facial expressions to convey emotions- or we could view it as their emotional state can show in body language and facial expressions. We don’t fully understand the cues and there is always variance between individual creatures but in general we have some concept of certain cues from tail position, movement, etc, ears, posture- for example most likely a dog with bristled fur and a wide stance barring its teeth is in an aggressive or defensive mood.
There is also their more direct behavior. If your dog jumps in the car every chance it gets we might speculate it enjoys car rides, and if it will not get in a car under its own will no matter what it likely dislikes car rides.

conservative views? Some of the most successful progressive politicians in American history have been republicans, this includes creation of many social services and public works projects and systems created under Republican leaders.
So….
Yeah. In light of that I’m going to take anything someone who reduces “conservative” and “progressive” to a party affiliation says with a big grain of salt.

And in that environment, men and women are judged in many ways by many people.
So everyone is facing a struggle. Everyone is being judged even if not on the same things or to the same standards.
Women still do not have an equity to men and the “rules” and social attitudes and economic factors etc. are not the same for everyone of every gender and race and sexuality just yet.
So it would be foolish to say that women still don’t have it rough in society or that society is fair or equal. It would be foolish not to acknowledge and strive to correct the inadequacies and inequities of society.
But we do not need to belittle the struggles faced by others to lift anyone up.
Men and women both have their struggles in society and denying that isn’t a path to a world where we have equal footing.

Now- personality and conversation and such are important as are feelings like romance and validation. I left these out because they are relative and intangible and most you can get other places easily. Plus it warrants its own section which we not enter.
So one night stands and F buddies tend to be easy enough to come by for those needs. Friends and others can provide conversations and social interactions.
The only losing pieces are things like “feelings,” the way someone makes you feel when you are with them or the connections you feel when kissing or touching or other things. Concepts and ideas like building a shared life and things like that. Wants.
So we come to a place where men and women are at large, more than ever, able to select partners based on what they want Vs. Need.
We enter a society where many social stigmas and traditions concerning coupling and families still exist but are weaker than ever.

If historically women served to provide and raise offspring, provide sexual or aesthetic desires, and conduct domestic tasks like cooking and cleaning… if you make $200k a year and have a robot vacuum and a house cleaner and do dry cleaning and eat instant meals or cook yourself (once “unmanly” and now very vogue for men..) or eat out… what on that list is left…?
Well, here we are with women as well now. If she makes $200k+ a year and has a robot vacuum and house cleaners and does dry cleaning and eats out… what does she need a man for? It might be nice to have a home cooked meal or to get a massage without having to go to the masseuse, to have some help here and there… but other than that the “need” is just to get the D and have certain “couples moments.”

I’d say people being able to be selective and able to leave when they aren’t happy and people being together out of choice vs. Need is a good thing overall. But it is a change.
And with that change is another. Now that women more and more do not “need” men, the show is on the other foot. We have seen an increasing focus on male appearance. Appearance was always a factor in coupling, what they found “hot” in the 40’s,50’s, etc etc. modern “male vanity” really started to become an acceptable thing around the 1970’s and by the 1980’s it was a social norm.
But when women don’t need men for money or power or skills, they are freer to decide what they do want a man for.
On the whole, men were long in a position of advantage in relationships and selection and so selected females based often heavily on their appearance because there was little else needed. This especially became true as technology and society moved to a place where chores and such became relatively quick and simple.

Many women have reached not just a point where they don’t need men to survive but where they can thrive beyond the average of their male peers without men, and even to where often times their lives are BETTER without romantic committed relationships with men.
So now we enter a phase where there are lots of complaints and unhappiness despite all this freedom because many men don’t need women and many women don’t need men and without a need we are finding that many people have trouble connecting.
To be clear I am not saying that is bad inherently. Connections are increasingly a matter of compatibility and desire as opposed to a love that grows from necessity, but it does pose a challenge to many as without those traditional dynamics, we are seeing trends of people remaining single longer and relationships dissolving that once would have stood because even if there was unhappiness, the need would have forced them together. And again- that’s not bad that people can be more free

Men at those times did not particularly require women except for social reasons, for growing their family, and for personal needs that were illegal or not socially acceptable to hire out.
In the modern age women have achieved much more freedom and we have begun to impart ideas of self sufficiency and self realization on women. We’ve seen especially in the last generation a group of young women who are overall highly educated and successful in their own careers, who have ambition and drive and avenues to pursue it, and who have their own fully realized lives. It is closer to parity than equality, but women of the previous generation have largely embraced independence, expressing their sexuality and seeking to care for their needs and desires more freely and with less shame or reluctance for example. Being able to live full and fulfilling lives as single women and having the financial means to follow their passions and dreams.

But that tells you what you need to know. On an individual level it is about the decisions that men and women make when valuing each other. Men have largely been told to be self sufficient. In the eyes of society a “successful man” can provide for himself what he wants and needs and has taken a path to get what he desires from life, with his own hands.
A man who can achieve this has little or no need for a “partner” in these matters- leaving the things he cannot get without a woman, money not being one of them.
In less developed societies or times, there wasn’t the ability to use technology and commerce and mass population to provide any good and service you can afford and men and women required partnerships and extended families to survive and thrive. Moving into industrialization, women have historically been kept in socioeconomic positions where they required a man. Their economic well being or even their ability to move about and conduct their lives relied on men.

Women generally and historically aren’t judged on those things. Very few men in relatively would weight a woman’s ability to provide or protect above other factors. Income is a larger concern in areas like expensive urban centers and “two income homes” in developed nations but is still secondary.
Education, ambition, athleticism, perceived fighting prowess, these things are subjectively considered when looking at women but aren’t generally primary social values because we still adhere to a very traditional view of women as caretakers and home makers and men as providers and protectors on a larger social level. A woman with a man who makes more and pays all the bills is generally considered the norm or lucky, a man who “rides” the success of a woman who makes more and pays all the bills is generally considered a leech.

It isn’t that men are not judged by body or especially face, dress etc. people are judged on appearances often. It is that when society judges men, appearance isn’t seen as our primary value. Simply put, things like wealth and status or image are the things that men get valued on most. Strength and authority and respect are one example, with various “gangsters” “toughs” and others being examples. Big cars and trucks, big imposing bodies, strong bone structures or big facial hair, a look of “danger” or “control” or physical power is often seen as attractive in itself. A man with relatively money but who is perceived as a “boss,” small time thugs and such for example, can often be not attractive or particularly rich but be seen as cool or attractive because of that projection of strength and authority. Wealth or ability to provide are often another factor of primary judgment and relate to images of power or authority.

So like many things I’d say it is contextual. The levels and degrees of proof required to support a statement like “earth is a cube” would be magnitudes greater than to put forth that you can light a fart with a Chevy spark plug.

The math and theory needs to check out but we still need experimental evidence or real world application to support a theory or hypothesis.
And of course there is the negative. If someone tries to build a plane and it doesn’t fly, that doesn’t prove flight isn’t possible or that you’ve been lied to about aerodynamic principles. Asides outright manipulation and hoaxes their methods and processes are still under scrutiny and your average YouTube video doesn’t meet a very stringent standard for conformity.

results. So I’d say it is 50/50. If Carl Sagan had a YouTube channel and filmed himself making breakthroughs, yeah- I’d accept that source.
If we are discussing something like if it were practical to lift a human in a chair using helium balloons then some creator like Mr. Beast or mythbusters might be acceptable sources. Watching someone create a running combustion engine using just what you find in lunchables packages would be a more credible argument than any theoretical paper or reading about it in a lab sheet.
But also- no. I mean, obviously most YouTube videos are edited. Of course people could manipulate what you see or omit critical parts. They can make mistakes or put forward fallacies, and someone just talking about something isn’t the same as seeing them do it, so an hour video by a guy explaining why or how it would be possible to do something using math and slideshows only holds as much weight as the guy saying it, which even for Einstein his “word” wasn’t good enough-