Blackpill Having women in the workforce is not good economically (my economic theory about popluation)

ItsNotADream

ItsNotADream

Based
★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
1,833
Online
30d 18h 46m
We all heard that having a woman in the workforce at least makes the economy better,
but I am going to debunk this myth that is being told by neoliberal and leftist economist

Let's say for example a career woman, is even above average, and makes $80,000 per year,
so in average she should add $80,000, or to the GDP
lets say we have 100,000 women like her, and they add $80,000,000,000
now that sounds good for the economy, without feminism they wouldn't work!

but lets say we have a woman, which has 6 children, she doesn't work, and she spends a lot of money on the children
she seems really bad to the economy, but is she?
lets say all of those kids are average, they make $60,000 per year (average salary in the US)
that means, all of them make $300,000 per year combined, which adds a lot more to the GDP long term
and makes the economy better

Never listen to the globalist which believe in overpopulation! having more people doesn't make our economy worse,
there more people to feed, but there also more people to grow food, invent new stuff and contribute back!
everyone after they start work, contribute way more to society then your average "humanitarian" as well, paying taxes, spending and having a normal
jobs is better then giving children cloths that are worth no more then $5
just existing like the average, helps society!

in before people say there "not enough land"

you can put the whole world's popluaiton in texas, with the same density as new york, which means we have a lot of land
and we extract more and more resources, and the more minds we have, the more new stuff we have, lets say 1 in 4,000,000,000 people will bring the next space X
a popluation with 16,000,000,000 people will have 4, while our current 2 (aka we will progress as humans faster)
 
your personality

your personality

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
21,500
Online
82d 2h 5m
We all heard that having a woman in the workforce at least makes the economy better,
but I am going to debunk this myth that is being told by neoliberal and leftist economist
@PPEcel
 
LittleDarkAge

LittleDarkAge

I have no mouth and I must scream
★★★
Joined
May 26, 2019
Posts
1,287
Online
21d 9h 57m
Well obviously, having more people in the workforce is going to drive down the value of labour. A man working a full time job at a factory used to be able to support an entire family, now he might struggle to support himself. Not to mention all the extra costs of female workers such as maternity leave. Large companies may also have gender quotas which essentially forces them to higher less capable women over more capable men making the companies less productive.
 
your personality

your personality

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
21,500
Online
82d 2h 5m
Large companies may also have gender quotas which essentially forces them to higher less capable women over more capable men making the companies less productive.
In burgerland there's a big divide emerging where states like California have these quotas while red states have these quotas only in official government and university positions.
This may exacerbate the trend of American incels and men in general more frequently living and working in red states over time even if they were originally apolitical to begin with in their views. The reason? You go where the jobs are.
 
ElliotRodgerHere

ElliotRodgerHere

National Socialist
★★★★
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Posts
2,363
Online
22d 1h 11m
The economic argument for wanting women in the workforce is irrelevant. They should be prohibited because female workers are not reliant on men. That they halve wages across the board because of their presence is just the cherry on top
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Paragon
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
16,816
Online
108d 23h 59m
This is such a horrible argument that even first year econ undergrads would find this laughable
 
ItsNotADream

ItsNotADream

Based
★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
1,833
Online
30d 18h 46m
Well obviously, having more people in the workforce is going to drive down the value of labour. A man working a full time job at a factory used to be able to support an entire family, now he might struggle to support himself. Not to mention all the extra costs of female workers such as maternity leave. Large companies may also have gender quotas which essentially forces them to higher less capable women over more capable men making the companies less productive.
it went down because of inflation and abandoning the gold standard
the real salaries only started going down after the 70s (very quickly after we abandoned the gold standard and gave central banks control) despite much higher productivity
not after our population has raised, by that logic, average salaries would always go down, you should stop looking at extra population as something the economy should carry on its back, but extra to it, since there always more workers, and more people who open companies to employ people, and also more people to grow food and etc...


This is such a horrible argument that even first year econ undergrads would find this laughable
explain instead of just calling it a horrible argument, also they will find anything which is not monetary and kenyshay economics fake
 
Last edited:
TINMAN

TINMAN

Condemned to suffer
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Posts
6,106
Online
103d 9h 22m
Well obviously, having more people in the workforce is going to drive down the value of labour. A man working a full time job at a factory used to be able to support an entire family, now he might struggle to support himself. Not to mention all the extra costs of female workers such as maternity leave. Large companies may also have gender quotas which essentially forces them to higher less capable women over more capable men making the companies less productive.
The whole system of evaluating the value of labour based on supply is retarded.

What happens when everything becomes automated? Everyone but the billionaires who own the robots and their whores starves to death?
 
Neggr

Neggr

Kebabcel in western europe, it never began.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Posts
10,609
Online
26d 17h 54m
There is a reason why china is a superpower lol
 
ItsNotADream

ItsNotADream

Based
★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
1,833
Online
30d 18h 46m
The whole system of evaluating the value of labour based on supply is retarded.

What happens when everything becomes automated? Everyone but the billionaires who own the robots and their whores starves to death?
well first this is an issue which doesn't happen now and might not happen for whatever reason, so its not relevant,
also it will still help if it does, because the automated revolution will be a natural selection for people under a certain IQ,
and when the population is bigger, you will have more people with high IQ to choose and more brainpower (and we should encourge people with high IQ to reproudce in general, since they are the ones who reproduce the least)
 
TINMAN

TINMAN

Condemned to suffer
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Posts
6,106
Online
103d 9h 22m
well first this is an issue which doesn't happen now and might not happen for whatever reason, so its not relevant,
also it will still help if it does, because the automated revolution will be a natural selection for people under a certain IQ,
and when the population is bigger, you will have more people with high IQ to choose and more brainpower (and we should encourge people with high IQ to reproudce in general, since they are the ones who reproduce the least)
Did you seriously just advocate for eugenics as an incel?

More importantly, its not the people who are most intelligent who would reproduce and monopolize all of the resources in this scenario, it would be the few lucky ones who became billionaires and the ultra attractive people who sell their bodies to them.

My point was that excessive automation breaks the economic system as it is now, mostly because not enough thought has been put into the ownership of robots. What happens when 99% of jobs are replaceable by robots? The people who own the robots own the output of everything, while everyone else owns nothing and has no way of earning anything.
 
ItsNotADream

ItsNotADream

Based
★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
1,833
Online
30d 18h 46m
Did you seriously just advocate for eugenics as an incel?

More importantly, its not the people who are most intelligent who would reproduce and monopolize all of the resources in this scenario, it would be the few lucky ones who became billionaires and the ultra attractive people who sell their bodies to them.

My point was that excessive automation breaks the economic system as it is now, mostly because not enough thought has been put into the ownership of robots. What happens when 99% of jobs are replaceable by robots? The people who own the robots own the output of everything, while everyone else owns nothing and has no way of earning anything.
my whole argument was that everyone should reproduce, the more people there reproducing the better, I was literally stating that high IQ people just don't reproduce and it would be good if they do more

and I was talking more about developers and all of that stuff that still requires human brain rather then physical abilities,
also CEOs are above average in IQ (however usually only by 12-15 points or so), and ultra attractive people will have no power at that point
since our technologies will probably go so far that we would be able to genetically engineer humans and shit like that

and I don't know how what you are saying is related, I like to talk about economics right now, not what will happen in 50+ years,
we have no idea how automation will affect us exactly and how we will deal with it
This is such a horrible argument that even first year econ undergrads would find this laughable
btw it will be actually nice to hear how its bad, I legit want to see flaws in my ideas