Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 26506
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 26506

Self-banned
-
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
1,804
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"
1608664985961

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)
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
This is such a horrible argument that even first year econ undergrads would find this laughable
 
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...
1608757148896

1608757259976

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:
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?
 
There is a reason why china is a superpower lol
 
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)
 
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.
 
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
 
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"
View attachment 385996
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)
Women entering the work force was a disaster — suddenly the whole market became an employers market as companies had double the amount of applicants to choose from.

It was the beginning of the end and depressed the value of labor hugely. Now you need two working people to make the same money that you would’ve gotten on one salary before.
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.
Based
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?
Exactly unless we force them to care for people. The owners of the robots will fire their employees they don’t anymore and they’re prosper even more than they do today while the rest of the population starved and probably revolts.
 
Last edited:
women were allowed to work because they could be tax.So the government could tax both.
 
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.
This — well put mate
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?
Yes — that’s exactly what happens UNLESS new regulation come along to force the “owners” of said automation to “share”.

We can end up with a Star Trek future or we can end up with a dystopia where a few owners control all the automation and machines that replaced everyone else’s jobs and the masses are fucked.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Lapasetjakahvi01
Replies
19
Views
616
worrycel
worrycel
Seahorsecel
Replies
13
Views
291
dae
dae
AsiaCel
Replies
56
Views
1K
RegularManlet
RegularManlet
Fancy Alcoholic
Replies
122
Views
2K
Fancy Alcoholic
Fancy Alcoholic
Whitefeminineboy
Replies
103
Views
2K
Vendetta
Vendetta

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top