So what happened after women entered the labor force? You can see the stats. Female wages increased, while male wages dropped massively. The drop in male wages was so large that even after including women, on average, young people today earn less than they earned in 1975. In other words the average young family today has less income than the average family from 1975, even though both spouses work.
What are the other negatives? Marriage is at an all time low. The majority are now not married. Hypergamy means that women won't marry men who earn less than themselves. Birth rates tanked below replacement level (1,76 for 2017). Homeownership is at an all time low. Lots of young people live with their parents because they can not afford to buy a home or get married.
So where does this end? Towards total destruction of marriage and single women backed by an enlarged welfare state using sperm donors instead of regular fathers? Are the men going to stay in such society or are they going to move to greener pastures?
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p20-579.pdf
Rebe1Ye11 5y ago
With the massive amounts of women entering into the work force, it practicly doubles the workers looking for work. The employers are then left with the choice: hire progressive or be sexist. The wage gap and the favoring of men in the work place are tools these "progressives" have used to push for more "equality" in the work force based on gender rather than ones skill
Pastelitomaracucho 5y ago
Okay. So what?
Would you better have women not working? Would you better have to work your ass off because society asks you to support someone who did not work and who is totally dependent on you because that person has a vagina? Fuck that.
What is wrong with marriage being at an all time low? Its actually fucking fantastic! Everyone is freer to do whatever the fuck they want. There will be less divorce rapes, less people stuck in unhappy relationships, less unwanted pregnancies, etc.
Homeownership has nothing to do with women. It has everything to do with globalization and the current state of economic affairs.
Who the fuck cares where does this end? Society is changing and change cannot be stopped. Adapt and enjoy the change, because in many respects is for the better. We will not live how boomers por post war families lived, but there's much more to enjoy.
We men are going to stay in this society. We are going to enjoy the freedoms we have, we are going to enjoy the sex, the women, the traveling, just as they are doing it.
Or you can be a loser spending the whole day at /pol/
Shamerida 5y ago
You sound angry because you want a wife in an open cuckolding marriage that is the one working and bringing the money while you can stay at home playing videogames.
Pastelitomaracucho 5y ago
Shit! You are totally right!!!
Shamerida 5y ago
And you would have gotten away if it wasn't for me, Mario.
yummyluckycharms 5y ago
There are two components to the OP's statement....
The second statement has been supported by finding after finding for years now. Using a 1st world example, Canada has 80% pop with post secondary education, brings in 300k a year of new canadians, yet wages and productivity are near the bottom of the OECD. Work has become fragmented via the gig economy, unemployment is quite high at 10-11% (remember official unemployment does not track the unemployed, it tracks who receives EI cheques only), labour force participation is shrinking as the supply of workers to jobs increases, etc. Clearly, anytime the supply of workers increases sharply, it will decrease the power of labour.
As to the first statement, the OP doesnt really make a clear basis. Is it because as women entered the workforce, they cared less about their husbands? Delayed child birth rates isnt a big issue as immigration can fill the gap. The reasoning isnt explicit
ObserverBG 5y ago
Various data shows that hypergamy does exist among women, for example they seek to marry people who earn more than themselves.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/
Marriage rate is higher for college educated men, and divorce rate is lower. Divorce rate is also lower for men who earn more than their wifes.
What happens when men earn less and less? Women react negatively to such men and accordingly there will be less marriages and more divorces, as few "quality" - high earnings, highly educated men are available.
You can check this about some data on divorces here
https://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm
yummyluckycharms 5y ago
A couple of points.....
Hypergamy has always existed - so thats not really new.
High education levels can either increase or decrease marriage rates. In general, outside of the US - it causes an increase in divorce rates, but in the US, it decreases divorce rates. Probably due to the fact that only 40% have post secondary education, meaning that its rare.
I do agree that women look down at men that earn less or even are in lower status positions but earn more (ie. a marketing professional looks down at a blue collar dry waller that makes what a doctor earns)
Now - if what you are trying to say that when women entered the workforce, they gained access to a larger pool of men with higher incomes, and thus, this caused an acceleration of hypergamy, then you might have a point. There is little research on this though as the matriarchy has little to gain from it.
Is this what you are suggesting?
ObserverBG 5y ago
The things that i mentioned are quite simple.
Women look for men who earn more than themselves.
yummyluckycharms 5y ago
It could also be that marriage suffers because its such a horrible deal. When you see poor, low income people fleeing from it, that should tell you something
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
reluctantly_red 5y ago
WTF? You'd rather we support lazy unproductive uneducated women?
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Ill_Will7 5y ago
Read the article GLO posted.
[deleted] 5y ago
Based and redpilled. Would expect nothing less from our very own superstar
Lambdal7 5y ago
Yeah this post is entirely pseudo science. Nothing to back up the claim that females were largely responsible for the decline in wages, and no other of the thousand factors.
Marriages that were unhappy 50 years ago stayed together, because of shame through society and lack of option for females. Today, they divorce, getting the man and the woman out of a bad marriage. Definitely better for both.
Theguygotgame777 5y ago
Women entering the workforce is actually good for the economy, as long as it's entirely based on merit, which frankly, it isn't. I wish we could live like the Spanish did under Francisco Franco. Once he brought in free trade, and kept up good Catholic morals, his country prospered.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Really? You're praising a fascist dictator?
Theguygotgame777 5y ago
No. I'm saying that an authoritarian dictator had good morals and ideas. There is a difference.
ObserverBG 5y ago
I agree with that, with one caveat. Bear in mind that children need mothers and recent data showed that working mothers of small children cause mentally ill children. And the economy won't benefit from that in the long run. So proper care of children must be ensured.
Theguygotgame777 5y ago
I think eventually we'll return to this model. Assuming you've read the Misandry Bubble on the sidebar, eventually marriage will improve for men, and with the advent of new technology like sex androids, women will learn that they're replaceable.
WholesomeAwesome 5y ago
Women as a whole are terrible. They abuse children. They attack freedom. They destroy nations. We have to take the power away from them. It's not fair to honest and productive people to let them unleash political warfare and broken childs on society to get hat new fancy moment of fame
itsmauitime 5y ago
Now you're just being a dick
WholesomeAwesome 5y ago
Ah the Cuck-Gynocracy virtue signals again. don't talk about so many bad facts regarding womyn! my little brine can't handle it!
itsmauitime 5y ago
You literally just said baseless bullshit. Stop it, you're pathetic
WholesomeAwesome 5y ago
maybe if you're fast enough you'll figure out 10% of it by the time you're 200 years old.
saganist91 5y ago
I for my part would definitely want to visit greener pastures (not necessarily move) if I had the money.
KyfhoMyoba 5y ago
I think that the latest stats show that they do, in fact, marry such men about a third of the time.
ObserverBG 5y ago
They are less likely to marry them, thats the point. There will always be some poor guys who manage to marry. But thats relatively rare. In 75 % of couples, the man earns more than the woman.
Also divorce rates are higher for men that earn less than their wives and lower for men that earn more than their wives.
KyfhoMyoba 5y ago
Tru dat. When the wife makes 60% or more of the household income (i.e., 50% more than her husband), divorce is an 80% probability.
oneorigin 5y ago
Russian women always worked. Recently many became housewives or work part-time - the opposite of the US. Yet marriage and divorce stats are just like in other Western countries.
Primary reasons why back in USSR Russian marriages generally lived forever were:
Then came the last wave of feminism, which coincided with the rise of TRP, and marriage institution died.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Data shows there was high divorce rate in the Soviet Union
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12553.html
oneorigin 5y ago
Compared to US, though it's a useless number, better to look at divorce/marriage rate. In Russian Republic (USSR had 15 republics, including big Muslim) it was - 30-40% vs 80-90% today. It was definitely higher than in countries, where divorce was very hard or even next to impossible. In US divorce is long and costly even today. When it was hard in USSR, the divorce rate was close to 0%, e.g. 4% in 1950 (but there was also a shortage of men after WW2).
Generally, the "true" SU is considered to be before 1985, when Perestroyka began. Some even say that before 1980.
ObserverBG 5y ago
The researcher says this though: "David Lane has asserted, however, that the real family disintegration rate between these two countries was comparable because the legal difficulties and expense of a divorce in the Soviet Union encouraged "unofficial" divorces or separations. "
As for divorce today, it does not appear to be 80-90 %. According to Wiki its 52 %
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography
oneorigin 5y ago
Divorce rate peaked at 85% in 2002, then suddenly (thanks to a somewhat conservative Putin and United Russia, who came to power) dropped and people began marrying at much older ages. Marriages to get subsidies, such as a subsidized mortgage. There should be a pike in divorces one day.
Even without taking account for such mercantile marriages, real rate is way worse, because today, unlike in USSR, it's not a shame to cohabitate, which is what most people do, time and again.
[deleted] 5y ago
Female wages increased as they increasingly became more qualified for specialized labor. (i.e., they weren't just teachers and secretaries anymore). It has nothing to do with taking away from men.
Male wages have decreased because of globalization, free trade, lack of education, and the destruction of collective bargaining / unions. I'm not here to debate the politics of any of this. Whether you're pro-union or anti-union, we can all agree that, generally speaking, collective bargaining leads to higher wages / benefits for labor. Further, males do not get higher education degrees at the rate of females. These are increasingly necessary as immigrant labor is increasingly used for domestic "blue collar" work, and a lot of manufacturing has been displaced overseas. Men without degrees or specializations lack competitiveness and must accept lower wages.
Your post is poorly thought out. My qualifications for saying so are that I have advanced degrees in both economics and finance, I have worked in these fields for quite some time and I am fully confident that your presumptions are BS. Also it comes off as bitter and whiny, while it kind of indicates that you think men can not compete with women to a satisfactory degree in the workforce.
Edit: It's also weak to blame others for the economic challenges you face as a man. Sack up guys. It's competitive out here. Instead of blaming women or immigrants or whoever for that, educate yourselves on why wages have been stagnant, why inequality is growing, and learn some skills to compete on your own. If you're not going to put in that effort then you have no right to complain about the women or the borders. There's plenty of us guys doing just fine out here.
uwey 5y ago
Agree.
We not women hater, but we also don’t compare or compete. We coexist and power play whoever enter the field. If she try to compete, destroy her at your game, do so with other man.
More money and power you have less these trivial arguments of women and man matters.....
Why someone short will always want to be taller? Yet taller people don’t really care about the height but worry how much money they make?
More attention you put into the negative and try to find a scapegoat as bait for follower, less skillful sorcerer you be.
Sapiens: gossip legend, evolved within, and control the hearts and mind of population. Be what you worship for.
Incel9876 5y ago
Men are discriminated against in education and employment by legal decree of government. Every woman in the workforce drives down the wages of all workers, and thus the ability to form and raise families, by increasing the supply of labor. Meanwhile, due to female hypergamy, the more her own status increases, the more she demands of her potential husbands, resulting in fewer and less functional marriages producing fewer and less functional children, contributing to trends that drive open borders and national/cultural death.
[deleted] 5y ago
I agree with you that men are discriminated against in education, but not employment. The male education crisis will continue to get worse and it will create some odd / interesting times in the future.
Women don't drive down wages. Period. I urge you to show me the proof of this claim. Please. Send me the science / economic research behind this. How accredited and esteemed are the researchers?
I don't disagree on the hypergamy, marriage issues, family issues.
I'm not opining on national / cultural death and open borders. We've always had relatively open borders. If you want to blame anyone for immigrant labor depressing wages, blame the business owners who create the demand for such labor. Without demand there would be no supply.
My points were strictly made in economic reality to the OP. That argument is complete rubbish and filled with misplaced anger.
gbdoragnic 5y ago
Thank you for this, I get so tired of this theory popping up on red pill, it makes it seem like we have a issue with women working because it's a bad thing and to restore order women must not work, this driving wage theory is really to cover up misogynistic ideals.
Women working is a good thing, women doing whatever the fuck they want is a good thing, trp is about become truly desirable , not trying to take away things from men.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Yes!!! I don't have a clue why so many guys want to go back to being personally responsible for supporting the women in their life.
[deleted] 5y ago
It's the portion of people here that hate women because they either never had success with women or they mistakenly fell in love with a whore and she burned them. So they generalize just like feminists would about men.
NeedingAdvice86 5y ago
This....
It is stupid to blame women, just because they want fuck you, for the evil of the modern world. Particularly when you can look around and see that a large segment of the current crop of males are just freaking losers without ambition or goals. In the local schools as an example, the number of women go to university at a rate 3x greater than males who basically are looking either looking for landscaping jobs, tree service work or to not work at all outside of what they need to buy drugs and booze. It really is amazing to be at a social event with a bunch of college age girls just back from university looking around at their old high school guys who are doing little beside cutting grass, smoking weed, and have no direction or ambition for their future. It makes slaying young girls easier as they offer little competition but sad nonetheless. The girls seem ambition and go-getters while the guys are lazy and directionless.
BigMawsmidget 5y ago
He's basically stating a fact, and not that he hates women. Regardless of how you want to look at it it's true. Also the reason most guys head for those kinds of jobs it's pretty fucking simple their masculine in nature. Construction, Landscaping, Mining etc.
Vs the office cubicle in IT with Cliff......................
Not dumping on Information Tech as I have a degree in it, but it's filled to the brim with autistic soy-boys and SJW cunts I'm certain, and having to step on egg shells etc.
francisco_DANKonia 5y ago
I might argue that many men lost ambition and goals when the school system was feminized and more drop out when they find they cant cut it in an increasingly competitive workplace.
forropdx 5y ago
yes they were indoctrinated to believe that suffering as a white knight is the only way to appease the angry horde of man haters. if they choose to believe the lie without challenge, are they to blame for their own suffering and abuse?
francisco_DANKonia 5y ago
I'm not really in favor of blaming people who were indoctrinated as children. It's quite difficult to reject a parent's religion or the blue pill. Especially if they never hear an alternative
ntvirtue 5y ago
So doubling the number of workers did not drive wages down? You should ask the colleges who gave you the degrees for your money back.
[deleted] 5y ago
Possibly it played a part, but a minor one at that. Also, the number of workers didn't double, and I would guess as many new entries into the workforce over that time period would just as likely be contributed to immigrants as women.
I get the theoretical argument on labor supply vs. demand, but our economy is much more sophisticated than that. If anything, this would temporarily depress wages in the short-run, but certainly not in the long-run. Of this I am completely sure.
Rudedabega 5y ago
Whether the number of women entering the workforce doubled it or increased it by 40-80% can you argue that the demand was increased by the same amount if not more in the labor market?
How can this depress wages in the short run if women don’t return to traditional lifestyles in the long run, especially when you factor in paid maternity leave?
[deleted] 5y ago
Short run and long run economic behaviors are just different. In the short run, if an immediate influx of qualified labor supply enters the market, wages will temporarily fall. But over time it would likely lead to more productivity and disposable income. The economy would grow, because it is not a zero-sum game. Labor supply and demand would find a new equilibrium in the long run. Wages would return to a normal level in the long run, unless the influx of work were scab-like talent that purposefully went around minimum wage laws to work for significantly less in large numbers. That doesn't happen though.
Think of it like this: Employees sell their labor. If there is significantly more labor offered (being sold) for the available employers (the buyers of said labor), the employers will have a negotiating advantage, and those seeking work will compete by accepting less and less in wages, to an extent. This type of behavior is observable, in some instances, in short-run scenarios.
grandmasbroach 5y ago
What do you mean possibly? It is about as simple of economics that you can get. If you look at wages and labor as a commodity, as most places in the last century do.
What happens when you double the supply of something almost overnight?
Im not asking about about anything other than that for now.
nattlife 5y ago
Mate, you can't any more wrong than that. Please talk to a entry level economics student about this. This post is a classic "lump of labor" fallacy.
To quote the famous economics thinker, "Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."
coal miners lost their jobs because coal is outdated and inefficient at producing more power.
Manufacturing industry lost its jobs because of heavy competition from the global economy. And automation took off some of the best paying jobs like welding, etc
This happened not because women joined the workforce.
[deleted] 5y ago
In the short run you will see some price changes as supply dominates demand. But women entered the workforce 40+ years ago brother. The pie grows, demand increases and the labor market returns to equilibrium. Your assumptions are simple, and I understand why you have them, but they're wrong. Any educated economist will back me up on this.
I bet you also think minimum wage increases cause inflation and unemployment. News flash: that doesn't happen. Minimum wage increases actually can be observed to reduce unemployment locally, with hardly any effect on prices. Neoclassical models are cute in theory but hardly observable in reality.
grandmasbroach 5y ago
Not what I asked. I simply asked what happens when a commodity has the supply double in a very short period of time. I'm not even talking about gender and adding all the caveats. It isn't needed.
[deleted] 5y ago
In the very short run, the price will drop temporarily. It's not zero sum. Over time the productivity rises, economic growth occurs, wages rise as the growth spurs further demand.
We're not talking short run here since women have gradually entered the workforce over 50 years. They did not just instantly come at the same exact time, so this isn't a very good theoretical example anyways.
grandmasbroach 5y ago
My only point is, adding more workers devalues labor. When women enter a field in any large numbers and make themselves available to do so, wages decline. I tho k you are over complicating this. But, to each their own.
[deleted] 5y ago
I agree with you that the simplified theory states this. And you're right in the short-run, but in the long-run it wouldn't depress wages. I know it's over complicated. It's economics and economics is insanely complicated in reality.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
well said. I think the only thing missing from 3 is automation and of course computer power increased productivity with the gains going mostly to those who purchased the machines. Of course that has trickled down to us or we wouldn't be online right now, but the level of technology on Wall Street, for example...
grandmasbroach 5y ago
There is really one area that is going to spell disaster for a lot of people. Currently, transportation/trucking, is the number one field of employment. Meaning, more people are employed as a driver of some sort than anything else.
Look how close we are to self driving cars. Once those businesses can buy a self driving semi, bus, or car and operate it cheaper than a human, the entire economy could take a poo. That is but a year or two away.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
Indeed, indeed. And the self driving cars WILL be safer than humans. They'll be able to communicate with the traffic lights too and know when they change before it happens.. They'll slow down 7 mph instead of coming to an unnecessary stop and go. Just that alone will save fuel and brakes. Then if you get rid of wrecks, auto body shops go out of business and insurance changes completely.. It's a snowball effect from one occupation to another
grandmasbroach 5y ago
Not to mention, they don't need breaks, vacations, sick time, etc. They will work 24 hours a day, everyday, without a break, and never say a word to complain about it.
forropdx 5y ago
it's a very tempting appeal to logic that you made. however, there were a few accidents recently that changed my mind about the reality of self-driving vehicles. it would be simpler if all the vehicles on the road were also self driving and able to ping each other and cooperate with a grand scale traffic manager. that's my non-expert opinion.
grandmasbroach 5y ago
The reasons those accidents even made the news is BECAUSE of how rare it is to happen. Compare it with human drivers and it still isn't even close.
I work in the auto industry. It's coming, trust me. A few accidents isn't going to stop some of the largest businesses from trying to save money. Especially when the statistics show it is thousands of times safer, even with a few accidents here and there.
[deleted] 5y ago
Couldn't agree more on the automation. We haven't seen the bulk of that damage yet. Wait until a majority of white collar jobs start going... I get chills just thinking about the societal and economic ramifications.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
Yes.. If you spent 7 years becoming a human database of information, your job is in serious jeopardy in the next decade. What's scary is it only takes a single program that can be copied, translated, updated, indefinitely, to replace an occupation like general physician. You're not a doctor anymore, just a guy who inputs data into the Medical Database and puts a finger in someone's ass whenever it's needed. But that's not going to be 6 figures income.. That's a three month course at community college
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
Ultimately, there are going to be factories that are full of robots, and there will be a man and a dog there. The man will be there to feed the dog, and the dog will be there to keep the man from shutting down the robots.
[deleted] 5y ago
It's darkly humorous but true. If anyone thinks inequality is bad now, oh boy. Wait until the top 1-5% of the wealthiest owns 90% of the robots (the means of production). Can't wait.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
We are in the midst of a "fourth pivot". If it's like the others it will turn out ok, but it sux while it's going on.
Rian_Stone 5y ago
Add to that the effect of concentration of wealth, and instability due to wealth inquality, mass immigration etc. then you look to the destination on the map, and see:
there be dragons
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
So long as capital remains available to the economy then it's less of a problem if it's "concentrated", and "wealth inequality" is the way economic losers shriek "NO FAIR!" Because "inequality" sounds bad.
Mass immigration is problematic because we're not stopping it, when we should be, with bayonets if necessary. But I doubt we have the political will to do that.
Rian_Stone 5y ago
yeah, it will always be somewhat concentrated, but there's an unknown level of concentration that makes the difference. no idea how close we are now, I only. remember from it happening in the Renaissance Italy.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Having fewer male doctors, stem workers or lawyers compared to the 70s will definitely decrease median male wages.
Women are not increasingly more qualified for specialized labor because a large amount of data shows that they are less productive than their male counterparts. They also get lower SAT scores which indicates female oversupply in universities.
Simply more women than men apply for University, which does not mean that they are more qualified in the end, as shown by their low productivity. Not to mention the various women only university scholarships, grants and so on that aim to increase the number of women in Universities purely due to political reasons.
A female doctor is 25 % less productive than a male doctor and more likely to quit her job. Similar differences exist in stem fields. Therefore it does not make sense to hire a majority of female doctors (like in Britain) and create serious problems in the medical sector unless you live in highly politicised western society that is based on diversity quotas and affirmitive action, and politics interfering in the economy.
[deleted] 5y ago
I can't speak to any of this. It is complete hyperbole until you can prove it with legitimate sources.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Check all the links provided in my other comments.
[deleted] 5y ago
No. You made the post. If the data is so evident you should be able to put together in writing the actual logic behind your argument with sources attached to each point. What you've collected is coincidental evidence. You're making the MAJOR mistake of assuming causation, just because the time periods overlap. Correlation does not equal causation.
If every day that it rains in Detroit Michigan the stock market goes up, and every day it is sunny in Detroit the market goes down, that does not mean that the rain is causing the stock market to behave in a certain way. They look correlated, but there's nothing there.
ObserverBG 5y ago
The links are already posted and you can read them all one by one. They have all the necessary information you need. Check all the posts in the thread as well. When you read everything, you can ask questions.
[deleted] 5y ago
None of these links prove your point. None of them. I've seen some before, and others i just read do not make your case at all.
The only good piece was the one on the NHS in Britain and it makes sense if you're going to use tax dollars to train people for public healthcare, which IMO is a great idea, then they ought to work full time and stay in that position, otherwise you're wasting tax funds.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Well, you should prove that they do not prove my point. Go after the comments and links and see what you disagree with. Then ask questions. Up to now it is just empty talking.
[deleted] 5y ago
No. I didn't make a post. You did. Give me your logic and back it up. Don't post random articles and then say "go read them." This response of yours is evidence of the feebleness in your argument.
ObserverBG 5y ago
I gave a logic and backed it up with various links. They are not random, they are posted to back up a specific points. Read all the comments of mine, all the articles and studies, and then ask specific questions.
colzod 5y ago
Thanks for using stats and listing references. +1
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
The stagnation in real wages since 1974 has a lot more to do with the interaction between technology, capitalism and the advent of neoliberal globalization. It was at this time that real wages suddenly became unmoored from worker productivity (productivity continues to increase, wages are flat).
Women entered the workforce long before this. I don't see how you can shift the blame for flat real wages from the evolution of capitalism to women entering the workforce.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
This!!! The destruction of unions played a big part too.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
Concern trolling. Reported.
SmamelessMe 5y ago
Interesting.
In economics, there is a widely accepted theory called supply / demand. Based on this theory, increasing supply, while not increasing demand, leads to lower cost. And also that lower cost leads to higher quantity being used.
Can you please elaborate on why labor market is exempt from this rule, and why doubling the supply of available labor does not lead to lower cost of labor, leading to creation of bullshit jobs, that would never exist in the first place?
Thank you.
Pepethe2nd 5y ago
Supply and demand does apply to labor. When we have more jobs than people looking to work, wages will begin to climb.
Part of the stagnation is increased women participation in the workforce, part is globalism (which has not been kind to America)
WholesomeAwesome 5y ago
real wages are determined by productivity. Since government consumption eats at that productivity, private sector real wages will continue to fall, because part of what they should purchase necessarily is consumed by the state sector. There you go. ez pz
then you have misallocaiton caused by manipulation of interest rates by legal tender laws supporting the big gibsmedat centralbank
Aggressive_Beta 5y ago
Globalization will put downward pressure on wages because suddenly low skilled domestic workers making minimum wage have to compete with cheap overseas laborers that get paid 10 cents a day or whatever. But that cheap labor, coupled with improvements in technology and productivity, should cause prices to fall faster than domestic wages in a free market system, which means real incomes should be going up.
This has not been the case. The reason wages have stagnated is because the state transfers wealth from the bottom up via inflation, tariffs/sanctions, corporate subsidies, perpetual war, and government spending that disproportionately benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Place the blame on stagnating wages and an ever growing wealth gap where it belongs: square on the shoulders of the government and its socialistic forced wealth redistribution apparatus.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Female wages massively increased during this period, so it makes sense that it caused at least some of the drop in male wages. You do understand that if fewer men are doctors or lawyers median male wages will tank, right? The data shows that less than 50 percent of young women were employed in 1975.
MentORPHEUS Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
OP, please broaden your knowledge of economics, sociology, and history. Your post smacks of STARTING from the belief that women entering the workforce is the PRIMARY cause of the problems stated in the title, then cobbling together elements that support this worldview.
The result is an extended rant, which not only offers no actionable information to solve the problem, it leads into a cul-de-sac of indulging in impotent anger about this issue and feeds a sense of learned helplessness that is itself part of the problem.
187oddfuture 5y ago
The only way to solve the problem is to remove them from the workforce. They displace males that are more productive because the government forces companies to meet diversity quotas not only in hiring but also leadership. Men that should be getting hired and promoted that are more qualified are getting displaced by the women who will eventually overwhelmingly leave the workforce in their 30s to have a baby or two. Not only are they diversity hires, they are also much less productive. Companies are hemorrhaging money right now in excess labor costs because of female employment.
BlackFire68 5y ago
Well that’s a little Margaret Atwood, isn’t it?
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
This doesn't quite make sense. When you increase female wages, there is more money being earned, so there is more money being spent, so there is more money to pay as wages.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Oh, they increased because women moved into high paying jobs (previously held by men) rapidly. For example various high paying jobs that were held by men at nearly 90 % are now held by women at increasing percentages. Thus there are fewer men in many high paying jobs. Whether that benefits the larger economy? I think that it does not, as female workers are less productive (or creative) than male workers on average, therefore it makes sense to hire women only in places with labor shortages.
For example norwegian data on quotas for women in corporation boards showed that the policy of hiring 40% women harmed those companies. So the problem is with diversity quotas, or female oversupply in Universities, and efforts to increase their numbers there, even though they already get lower SAT or MCAT scores.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
This is fallacious reasoning, easily discounted with the increase in the number of jobs due to more money going into the economy and the more "stuff" being produced due to more workers.
Increasing the size of the workforce increases the amount of money available. This is why large countries are just as rich as small countries. And putting women in the workforce is a lot like becoming a larger country. More workforce, more productivity, more money.
This is absolutely true... "positive" discrimination is harmful. These companies avoided hiring women for rational reasons, and putting women in these positions is against their best interests - as seen by the results.
Right. And as you say, women are less productive (google "productivity gap").
The difference is most stark exactly where women say they want to be: high level STEM positions where there are just vastly fewer capable women (due to higher standard deviation of intelligence).
ObserverBG 5y ago
Actually smaller countires are most of the richest countries. There is no evidence that a small country can not be a rich country, and most of the rich countires are small countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
There are very large countries who are not rich, for example India, China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brasil, Pakistan, Russia, Bangladesh, and so on. Thus no evidence that a large amount of labour force causes a country to become richer (per capita).
The data shows that women entering a certain field cause a pay drop in that field. Replacing men in a certain field causes a productivity decline as well.
https://imgur.com/a/iAC9mTD
and pay drop
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
Standard bias: there is a higher number of small countries so more variation. You'll find some of the poorest countries are small countries too.
Right, but this says nothing about any corresponding pay increase in fields they don't.
"The more women the worse the performance" .... haha yeah. Very likely true. Women are more divisive, vastly more likely to complain, cause more drama, do less work and expect disproportionate rewards for it.
Another effect is that when you are forced to employ women in a particular role, the value of that role is decreased.
I agree with you that all this diversity shit is terrible for companies, but not for "size of the workforce" reasons, but because they are female.
I am close to STEM jobs. I see the reality of women complaining they don't have a cushy high paid stem jobs, while almost none put any effort into getting them. Most men in these positions are very motivated and work hard (often in their personal time) to get them. Most women are unable to see what goes on behind the scenes that makes men successful: hard work, not complaining, being talented. It's not easy to spend 20 hours a week, 50 weeks a year for three years (3000 hours) learning to be good at something in your spare time. But it's realllllllly easy and a lot of fun to shriek "buh buh sexist patriarchy", and everyone will agree with you too.
ObserverBG 5y ago
Maybe, but that can not explain why most of the large countries are poor. When most large countries are not rich, this is a pretty good evidence that a large labor force by itself does not cause a rich country (per capita).
Yes of course, my point is that women exert downward wage pressure in places they enter. And their percentages increase in many fields. Obviously they do not affect fields with few women that much, but the trend is to have more women in many places.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
Most countries are poor.
The reasons why most countries are poor are fairly obvious and not much related to size. Africa: disease. Russia: communism.
Very short term in some cases yes, long term no for the reasons above.
Indeed, and we know how this is done now: special treatment by virtue of super special innocent victim status.
ObserverBG 5y ago
There is higher percentage of rich countries among smaller countires (20%, below 100 mil.) compared to the percentage of rich countires among large countries (15%, above 100 mil). This is contrary to the assumption that a large labour force supply should cause a rich society.
Thats not simply variation, this is mean difference. So there is no evidence that large labor force should cause a rich country (per capita).
Its not in "some" cases, this was found in almost all cases -
"She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html
Short term or long term, women remain less productive than men through the years, so women will always exert downward wage pressure in places they enter, especially with ever increasing numbers.
In other words wages in areas with high female participation will always be lower than those of similar areas, but with high male participation. Differences in productivity and wages between men and women actually grow with time, as they get older.
The experience of the british female dominated medical sector shows enduring, serious costs caused by women, and low economic viability.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/9950248/Part-time-women-doctors-are-creating-a-timebomb.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
Let's say a female doctor adds value of 100 000 $ and a male one adds value of 125 000 $. (25 % more productive). A female waiter adds value of 30 000 and a male waiter adds value of 37500 $. Again 25 % more productive.
The gain from the male worker will be 25 000 $ in the first case and 7500 $ in the second case. Thus an economy with mostly male doctors and mostly female waiters will be more productive and have higher average wages than an economy with mostly female doctors and mostly male waiters.
In other words it does not make sense to hire women in a certain sector, especially highly productive sector, unless there is a labor shortage in that sector, and in many areas only a certain amount of workers is needed, not an infinite number. For example only a certain amount of doctors or lawyers are needed for the available work, not an infinite number.
Then there are other costs, such as women being more likely to quit. Areas where there is expensive training of workers will suffer additional costs, as women on average are more likely to quit their job, thus ruining the investment. Females often quitting their jobs has been a problem in the medical and stem fields. A female STEM worker is twice more likely to quit.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/study-women-leave-stem-jobs-for-the-reasons-men-only-want-to
The real costs are even larger than the direct productivity costs. Since women are twice less likely to start a new business or invent something new (on average), 95% of patent holders are men, and 90% of high growth businesses are started by men, which reveals serious lack of creativity in women, there will be large economic costs caused by replacing men in higher education and then in various important economic sectors, especially R&D.
Who knows how much are the costs due to things that were never invented or new businesses never started, simply because fewer men have degrees and fewer men than before get hired in important jobs (especially STEM, R&D), and so businesses and the economy rely on people who are significantly less likely to invent something new or start a new business?
BittyMitty 5y ago
It's just supply and demand, promoting the idea of a working independent woman flooded the job market place.The market place stabilized and then the immigrants where introduced in the equation, so once again the wages plummeted. Then you have the economic migrants that work for less, because they send money back to their families. And then you have the so called "nomads" that go all over the globe, at least these ones don't work for bottle caps.
This is more or less the situation and there is not much you can do.Some countries went with far right and some kind of conservative movement in order to go back to the golden era, but who knows where that leads.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
So wages would take a hit in the short-run as the market adjusts to the influx of labor. But the data shows that real wages have remained stagnant over the past 40 years even though productivity per worker has steadily increased. This suggests wage stagnation is the result of some structural change in the interaction between wages and capital, not due to the fact that there are simply more workers.
ObserverBG 5y ago
The productivity increases stagnated in recent years, though. Also GDP growth levels were far higher in the 60s 70s - 80s than after that. There has been a steady down trend for GDP growth and productivity growth. Some of this decline could be caused by females entering the labor force as female workers are less productive than male workers. Thus replacing male workers will cause lower productivity.
https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/economy/behind-the-numbers/decoding-declining-stagnant-productivity-growth.html
https://www.americanactionforum.org/daily-dish/productivity-almost-everything/
https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/real-gdp-yoy-since-1947.gif
Agree somewhat for wage stagnation but not for the drop in male wages. As i said, fewer male doctors or lawyers or STEM workers will directly lead to lower male wages.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
The argument that women entering the workforce leads to lower gross productivity makes no sense. Women, by and large, aren't displacing more productive men; they're just adding their own labor to the market and making it more competitive for workers. This is actually a huge boost for productivity even if it squeezes workers in the short run. It doesn't matter whether women are less productive than men; their labor is primarily additive rather than displacing. Otherwise you would see a massive and direct correlation of male underemployment/unemployment in those industries. That's nowhere to be found.
ObserverBG 5y ago
It makes perfect sense for many sectors in the economy. Female doctors caused significant damage to the medical sector. Women are doing exactly that - displacing more productive men via various diversity quotas/affirmitive action.
For example female doctors are 25 % less productive than male doctors, and created a timebomb in the medical sector, female lawyers bring significantly less money to their companies than male lawyers, while female STEM workers produce 30 % less science papers and are twice less likely to start a new business or invent something new. Thus replacing male workers will cause lower productivity.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/9950248/Part-time-women-doctors-are-creating-a-timebomb.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2014/retrieve.php?pdfid=889
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-science-it-matters-that-women-come-last/
Hiring male waiters to offset female doctors does not offset anything, as you get small productivity increase due to the low value added job in the first case versus large productivity increase due to the high value added job in the second case.
Let's say a female doctor adds value of 100 000 $ and a male one adds value of 125 000 $. (25 % more productive). A female waiter adds value of 30 000 and a male waiter adds value of 37500 $. Again 25 % more productive.
The gain from the male worker will be 25 000 $ in the first case and 7500 $ in the second case. In other words an economy with mostly male doctors and mostly female waiters will be more productive than an economy with mostly female doctors and mostly male waiters.
Areas where there is expensive training of workers will also have to prioritise more male workers, as women on average are more likely to quit their job, thus ruining the investment. Females often quitting their jobs has been a problem in the medical and stem fields.
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
Where are you getting this idea that women are primarily displacing men? Productivity is still vastly higher because they are in the workforce rather than homemaking, even if they are less productive than their male counterparts. There are simply more workers now relative to the population.
Some studies even counterintuitively suggest that women entering the work force had a positive effect on real wages:
https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-women-join-the-workforce-wages-rise-including-for-men
Blaming the permanent state of wage stagnation on women entering the workforce is nonsensical; especially because we can easily observe the gap between productivity per capita and real wages. There are more powerful forces at work.
BittyMitty 5y ago
The gender quota trend is becoming more popular in high paying fields.
ObserverBG 5y ago
They are. This is well known. For example in the 60s the vast majority of doctors were male, while now there will soon be a gender parity and then female majority in Britain for example. Since female doctors are less productive than male doctors on average, they caused significant problems in the medical sector. This is not simply about adding more workers. For example only a certain amount of doctors is needed for the economy, not an infinite amount. When you replace the male doctors with female doctors you simply hit productivity, and this has been well established.
Or a firm that hires mostly female lawyers will earn less than a firm that hires mostly male lawyers. You don't need an infinite amount of lawyers, only a certain amount is needed for the available work.
See the links above.
The lower productivity of female workers has been mentioned in plenty of studies.
https://imgur.com/a/iAC9mTD
They drive down wages too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html
As mentioned above "The productivity increases stagnated in recent years, though. Also GDP growth levels were far higher in the 60s 70s - 80s than after that. There has been a steady down trend for GDP growth and productivity growth. Some of this decline could be caused by females entering the labor force as female workers are less productive than male workers. Thus replacing male workers will cause lower productivity."
GodOfDinosaurs 5y ago
Then where are all these male workers going? Where is the mass underemployment/unemployment of males in these sectors? It doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense that it would exist. How would less productive women be able to crowd-out their more productive male counterparts?
A shortage of male doctors means an excess of male workers somewhere else, unless we observe an equal shift in male unemployment/underemployment, which we don't. Men are simply choosing to work elsewhere. More likely, as noted in the article above, is that female workers primarily moved into fields with unmet demand.
You might see a productivity decrease in some sectors that become more female dominated, but this will always be offset with an increase elsewhere in the labor-market depending on where men go.
ObserverBG 5y ago
The move to less productive jobs i guess is due to lower level of university educated men, compared to the past. Most people with degrees these days are women. Male labor force participation rate is also lower than in the past. The link in the main post shows that the number of low wage male workers has increased, compared to the past. For example men were most of the medical students in the 60s, but 50 percent today in the US, and a minority in Britain. Which then causes a supply of mostly female doctors, even if it does not make economic sense, as female doctors are less productive, have lower MCAT scores, etc.
What i wrote is perfectly clear. When you replace the male workers in highly productive jobs and get them out of the labor force or in less productive jobs, lets say waiters, productivity will suffer, since a doctor or a STEM worker brings far more value than a waiter, and a male doctor or a STEM worker will be more productive than a female worker. You put high productivity people in high productivity jobs.
In other words it does not make sense to hire women in a certain sector, especially highly productive sector, unless there is a labor shortage in that sector, and in many areas only a certain amount of workers is needed, not an infinite number.
Since only a certain amount of doctors is needed for example, it makes no economic sense to hire mostly low productivity female doctors instead of mostly high productivity male doctors. Quite simple.
JamesSkepp 5y ago
Superb thread. On the level of feminist philosophy. "Blame wimminz for the fall" without explaining how they got into labour force in the first place.
The main negative is your lack of understanding of economy, lack of understanding of history, and apparently lack of understanding of context.
JohnBravo9990 5y ago
I’m not paying for selfish sluts to ride dick and waste all of their money on clothes.
bsutansalt 5y ago
You are if you pay taxes.
JohnBravo9990 5y ago
I vote red and Trump.
Just one of many reasons.
migeru71 5y ago
Let’s remember it was overwhelmingly men in Congress who passed the laws ushering women into the workplace and heaping welfare onto single mothers. Calling them “selfish sluts” because they’re taking what is freely offered to them is a bit silly. If men had the same opportunities they’d cheerfully take them and the women would be complaining about us being selfish sluts. We men, every bit as much as women, have created this fucking mess, and we need to own our complicity in the utter destruction of our society. I agree most women today are not worth dating, much less marrying or having a family with, but they didn’t create this mess on their own. Men handed it to them on a silver platter and now we are all dealing with the consequences
iLLprincipLeS 5y ago
Because they needed workers in the factories since the average american men were dying in WW2 fighting for the freedom of being called privileged nazis 50 years later.
migeru71 5y ago
That is not at all the reason. Women entering the workforce in large numbers didn’t start until the 70s. During WWII many women worked to support the war effort, but when the war ended, so did many of those jobs and women returned to the home while men went back into the work force. WWII is a completely separate issue in a separate era.
JohnBravo9990 5y ago
They are still selfish sluts. The liberal men who allowed it are certainly part of the problem but that doesn’t mean we owe these selfish sluts a free pass on their behavior.
Stop protecting them, that is enabling behavior as well.
migeru71 5y ago
First off, I gave no one a pass on anything. I’m just smart enough to realize people rarely turn down a free ride, and I’m not a hypocrite. Acknowledging facts is not the same as protecting anyone, and it was both liberals AND conservatives who supported all of this. Don’t try to spin this as a liberal creation. It wasn’t. There’s an overwhelming amount of support across the board, both historically and currently, for feminism, despite the fact that the modern iteration of feminism is rooted in misinformation, misconceptions, ignorance, and flat out lies. It’s only in recent years that conservatives have started to fight back against it; albeit too little and too late.
JohnBravo9990 5y ago
You’re trying to shame me for telling the truth about women. You’re obviously still caught up in the liberal matrix. Nothing is their fault, their just helpless victims.
I’m done listening the victim excuse bullshit. So take your sympathy and protective crap somewhere else.
1by1is3 5y ago
Just like all the males who are unemployed or underemployed, and are now blaming liberals, capitalism, globalization, women etc??
migeru71 5y ago
Shame you? What the hell are you talking about? You’re delusional
iLLprincipLeS 5y ago
"Japanese women now outpace American women in labor force participation. Sixty-four percent of working-age women in Japan are employed, compared to 63 percent of American women."
+
Herbivore men or grass-eater men (草食(系)男子 Sōshoku(-kei) danshi) is a term used in Japan to describe men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend. The term herbivore men was also a term that is described as young men who had lost their "manliness".
Surveys of single Japanese men conducted in 2010 found that 61% of men in their 20s and 70% of men in their 30s considered themselves to be herbivores.
According to Fukasawa, herbivore men are "not without romantic relationships, but have a non-assertive, indifferent attitude toward desires of flesh". The philosopher Masahiro Morioka defines herbivore men as "kind and gentle men who, without being bound by manliness, do not pursue romantic relationships voraciously and have no aptitude for being hurt or hurting others."
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Good news for the remaining 30%.
JohnBravo9990 5y ago
Let me guess...Ocasio Cortez is your favorite politician
ExtraMedium4me 5y ago
When more people enter a workforce wages go down...plenty of people are still marred...as families become more affluent they have less kids. Where is the issue here?
FreeHappyMan 5y ago
How dare you speak the truth on mighty reddit platform? Women are superior in any way, at least thats why Im told 24/7 in the media. Its always the mens fault.
chaseexcellence 5y ago
Jordan Peterson has spoken about this. I believe this is why MGTOW has grown in popularity. Women only marry up.
[deleted]
Hjalmbere 5y ago
This proves that marriage is a very fragile institution. For marriage and monogamy to thrive you need slut shaming, low female labour participation, low social mobility, and low geographical mobility. Enjoy the decline.
SKRedPill 5y ago
Men are producers and make their own kingdom. It's how we've built civilization out of nothing. It isn't easy, and alphas in game are still a long way away from empire builders. The masculine is fundamentally a producer. It is very easy to be needy and a consumer or a follower and let things happen to you, it's the easy road. But as long as man thinks in consumer centric terms, he ain't gonna ever be anything except frustrated.
187oddfuture 5y ago
TFM has been saying this for years. The only solution is to revoke women's right to vote. Without the voting majority voting for gynocentric laws and an ever increasing welfare state, men have the opportunity to right the ship and re-establish male authority. It's very clear that Western Society was at its apex when women were in the home and men were the societal authority. Feminism was a nice experiment, but we need to wake up and realize that its all fun and games (ayy let's just sit back and watch the collapse lmao) until the collapse comes knocking on your door. If we don't take back our society and our country, we'll just be outbred and eventually taken over by a more numerous and more patriarchal society anyway (i.e. Islam). Women will lose their rights anyway in that situation, the only difference being if we do it now, millions of men don't have to die in the future.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
In a perfect world, women would be owned.
Won't happen but hey, as long as we're wishing for shit....
187oddfuture 5y ago
Better book a plane ticket lol
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
Nah. I know my prey and I know how to give them what they want.
187oddfuture 5y ago
Oh I know you know your stuff about chicks, I’m talking about the collapse. Rather not be here when whites are a pronounced minority
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
It's not going to be as bad as you think. I mean, it's not going to be "better" than now, because the mojados and turd-flinging fucktards that we're important aren't exactly going to re-invigorate our space program, but it will just mean that whites are the largest minority.
By the time that things really start to suck, well, I'll be dead. so there's that.
187oddfuture 5y ago
yeah you'll be dead, but the young guys like me have to live in that shithole. This next young generation of men (gen z) that are graduating college right now need to be the engine for change, myself included. You may not have a horse in this race for much longer but we're just barely getting out of the gate. I'll adapt your go-to line and say that men need to collectively take what is theirs, that being their society and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It wasn't a coincidence the founders failed to specify women in the Declaration of Independence. They knew. Not saying chicks should be property, but the restoration of male authority leads to order which leads to stability. Young guys don't have the luxury of kicking back by the pool and watching the world burn.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
Just remember, the only times you don't need more ammunition are when you are (1) swimming or (2) on fire. Other than that, load up.
[deleted]
throwaway_ftb 5y ago
what's wrong with one or two child homes? seems wise because u can live well and invest more into fewer children.
[deleted] 5y ago
Marriages and birth rates ? Yes Wages ? No.
KyfhoMyoba 5y ago
This is a function of the removal of the last link between the dollar and gold in 1971, and the resultant financialization of the economy due to Triffin's Paradox (or Dilemma) and the resulting trade "imbalances" created.
Long, long story. But worth the effort. Get over to mises.org