>Women join the workforce. Now there are a little under double the potential employees across the entire job market.
>Wages can be lowered to hire inexperienced workers or workers willing to take less pay because there is now a surplus of disposable workers which can replace the higher cost workers until they get off their high horse and take less pay.
>Lower wages means that the average bread winner for each home has to work more for the same pay to support a family or someone else in the family has to also work.
>Fewer parents at home means children are raised through alternative means and have less developed relationships with their parents, becoming more dependant on others for guidance and becoming more prone to indoctrination from political groups seeking to get their ideologies into the next generations.
What should we do about this situation Jow Forums?
Not only that, but women are shitty workers anyway
Ian Edwards
only gender that can bitch around a blowjob
Lucas Thomas
True enough in most fields, but I doubt just telling them that would have positive results and I feel just making families less disjointed messes is a higher priority.
I would say maybe instating policy that would reward stay-at-home parents would have some effectiveness but I'm not sure how that would work without fucking other things up by increasing government dependence of families to stay afloat.
Ian Butler
Business already do a good job of not hiring women, because they are profit oriented. You only need to stop punishing it, and make government jobs secure but with bad pay.
Zachary Gutierrez
I doubt incels would give a damn about how female labor cheapens existing labor or how it affects family cohesion. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they managed to stop sperging out on their latest rejection.
Owen Turner
That's just the thing though, too many are willing to take a hit to efficiency to cycle out disposable workers and keep wages nice and low overall. Even women can do light menial tasks and office work well enough to force men who would do those jobs into other areas in a sort of cascade effect.
Landon Jenkins
>>Women join the workforce. Now there are a little under double the potential employees across the entire job market.
Economy is larger, everyone benefits
>>Wages can be lowered to hire inexperienced workers or workers willing to take less pay because there is now a surplus of disposable workers which can replace the higher cost workers until they get off their high horse and take less pay.
More workers =/= lower wages. Every new typist needs a car mechanic, every HR manager needs their shower fixed, etc
>>Lower wages means that the average bread winner for each home has to work more for the same pay to support a family or someone else in the family has to also work.
The most effective way to effectively increase wages is to lower taxes
>>Fewer parents at home means children are raised through alternative means and have less developed relationships with their parents, becoming more dependant on others for guidance and becoming more prone to indoctrination from political groups seeking to get their ideologies into the next generations.
Why should mentally competent women at least not work part time? Motherhood = watching TV and attending to the dishwasher.
Typical tradcuck, a man's worth is equivalent to how many hours he slaves
And continuing that point, the public sector has basically cut standards in every field to fit their gender so we now get female soldiers and law enforcement that only do thier job passably when someone's life isn't on the line. Watching them trying to break up a fight is painful.
Joseph Russell
When all you have is a personal attack, you'e already lost.
Jack Cox
>More workers =/= lower wages If you're retarded >Every new typist needs a car mechanic, every HR manager needs their shower fixed, etc Assuming no two people ever form a family, maybe.
Jonathan Miller
>More workers =/= lower wages. Is this what they teach in school nowadays? Gosh you're a fucking idiot.
Parker Rogers
US Govt's recent tax policy is favorable to stay-at-home parents, unless the wife makes over $15/hour.
Dylan Richardson
Hes not wrong tho
Elijah Martin
this lol go get let OP you sexless incel virgin loser beta
Aiden Roberts
laid*
Cooper Davis
>Economy is larger No, women still buy the same shit they did with their husband's money, they just basically lower the average pay since employers have more employees to pick from and don't have to be afraid to say "you don't like the pay, go elsewhere". They only need someone to do the job passably so even if women don't flock to a field, they pressure men to go there from other fields they do flock to.
It's like you think women didn't spend money on shit just because they were supported by someone.
>More worker =/= lower wages See above. They flood the market with cheap, low skill labor to pressure high pay workers to accept less or be replaced by a cheaper alternative only to be replaced anyway when they approach collecting on some corporate benefits package.
>Lower taxes = higher wages
I'll give you a "technically yes" there but still hold the belief it does little to actually solve the issues and is little more that a bandaid on the whole thing.
>Motherhood = watching TV/running dishwasher
That's a pretty neglectful way of parenting devoid of meaningful contact but I suppose if that's how you want to raise your kids, they'll just suffer for it later. Usually a parent would at least do stuff with their kids, the lack of that in recent generations has basically stunted close interpersonal relationships between a child and their parents. Maybe read your kids a book? Do a few drawings with them? Teach them how to ride a bike or something else that will build lasting memories and inspire some healthy human interaction?
It's actually a little sad talking to you after finding out what your idea of parenting is...
Landon Ortiz
So back to the topic at hand, we have tax benefits with an idea about rewarding stay at home parents to encourage families to have someone at home to raise the kids. I think maybe cutting some dependant benefits for single parents might have some pros and cons worth looking into though thoughtlessly doing so would just leave people with even more stuggle, a direct "women go home" approach would be shot down and while many women are inferior workers, they still have a exceptions where the man in the relationship is just not the better one to be the bread winner so I feel like trying a more honestly egalitarian approach to getting women and the occasional men who aren't contributing enough in the labor market to seek a more supporting role at home is called for.
Subverting the gender quotas and malicious hiring practices seems like a good point to hit though nothing I can think of right now would be worth the downsides I could see happening elsewhere in families falling heavily on government dependence or just floundering completely.
Any new ideas?
Dominic Bennett
Use the equality bs on them as soon as possible so they can't counteract
