The economics of women in the workforce

[Cornfed]

In this youtube video, obvious truths about the consequences of females in the workforce are explained. This guy is cool. It is good to see there are some awesome people left in the world.

[Ghost]

.

[Cornfed]

Here is another interesting video from this guy entitled The Corporate Boyfriend. It is good to see a lot of people are waking up to this stuff, a bit like the hundredth monkey syndrome.

[Cornfed]

This guy actually used the word "Churchianity" in one of his videos. I wonder if he is one of us or reads this forum.

[Cornfed]

Another good one entitled Men of the West. He is not telling us anything we don't already know, but it is good to hear it spelled out again.

[Anthropolonerd]

This man puts ice in his scotch which probably is red label or some shit. Anything he says is automatically dumb.

Regardless of the automation, it is also dumb on content. Whatever he says is already well-known in economics and the free market more or less guarantees that these things are fair. I.e. in a fair market, women get paid less. Paying women less is fair, unless she is sterile and can prove it. Also "socially destructive english degrees". lolwut? lol.

The problem isn't women, the problem is affirmative action, minimum wage, forced equal pay for equal work and most forms of government intervention in the free market.

[Cornfed]

This man puts ice in his scotch which probably is red label or some shit. Anything he says is automatically dumb.

Regardless of the automation, it is also dumb on content. Whatever he says is already well-known in economics and the free market more or less guarantees that these things are fair. I.e. in a fair market, women get paid less. Paying women less is fair, unless she is sterile and can prove it. Also "socially destructive english degrees". lolwut? lol.

The problem isn't women, the problem is affirmative action, minimum wage, forced equal pay for equal work and most forms of government intervention in the free market.

Surely you are basically agreeing with what he is saying. There are some industries where roles have been automated to the point where females perform better than men (e.g. as lab techs, dump truck drivers etc.). They are basically a bridge between men doing the job and the job being completely automated. However, it should nonetheless be illegal to give females those jobs because doing so is socially destructive.

[Anthropolonerd]

This man puts ice in his scotch which probably is red label or some shit. Anything he says is automatically dumb.

Regardless of the automation, it is also dumb on content. Whatever he says is already well-known in economics and the free market more or less guarantees that these things are fair. I.e. in a fair market, women get paid less. Paying women less is fair, unless she is sterile and can prove it. Also "socially destructive english degrees". lolwut? lol.

The problem isn't women, the problem is affirmative action, minimum wage, forced equal pay for equal work and most forms of government intervention in the free market.

Surely you are basically agreeing with what he is saying. There are some industries where roles have been automated to the point where females perform better than men (e.g. as lab techs, dump truck drivers etc.). They are basically a bridge between men doing the job and the job being completely automated. However, it should nonetheless be illegal to give females those jobs because doing so is socially destructive.

Tbh this guy sounds like a total dickhead (and so do you).

If females are better at the job than men, as you say, what is the point of making it illegal for them to do it? Almost all forms of government intervention are bad. Making things illegal which are productive is generally not the wa to go.

I doubt very much that there is some sort of significant relationship between gender and job productivity though. Where is the evidence?

[Anthropolonerd]

This man puts ice in his scotch which probably is red label or some shit. Anything he says is automatically dumb.

Regardless of the automation, it is also dumb on content. Whatever he says is already well-known in economics and the free market more or less guarantees that these things are fair. I.e. in a fair market, women get paid less. Paying women less is fair, unless she is sterile and can prove it. Also "socially destructive english degrees". lolwut? lol.

The problem isn't women, the problem is affirmative action, minimum wage, forced equal pay for equal work and most forms of government intervention in the free market.

Surely you are basically agreeing with what he is saying. There are some industries where roles have been automated to the point where females perform better than men (e.g. as lab techs, dump truck drivers etc.). They are basically a bridge between men doing the job and the job being completely automated. However, it should nonetheless be illegal to give females those jobs because doing so is socially destructive.

Tbh this guy sounds like a total dickhead.

If females are better at the job than men, as you say, what is the point of making it illegal for them to do it? Almost all forms of government intervention are bad. Making things illegal which are productive is generally not the wa to go.

I doubt very much that there is some sort of significant relationship between gender and job productivity though. Where is the evidence?

[Cornfed]

If females are better at the job than men, as you say, what is the point of making it illegal for them to do it?

Because we need them as wives, mothers and community builders. If a female is earning a lot of money driving a dump truck all the hours God sends, then she is not going to have time to raise children and is going to regard men earning less money than her as being losers who are unworthy of marrying her. Therefore she will become a barren, worthless slut. Similarly, the men being displaced will not be able to become patriarchs and support a family. Hence such policies lead to the destruction and eventual extinction of societies that tolerate them. Stopping this from happening is no more interventionist than stopping people from robbing gas stations or whatever. Another problem is that innovation comes from the factory floor, and females can't innovate. A guy like me might not be able to drive modern automatic dump trucks quite as well as the average female, but I might be able to see how the mine could be run better, thus moving society forward. If you replace men with literal and biological robots (i.e. females) you stop this from happening.

[Anthropolonerd]

If females are better at the job than men, as you say, what is the point of making it illegal for them to do it?

Because we need them as wives, mothers and community builders. If a female is earning a lot of money driving a dump truck all the hours God sends, then she is not going to have time to raise children and is going to regard men earning less money than her as being losers who are unworthy of marrying her. Therefore she will become a barren, worthless slut. Similarly, the men being displaced will not be able to become patriarchs and support a family. Hence such policies lead to the destruction and eventual extinction of societies that tolerate them. Stopping this from happening is no more interventionist than stopping people from robbing gas stations or whatever. Another problem is that innovation comes from the factory floor, and females can't innovate. A guy like me might not be able to drive modern automatic dump trucks quite as well as the average female, but I might be able to see how the mine could be run better, thus moving society forward. If you replace men with literal and biological robots (i.e. females) you stop this from happening.

We? I don't need them as wives, mothers or community builders. What gives you the right to force others to do what you want them to? The comparison to a robbery is totally inane as well.

If you are so good at innovating, why haven't you done it and made a lot of money? Men who have the capacity to (entrepreneurs, inventors etc) will innovate regardless of whether a woman is driving a goddamn automatic dump truck.

[Cornfed]

We? I don't need them as wives, mothers or community builders.

Actually you do. You are just so caught up with the death cult of modernity that you don't realize it.

What gives you the right to force others to do what you want them to?

It is a question of survival. Societies survive by decent men keeping others in line. If this does not happen they go extinct. Personally I would prefer it if Western civilization did not go extinct. If you would prefer it if it does then I guess there is nothing more to be said.

If you are so good at innovating, why haven't you done it and made a lot of money?

Because men like me are generally kept out of roles in which we could innovate for the reasons given. Incidentally, you are not necessarily rewarded for innovating. I know a guy who came up with brilliant innovations for how a factory could operate. The result was essentially that he innovated himself out of a job, since his innovations had rendered the work idiot-proof, so idiots could do the job as well as he could.

[Cornfed]

Here is another home run. He explains the economic reality we currently have.

[publicduende]

If you are so good at innovating, why haven't you done it and made a lot of money?

Because men like me are generally kept out of roles in which we could innovate for the reasons given. Incidentally, you are not necessarily rewarded for innovating. I know a guy who came up with brilliant innovations for how a factory could operate. The result was essentially that he innovated himself out of a job, since his innovations had rendered the work idiot-proof, so idiots could do the job as well as he could.

Pornfed, by now it should be absolutely clear that even a forum newbie can perfectly read your arguments and come to a veritable conclusion on your obsessive desire to blame women for failures and issues that should be solely attributed to you (and perhaps some obscure life event we know nothing about).

Many of us innovate, thrive and even find love without women getting in the way. For cod's sake I'm not the most successful man on Earth but I have never had a woman stand between my and my dreams. I made mistakes like everybody else and had setback like everybody else, and tried to beat my chest and learn from them. I have never blamed this or that category of fellow human beings, and never could because that would equate to learning nothing and being likely to repeat that mistake again.

Sometimes you really don't see how pathetic many of your posts have become. It's just sad to read you going on about the same tired stories, the same obsessive fantasies and the same blame game in any topic even faintly related to the economy, the job industry, society, etc.

I could agree with you on your friend who innovated himself out of his current job: so what have women got to do with this? In a healthy society that's what should happen to smart people: they learn on the job, they learn how a job could be improved on and, if they have the guts and the right entrepreneurial skills, they will try to set up shop on their own to leverage their skills.

[Cornfed]

Pornfed, by now it should be absolutely clear that even a forum newbie can perfectly read your arguments and come to a veritable conclusion on your obsessive desire to blame women for failures and issues that should be solely attributed to you (and perhaps some obscure life event we know nothing about).

Many of us innovate, thrive and even find love without women getting in the way.

In general in the modern world, the only people capable of innovating in a commercially viable way are bored rich guys and guys who have had a truck load of government/corporate money spent on supporting them. There are a shrinking number of both of these opportunities available. Biotechnology, the field I should have gone into, has been dead in the water for a couple of decades. There is no doubt in my mind or the minds of most people who know me that I could have made a great contribution, but there was no opportunity to contribute and indeed nothing really to contribute to. That the few entry level positions available are given to women is a problem, although admittedly only part of the problem.

I could agree with you on your friend who innovated himself out of his current job: so what have women got to do with this?

Nothing directly as the work is too hard to be done by women and so is now done by other men (Indian immigrants, to be specific). I was just pointing out that life and the system isn't necessarily fair and often people are exploited. However, there are instances where innovations like this would not even have happened in the first place because non-innovative women would be doing the job, whereas the men who could have innovated would be unemployed.

In a healthy society that's what should happen to smart people: they learn on the job, they learn how a job could be improved on and, if they have the guts and the right entrepreneurial skills, they will try to set up shop on their own to leverage their skills.

Yes, in a healthy society the bankers would lend the guy about $100M to set up a factory to compete with their own existing clients based on his track record of innovation, but we both know we are not living in such a society, right?