Davis Aurini - The Economics of Women in the Workforce

Jan. 13, 2012 - Davis Aurini

21:29

The Economics of Women in the Workforce

So - women have entered the workforce. How has that affected the economy (in other words, our net wealth)? It benefited us, right? Right??? 1. Depressed wages 2. Monetized domestic industry 3. Displaced male education 4. Displaced male earnings & status 5. Disincentivized men from working www.staresattheworld.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know, I hate to say it.
	It's sad, really, but you need to start off any video like this with a caveat.
	And the caveat is that individuals are important, but demographics are destiny.
	Yes, you are a special little snowflake.
	We all are.
	We're all unique.
	But when you take a thousand of us, we adhere to a bell curve.
	If you're a woman who is brilliant and a writer and an artist and an engineer or whatever that you are, this isn't meant to insult you or say that you can't do it or anything like that.
	We are talking about demographics here.
	We're talking about a million people, not you or me.
	I'm talking about the big picture here.
	So please keep that in mind.
	So, caveat done with.
	It shouldn't be controversial to point out that men and women are different, but quite unfortunately, it is very, very controversial to point that out.
	Every year, every six months, a new study comes out showing that we cogitate differently, that we excel at different tasks, that we emote differently, we relate differently, we sexualize differently.
	And yet, pointing out this obvious truth that we all know, that men and women are different, is politically incorrect.
	And people just knee-jerk want to argue with you as soon as you say it, even though they know it to be true.
	Go ask any gay man, he'll back me up.
	Chicks and dudes are different.
	That said, however, in this video, regarding the economics of women entering the workforce, let's forget about all of it.
	Let's only look at men and women as being different in their sexuality.
	Namely, that men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, sweetness, kindness, empathy, all of those wonderful feminine traits.
	Whereas women are attracted to strength, to wealth, to power, to competence.
	The word virility stems from the Latin word vir or weir, which meant great man.
	And a great man was a man of accomplishment, of passion, an alpha male.
	And the second side effect of that being, quite frankly, women give birth and tend to be more emotionally available to children than men are, young children.
	So, with that caveat and that premacy out of the way, which I hope you don't find hugely morally objectionable, let's move forward with this.
	Let's look at what happens to an economy, and we're going to be a little bit hypothetical here.
	We're going to take a hypothetical economy in 1950 where all the men worked and all the women stayed at home raising kids to an instantaneous overnight shift to the 2010 economy where you have essentially 50-50 male-female workplace participation.
	We're going to simplify it.
	It did take, you know, probably 30, 40 years before it became 50-50, but we're going to simplify it.
	What are the effects of this?
	Now, I would say that there are five major effects from this.
	Very first one, depressed wages.
	Now, in 1950, our hypothetical 1950, let's say there were a million people.
	500,000 of them were working because 500,000 were men.
	500,000 were at home not working, not earning wages, not paying taxes.
	All of a sudden, overnight, all those women, all 500,000 of them, enter the workforce.
	What happens?
	Depressed wages.
	Because you see, here's the thing, is the demand for goods does not change overnight when those women enter the workforce.
	The demand for houses, for clothing, for food, for entertainment products, for kids' products, that demand remains mostly constant.
	There might be a slight uptick for luxury goods for women.
	There might be a slight uptick for housing for single women.
	But overall, the demand for those goods remains fairly level.
	Labor, on the other hand, the price of labor all of a sudden gets cut in half.
	You have a million people working now instead of 500,000.
	Price of labor goes down.
	That's why in 1950, a guy could easily afford to support his stay-at-home wife, whereas now, two-income families is the norm.
	You didn't get any more money by entering the workforce, ladies.
	You just cut your husband's paycheck down.
	So that's the first effect.
	The second effect, it monetized domestic industries.
	There's a myth nowadays about the alienation of suburbia.
	There's a whole TV series, Desperate Housewives, all about it.
	And quite frankly, in today's world, if you're a stay-at-home mom, you know what, you are alienated.
	You're the only stay-at-home mum.
	Everybody else drives dutifully down to their corporate, cut-out office jobs and leaves you alone with an empty house and an empty front lawn and an empty street and three kids to look after.
	So yeah, it's alienating nowadays.
	But in 1950, it was anything but.
	Homemaking has never been an eight-hour in a day job.
	Even before all these amazing conveniences, most of which were invented in the 50s, washing machines, dishwashers, running water, microwaves, etc., etc.
	Even before all of this, homemaking was not eight hours a day, four hours tops.
	Women weren't sitting around with their thumbs up their asses back then.
	Your grandmothers were productive.
	They were involved in community organizations.
	They would babysit one another's kids for free.
	The kids would socialize with different adults.
	They would be, they'd be pickling, they'd be pickling cucumbers, or they'd be running a little garden in the backyard.
	They'd be doing all of this different stuff all day, all of this productive stuff that drives society forward, but they wouldn't be getting a paycheck for it.
	They wouldn't be getting taxed for it.
	Nowadays, women can't afford to stay home and raise their own kids.
	They hire a daycare worker.
	Instead of a volunteer drop-in center to deal with wayward youth, all of a sudden we have this huge industry of paid bureaucrats.
	It's all getting taxed.
	It's all inflating those dog fuckers at the top.
	But I don't really see it benefiting you or me down here at the bottom right now.
	You women used to create a lot of wealth.
	Now, you create the same wealth, except you're getting taxed for it, and you're raising somebody else's kids.
	So that's the second effect of women in the workforce.
	The monetization of domestic industries.
	Now, the third effect is displacing men from education.
	Now, if, once again, if we go back to these immigrants, these one million immigrants that come in, at first they're going to displace the men, or displace the natives, but then the university institution will expand to accept them into it.
	Right?
	But that's because the demand doubled.
	As things stand, demand is not doubling.
	We have the same demand we did before, and there's only so many engineering positions out there, only so many scientist positions out there.
	Now, if we completely ignore biology for a second and just talk about women as their own merit as individuals, then yes, they absolutely do deserve the same opportunity to earn the same income as men do based upon their moral beings, right?
	It's not that simple, though.
	Because of child rearing.
	Here's the thing: when a man gets an engineering degree, they generally tend to be an engineer for the next 40 years.
	When a woman gets an engineering degree, it's a crapshoot.
	Sometimes they are an engineer for the next 40 years.
	They take full advantage of their training, the mentorship from their bosses.
	But as often as not, they drop out around the age 27, 28, 30 to raise kids.
	So all that time and energy invested in how to teach them this very specific skill is utterly wasted.
	They don't make the most of their training, be it at university or be it on the job.
	You train a female manager, she's a great manager for five years, and just as you're ready to promote her to district manager, she gets married and goes part-time and maybe comes back in five years or ten years or something like that.
	It's an immense waste of energy.
	All of these women that are getting degrees that they never actually use, it's insane.
	Are we so rich that we can just throw money down the well like this?
	Learning to be an engineer certainly doesn't help you be a bitter mother.
	So, that's the third point.
	Women are displacing men who would maximize their use of education and not making the most of the education they get.
	This is even getting involved with the fact that most women take utterly useless, socially destructive English degrees.
	Now, the fourth point is that they displace men from wages.
	So, women entering the workforce doing the same work as men, they I'm sure you've heard the 70 cents on a dollar canard.
	Actually, women earn about $1.05 for every dollar a man earns on the rare occasion that they work as many hours and as hard as he does.
	I haven't seen that many female coal miners, is all I can say.
	But let's just pretend it's equal, there's no bias.
	Alright, so they've displaced men from wages.
	Men and women now earn the same degree, the same amount of money.
	They can afford the exact same shitty Mazda 3 on lease.
	Okay.
	Here's the problem, though.
	Men are attracted to youth, and sweetness, and femininity, and beauty, etc. etc.
	Women are attracted to status.
	Women don't want to fuck a loser, which is normal, which is healthy.
	But when a woman earns her Mazda III herself, suddenly any guy with a Mazda III, he's not up to snuff.
	By earning as much money as men do, you women limit your available dating pool.
	All of a sudden, you only find men richer than you attractive.
	But since it's a meritocracy and there's just as many rich women as there are rich guys, you can't find a guy who's attractive.
	So instead of going for the hard-working, beta-male, honest, nice guy because he had a really sexy car, all of a sudden, you're so desperate because you can't get the guy at the top, he can fuck whoever he wants.
	You're going to go for the badass guy at the bottom.
	You're going to go pursue the biker.
	You're going to pursue the asshole, the Tucker Max of the world.
	And if you do find a nice guy that works the same job to marry, he's not going to turn you on.
	You're not going to want to be feminine around him.
	not going to be happy around him because he does not make your gina tingle throughout history men spent most of their money on women Earning a whole bunch of money for women is not a wonderful effect for you.
	You can buy some nice dresses and some shitty magazines, but that's about all it gets you.
	Now, I admit that point number four there, that they displace male workers, is a social effect, but it leads up to point number five, which is another economic effect.
	It disincentivizes men from working.
	Now, here's something women didn't realize back in the 50s and 60s.
	These feminists burning their bras and publishing books and showing up on TV.
	And You know what?
	I know that you women think that what guys do is glamorous.
	When we're working on a car and we're covered with grease and we're sexy as all fucking hell, it's glamorous, ain't it?
	The reality is working sucks.
	Most jobs suck.
	Most people hate their jobs.
	And I'm sure that most of you women out there would agree with me on this.
	See, these feminists back in the 50s and 60s, they all worked glamorous jobs.
	They all had university degrees and they published books and they were famous and they were getting so much attention handed over to them.
	They had wonderful jobs.
	And you know what?
	The upper quartile of IQ women can earn glamorous jobs.
	My ex was a biologist.
	She got to go study burrowing owls and it was exciting and sexy and fun.
	But you know what?
	The vast majority of people out there aren't that bright.
	Do you know that 50% of them have an IQ below 100?
	Jobs suck.
	Most jobs are horrible.
	I have a pretty good job.
	I'd still rather be at home making YouTube videos.
	And so that's the ugly truth of the whole matter.
	Is that aside from a few lucky people, working is not fun.
	So why throughout history have men worked so hard to build empires and dig coal mines and do all this insane drudgery, this mind-numbing paperwork?
	Why have we done all that?
	Well, it's because we got to come home to a beautiful, sweet, loving, kind woman and our terrific children.
	It was worth it.
	See, that's the sexual system that evolution gave us, is that we will go through hell and back for the sake of a wife and kids.
	Now, all of a sudden, because you've displaced male workers, because you're making as much money as men, working at a really, really shitty job does not guarantee one marital bliss.
	This isn't even getting into the whole divorce industry that makes a profit when people are miserable.
	No, it doesn't, it doesn't guarantee you happiness having a job anymore.
	Having, if you're...
	If you're an ADIQ dude, you work at a box factory.
	Guess what?
	All those ADIQ women are fucking the 100 IQ guys working at the management of the box factory.
	And very quickly, men are figuring this out, that they don't need to work hard.
	Combined with the sexual revolution, opening up lakes across the country for cocks everywhere, it's more efficient for a man to learn game and sleep with a lot of whores than to be a good and loving and loyal husband because attracting an equal woman is impossible nowadays.
	An equal woman earns as much money as he does and thus expects a higher status male and won't give him the time of day.
	So why should men work?
	We don't require that much money to live.
	We don't have kids.
	We just need to pay for our motorcycle and our beer and our video games, and we can chill the fuck out and watch as society declines all around us.
	Working used to give us the things that meant something to us in life.
	Nowadays, if you're not part of the top 30% or so, you've got no guarantee of those things.
	Makes no sense to work.
	And you women end up working all these horrid, shitty jobs that you hate while bitching with your girlfriends because you can't find a good man.
	When 50 years ago, when you didn't work, you did find a good man and got to enjoy marital lists and got to do things that mattered all day.
	And for those rare women that were artists or scientists, just all-around geniuses that had a passion to pursue, they still pursued those passions 50 years ago, 200 years ago.
	Women have always been part of the workforce when they wanted to be.
	But they didn't have to be.
	Now, thanks to feminist social engineering.
	Women do have to be part of the workforce.
	You do have to support yourself.
	And because of the effect that earning your own income has on your sexuality, you don't get gynotangles for equal guys.
	So guys are lacking the incentive to build empires.
	We'll just sit around playing video games instead of conquering the Gaulish tribes.
	So, was it all worth it?
	Well, I guess soaks.
	We're equal nowadays, right?

▲