Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneux/our-economy-runs-on-womens-unpaid-work-sandi-toksvig-rebutted"I recently delivered the annual Adam Smith lecture in Kirkcaldy, Fife. It was the first time a woman had been trusted to give this economics lecture all by herself. As a marvellous bagpiper led the way, it struck me that this might be my glass cliff moment. Because, let’s face it, I’m not an obvious choice for such a task. But with men now making up two-thirds of economics students, all but one of the Nobel prizewinners for economics having been a man and every single British chancellor of the exchequer somehow having been required to be a boy, then finding a woman might have been tricky.By happy coincidence, I chose as the subject of my lecture women’s exclusion from the formal economy. Or as I like to call it, our grossly undervalued domestic product (GUDP). Never, as it happens, has this been more relevant than now, as the full horror of the gender pay gap is revealed. I have so enjoyed watching the debate unfold. Highlights include accusing women of conflating pay discrimination with the gender pay gap – silly women! – though nobody benefits more from this apparent “confusion” than the companies evading legal action.Better still are those bemoaning the lack of explanatory data, while dogmatically concluding that the gender pay gap has nothing to do with discrimination in hiring or promotion decisions. And my absolute favourite – let’s not forget the pro-choicers. These are the three women on this planet whose privilege and adoration of unfettered capitalism leads them to infer that women simply choose to work for less, and guarantees them a slot on every talkshow “in the interest of balance”.But the pay gap isn’t the choice of women. It is both a cause and consequence of gender inequality. In many respects it is more important than pay discrimination because it shines a light on the deep structural inequalities in every part of our society and economy."▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/investing-jobs-women-gender-pay-gap
I know, it's the Guardian, it's slim pickings, but there's a lot of errors in this that I think are well worth explicating.
This is from Sandy Toxtvig.
She is a woman with three children, who's a lesbian, and she wrote...
The gender pay gap isn't the half of it.
Our economy runs on women's unpaid work.
Unpaid work.
Dun-dun-dun!
She says, I call it our grossly undervalued domestic product.
The caring support and childcare women do without seeing a penny.
It's time we recognized it.
So, it's fascinating, without seeing a penny.
What she's saying, of course, is that women take care of children and run households And receive absolutely no money while they're doing it.
Which kind of begs the question, why are women so overweight?
If they're doing all this work for free, shouldn't they be kind of half-starved to death?
Because you see, they're not getting any money for taking care of children.
Ha ha.
Let's find out.
So she says, I recently delivered the annual Adam Smith, I guess causing a distant grave to explode.
I recently delivered the annual Adam Smith lecture in Kirkcaldy, Fife.
It was the first time a woman had been trusted to give this economics lecture all by herself.
Ooh, the snarky bits are strong with this one.
As a marvelous bagpiper led the way, it struck me that this might be my glass cliff moment, because let's face it, I'm not an obvious choice for such a task.
But with men now making up two-thirds of economic students, all but one of the Nobel Prize winners for economics having been a man, and every single British Chancellor of the Exchequer somehow having been required to be a boy, then finding a woman might have been tricky.
Okay, so again, it's just snarky, snarky, difference, difference, snarky, snarky, difference, difference.
And, you know, as usual, I'm going to go out on a limb here, she's a feminist.
As usual, she looks at all of the nice, advantageous, well-paid sinecures or jobs, and says, where are the women?
She doesn't look at say all of the professions where 90% of the workplace fatalities accrue to men and say, where are the women?
Where are the women who are out there doing deep oil drilling?
Where are the women who are out there hauling frozen tuna at 400 pounds a frozen bit?
Why do they say tuna fish?
I mean, doesn't everybody already know?
That a tuna is a fish?
You don't say chicken bird.
Anyway.
So where are the women who are doing all of the dangerous work?
See, they don't want that work.
They want all the other stuff.
So they'll look at the gap where there are more men than women, and they'll say, where are the women if they want the jobs?
If they look at where there are more men than women and they don't want the jobs, they say nothing.
As I said before, I have a game with my daughter after an ice storm when the power's out.
Is we drive around, or if we're driving around, we say, hey, let's play Spotlight Women, bringing electricity of the 21st century back to the neighborhood.
And we've yet to find one.
All right.
Oh, and just this economics lecture all by herself.
All by herself.
So she says, by happy coincidence, I chose as the subject of my lecture, women's exclusion from the formal economy.
Or as I like to call it, our grossly undervalued domestic product.
Never, as it happens, has this been more relevant than now, as the full horror of the gender pay gap is revealed.
I have so enjoyed watching the debate unfold.
Highlights include accusing women of conflating pay discrimination with the gender pay gap.
Silly women!
Though nobody benefits more from this apparent confusion than the companies evading legal action.
Well, that's interesting.
I found that quite interesting.
Evading legal action.
So if women are underpaid, according to, and look, everyone's underpaid.
Everybody wants to make more money.
The idea that there's some objective value for what it is that you do is a complete fantasy.
There is zero objective value for what you do.
Value is entirely, completely, and totally subjective.
If you've just drunk four bottles of water, nobody wants, you won't want to buy another bottle of water.
If you're out in the desert, you'll probably pay quite a lot for a bottle of water if you're really thirsty and don't have any.
Value is entirely subjective.
And so there's no fair wage, there's no fair price.
It's whatever you negotiate for.
Thinking that you deserve something that you're not willing to negotiate for and earn is called being entitled.
And it's actually pretty nasty.
Like if I think women should just date me because I'm such a wonderful guy.
It's true, but sorry, I'm married.
If I think that women should date me because I'm just such a wonderful guy, and if they don't, want to date me, I take legal action against them.
Or if they don't date me in the way that I like, I take legal action against them.
People would say I would be a horrifying, horrible creep, and they'd be kind of right.
And so what she's saying here is companies are evading legal action.
In other words, if women don't negotiate for what they want, if they can't negotiate for what they want, they run to the government, they run to the police, they run to the law courts, all of which are part of the patriarchy, in order to get what they want.
I don't get what I want, so I'm going to run to men to give it to me.
Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing the empowerment in that.
But of course, that's the point, right?
So, she says, better still are those bemoaning the lack of explanatory data, while dogmatically concluding that the gender pay gap has nothing to do with discrimination in hiring or promoting promotion decisions.
And my absolute favorite, let's not forget the pro-choicers.
These are the three women on this planet whose privilege and adoration of unfettered capitalism leads them to infer that women simply choose to work for less and guarantees them a slot on every talk show in the interest of balance.
so she doesn't like the women who who disagree with her and you see the only reason that any woman would disagree with her because you see she's very pro-woman so the only reason that a woman would disagree with her is because that woman is privileged and they adore unfettered capitalism so leftist imaginary pedestal talking point called privilege and
An argument based upon other people have just weird feels that are wrong.
Adoration of unfettered capitalism.
Gee, I can't imagine why there aren't more female prominent economists.
Very strange.
That women simply choose to work for less.
Well, I don't know what that means.
In the free market, if you can't negotiate for more, you end up working for less.
I don't know what to say.
You know, there's... I think it was Steven Soderbergh who made the first Ocean's Eleven remake, and his argument was, you know, there used to be all these movies with big movie stars, lots of big movie stars in them, but now movie stars are so expensive.
That you can't have a movie with a whole bunch of big movie stars in it.
So he went to the actors and he said, would you willing to work a little less in order to work with other movie stars?
And I think that they did.
So they chose to work for less for the sake of some other particular cause.
Maybe they wanted to work with their friends, right?
Like Matt Damon, I think is friends with George Clooney, who is friends with Leftist Evil.
And so if they wanted to work together, they couldn't, you can't really afford them both for movies.
So, so they chose to work for less.
I don't really, I can really understand this.
If you, if you accept the job and you accept the pay, you're choosing the job and the pay.
Like, I don't really know what to say.
When I was a waiter, I made money based upon how well I pleased the customers.
It's one of the essential customer satisfaction things that everybody should go through.
But I mean, choose to work for less.
I don't know what that means.
If you're willing to accept a lower salary, less than what?
You get paid what you negotiate for.
There's no objective third-party physics that says what you're worth.
You get what you negotiate for.
You know, I ask for people to support what it is that I'm doing in this show.
And a few of you do, a lot of you don't, to be honest with you.
And, uh, it's a little parasitical, you know, it's a, I mean, you know, if you're just starting out great, enjoy.
But if you enjoy the work that I put out and you don't contribute a penny, you really are relying on other people doing the right thing in order for you to gain this kind of education.
So you really should, you know, New Year's resolution, have more integrity in this realm.
Freedomainradio.com forward slash donate to help me out.
Thank you very much.
So the pay gap isn't the choice of women.
It is both a cause and consequence of gender inequality.
In many respects, it is more important than pay discrimination because it shines a light on the deep structural inequalities in every part of our society and economy.
So the pay gap isn't the choice of women.
So the jobs that women choose and the pay that they are willing to accept has nothing to do with the choice of women.
I don't really understand what that means.
Do women have no agency?
Do women have no choice?
Can women not negotiate for more?
Are women fundamentally unable to ask for what they want?
I don't know.
It seems kind of weird to me.
Now, are we going to get any facts coming up?
No, not really.
What we're going to get is lovely little touching anecdotes.
You know, little hallmark cards and so on, so that you feel gushy and women are wonderful, sentimental.
So she says, on my way to the lecture, I stopped at the Cottage Family Center in Kirkcaldy.
This wonderful community service was set up by a group of local parents.
in 1987 and provides a lifeline to poor families in the area.
That sounds very nice.
In 2016, its Christmas appeal provided food and presents to 300 children.
But last year, as many as 800 children and families needed its help.
When they recently learned that they had lost one of their funding streams, the extraordinary women who work there offered to take a pay cut so that their community wouldn't suffer.
Okay, seems nice, I guess.
Funding streams, I assume that that's just government money.
So, you know, if you're taking government money, just understand that you're at the receiving end of blood money taken from other people by force at the point of a gun.
Right?
I mean, just understand that.
I mean, if you're out there asking, I don't take government funding, I ask people for what it is that I want, which is funding to do these shows, to do these documentaries and so on.
So I ask and freedomainradio.com forward slash donate is how you can help out.
So you go out and ask people and they can say yes or they can say no.
Now, I don't know if these people get money from the government, but I'm pretty sure that they do.
And so if, yeah, if they don't get enough coerced money, now they take, offer to take a pay cut so that their community wouldn't suffer.
So the pay gap isn't the choice of women.
They offered to take a pay cut.
I'm having trouble squaring this particular circle.
If the pay gap isn't the choice of women, but women voluntarily offered to take a pay cut, how on earth is the pay gap not the choice of women?
Let's find out, shall we?
I'm sure there'll be more.
All right.
The cottage, this is the charity she's talking about, is a stark reminder that poverty is gendered.
Most of the people it serves are women and children who've been first in line of fire for austerity.
Now we are starting to get some kind of explanation here.
The mystery is beginning to unfurl.
The fog is beginning to part.
Most of the people it serves are women and children.
So where are the husbands and the fathers?
Women and children.
So if you're a single mother, there's basically only two possibilities.
Number one, you had a child with a guy who's an asshole, and he didn't stick around and he ran off.
And yeah, he's a bad guy for doing that.
But let's look at the basic facts that women control access to sexuality in society, at least in the Western society, not so much in other societies.
So, if you are a single mom, then you either had a kid with a guy who was an asshole, in which case, you're irresponsible.
Yeah, he's irresponsible, absolutely right, but you chose to have sex with the guy.
You chose to date him, you chose to have sex with him, you chose to have unprotected sex with him, I assume, and you got pregnant, and then he buggered off, right?
So, I don't know, I just, I really have a tough time with this, because for me, Who women have sex with is their choice.
And it's a pretty big important choice, right?
Because if women have sex with irresponsible men, irresponsibility is to some degree genetic, like conscientiousness.
Every aspect of personality has some genetic component.
And so they are literally breeding irresponsible people as a whole, in general, lots of exceptions.
So who men choose to Make babies with is foundational as to whether or not we, say, get to keep a civilization or not, because massive irresponsibility.
People need self-restraint in order for civilization to work.
So most of the people it serves are women and children who've been first in line of fire for austerity.
Now, the other possibility, or the other way that you could become a single mother is you could have a baby with a good guy with a guy who loves you who cares for you who wants to provide for you and so on well I guess in which case where is he gone why did he Leave you?
Or why did you leave him?
If you had a baby with a guy who's a good guy and he's not around, then either you drove him away or you ran away.
So either you had a baby with an asshole or you had a baby with a good guy.
If you had a baby with an asshole, you're responsible for that.
If you drove away a good guy, you're responsible for that.
But you see, that is not the kind of responsibility that profits feminists, right?
So, why are they women and children?
Because, as Sophie Walker, leader of the Women's Equality Party, has repeatedly pointed out, and I quote, while tax cuts are benefiting men, benefit cuts are harming women.
Blinding flash of light.
Illumination.
Isn't that fascinating?
So, what is she saying here?
While tax cuts are benefiting men, benefit cuts are harming women.
And that's it.
That's the whole con.
That's the whole game in a nutshell.
So tax cuts are benefiting men because men are paying the taxes.
Benefit cuts are harming women because women are collecting taxes through force, through the power of the state, from men.
So how are they not being paid for anything?
If they're getting money from the state, taken primarily from men, Through the power and force of the state.
How can she say that taking care of children doesn't get women a penny, and at the same time saying that benefit cuts are harming women?
You know, benefits are... are money.
This is the woman who wants to give the Adam Smith... She wants to give the Adam Smith... I'm sorry.
She wants to give the Adam Smith lecture on economics.
And she doesn't know that government benefits involve money?
Oh my god.
I'm sorry.
Oh my god.
Research carried out by the House of Commons Library in 27 reveal that it is women who have borne 86% of the burden of austerity since 2010.
All right, let's say this all true.
Fine.
Which means that women are disproportionately preying upon male taxpayers.
Which is what she said.
Tax cuts benefit men.
Benefits cuts are harming women.
In other words, the existing system preyed upon men to hand over the blood-soaked government cash to women who had babies with irresponsible guys or drove off good guys and therefore have become dependent on the state.
The brilliant staff who worked at the cottage are overwhelmingly female, no doubt encouraged by an education system that says caring jobs are for women.
And the scarcity of flexible working in other sectors.
More of the mystery is being revealed here.
Caring jobs are for women.
Now this is just nonsense.
Women like to have jobs that involve people and not so much jobs that involve things or math or engineering or computers and so on.
That's exceptions.
But the basic reality is that when women have little economic freedom they tend to be more into Or more employed in sectors like computers and engineering and so on.
But when wealth arises, when educational opportunities arise, when women have more freedom, they tend to concentrate in people-touchy-feely-chatty-caring jobs.
No hate, no problem with it.
We need those jobs to be filled.
But when women have more choice, they tend to choose traditionally female occupation.
Here we go.
The scarcity of flexible working in other sectors.
Now this is a clue because she says well see women's choices have nothing to do with any kind of gender pay gap.
The scarcity of flexible working in other sectors.
So what she means by this is you can't just take time off when you want because your kid is sick.
You can't just leave early because your kid is in a concert.
You can't Just take a week off because your parents are unwell or whatever, right?
So flexible working simply means that you work less.
See, flexible, just understand.
The scarcity of working less randomly in other sectors.
So if you run a restaurant, you need five waiters, let's say.
You have a busy lunch.
If three of your waiters are women and two of them call in sick or say I can't come into work because my kid's sick or whatever, you can't really run your restaurant.
And it's a disaster because it's really really hard to get people to come into a restaurant and sit down and eat.
And it's really really easy for them to never come back if they don't have a good experience.
If their food arrives cold, if the waiters are too slow, if all of that, right?
So flexible working is kind of this weird entitled thing.
It's like I want to have the option to randomly work less than other people And I want this to have no effect on my income or my opportunities.
I mean, can you imagine if benefits randomly went down by 10 or 20% and then went back up and then every now and then just kind of went down for a little while and then went back up, people would go insane.
And it's like, well, no, no, see the people who are processing this all, they just have flexible working arrangements.
So they go insane.
Can you imagine if the people who deliver electricity to housewives at home, you know, you know, Venezuela style or Cuba style, sometimes, you know, it's like, well, no electricity today because, you know, we have flexible working conditions.
So, or imagine if the The mom is scared for her child's health, and the ambulances are like, no, it's flexible, and we don't really feel like driving today.
We have a bit of a headache, and our kids are unwell, and the hospital is closed.
You understand, the women would go insane if their benefits fluctuated, if access to the things they wanted fluctuated.
But for themselves, see, they want all this flexible work.
Now, flexible working means that you can't be essential.
You can't be important.
You can't be foundational.
to whatever is going on.
Right?
So if you have a bunch of dishwashers and some of them are not coming into work because they want flexible working conditions, you can still kind of run your restaurant.
It's a bit tough, but you can.
You can let the dishes pile up and so on.
But you can't, you know, if your cooks don't show up, you can't serve food.
If your waiters don't show up, it's really, really tough to do it.
So if you want flexible working conditions, it means that people can't be relying on you, which means that you can't be doing anything too, too important.
I mean, it's just basic.
If you want to randomly work less than other people, then your bosses need to take that into account and they need to build in redundancies.
Because again, if you have a large female workforce that has kids and has flexible working conditions, guess what?
You have no idea how many are going to show up on any particular day.
So, yeah, and maybe the flexible means same amount of work but whenever I choose or same amount of work but on a rotating schedule.
All of that is additional overhead compared to men who are just basically going to show up and do the damn job.
Anyway.
The relegation of women in our economy means that these sectors are always undervalued and lower paid despite growing demand.
The relegation of women in our economy It's kind of like an estrogen-laced word salad, but I'm going to try and puzzle it out.
The relegation of women in our economy means that these sectors are always undervalued and lower paid despite growing demand.
So caring jobs, she's saying.
So caring jobs are undervalued and lower paid despite growing demand.
I don't know what any of that means.
Okay, I will try and puzzle it out.
So undervalued means that they're what?
You think that the people should be paid more but the market disagrees with you.
Okay, I think philosophers should be paid a million dollars a day.
Unless I check my donations today and am very pleasantly surprised.
Oh look!
I'm undervalued!
I'm undervalued!
And lower paid despite growing demand.
So she has to explain, if there's growing demand, why pay is not going up, right?
So if there's growing demand, then what happens is the pay tends to go up.
If the growing demand is matched by growing supply, then the pay is not likely to go up, right?
So like when women were lured with Marxist breadcrumbs into the hellscape of the modern office, leaving their children, communities, culture, and future, and civilization behind, Then what happened was the wages for men went down because you had a big pouring in of women into the workforce.
And so wages went down and you didn't really end up making a lot of money.
But on the plus side, you did end up dumping your kids in daycare, which destroyed their capacity to bond for the most part.
So undervalued.
I don't know.
So you want women to get paid more.
You know what you can do?
You know, here's a funny thought.
You know, if you want women to get paid more, instead of whining and nagging and wasting internet brain bandwidth on The Guardian, what you can do, my dear, is you can You can start a company and hire a bunch of women.
See, that will increase demand for women and you can pay them a lot rather than complain.
Like I just get kind of tired of people who whine and nag about things rather than doing something about them.
Like I complained a lot about modern philosophy.
So then I went out and started the world's biggest philosophy show to talk about philosophy.
So, I don't know.
One of the reasons that they're lower paid, my dear, is that you're not hiring them much, right?
Or, you know, you're not going out there and saying, I want to hire women with small children to work in my factory or to work in my business or whatever, and make a huge amount of money.
Because here's the thing.
This is what is such a con about this kind of crap.
Is that the leftists say that businesses are just greedy and they're solely motivated by profit.
Right?
Now let's say that women out there can produce $50 an hour worth of value.
Right?
But they're only being paid $10 an hour.
Well, then capitalists should come swarming in and say, wow, that's incredible.
I can make a fortune by hiring women.
Because, you see, they're so greedy.
They're just motivated by cold-eyed, hard-nosed, dry calculations of mutual utility profit, right?
So they're going to come in and they're just going to hire up these women because they're going to make a fortune.
Now that, of course, will bid women's wages up to the point where women will make a lot more.
So you see, businesses are motivated solely by profit, but businesses are so incompetent that they can't figure out how to make more profit from women.
Hmm.
Pick a lane, leftists.
If businesses aren't motivated by profit, then they should be bidding up the wages of women.
If businesses are motivated by profit and women are quote underpaid, then it means that no business can figure out how to make money from more women.
These massive profit motivated businesses cannot figure out how to profit from female labor.
All right, here we go.
Successive governments have prioritized investment in physical infrastructure.
Jobs for the boys!
While social infrastructure nurses, for example, are still seen as an expense to be cut.
Ah, you see?
Physical infrastructure.
Jobs for the boys.
Now, why are those jobs for the boys?
Is it because they're cold?
Is it because they're uncomfortable?
Is it because they're a little dangerous?
Is this why, when you see men working on the roads, you may see one token woman there with a stop sign, chewing gum and looking bored?
Why are they jobs for the boys, my dear?
Why aren't you talking about how women should be going into these hard, demanding, smelly, difficult, dangerous jobs?
Is it because women have 40% less upper body strength than men?
Is it because women are generally physically quite frail?
I don't know.
Could be any number of things.
But why is physical infrastructure jobs for the boys while nurses are jobs for the girls?
Are you going to complain that there aren't enough male nurses?
So she says, I can always tell our economy is in trouble when I watch the news and see the Chancellor of the day put on a hard hat and high-vis vest to announce some big butch.
I'm sorry, I forgot about that part.
laughing Some big butch building project.
That's right.
Highways are lesbian.
It's a butch building project.
Sewage systems, you see.
Well, I guess they're assimilated, I expect.
I mean, good heavens!
It's a butch building project.
Plumbing is lesbian.
Okay.
I could do that all day.
All right.
I hope it makes the guy from number 11 feel like he's doing something, but the truth is it doesn't even make economic sense.
See, it doesn't make economic sense, you see.
Now, I agree with you that what the government does really makes economic sense, for sure.
Because when the government does something, it takes money from people who would otherwise spend money on other things, we know that, because otherwise the government wouldn't do anything.
So it takes money from what people would pay for other things and it applies that money to what the government wants, which is basically Donations from the organized crime units that control construction.
I'm sorry, I'm thinking of Quebec, but anyway.
So, okay, that doesn't make economic sense.
Let's see.
The Women's Budget Group has shown that if you invest 2% of GDP in the care sector, you get double the number of jobs compared to the same investment in construction.
Whoa!
If you invest 2% of the GDP in the care sector, You get double the number of jobs compared to the same investment in construction.
That wouldn't be the case if women had pay equity, as you want, right?
Because one of the reasons you get more jobs in the care sector is because women get paid less in the care sector than men get paid in the construction sector.
So you can choose to have this number, but then you have to defend the pay gap because it's the only way this number works.
If you close the pay gap, you won't get double the number of jobs in the care sector.
But, you know, that may be a bit sophisticated for this Comedian.
I guess she's kind of funny, right?
She's making me laugh.
Let's put it that way.
Now, here's the other interesting thing about that.
How is doubling the number of jobs good for the economy?
How on earth is that good for the economy?
You know how else you could ensure full employment?
Is you could ban any automation in the farming sector.
So the crops had to be planted, had to be seeded, planted, maintained and harvested by hand.
No, none of these combine harvesters, none of these planting machines, none of these airplanes that blow pesticides up your nose.
So you could massively increase the number of jobs that would be needed in society just by eliminating automation in the farming sector.
Would you think we'd get richer or poorer out of that?
Just out of curiosity.
But you see, it's more jobs.
You know, you could also increase the number of jobs by getting a bunch of people to go out and dig holes and fill them back in again for no purpose.
Would that make us wealthier or poorer?
Dear oh dear.
All right.
According to Save the Children, 870,000 mothers would return to the workplace if they could afford child care, reducing out-of-work benefits and increasing the tax base.
So if we give more money to the government, we're somehow going to end up richer.
Yeah.
No, actually quite the opposite has been happening.
Wages have stagnated as government has controlled more and more of the economy.
And in fact, wages have not just stagnated, they've actually massively declined because debt has grown enormously, which taxpayers are going to have to pay for eventually in blood or treasure.
And so 870,000 mothers would return to the workplace if they could afford childcare.
However, uh, If the women put their children in child care, then you need to pay child care workers as well.
Oh, I guess that increases the tax base as well, right?
So, why would mothers want to return to the workplace?
Why?
What's wrong with raising your children?
See, this is the tragic thing, and I'll do a whole show on this, but it's a really, really tragic thing.
Which is when women go to the workplace, they dump their kids in daycare for the most part.
There's some other, but in general, they will dump their kids in daycare.
And what does that mean?
Well, I worked at a daycare for years as a teenager.
And let's just say it's, it's not chock full to the brim of people who really understand and want to transmit Western cultural Religious and moral values, right?
A lot of people who can't really speak English, a lot of people from other countries and other cultures and other races, and you lose the transmission of your culture when you put your kids in low-paid, foreigners' hands, right?
As I said on Twitter a while back ago, could you imagine?
It's your 10th wedding anniversary, your wife is looking forward to a nice evening out with you, and what you do is you send her Some guy named Raoul who barely speaks English.
And you say, she's like, well, what do you, I don't want to go out with this guy.
I mean, this is my anniversary with you.
I want to go out with you.
And you're like, no, no, it doesn't make any difference whether it's me or just some foreigner who barely speaks English.
What does it matter?
And she'd be really, really upset.
Well, that's kind of how your babies feel.
You see, when you, when you dump them in daycare, they want you.
They don't want some other person.
And also, of course, whether it's a foreigner who speaks English or not, let's just say some local person, you can't teach values in daycare because there's so many multicultural kids in daycare that whatever values you teach is going to offend some group.
So you see, getting mothers into the workforce and getting them to dump their kids in daycare is a way of absolutely severing the transmission of cultural values that is required for the maintenance of your civilization.
See, men went and fought and bled and died for the maintenance of cultural values in the West.
Women can't be bothered to raise their own children and transmit those cultural values that way.
So, it's absolutely terrible.
All right, in his autumn budget last year, the Chancellor announced another splurge in infrastructure spending to get Britain driving again, transport, connectivity, upgrading motorways.
On the whole, it is men's jobs that are seen as an investment.
Well, I don't know what her perspective is on mass migration and immigration, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that she's pro mass migration.
Now, you can be pro mass migration, but then you need to spend a massive amount of money on infrastructure, because when you have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people pouring into your country every single year, then you have to build a lot more roads, you have to build a lot more houses, you have to build a lot more infrastructure.
So if you want mass immigration, then you're going to have to give a lot of jobs to boys because there's not going to be a lot of ladies out there wrestling manhole covers into place.
And also, you need to recognize as well, so for the welfare state to work, you need a high IQ population.
High IQ population.
Means that the smarter you are, the more value you get from working, economic value you get from working relative to the welfare state.
But if you have a bunch of lower IQ people in your society, they'll make more money from the welfare state than they will from working.
So if you want mass migration, just understand it's going to completely crash the welfare state.
That's all.
I mean, just need to understand what the consequences are.
So then she, she says, I'm not having it go out the right here.
Jeremy Corbyn also pledged 500 billion pounds investment in infrastructure, manufacturing and new industries.
Labour's 2017 general election manifesto committed to nationalizing pretty much everything except childcare and social care.
They failed to see that the global inequality crisis is a gender inequality crisis.
But see, women have enormous value in that They are responsible for the continuation of our civilization and our culture.
Because when women raise children, they infuse them with values, they infuse them with morals, they infuse them with all of the thinking that sinks into the subconscious and gives us continuity in our entire worldview and life.
And so massively important.
And you know, I'm really gonna stretch myself here and say that the transmission of moral, cultural and philosophical and religious values that took tens of millions of lives and thousands of years to develop, the transmission of those values to children Might, just might be a little bit more important than making sure that the right manila folder goes into the right filing cabinet in some law firm.
Just possibly that might be the case.
All right, our lives are still rigidly divided into economic and social, productive and reproductive, paid and unpaid.
One half always have more value than the other.
Oh my gosh.
Oh my gosh, how do you even say that?
I mean, what do you even say to this nonsense?
Women get paid for raising children.
If they didn't, the women and the children would starve to death.
Women get paid for raising children.
If you're a man and you're married and you have children, 90% of your income goes to your family.
90% of your income goes to your family.
Women are responsible for like 80% 3% of household financial decisions.
Men earn, women spend.
Men go out and make money.
If you have like a stay-at-home wife and children who she's raising, then you go out to work and you hand over your paycheck to your wife and you're lucky to get an Xbox game every second month.
So this idea that women don't get paid for raising children, women do get paid for raising children, otherwise They would all starve to death.
They'd be homeless.
So women do get paid for raising children.
And the best way for women to get paid is to have a responsible man pay for them.
And the worst way is to have a single mother with government money.
So, I don't know, it's just kind of weird.
There's no such thing as unpaid motherhood.
Unpaid motherhood is starvation, is homelessness.
Women get paid.
I don't know, it's weird.
They don't get a paycheck.
They get something even better than a paycheck.
You know, when men have to get up early and go to work and drive through the snow to some crappy job and so on, do you don't think they want to be staying home, tickling their babies' feet and giggling over mobiles?
Trust me, I've been a workaholic in the very male field of software.
As a software entrepreneur, I remember working three days straight to get a product ready for delivery.
And I've also been a stay-at-home dad playing with a baby, and it's not even close.
It's not even close.
I mean, everything that I built in the software field is now obsolete and probably isn't being used anymore, because this was 20 years ago.
But my daughter, well, she's continually upgrading.
So one is for the past, decays and falls away.
One is for the future and is a foundation for everything.
It's beautiful.
So the result, so one half always has more value than the other, she says.
Economic and unpaid.
The result is that the redistribution of wealth in this country and globally is too often from the poorest women to the richest men.
Oh man.
But you see, if... And this is the lack of continuity that people have when they're ideologically driven.
Because earlier she said that tax cuts benefit men, but benefits... Sorry.
That tax cuts benefit men, but benefits cuts rob women.
So if men are paying taxes to support women, and the richer you are, the more taxes you pay, and the poorer you are as a woman, the more benefits you receive, then how often, how possible can it be?
That the redistribution goes from the poorest women to the richest men.
See, that would be to have 70% tax on women or 60% tax on women.
Being paid to rich men.
Everybody knows the basic freaking reality is the exact opposite.
That the richest men pay massive amounts of taxes which is taken by force from the government and distributed to poorer women.
Those are the actual facts of the matter.
But I guess actual facts are a bit of a challenge for ideologues, right?
And look, wealth is not redistributed.
Wealth is created.
Wealth is created.
If I sit down and I write a haiku or a poem, I haven't stolen your haiku or poem.
I've created something new.
If I go out into my backyard and I dig a hole to make a pond, I haven't stolen your pond.
I'm not stealing your frogs.
I'm not stealing your lily pads if I go out and buy these things and cultivate my pond, if I cultivate my garden.
If I grow my own vegetables, I'm not stealing your vegetables.
I'm creating new vegetables where there weren't vegetables before.
So this idea, oh, it's such a stupid idea that there's this big economic pie, and if I get more, you get less, and it's unfair, and it's just, well, women gave up creating life.
So they don't really understand creation anymore.
They can't create much economic value.
It's just basically a fact.
They're physically weaker.
They tend to have slightly lower IQs.
They're disabled by childbirth and breastfeeding and so on.
And so, I mean, just talk to new moms about MommyBrand and then tell me how economically efficient women are.
I mean, there's tons of exceptions, but that's the reality.
All right.
Eight men, to be precise.
Eight white men now own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world's population.
I don't really... Okay, so why is... Okay, are they Jews?
Are they white men?
I don't know.
Of course, you know, you're never going to get that differentiation from a leftist, right?
Eight white men now own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world's population.
And if you understand the basic economic reality that the square root of a productive group in a meritocracy produce half the value.
You got a company of 10,000 people.
Then 100 of those people produce half the value of the entire company.
And you can say, well, they just shouldn't get paid more.
Okay.
Well, you just gave up the value of half the company and of those 10 people.
Sorry, of those 100 people, 10 people produce half of that value.
So you understand, in a company of 10,000 people, 10 people produce 25% of the entire value of that company.
And this is true in sports, it's true in science, it's true in the arts, it's true in business, it's just true everywhere.
90% of the money goes to 10% of the people, 95% of the money goes to 5% of the people, you name it, right?
It's the square root principle.
The square root of any group in a meritocracy produce half the value.
It's just a fact.
It's continual.
And so they've created the wealth.
See the 3.6 billion people now I want those people to be in a free market and there's lots of human potential that's out there to be unlocked in the world as a whole but given where it stands This idea that some people are wealthy because other people are poor, in free market, that's not true.
It's not true at all.
It's not true at all.
And it's just, it's nonsense.
And this idea that, oh, eight white men, like, there's so much wealth out there and it just ends up with eight white men who have it.
No.
Makes no sense.
Or, if you think that that's wrong, and there is, look, don't get me wrong, there's lots of people who don't live in a free market, then you should be promoting the free market.
But she's not.
She's promoting more government action, right?
And it is women who are disproportionately represented in the poorest half of humanity.
But that's only if you don't count the transfer of wealth from husband to wife!
From father to mother!
If you just look at their paycheck, sure, women look pretty damn poor, yet women aren't starving.
Look in America.
Look in England.
Really not starving at all.
Why?
Because they get money from their husbands.
So this idea that, well, we're just going to look at women's paychecks and women are extraordinarily poor.
It's like, why don't you talk about the 90% of money that husbands give to their wives?
But you can't count that because that blows the whole bullshit scheme out of the water, right?
Yet this situation doesn't benefit your average man any more than it does the average woman.
Well, that's true because of the giant welfare state that takes money from responsible men and gives it to irresponsible women, who then can have irresponsible babies.
Ah, that's cruel to babies.
I'll take that back.
All right.
So if, like Adam Smith, you are a fan of self-interest, then you should know that women's equality is better for everyone!
The fact is, more equal societies do better on just about every available metric.
Mental health, general health, crime rate, education, and so on.
More equal societies do better on just about every available metric.
Now here's an interesting question.
So when society is poor, it can't afford massive gender equality schemes.
I've made this argument before.
It's a pretty obvious argument.
You have to be really ideological to miss it.
So if you're a small town and you're dirt broke and you can only afford to train one doctor for the whole town, then you have to train a man.
You have to.
Because if you train a woman, then the woman's going to have babies, and the woman's going to be unwell, and the woman's going to have menopause, and the woman's going to be moody, and the woman's going to whatever, right?
I mean, hormones are a hell of a thing, trust me.
I have had some experience with this.
And so if you train a woman, the high likelihood is the majority of women want women and children.
Sorry, want husbands and children.
And so if you are a poor town, you can only afford to train one Doctor, you have to train a man.
Otherwise, the odds are very high that you're going to end up with no doctor or a doctor who's barely available, right?
Or maybe the doctor is completely available, in which case her children are raised really, really badly, right?
And given that intelligence is passed through the mother, if you want a more intelligent society, then you want to have a society where intelligent women can have babies.
And right now we have a society where intelligent women are incredibly discouraged while intelligent white women are incredibly discouraged from having babies.
And you have a society that's set up where, because intelligent, responsible women are taxed hugely to pay for irresponsible women, then there's less incentive for the smarter women to have babies.
So this is one of the reasons why.
IQ is diminishing for Western society.
It's not just about immigration, although that's a big part of it, but it's even within white populations.
It's going down because you have a giant dysgenics program called the welfare state and people say, oh, you're into eugenics.
It's like, no, I'm actually into freedom.
We have a huge eugenics program going on in the West at the moment, not just immigration, but the welfare state takes money from responsible people.
Diminishing their capacity to have children and gives money to lower IQ people, less responsible people in general.
And that is a huge dysgenic program.
So the idea that we've got to get government out of reproduction, out of families, out of babies, out of course we should.
The answer is freedom.
The answer is freedom.
I mean, if I put particular legal incentives in place so that one particular ethnic group would have far fewer children and another particular ethnic group would have far more children, you'd say, wow, that's really, really terrible.
But switch it to IQ and suddenly everyone's like, well, that's fair.
They're just paying their fair share.
So the very idea that you're going to try and get female equality in terms of economics you already have to have the giant luxury of massive amounts of money in order to even think about that kind of stuff and so you go to the poor town you say you gotta train Well, let's say you have money for two doctors to make it even easier.
You have money for two doctors.
You say, well, you've got to train one man and one woman.
And they say, well, no, we need two doctors.
And if we train one man and one woman, likelihood is we're going to end up with only one and a half doctors.
So that's bad because then people are going to get sick and they're going to die because we don't have enough doctors.
For the important stuff, For the stuff that has continuity, you have one of two choices.
You can either say to women, don't have children, in which case, yeah, they can do a lot of the same stuff that men can do.
And this is why women who haven't had children yet earn actually more on average than men do, partly because of the affirmative action for women.
But you can say, yeah, okay, well, if we eliminate children from the equation, then women can get close to income parity with men.
Okay.
So you get one generation of income parity and then your entire freaking civilization is done like dinner.
Stick a fork in it, turn it over, it's done.
Oh look, we achieved close to wage parity for one generation and now we're all dead.
Because the funny thing too is that women disproportionately benefit from old age pensions.
Why?
Because they pay less into the system and they live longer and they require more health care resources.
So If you're a woman, and you want old age pensions, and you're not having any children, well, sorry honey, you're preying on my child.
You're preying on other people's children, because there's no money in social security, there's no money in old age pensions anymore, it's all just a bunch of dusty IOU notes from the central banks.
So if you want old age pensions, and you're not willing to have the children that are necessary to pay for your old age pensions, Well, then you're just an economic vampire.
You're just preying off other people's children.
You're not willing to do the work necessary to have a continuity of economics that pays you in your old age.
It's gross.
It's predatory.
It's vicious.
It's selfish.
It's narcissistic.
It's entitled.
It's horrible.
So when she says here, more equal societies do better on just about every available metric, it's like, no!
Society has generated enough excess cash that can start to muck about with these utopian egalitarian schemes.
It's not like you magically bring in equality and everything else gets better.
It's... It's reversing the cause and effect.
So anyway, let's see here.
Mr. Smith, I guess Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, lived with his mother until she died.
It was her invisible hand, her G-U-D-P, That left him free to write his great works.
I think it is now time to honor her contribution too, but hey, what would I know?
Wait, she was an entrepreneur?
I don't know much about Adam Smith.
I know that he fell into a ditch and mistook and put butter in his tea and wrote great works of morals and economics.
I don't know much about his mom.
So wait, his mother was an entrepreneur?
His mother had all of this money?
Or did she perhaps inherit the money from his father?
Or did some other man who had created the money give it to her?
You can have equality and then you don't have continuity.
You can have equality by shifting women into the workplace but then what happens is none of your cultural values get transmitted because daycares won't do that and your civilization dies.
You can have women's equality in an economic sense or you can have a civilization.
In a linear sense.
And given that Western civilization is the one that's been the very kindest and best to women in all of human history and across all of human contributions, the fact that women seem to be so eager to import cultures that are going to undermine and destroy and to go to work and refuse to transmit those cultural values to their sons and daughters, it's so strange.
