[bacon]

this documentary suggests the social changes largely caused by feminism have driven population decline which is causing dire consequences to the current and future economy.

(there is some brief bachelor shaming at the 19min mark)

[jammer]

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

[Zebra_Cakes]

(10-27-2012 12:42 PM)jammer Wrote:  

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

[jammer]

(10-27-2012 01:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 12:42 PM)jammer Wrote:  

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

Or that it helped the economy. The economy grew pretty well from the 70's to the 90's when women integrated in the workforce. The reason the elites wanted women in the workplace was because it was better for the economy.

[Norset]

Jammer: I haven't seen the vid yet, but the main point is POPULATION DECLINE. And its secondary consequences. Here we have rich societies not able to keep themselves at replacement levels. Does feminism help to keep the population at replacement level? I.e. 2.1 kids per woman?

[Therapsid]

(10-27-2012 01:18 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 01:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 12:42 PM)jammer Wrote:  

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

Or that it helped the economy. The economy grew pretty well from the 70's to the 90's when women integrated in the workforce. The reason the elites wanted women in the workplace was because it was better for the economy.

Not really. GDP growth rates in the post-war period up until around 1970 were significantly faster than post-1970.

The 90's were an exception. But the 90's boom was propelled in part by the integration of computers and the Internet into the workplace. Silicon Valley was and to some extent still is dominated by men.

My opinion is that women entering the workforce can, temporarily, boost economic growth if they're actually doing productive work, such as in factory assembly lines. American women obviously helped the country during World War II and Asian women have helped China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. to develop by working in factories. The problem is that, in the long run, more women working outside the home ultimately contributes to a decline in birth rates.

Also, it seems to me that American women entered the workforce in numbers at precisely the time deindustrialization got under way. If they were providing cheap labor making electronics like in China, American women could help the economy. Instead, they're pushing paper in corporate and government bureaucracies and getting promoted on account of equal opportunity policies.

[ElJefe]

Also read Charles Murray's the Bell Curve.

In it he describes how feminism has decreased social mobility. When liberated, women are free to choose partners (more free than before). So they choose up. I'm pretty confident Heartiste read this book and it influenced how he thought about social issues a great deal.

That means high-quality females (in terms of brains) hook up with more high-quality men, producing higher quality children. At the same time, couples further down the social ladder also hook up reinforcing the social background of their offspring.

The result is increasing divergence of classes as generations go by.

It is the great irony of social progressives that the consequences of their agenda has been to retard and make harder their original mission of social justice and equality. If those suckers had just gone to Church and been good members of civil society instead of hating on America they would probably have gotten a lot further in ending poverty.

Also note: it's not just the West. China is headed for a major, major headache in not so long.

In the West however, there's been a major downwards trajectory in demographics for years. Only rising ages have prevented serious depression. In Islamic countries, however, and in sub-Saharan Africa, they are especially prolific. They are also the most dysfunctional of societies, and the huge numbers of new mouths to feed in these countries prevents those economies from making real gains. It would be of huge benefit to Asian and African societies if they brought their fertility levels down to European levels, and European countries restored their fertility levels to what they were in the 1950s. It would free up a lot of work into improving their economic performance.

Other things to think about: the proportion of youths in a country's population without a doubt will impact the dynamism and spirit of a nation. I can only imagine what that means in the Middle East going forward.

And finally, who says a falling population is a bad thing??? It's only bad if you have to pay for someone else's retirement, but as our generation grows older and our labor more valuable, we can vote with our feet. Any country that fails to offer reasonable terms in the social contract will be rejected.

I already have plans on doing this with the US if they don't get their act together.

[Basil Ransom]

The OP overstated things somewhat - the peoople interviewed are not blaming feminism for the current crisis. They're saying that economies will contract because we're having fewer children.

They ask, why are we having fewer babies? The reasons:

1. Urbanization: When people move to cities, they have fewer children. People in rich countries are a lot more likely to live in cities than a century ago.

2. The End of Patriarchy:

2a. Fornication: People now do not need to get married to have sex.

2b. Females Entrance into the Workforce: Women start working and put off marriage and childbirth.

2c. Contraception: Women in sexually active relationships, even while married, use contraceptives and lower their divorce rate.

2d. Weakening of Marriage: Divorces are now no-fault, and thus easier to get. This raises the rate of divorce.

I'd add a third factor:

3. The Reduction in Venereal Disease Risk: Venereal diseases are nowhere near as dangerous as they were 100 years ago, when say, syphilis killed hundreds of thousands of people. Between contraceptives, low disease prevalence, and lack of whore-shaming, there's little cost to having sex with strangers now.

Great documentary. I was floored by Phil Longman's mention of patriarchy as an option. He's very mainstream, and I don't think he considers himself conservative. Much respect.

If the goal is to revive fertility, then people must be persuaded to marry earlier and stay married. Marriage and child-bearing must be made more attractive to the man, and the difficulty of securing divorce must be increased, especially for women who file most divorce. (The documentary misleadingly showed a man leaving his family, but the opposite is far more accurate, especially in college educated couples where the woman files 90% of the time). The traditional privileges of marriage must be restored. Elements of patriarchy must return. As the poster Dalrock says, those are:

■Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
■An expectation of regular sex.
■Legal rights to children.
■Lifetime commitment.

A complementary approach is to make women's alternatives to marriage less appealing. Currently, women often benefit from preferential treatment enshrined by law. An employer may not rationally discriminate against women, when there is a real risk that they will drop out of the workforce to raise a family. Employers should be allowed to hire without privileging women, and reduce their salaries by an amount commensurate with the financial risk they pose.


The problem is not so much population decline as it is old people living long, unproductive retirements. If old people died the day they retired, would we be having this problem?

I'm not proposing killing old people, but saying that our treatment of them can't continue on in this way. We have to spend less on healthcare, and stop burdening the young so that some sickly 80 year old can live another two weeks in an ICU unit.

[solo]

(10-27-2012 12:42 PM)jammer Wrote:  

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

I would blame governments just as much as the rating agencies and Wall Street, but that's another issue. You're right feminism probably didn't *start* the financial crisis but there is an underlying problem in most of the Western economies (EU, US, Japan etc) today that goes beyond the mere debt problem, and that is the lack of growth.

Whatever the net effect of feminism on the economy is, surely it is a massively misguide allocation of resources to have women pushing paper in their 20's and 30's and then (maybe) have kids only in their 40's (or 30's). If they're going to take part of the work force it would be better for the economy if they had kids in the 20's and then started working later in their 30's or 40's. Of course governments shouldn't force women to have kids but right now they're massively encouraging them *not* to have kids and instead pursue a "career" so that they can buy all their worthless materialistic shit, which is only good for the economy in the short term but bad in the long term.

[Hades]

I don't think feminism is to blame for economic problems. There's waaay too much shit in economics that plays a huge role. And lots of countries with almost negative birthrate are stupidly lucrative. Now if they said that feminism spurred consumer culture, since women spend more money than men, and that has X effect, I would consider this video thoughtfully. But the fact remains, you can't blame feminism for everything.

We're already number 1 in the world for making money. Lots of countries would trade what we think of as "economic decline" for their crushing poverty.

[Basil Ransom]

(10-27-2012 02:52 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I don't think feminism is to blame for economic problems. There's waaay too much shit in economics that plays a huge role. And lots of countries with almost negative birthrate are stupidly lucrative. Now if they said that feminism spurred consumer culture, since women spend more money than men, and that has X effect, I would consider this video thoughtfully. But the fact remains, you can't blame feminism for everything.

We're already number 1 in the world for making money. Lots of countries would trade what we think of as "economic decline" for their crushing poverty.

It's clear you didn't watch the documentary.

[solo]

It's true no one explicitly blames feminism in the documentary, but it's equally true all the factors mentioned are closely linked to feminism.

There were a lot of important aspects that touches upon what is daily being discussed on here. I would say moving abroad and having many children of your own with a girl that stays home for much of her life are two lessons.

You gotta love that old hag who tries to make fun of today's young men at the 19th minute mark. She was no concept of what is the cause and what is the effect here. If there were more incentives, guys wouldn't be at home playing video games. When the real issue is there are so many sluts today that a guy doesn't have to get married in order to get sex (one of the sociologists says this, but in other words).

I think the documentary also makes a good case for why Western countries will (and should) start to open up their borders more soon. Technology is still far away from being able to take care of the elderly.

[jammer]

(10-27-2012 01:55 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Not really. GDP growth rates in the post-war period up until around 1970 were significantly faster than post-1970.

The 90's were an exception. But the 90's boom was propelled in part by the integration of computers and the Internet into the workplace. Silicon Valley was and to some extent still is dominated by men.

My opinion is that women entering the workforce can, temporarily, boost economic growth if they're actually doing productive work, such as in factory assembly lines. American women obviously helped the country during World War II and Asian women have helped China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. to develop by working in factories. The problem is that, in the long run, more women working outside the home ultimately contributes to a decline in birth rates.

Also, it seems to me that American women entered the workforce in numbers at precisely the time deindustrialization got under way. If they were providing cheap labor making electronics like in China, American women could help the economy. Instead, they're pushing paper in corporate and government bureaucracies and getting promoted on account of equal opportunity policies.

The 70's were a terrible era for the economy and the economy improved plenty since then.

Is it a coincidence that all the best economies in this world have a problem with feminism?

[vinman]

Feminism= Socialism with titties.

[Basil Ransom]

(10-27-2012 03:51 PM)solo Wrote:  

I think the documentary also makes a good case for why Western countries will (and should) start to open up their borders more soon. Technology is still far away from being able to take care of the elderly.

Immigration makes things worse when the immigrants are unskilled. They're not productive enough to cover their government benefits and negative externalities (their downsides). This is a notorious oversight of economists and 'guest worker' programs.

[bacon]

(10-27-2012 04:13 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 03:51 PM)solo Wrote:  

I think the documentary also makes a good case for why Western countries will (and should) start to open up their borders more soon. Technology is still far away from being able to take care of the elderly.

Immigration makes things worse when the immigrants are unskilled. They're not productive enough to cover their government benefits and negative externalities (their downsides). This is a notorious oversight of economists and 'guest worker' programs.

good point we already have record number of kids dropping out of high school or never going to college or trade school to do the unskilled work in the US

[king]

Relevant:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.mx/201...-muse.html

[Hades]

(10-27-2012 03:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 02:52 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I don't think feminism is to blame for economic problems. There's waaay too much shit in economics that plays a huge role. And lots of countries with almost negative birthrate are stupidly lucrative. Now if they said that feminism spurred consumer culture, since women spend more money than men, and that has X effect, I would consider this video thoughtfully. But the fact remains, you can't blame feminism for everything.

We're already number 1 in the world for making money. Lots of countries would trade what we think of as "economic decline" for their crushing poverty.

It's clear you didn't watch the documentary.

You're right Basilransom. I'm going to stick to the drunk thread from now on tonight.

[ColSpanker]

Pretty creepy documentary. Naturally it won't get much attention.

[solo]

(10-27-2012 04:24 PM)bacon Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 04:13 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 03:51 PM)solo Wrote:  

I think the documentary also makes a good case for why Western countries will (and should) start to open up their borders more soon. Technology is still far away from being able to take care of the elderly.

Immigration makes things worse when the immigrants are unskilled. They're not productive enough to cover their government benefits and negative externalities (their downsides). This is a notorious oversight of economists and 'guest worker' programs.

good point we already have record number of kids dropping out of high school or never going to college or trade school to do the unskilled work in the US

In Sweden we have recieved people from South East Asia who come here to work as berry pickers during the summers for some years now, a job Swedes don't seem to want to do. It is a risky endeavor on their part since sometimes there have not been enough berries or they have been scammed, but a lot of the time amazingly they have been payed enough to cover the travel costs and return with more money than they would have had, had they stayed in SEA.

There are other jobs which don't require a long university education for someone to be productive at. For instance housekeeping etc.

Also, I think with the financial/economic crisis, the Welfare State will continue to be dismantled in the EU. Or what negative externalities are you talking about?

[Pepini]

I have litle doubt that feminism is one of the causes of the actual debt levels. Woman love credit. Why? Because woman behave like childs irresponsibly. Woman should not be treated like man. They should be treated like childs. Some are more, other less. But they all behave like childs. And this is good. Because it's what separates them from man and make them fun. I'm not saying this in a negative way. As time passes women will loose this trait. Today society because of feminism want to give women the responsibilities of man.

[ElJefe]

(10-27-2012 04:24 PM)bacon Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 04:13 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 03:51 PM)solo Wrote:  

I think the documentary also makes a good case for why Western countries will (and should) start to open up their borders more soon. Technology is still far away from being able to take care of the elderly.

Immigration makes things worse when the immigrants are unskilled. They're not productive enough to cover their government benefits and negative externalities (their downsides). This is a notorious oversight of economists and 'guest worker' programs.

good point we already have record number of kids dropping out of high school or never going to college or trade school to do the unskilled work in the US

That's just part of it.

There's also just supply and demand in the labor market.

When you increase labor supply, the cost of labor comes down while demand increases. Middle class Americans benefit the most from having someone to do their gardening for USD8 an hour, or other hard farm-work.

The downside for locals is that low-skilled workers - in our country blacks in particular, get sidelined. What young American-born man do you know is willing to put 8 hours of hard manual labor a day in the blazing sun for just USD8 an hour?

Illegal immigration is a giant anal-fisting action of progressives incl Rick Perry and his ilk on lower-class Americans. What we should be doing is a drastic reduction in our share of Hispanics and women in the workforce and instead invite the millions and millions of college-educated Europeans and Chinese to America who are looking for work. Fuck me that would be one hell of an economic boom. Do this while you restore marriage and reduce female presence in the labor market. Everybody's happy. Americans of all classes, businesses, children and civil society. Except feminists and hispanics perhaps.

@ Basil Ransom: check out the Harvard Professor George Borjas (Cuban) on migration economics. He's really good.

[cat_a_clysm]

(10-27-2012 01:18 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 01:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(10-27-2012 12:42 PM)jammer Wrote:  

The feminist boogeyman on this board is getting ridiculous. Feminism is not the cause of every issue. Read up on the financial crisis more. I would blame the rating agencies (moody's, S&P, etc.), the banks who gave loans to people who didn't deserve it, the politicians who encouraged that behavior, etc. way before i would blame feminism

It can be argued that women moving into the workforce in droves has hurt our economy as a whole. At the very least, salary and wages have been pretty stagnant since that started occurring.

Or that it helped the economy. The economy grew pretty well from the 70's to the 90's when women integrated in the workforce. The reason the elites wanted women in the workplace was because it was better for the economy.

No

[WestIndianArchie]

(10-27-2012 02:27 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

The OP overstated things somewhat - the peoople interviewed are not blaming feminism for the current crisis. They're saying that economies will contract because we're having fewer children.

They ask, why are we having fewer babies? The reasons:

1. Urbanization: When people move to cities, they have fewer children. People in rich countries are a lot more likely to live in cities than a century ago.

2. The End of Patriarchy:

2a. Fornication: People now do not need to get married to have sex.

2b. Females Entrance into the Workforce: Women start working and put off marriage and childbirth.

2c. Contraception: Women in sexually active relationships, even while married, use contraceptives and lower their divorce rate.

2d. Weakening of Marriage: Divorces are now no-fault, and thus easier to get. This raises the rate of divorce.

I'd add a third factor:

3. The Reduction in Venereal Disease Risk: Venereal diseases are nowhere near as dangerous as they were 100 years ago, when say, syphilis killed hundreds of thousands of people. Between contraceptives, low disease prevalence, and lack of whore-shaming, there's little cost to having sex with strangers now.

This is what happened to Japan, especially b, where abortion isn't nearly as taboo as it is here.

I'd say sex selection for both China and India are going to be major problems in their economies, as the preference for boys has already created a gender imbalance.

WIA

[Basil Ransom]

(10-28-2012 05:18 AM)solo Wrote:  

In Sweden we have recieved people from South East Asia who come here to work as berry pickers during the summers for some years now, a job Swedes don't seem to want to do. It is a risky endeavor on their part since sometimes there have not been enough berries or they have been scammed, but a lot of the time amazingly they have been payed enough to cover the travel costs and return with more money than they would have had, had they stayed in SEA.

There are other jobs which don't require a long university education for someone to be productive at. For instance housekeeping etc.

Also, I think with the financial/economic crisis, the Welfare State will continue to be dismantled in the EU. Or what negative externalities are you talking about?

In your limited berry picker case, Sweden may well benefit, on net. But that's not the way immigration usually is. In America, for instance, you have poor Mexicans and Guatemalans coming and working low wage jobs. They have families, with above average fertility. Each child costs the educational system at least $10k a year, probably $15k a year. Then there are the added costs of healthcare, law enforcement, increase in land prices due to population increase... If it were just single, well-behaved adults coming and working, there might be a net benefit. But it isn't that way.

In a welfare state, below some level of income, people are a drain on the system, depending on the benefits they receive. It's not enough for immigrant labor to be cheap. But big business likes it because the costs are borne by the people, not by the corporation. Plus it grows the market for their goods.

Also, a lot of the times the cost of something, like produce, would only need to go up a couple percent to double the wages paid to labor. So having to pay higher wages to natives is not as challenging as it might seem.