Explain how cutting out women from the work force won't cause the biggest recession in human history and completely...

Explain how cutting out women from the work force won't cause the biggest recession in human history and completely destroy what's left of Western civilization?

Attached: 1584668041340.jpg (1514x1736, 328.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nkvFCF0-ebQ
youtube.com/watch?v=_uTmySqfTv0
youtube.com/watch?v=GXdGBn9TpGo
youtube.com/watch?v=xrjokRtZM4E
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The economy should exist to serve families instead of individuals making more and more sacrifices for the sake of economy. When mommy and daddy both had to go to work and leave their impressionable young (single) child in the hands of the state 5 days a week just to survive western civilization was already fucked.

What is going on in that image OP?

Most women don't work. They socialize on company time with other women socializing on company time and answer emails. They are the biggest source of bloat in all of industry. Notice the female heavy industries are always high on administrative bloat.

>Explain how cutting out women from the work force won't cause the biggest recession in human history and completely destroy what's left of Western civilization?

Long term is going to be extremely good. A stagnating population is bad for the economy. Plus, it doesn't have to happen in a single day.

recessions are unironically a good thing

Women don't need to be completely out of the workforce, and that has never been how any European society has operated. Their role needs to be greatly diminished though. At least 50% of women who are currently in the workforce are doing needless HR jobs. All young women who could be breeding.

who cares?

Most of them do work.
>Long term is going to be extremely good. A stagnating population is bad for the economy
Why?
They really aren’t...
Why would cutting women out of the work force be better for families?

Women mostly work at retail and service jobs that require less than a half of a functioning braincell, they literally can be replaced with claw machines or vending machines and no-one will even notice.

>Why?
>stagnating population
>consumers will never increase
>people who produce or innovate will never increase

China with the population of the USA wouldn't be approaching superpower status

Because women in the workforce are and were useless, so nothing of value was lost.

False. They might go to a work. They might collect a paycheck. They do not do work at that job and will cry "sexism" or "harrassment" if anyone tries to make them do any work

Name two bad things about a recession.

Fair enough. But why would cutting women out of the workforce make a population increase happen?
First off women don’t cry sexism and harassment because they don’t want to work, they do it because of shitty bosses who harasses and belittles them.
People lose their jobs and companies go bankrupt. Name two good things about a recession?

Women still work, they are just doing it at home.
Rather than pay a babysitter a cleaning lady, or a teacher you have your women to do it.
The only difference is their work is not in a free market that jew and banks can exploit to make money of them.

Socialists should be the main antifeminist if they had a brain.

Attached: 1581667506-1574417379599.jpg (650x812, 119.44K)

>obsessing over labor costs

high labor costs are good for the common man, and they promote the traditional family model.
If it were for your overlords to have their way ALL jobs would be outsourced, you faggot.

Market economy? Yes. Unchecked capitalism? cringe. Show flag, tranny

Attached: 1580224662548.png (693x598, 201.11K)

youtube.com/watch?v=nkvFCF0-ebQ

Attached: 1552014317074.jpg (2000x1195, 313.3K)

>breed like rabbits
>we need more conumers. CONSUME MORE.

It's not a feasable strategy. Ovepopulation is not a good thing. Fuck increasing consumers. You need a stable economy, not an ever increasing one

Sure
>Wage growth per work accounting for the lack of supply of workers available
>Employers don't lose workers for months at a time to pregnancy
>Cost of childcare, when needed, plummets
>HR department does not need much staffing with little to no harassment accusations, sensitivity training, etc
>Children raised by both parents and one staying home with them grow to not be raised by media and don't act like niggers, thus contributing to the economy further in 10-20 years

>people lose their jobs
Not a bad thing.
>companies go bankrupt
As they should.

Cull the weak who lack foresight.

It would but that doesn't change the fact that adding them to the workforce was a bad idea that is destroying the nuclear family.

>But why would cutting women out of the workforce make a population increase happen?

Female education is correlated with lower birthrates. If women cannot be hired, they will likely go to university less. Of course, you could argue that at this point it makes more sense to just forbid higher education to most women and allow women to work in jobs that don't require it. The end result should be the same though, so it's the same to me.

They are already cut out of the work force right now, all you would need to do is only let men go back to work

families require a lot of care and time so they can get necessary skills
if you haven't noticed where it lacks on things in a family unit nowadays
please don't get children you fucking piece of shitlard larper
just kill yourself or submit to your nigger overlords or whatever
devious lying shit tier people like you who come on here with these kind of naive questions just to drive division is what's wrong with people and the reason why I go out of my way to hurt and fuck americans wherever I can

I was asked why a stagnating population is bad for the economy. I explained it.

How do you even define overpopulation? When is a country overpopulated? When is it underpopulated? How is a growing economy not a stable economy?

Yes, what exactly is this image ?
She appears to be messing with this guys left hand.
I need to know immediately wtf is going on in this image.

youtube.com/watch?v=_uTmySqfTv0

here

Why do memeflaggots start a thread and then immediately leave and go sperg out on other threads ?

she was helping to translate for the deaf and blind guy. she was a nice gurl

Just tell me I don’t youtube

Thank you user.
Op is a faggot.

nuclear family is a retarded concept anyways

What does that even mean, user.
your CPU has a backdoor and tracks every keystroke you make and deliver network packets without your knowledge
avoiding youtube doesn't make you secretive or anything

fuck off, swedoid roastie

explain how in times past they were a trivial component of it yet it still wildly succeeded somehow

I’m on satellite internet traveling at high speed and youtube is blocked because :
Data.

Some portion of any given female population should absolutely be allowed to work. We'd be crazy not to let them, there honest to god hardworking, success driven women out there. But that number is nowhere near 100%. It likely not even above 50%. I'd argue that on average 2/3's of women would mentally and physically benefit, and would feel far more fulfilled with their lives if being a stay at home mother were more viable. There would of course be numerous benefits for society at large as well.

save the video, she's hot and seems aspergian

>destroy what's left of Western civilization?

What is left?

Attached: 1572598625030.jpg (1024x910, 205.86K)

Roger that, willco

how the fuck is she 15? she looks 25

youtube.com/watch?v=GXdGBn9TpGo

Halving work force will result, in the long run, in doubling wages.

You are completely right, women being cut out of the workforce would be a disaster. It would create a huge vacuum, which would not be filled with American men, but Indian ones, and the Chinese/Japanese. We would be fucked for a long time, possibly forever.

compare highschool girls from 2010 to all the 14yr old tiktok thots from nowadays its crazy

>last day of school 2010
youtube.com/watch?v=xrjokRtZM4E

Now you know why they hit the wall at 25-30 yo nowadays.

Women literally bring down wages because they won't negotiate, everywhere women work has a lesser wage because they accept a lesser wage.

I read a study that claims this might not be true, but I don't have a source

>Women literally bring down wages because they won't negotiate

This is what is supposedly not tue

25 year olds are fat as fuuuck.

You still have to realize that the "economy" doesn't serve anything but itself? Boy, you're slow...

Why is it a good thing that people lose their jobs...
Is it a correlation and a causation? And still even if it was causal then you might still not want those higher birth rates since the children will be less educated and be more unproductive because the mother was uneducated. Also the vast majority of teachers, nurses and midwives are women, how do you fix that if women aren’t allowed to work?
I’m not Swedish and I’m not a roastie.
>families require a lot of care and time so they can get necessary skills
I know.
>if you haven't noticed where it lacks on things in a family unit nowadays
I know that’s a big problem.
>please don't get children you fucking piece of shitlard larper
I probably won’t, so you don’t have to worrry :/
>just kill yourself or submit to your nigger overlords or whatever
No.
>devious lying shit tier people like you who come on here with these kind of naive questions just to drive division is what's wrong with people and the reason why I go out of my way to hurt and fuck americans wherever I can
How did I lie??

Built for BBC

>4.1 children per woman

Mad jelly. Why do Cambodian women have so many kids? How can whites emulate it?

Attached: 1568501360108.jpg (200x200, 13.51K)

It's insane, 20 years ago when I was in middle school, girls were still like little babies, looked and acted the part, showing any skin, even in summer, was out of the question for them.

Fast forward nowadays, you see videos of hot as fuck women dressing and acting like whores, and then you read in the description : "I'm 14 lol"

What the fuck happened to this world?

We will use robots instead

That was nice of her. She was obviously raised right.

Women are compliant, nonassertive, nonconfrontational, agreeable, with low levels of aggressiveness
Do you need a study to know women spend most of the money? Do you need a study to know women keep filthier bathrooms?
Only nerd virgins are surprised by these things

Attached: CF2D14A0-E3A7-4730-B36F-E89E97855E22.jpg (750x516, 39.88K)

If anything it would lower unemployment and raise wages. Less workers more money to keep and train workers.