Is there any statistical proof that women caused a depression

File: 1503729961896.jpg (73KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x375px

We need female genocide, now.

>>139222355
>statistical proof

You mean empirical evidence. Use Google scholar. Bye

>workforce nearly doubles
>cost of living goes up
>wages stay the same
>nuclear family goes from 1 working parent to 2 working parents, standard of living stays the same/goes down

HMM I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED THERE

File: 1395584024486.gif (2MB, 250x220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x220px

>>139222468
I checked google scholar. Found nothing, so it's fake news then? Good to know.

File: 1491673787159.gif (499KB, 500x262px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x262px

>>139222595
>MUH INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING
>what is inflation

>>139222355
>is there any proof that doubling the supply of labor would decrease the price

:thinking:

>>139222355

supply and demand governs the price of labor too

it is obvious women entering the workforce lowered wages significantly

>>139222595

this

+ other sources that weakened labor's value, eg. outsourcing, automation, etc.

>>139222693
>>139222595
Still waiting on evidence that isn't anecdotal

>>139222909
"it's OBVIOUS the earth is flat"

This is what you sound like, now post proofs or you don't have an argument

>>139222355

If there are fifty people and 60 jobs, those jobs will have to offer a premium to keep their employees. If you add another fifty people, the wages drop. It's simple mathematics.

>>139222355
Actually, there's surprisingly little research into this topic, and you'll be hard pressed to find a study dedicated to this particular topic. However, any mainstream economic model will tell you that female entrance into the labor market did negatively affect wages. There's no way of getting around that arithmetical fact.

There are other ways of measuring this effect. By looking at particular jobs that have recently become less male-dominated, we see that wages drop significantly whenever women start entering the field. Anyway, here are two sources.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/88/2/865/2235342/Occupational-Feminization-and-Pay-Assessing-Causal

>Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

>A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

>>139223480
Archived

>http://nytimes com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
https://archive.is/zL9Lg

>>139222355
Are you retarded?

>>139222355
bump, i agree with the sentiment but need it proved before i start shoving it down people's throats.

>>139223086
Basic economics is the evidence.

Supply and demand laws should ring a bell. How can wages for individuals remain the same de facto if you have many more workers competing for jobs?

>>139223480
Feminists will twist this, saying that business will pay women less because they entered into that field.

>>139222355
Women cant do actual work, so its actually like a huge welfare because muh woman

>>139222355
So, the workforce doubles, which causes wages to be low, which allows more hires, which allows more expansion, which generates more product, which causes supply increase, which, while initially lowers price, brings priceS to equilibrium because demand is now double, because doubled workforce has double spending. Whatever short term issues there were, equilibrium is reached. HOWEVER: This new equilibrium factors in dual income housholds. With only one income, a household will not survive. Women enterING the workforce have ensured only one thing: -That they must continue to work for the rest of their lives. They will, of course, be unhappy about this and blame the man for not making enough money to support her and her kids. This will ensure they will only marry and breed wealthy dudes, with aborting being the first choice for your poor kids or just not getting knocked up in the first place. This will mean a lower birth rates for Western societies where treatment between sixes is egalitarian... Of course, no study for this. Maybe ask a Muslim 20 year old why she decided to have five kids with her husband and ask a 36 year old euro-whore why she has zero. Do this 100 times, publish the results, there's your data.

The 1950s in general.

Also if you look at most female jobs they're administrative/middle management ones, aka useless to society. You could simplify all the laws/systems out there and it would make a majority of those jobs obsolete.

American capitalists like to use the supply and demand argument against working women, I agree that it seems both logical and self-evident but in reality it isint as simple as it first seems.

The supply and demand goes both ways.
If there is a larger supply of workers obviously its also going to create more jobs.

The only safe job these days are ones that require physical labor.

Look to be a garbage man or a prison guard.

>>139223952
>If there is a larger supply of workers obviously its also going to create more jobs.
That wasn't the question though.

File: JSVf7y.gif (917KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 320x180px

>>139223480
Now THIS is the post i was looking for, a based swede for once.

I only want to know this as i agree with the concept, but i know if i say this to anyone i know IRL without any form of proof they will accuse me of being a misogynist nazi

File: Firmness levels.jpg (11KB, 226x168px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 226x168px

>>139222355
Ive worked with women and they spend most their time bitching screaming complaining and crying,

>>139222355
>proofs?

Basically every economist agrees that the more workers there are, relative to jobs, the lower the wages will be.

But they didn't just add to the number of workers available. Women started out getting paid less than men, just like Mexicans, which put downward pressure on wages because companies would try to save where they can by hiring women instead of men. Men had to compete against the lower female wages (just like they do with Mexican labor).

There's no question women helped drive down wages for men.

File: Autoworkers 1960.jpg (110KB, 855x638px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 855x638px

>>139222355
They do it through TWO channels.

1. By simply increasing supply. If you suddenly increased working age men by 25% across all professions, you would obviously see some dip in wages.

2. By being too pussy to negotiate wages upwards, female-dominated fields do not see wages increase even when it increases in other fields.

If you're a male stuck in a female-dominated profession, even though the demand for people like you increases, you won't be able to negotiate because none of the women try to do it.

Conclusion: Work in a male dominated field. If women start to enter your field en masse, switch fields.

>>139223952

>If there is a larger supply of workers obviously its also going to create more jobs.

This is not necessarily true.
More jobs will only get created if there is an actual demand for services and products.

As women mostly hold BS office positions that add no value to society, they're not actually going to add more demand than if they just stayed home and spent their husbands' incomes.

>>139224129

>Conclusion: Work in a male dominated field. If women start to enter your field en masse, switch fields.

This has been happening quite a lot in the actuarial field.

It used to be split 80-20 a few decades back. Now it's creeping towards 60-40.

But not sure where I should jump to next.

>>139222355
It's basic economics.
Supply and demand

>>139222355
>double supply of labour gradually over several decades
>incomes stagnate over several decades

>thinking emoji

File: pepe america revolution dream.jpg (35KB, 500x395px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x395px

>>139222355
I was at the DMV the other day and it was run by fat mexican women and a few dumb white cunts. One fat weeb white nerd guy who was actually responsible.

We all waited while no one for 30 minutes did anything at all and watched them gossip with each other in the middle of the office. They just talked and didn't eat or anything. They were just hen pecking. They could be making food and raising their kids but their kids are being baby sat by on older parent or daycare.

I said out loud, "I fucking hate this country". Everyone got uncomfortable or noticed me. Then I look behind me 5minutes later and everyone left the DMV and gave up because they were demoralized.

Fuck me

File: 458678964.jpg (113KB, 872x685px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 872x685px

I'm trying to find out what average wages were like pre industrial revolution

Apparently they were fucking shit, this argument isn't really holding up lads

>>139222355
Pretty obvious they did.

If you put 50 % more people in the workforce. It's going to fuck with the wages. Obviously

Double the amount of workers

>>139222468
That's not what "empirical" means. Google it.

>>139223570
Sure the wages should decrease but with the extra labour wouldn't the standard of living increase?
Why did prices remain high?

>>139224010
Yes but it is part of the answer. There is no simple answer.

If there are 50 jobs and 50 people and you add another 50 people you end up with more than 50 jobs. (Obviously not on simple mathematical scale but in the reality we live in)

Its very hard to meter how much more jobs this addition of 50 people created but hypothetically it could be also be more than the 50 added, which would raise the wages.

>>139224397
Raising their kids? thats fucking useless kids dont need to be raised by their mother

I think you really need to look at the TYPE of work that women do.

Women overwhelmingly dominate teaching for example, which is mostly funded by the government. In many ways women 'triple dip' - they pay less tax, they're overwhelmingly employed by the government, and they disproportionately benefit from government spending in general. Most of the work that women do, also, is mostly 'passive' work in already established fields. Notice how apart from cupcake shops, most entrepreneurs are men? This involves men taking on significantly more risk, stress, and investment in skills and work - but the MOMENT they create a business that's successful, what happens? They start hiring women, or they're forced to hire women (it's literally a legal requirement for companies of a certain size to report actively to a wage gap agency here).

Then there's how women spend money - women spend it more on consumer items and 'social' spending - they spend lots of money into the economy, but primarily in ways that harm the men in those societies. Women buy iPhones made by a mega-corporation, manufactured in China so they can organise with friends to go out and socialise at fashionable restaurants or to travel. Women also overwhelmingly prefer to spend their money in businesses where men are kept out of sight. Notice that most servers in shops are increasingly women?

All of this is harmful to men. Men are forced to the back of shop, and women are even stealing billions of dollars worth of job opportunities from men through 'wage gap' activism.

>>139222671
>What is inflation?
Inflation isn't constant. There can be high inflation and low inflation.

There was HIGH inflation because households had 2 incomes instead of 1 so companies could sell even more products at higher prices because people could afford it.

Companies each want to take as big a slice of the pie as they can. IF the pie suddenly grows, they will all be able to take bigger slices even if their % of the pie stays the same.

IF the government suddenly gave every American $10,000 we would see inflation increase immediately. Every business would know that everyone has $10,000 extra to spend and can afford to pay more for everything. We would probably see deflation as the $10,000 runs out, but the inflation would still happen

>>139223570
Because there are more jobs now than have ever existed.

What you should be specifying is living-wage jobs, of which there are less than ever.

>>139224467

>Why did prices remain high?

Women living independently and immigrants increased housing prices.

High housing prices is the cause of inflation.

>>139223952
>it goes both ways
No it doesn't. I don't give a shit about your supply unless demand is outstripping it. You can supply me with an infinite number of shit laborers and unless they're slaves they're not wanted.

File: I899823923_p29.jpg (37KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x375px

>>139224250
Finance is probably the obvious answer, given your background. And I don't mean working in the finance department of some company (that's basically accounting), I mean investment banking, hedge funds, private equity etc.

For some reason women don't want to work in that environment, even though there has been a push to get women. Most likely because it's a field where the expected result is that you don't succeed, and women don't like that. They like things like Audit, where 99.5% of the time you succeed even if you do a below average job.

>>139223839
I have a feeling automation is gonna cause a big problem for women. It's always seemed to me the difference between women and men in education and jobs is that men are better at improvising and breaking rules, women are more similar to robots. They obey rules and hate improvising, but are also more social, which is why they're so successful in the lower wage jobs

>>139223746
Thank you for saying things better than I can.

You are 100% right that women entering the workforce long enough to achieve equilibrium guaranteed that they would NEED to continue working.

Our economy changed because of it. Like you said, it made it difficult to survive on one income

>>139224617
But your thoughts do not matter in this case, If a woman that has been introduced to the workforce decides to start a business you cant just tell her to stop on the basis that women cant create jobs.

>>139222355
Simple. Any worker that enters the workforce from the start decreases the wages for all the pre-existing workers because the workers aren't as scarce therefore not as valued.

>>139223952
A larger supply of workers DOES NOT magically create jobs. Detroit can tell you that.

The only way a large supply of workers creates jobs is by lowering the wages of workers so that more low-paying jobs can be created.

>>139222355
You actually have to have it spelled out for you that doubling the work force will cause a supply glut and reduction in wages response? Just how stupid are you?

>>139224984
>>139224617
You guys seem to be missing the fact that women entering the workforce creates more demand by providing more expendable money to 50% of the population, therefore boosting the economy

File: 1498809157225.png (137KB, 466x492px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 466x492px

>>139225170
see
>>139225239
dum dum

>>139224485
That's simply not true. Just because you add 50 more people willing to do the job, doesn't mean you get 100 jobs instead of 50 jobs, it simply means the 50 people who have the job will have their wages lowered because the supply of labor just doubled -- if you don't like your wage, they have another 50 people to pick from. That's not the case if you need 50 people and the supply of labor is exactly 50 people.

The outset here is that the company needs 50 people. They don't need 100 people. Just because they could theoretically hire 100 people by halving the wages of the first 50 doesn't mean they should. There might not even be a demand for 50 more workers.

In order for the extra 50 people to actually add 50 more jobs, you need to drastically expand the economy as a whole and is completely outside the scope of this discussion.

>>139225239
>>139225300
>thinking that's how it works
>dum dum

>>139225239
>women entering the workforce creates more demand by providing more expendable money to 50% of the population, therefore boosting the economy

We get that.

There is a reason why hundred of billions of dollars are spent on make-up products.

>>139224020
The problem with that argument is that it assumes there's a demand for those jobs if women weren't there. Would all-male ticket rippers have been making more if women weren't available, even though there's already a surplus of able bodied men capable of doing it?

The issue has since been instead "Well if a woman CAN do the job, then we should pay less for it not "ARE women doing the job?"

They created a second class of now gendered labor and there are a lot of men in the world who will be insulted by the comparison of their labor to that of a woman's and that mentality goes up the ladder.

This has repeated itself recently with "teen jobs" like fast food or walmart.
>Does this job go on during school hours? Congrats, it's not a "teen job", but if a teen CAN be doing it, then it's treated as such my corporate structures, paid as such, and requires two or three at 40 hrs a week to be self sufficient. Laugh about wagecucks all you want but essentially everyone in american history has been a wagecuck but until recently they were still understood to be an adult trying to make headway.

>>139223480
>women that work generally don't really need the money
>women move into jobs they like so will do it for less money
>less money drives men out of the field because men generally need the money

makes sense

It's very basic economics, but try explaining that to liberals. You double the supply of labor while demand for labor remains constant, its value drops. This is the same reason college grads are now working at starbucks. An arts degree used to be worth something, but the supply of arts degree holders is so large now that they're nothing special.

>>139223086
Those aren't anecdotes, you dip.

>>139224250
>Women are becoming the majority in risk assessment
This will end well...

>>139225452
>Would all-male ticket rippers have been making more if women weren't available, even though there's already a surplus of able bodied men capable of doing it?
Yes, because those same men are also being sought after for all the other jobs.
Low skill jobs would run the gamut of hard labor like mining and construction to light jobs like sodajerk or ticket ripper. Each with wages to compete.

It's once again, doubling the workers. Now, the second set has less upperbody strength so they wont take the hard labor jobs, but it will still drop wages across the board. First the light jobs and most drastically, because 100% of women could do them, displacing 50% of the men. Those displaced men shift into the hard labor jobs, and cut wages just the same.

This assumes all other things remain the same, which they do not. Real life has more noise, but the overall shifts from labor expansion did happen.

File: C24jXVUXcAEP0LH.jpg (69KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 598x792px

All of (you), see pic related

>>139222595
>i wonder what happened
>>139222909
>its obvious
>>139223570
>rhetorical question positing that it's true because it's true
>>139223733
>much woman
>>139223839
>The 1950s in general.
>>139224083
>There's no question
except OP did ask a question you dolt

>>139222355
Post more qts

>>139223164
You're a fucking idiot.

>>139222355
Supply and demand. Double the labor supply without a corresponding increase in demand and wages fall. It's not hard.

This is pretty basic shit.
More competition = race to the bottom in prices = lower profits = lower wages.

>>139225321
You seem to miss my point completely, sorry if I'm writing bad.

Yes we have the presupposition that the company only needs 50 workers (example NOT a quarry that can just hire 100% more workers to get 50% more efficiency)

What I'm trying to say is now that you introduced 50 people to the workforce and you have twice the workers for the jobs.

Now there's 50 unemployed people which lowers the wages.
I understood that you followed me this far perfectly, no?

The thing is that these 50 unemployed people will obviously not like being unemployed and some of them will become entrepreneurs and therefore create jobs for these previously unemployed people.

We are talking about the whole economy of the state, not a single factory or a company.

So in the end there would be more than 50 jobs. So its not as simple as just doubling the workforce compared to the available jobs.

Unfortunately I have to sign off for now and cant write too much to this thread anymore. I hope you got a hold of what I was trying to say.

>>139222671
>increased cost of living
>due to inflation
>WAGES STAGNANT
lmao fuck you

>>139222355
>double the size of the workforce
gee I wonder what happens to wages

>>139222355

> proof

If you mean, "we conducted a series of controlled lab experiments that perfectly replicate the US economy and they were confirmed by other researchers running the same tests," then no. It's economics. There are no lab experiments, and there are billions of variables. Around the time women seriously entered the workforce, we also went to fiat currency, opened our borders to all the world's brown people, finished rebuilding Europe and Asia's industrial base, and began exponentially increasing the regulation of industry.

If you mean, "No one seriously disputes the notion that increasing the labor supply by between 50 and 75 percent without increasing the consumer base will decrease wages", then it's beyond arguing. There is math to back it up, but put it this way: you have a job that needs doing, and you can't do it yourself. Will you have to pay more if there is only one candidate for the task, or if there are two people trying to low-bid each other?

It's not that simple, of course. Women didn't simply show up qualified and eager to work like men. Nearly all women hate working as hard as men, and they are generally unwilling to put in the time acquiring specialized knowledge, and most will take a ton of time off or retire early - nevermind the trouble the bring in workplace drama. But they can also use the threat of lawsuits to force companies to hire women. Human resources and a lot of admin jobs are really just makework, a wealth transfer (read: unofficial tax) that's the cost of doing business. Get ten or twelve overpaid HR managers to oversee a department of twenty male engineers and two female engineers, plus some female admin, and you're safe from discrimination suits. Just hope there are no sexual harassment suits!

(Side note: some sexual harassment suits are legit. Most are just institutionalized discrimination against the socially awkward).

>>139222355
If stated as fact it is fake news.

If the opposite is stated as fact, then it is also fake news.

So to answer your question: No there is no evidence, it's only an hypothetical. The most naive argument is based on a zero-sum rule (there are only so many jobs), but that's not true. At the same time, it can be true that new created jobs are not in proportion to the additional workforce. So the answer is not clear but good luck finding a study to see that, it's too much of a pc topic to be researched

>>139222355
Effectively doubling the supply of a commodity tends to decrease value of that commodity. Wasn't Adam Smith a bong?

>>139223086
Look up anecdote, feel silly, and then get back to the kitchen.

>>139229622
If I am forced to hire more people and wish to still make a profit I need to pay them less. This is basic economics and the math backs it up.

>>139224467
So they business can still make a profit?

>>139222355
Ofcourse!

Back 50 years ago, a single working blue collar guy could support a house, car and family with 2-3 kids.

Today forgetting the fact that blue collar worker couldn't afford ONE of any of those...

It REQUIRES two people working full time... to barely afford the same things. So straight off the bat ((They)) got a 50% discount on human labour by pushing this "yus goyette be independent and join the workforce" crap.

>>139224397
i feel the same way anon. I fucking hate the DMV so much

>>139222355
You don't need statistics. That's basic economics

More labor = less demand for labor = devaluing of labor

It's the same reason immigration hurts labor value.

I believe the biggest problem are the lack of bureaucratic jobs. There was always a huge demand for paperwork and handling databases, which are now 99% computerized

So now there are very few "useless" jobs, everyone is involved the production, and most people are just not very good or interested, they just want to pay the rent.

Women just worsened the damage, but computers were a lot worse

>>139227861
>The thing is that these 50 unemployed people will obviously not like being unemployed and some of them will become entrepreneurs and therefore create jobs for these previously unemployed people.
With what capital?
With what experience?

>>139222355
Sauce for that qt girl. What's her name?

>>139229184
>"Most are just institutionalized discrimination against the socially awkward"

Please elaborate.

File: keynescucks.png (1MB, 1224x1332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1224x1332px

keynesian economics wor-

File: hss.png (72KB, 1158x505px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1158x505px

globalists, central bankers, occultists, and think tanks don't want to destroy the fami-

>>139230862
Your reply is ignoring so much of the economics of adding women to your workforce.

The argument is that with more women you pay everybody less, because there is more competition for each job, roughly

>>139231644
so everytime obama had troubles they just printed more money?

When the fuck do they plan to stop?

>>139226874
>>139223164

>he doesn't understand econ 101

supply and demand, stupid motherfuckers

>Economics Basics: Supply and Demand

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

>>139231702
Look at that graph, and realise that actually, the median family income per working parent has gone down by about 50%. (because women are now also working)..

and realise we're a LOT more fucked then it looks.

File: Untitledgftgtgf.jpg (152KB, 720x726px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 720x726px

>>139231453
>>139227315

>>139222605
>google suppresses information
>"it must be fake news!"

>>139222355
Women were already in the economy before they worked. Women needed food, they needed housing, they needed clothes, hairdos, etc. The economic activity around women was already fully captured. If women were, on average, better than men in some way, then women entering the workforce would cause a shift of resource allocation and some real social gains from an efficiency perspective.

Because of the way that women flooded the workforce, though—remember the men were at war—any effect would be difficult to determine.

It is possible that the return of males from WWI facing the employment of women could have been a factor in the excessive speculation that led to the great depression. We didn't have such a bubble following WWII, for instance, though arguably we did have a bubble after gulf war I and II, though the population of males involved in these conflicts was overall quite small.

>>139233399
That's not the same girl brother bong.
I want the cutie in the op pic

>>139224518
I like your post anon

>>139231453

outside

>>139236687
You nigger