"Families headed by a single woman - can account for a 3.7 percentage point increase in poverty rates." - National Bureau of Economic Research

sir_wankalot_here · 2016-01-01T13:24:05+00:00

Sit back, bring out the popcorn and enjoy the decline.

Better figure out ways to earn an income without paying taxes, otherwise you are going to pay for it regardless.

Mark my words. The counter argument by the PC is going to be that this 3.7% increase is due to mygonist pigs like OP who hate women. The solution is that OP being single and male should pay a surcharge tax of 10% on his income.

Ofcourse they won't call it a tax, they will call it "equality payments", so OP will have to make equality payments to these poor oppressed women.

Dr_Killpatient · 2016-01-01T15:08:30+00:00

The problem is that these socialist nanny states are still combating the cognitive dissonance that rewarding bad behavior - by handing over someone else's tax dollars to a single mother who gives birth to bastards out of wedlock - creates more poverty stricken individuals in the society.

This is the fact that the "progressives" will try to censor and one way to increase the dissonance that they experience is by having more single mothers and less tax payers.

I hate to play the devil's advocate, but we should really start seeing feminists, who are trying to break down a traditional family unit and encourage women to have children outside wedlock, as ALLIES. We should work in unison in breaking up marriages and families by drawing attention to female infidelity, hypergamy, and branch-swinging, whenever an opportunity arises.

Speeding up the decline, where the nanny state can no longer support these leeches approaching the critical mass, will lead to the reduction and abolishment of single mother payments, the reestablished shame that comes with having children out of wedlock, and restored importance of the traditional marriage.

2016-01-01T16:10:24+00:00

The left does not deal with facts well because they have been injected with biased data in "indoctrination land" (college) which prevents them from thinking critically and accepting new data in place of the old. It's funny how progressives cannot accept the very facts that lead to true progress in the face of injustice.

The amount of politically correct, feminist-loaded gibberish in my Sociology class this past semester was simply staggering.

2016-01-02T01:35:09+00:00

The actual rates of poverty are here:

"Between 1970 and 2003 the non-elderly poverty rate rose from 10.7 to 12.8 percent."

The title could have used the more inflammatory title of "20% increase" but chose not too, kudos.

The actual paper that this is based upon is here in case anyone wants some bedtime reading

There's a bunch of figures and graphs cited but it doesn't describe where they come from or how they were collected.

Rathadin · 2016-01-01T17:18:10+00:00

I would be more concerned about the massive glut of retired baby boomers we are going to have soon. How did japan deal with having too many retired workers and not enough young ones?

magus678 · 2016-01-01T17:31:31+00:00

This is a result of a growing technology base and an exploding labor pool. Though women do generally choose careers/jobs that add less value than men (as per your stats), you would have seen numbers tilt this direction regardless.

There are plenty of problems feminism has created, but this isn't one; this is simply the inevitable consequence of computing, automation, and an expanding labor pool.

To quote myself in another post I have made on the subject:

I will speak bluntly on this; human life is very cheap, and only getting cheaper. Science allows us to do far more with less, and population has already grown to levels where we could lose a couple billion and barely miss a step. The only people that will truly be important are upper level scientists and engineers; at least until AI kicks off. What has been true for some time now will become even more true in the coming decades; politicians, businessmen, and the like all derive their actual power from the technical ability under them. They are themselves quite replaceable otherwise. MBAs and lawyers cannot create nukes, or feed a populace. Drop Steve Jobs a thousand years into the past and you might get a well run company. Drop Elon Musk and you will end the dark ages.

If I can speak frankly, most people's labor isnt worth very much. If you are making a great living these days, it is usually by some manipulation of law/government, or scientists and engineers just haven't gotten around to automating what it is you do yet. In a world where the population greatly dwarfs the amount of meaningful jobs available, we either have a metric ton of meaningless busy work jobs (everyone is a waiter) or we simply have to redefine our social structure. Since technology isn't stopping anytime soon, and most people can't do upper level math and science, I dont see how else we can stabilize in the future.

As an addendum to the above, I would also include jobs that no one else generally wants to do, or are more difficult to automate, like trades. Though, even those have grown more popular of late; I suspect without the unions they might have already been greatly devalued.

NotUpToAnythingGood · 2016-01-01T22:17:04+00:00

This is directly contributed to by society failing to ensure that up and coming additions are ready to perform as a functioning member of society. Too many people nowadays fail to learn how to function without some big daddy govt there to help them.

Because personal accountability is gone and participation deserves a trophy...

foldpak111 · 2016-01-01T23:01:46+00:00

If you are interested in learning about research like OP's, I suggest everyone here to tune into FreeDomain Radio. Get an iPod, download their content on iTunes (most podcasts are free, including these), and take it all in. Stefan Molyneux is very harsh and doesn't beat around the bush at all.

I am currently listening to 'The virus of female responsibility avoidance' and 'the truth about male privilege' is up next. I warn you all, though, it gets extremely difficult to listen to process (Stefan goes fucking deep). But you all are RP, I am fairly sure you all can handle it.

Rommel0502 · 2016-01-02T00:52:37+00:00

Just another casualty of the lefts attempt at destroying the family. If you destroy the family, you destroy the dependence and support from the family. That leaves dependence on the government and the commensurate purchased votes.

Another "win" for feminism.

T0000009 · 2016-01-02T04:07:22+00:00

Why else do ya think uncle sugar needs to suck over two trillion a year out of the private sector in taxes....

Baby mama's got have their bling!

Title	"Families headed by a single woman - can account for a 3.7 percentage point increase in poverty rates." - National Bureau of Economic Research
Author	alpha_buffalo
Upvotes	160
Comments	35
Date	January 1, 2016 12:56 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3z0jkr/families_headed_by_a_single_woman_can_account_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/families-headed-by-a-single-woman-can-account-for.54986 https://theredarchive.com/post/54986

Comments