Thread 216316789

We need to increase the fuck rate

digital transactions

It's the pregnancy rate you need to increase. And that will involves a combination of reforming business culture to allow more work-life balance, and remote work. Support for childcare, and yes, SOME immigration. But not much.

If American women looked like this it would

>>216316833
I love how the leftists were the ones who forced women into the workplace but somehow it's the fault of the heckin business owners

>>216316833
They're overpopulated and have low unemployment, almost all of the jobs they lack are skilled labor. There's too many jobs that Japanese consider dirty and skilled jobs pay about as well as fake work, so they just hire people on visas for all their manual/technical work while everyone else gets sales jobs.

>>216316915
>Muh lefties
Women working improved economic productivity. It WAS the business that were complicit in it.
And now economics don't really allow for a single income household unless they're highly skilled and highly paid.

>>216316789 (OP)
Throw me to the negritas and I'll come back with my own PMC legion

>wh--what do you mean women can't participate in wageslaving GRR!!!!!!!! WE ALSO WANT TO WAGESLAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY why did they do this.

>>216316985
Economic independence anon.

>>216316938
>Women working made line go up
and it was worse for everything that actually matters

>>216317011
Yeah well there isn't going to be any going back no matter what cope you come up with so maybe think of a solution that works with what we got instead of impotently bitching eh?

>>216316985
You don't get it, being a wage slave is more fulfilling than having essentially a slave that gives you money for free and better than birthing and nurturing a potential athlete, doctor, scholar, artist etc

>>216317002
>Economic independence anon.
Do they actually have that now?

Are babies racist?

>>216317048
Many do yes, and the paths exist for them to have it if they want it.
Or at least as economic indepednent as anybody can be.

>>216317133
Was it really worth it to ruin the economy forever ever to 'have the choice' to work. i.e. you are expected to work
A woman's lot is meant to replace full time work, it's enough on its own without having to work a job on top of it. Historically there have been jobs compatible with it, without a hint of irony, service, aka maids, which is women's chores but paid, for unmarried women.
inb4 you dismiss this as delusional ranting, this was the case around a generation ago here in Spain where women joined the workforce relatively late due to the dictatorship and such

>>216317260
The economy isn't ruined, there's just less demand for people, it's to the point where excess population is causing more of an expense. You can't just say 'don't have kids' so instead we have this song and dance around birthrates. If you've ever thought 'GDP is fake' it is, GDP represents people, the demand for GDP growth is artificially held up through printing. Try dating a woman without money, not even prostitutes would look twice at you. Do you mint the money? No? Then they've always been married to state.

American women are fat feminists that only want to fuck Chad

>>216317260
Corporations would have always wanted to squeeze more and more. I don't think women entering the workfroce or not would have changed that. It was the sad evolution of our modern economics.
Besides as I said here >>216317028 There's no going back. People will not give up rights or freedom just because your dumbass thinks it'd be better. Be more constructive instead of whining all the time.

>>216317350
Would be well and all to have declining birth-rates if we weren't importing immigrants.
The economy NEEDS people to make line go up. No birth-rates, import people, you're basing your argument that we need less people, no, they just want cheaper workers, and more of them stat.
Anyway I don't understand your off rant about women and money. Of course women want to date someone with money, that's what they do, so why in the world do they need to be economically independent and work aswell since they're #1 purpose and goal is to latch onto a man with cash.

>>216316789 (OP)
she has korean boyfriend

>>216317423
THANK YOU, someone had to say it.

>>216317415
>Corporations would have always wanted to squeeze more and more.
what does that mean? what are they squeezing? what the fuck are you talking about?

>>216317416
People are being imported in for political reasons, I think everyone realized it's not really affecting the economy much. The reason they import people in is because governments prefer workers on visas, especially for jobs that they need done. Why? Because those workers can't form lobbies or unions and if they did they would be deported. So you have economists who want depopulation and political actors that are in love with visa labor. Also those small business owners are the worst offenders of promoting immigration.

>>216316933
>skilled jobs pay about as well as fake work
service-based economies were a mistake

>>216317478
>>216317512
Too many trukes shoot it down.

>>216317473
We now need two incomes to survive in a household. This was not always the case. I'm saying that corporations would have increased price as much as they could over time to squeeze the consumer of whatever they can regardless of whether women were in the workforce or not.

>>216317377
only chad should be able to vote
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjc1AFpqIw0