It's a "Boomers destroyed your society" episode

Those god damn women, always doing things

Stupid bitches dare to exist.

wouldnt most women be working, since only white suburb bitches stayed at home and everyone else had to work cuz the murkan dream was not a viable reality for minorities or rural folk

The blame should be placed on the """greatest""" generation
youtube.com/watch?v=otD52qwC9xw

>wouldnt most women be working
No. Look up Female LFPR. It was extremely low until the late 70s/early 80s. This is just for the U.S. btw, I can't say for other countries.

false.
it really was possible to live off of one man's income back then.

>Be a woman living as all women have lived traditionally for our species since dawn of time, working as a mother and caregiver of the family, while my husband provides through the strength of his work.
>listen to (((modernist))) propaganda about how men and women are exactly the same, and gender differences aren't important
>Suddenly I wanna be stronk independent womym that takes care of myself
>don't need no man
>join the labor pool en masse
>wages deflate, and can't support myself
>can't find husband because working all the time
>vote for welfare because single moms need help and can't support themselves
>this cuts my wages even more
>realize I've been lied to and get married as fast as I can, so I can get out of working
>husband's wages also went down because all those other women are a still out there working keeping the labor market down
>have to go back to work now, because families now need two incomes to survive, even though throughout all of human history, they've succeeded on only one
>blame the patriarchy because I only make $.79 and start campaigns to get women to work even more.

When will this shitty "the 70s was like how most of humanity was like" meme end?

The nuclear family itself is a 19th century invention. The extended family had been the norm throughout basically all of human history, until then.

Saying that people were living off the work of one man in the extended family is just disingenuous.

okay. so it was one guy's work supporting a whole extended family, not just the nuclear family.

That's a stronger argument, than before.

No matter how you cut it, men's labor was of a higher value before women started working. It's supply and demand, the iron law of economics, that cannot be broken.

>that
>having anything do with my post about LFPR
You fuck off.

>its a retard who doesn't realize social security is a ponzi scheme floated by boomers episode

>Communism has won in the USA
>Blame the normal, white heterosexual christian people for it, your own parents

Discussing millennial scum, you allowed the Jew-communists to sick you against your own people.

By the way, here's geopolitics 101 for you:
The so called "baby boomers" had a fuckload of money & excellent economical situation, because the USA made an insane amount of money on WW2 and earlier, WW1.
If I recall, UK paid it's last installment in the 70's - and soon after the USA backed out from the Golden Standard - what a coincidence, eh? :)

Also, the WW2 victory allowed USA to enter a lot of new markets for american-made products,which ware previously closed or regulated to them. Thus boosting the income in the States. To this day, USA is a powerhouse because countless billions are pouring in from Europe and Asia.

>It's a retard who doesn't realize that social security isn't a ponzi scheme and would work if it hadn't been turned into a slush fund by politicians who want want to increase spending while "reducing taxes"

>he thinks it was turned into a slush fund rather than the other way around
The reason they did that was because the program was insolvent. If they hadn't, they couldn't actually fund it.

>social security isn't a ponzi scheme and would work
kek.

>The so called "baby boomers" had a fuckload of money & excellent economical situation, because the USA made an insane amount of money on WW2 and earlier, WW1.
Which was the doing of the "lost" and "silent" generations and the boomers squandered all that. Remember which generation did the 1965 immigration act.

>so it was one guy's work supporting a whole extended family, not just the nuclear family
No, it was multiple guys supporting the extended family. And women weren't exactly doing nothing or just being caretakers, either.

You could also go even further back to hunters and gatherers times to see this lucidly.

>It's supply and demand, the iron law of economics, that cannot be broken.
Funny that you say that, because "supply and demand" isn't a law of economics at all.

Economics knows of something called Giffen goods, which is a good that has an upward sloping demand curve. In other words, the higher the price rises, the more people will buy it.

Fuck off yourself.

>Fuck off yourself
Nah, you see. I made an argument and you didn't. The off fucking is on you. Fuck off, you weebshit. You're just shilling to keep your NEETbux.

>Supply and Demand isn't real
kys, anime-loving NEET

>Be a woman living as all women have lived traditionally for our species since dawn of time, working as a mother and caregiver of the family, while my husband provides through the strength of his work.

fucking kek
anyway go back to /pol/

>ignores Supply and Demand
retard

>Giffen goods
>Has nothing to do with doubling the labor pool
double retard

Blame capitalism.

Less work to do for the same market SHOULD mean everyone has to work less for the same lifestyle, instead it means not as many people get to work for their meager slice of the pie.

No, I'm not suggesting communism is better.

>Blame capitalism
>Blame natural law

More resources should not make life harder.

>Pay money in
>Get that amount of money back out
Where's the problem?

Oh, yeah:
>Pay money in
>Oops, we spent it on other stuff so we could give tax breaks to a handful of rich people while simultaneously funding some new wars and subsidizing those rich people's businesses
>Sorry, looks like there's none of your money left in here to pay back out

By the way, if it was a ponzi scheme, it's the boomers that would have got fucked the worst.

>communism has won

You're so fucking retarded, literally all of our problems come from capitalism being horrific

>Placed in a nursing home by the state
Is there any place in America that actually pays for that?

Unless you had a sweet retirement plan, no, you're going to die on the streets. If you're lucky, Medicaid will pay for in-home hospice care, but not a fucking nursing home, which at best they'll supplement.

When I die what are the chances that my corpse will be processed into fertiliser to grow the elite's crops?

What the fuck.

But there aren't more resources.
The demand for resources and the number actually produced stayed the same.
Only the number of people trying to get paid for making them increased.

>Put money in
>Take more money out than i put in
>Need a constant increase in the quantity of workers to continue on

>By the way, if it was a ponzi scheme, it's the boomers that would have got fucked the worst
Only if we run out of money before they die.
It'll run out after that, but not soon after that.

l2read

All I'm saying is that the stereotypical model of downward sloping demand and upward sloping supply in a perfectly efficient market with inefficient governments is not absolute.

I don't save upset reaction images, so take this cute awoo and know that it shall express my deepest contempt.

>placed into a nursing home by the state
HA!
You fucking wish!
Maybe that's how the do shit in Europe, but in America nursing homes are only for people that can afford to pay for them.

>>Oops, we spent it on other stuff so we could give tax breaks and porkbarrel to the middle class

This is what happened in australia

>Pay money in
>Get that amount of money back out
That's not how it worked. That is literally never how Social Security ever worked.

People are the resource. Assume all men are working full time to support their families. Then assume all women join in working. Now, you should have a man and a woman in a family each working for half as much time. But average per-household buying power has barely changed since the 60s, while GDP has increased significantly and many more families have more than one working adult.

Oh well at least we get to live in a dystopia. That's kinda cool.

There is no point saying this, most people lack any comprehension and can't imagine non-white woman farmers, labourers, sharecroppers, mammies, washer women, cooks etc...

Probably because those are irrelevant in a thread about the historical progression of modern western society.

>It would have worked if it weren't flawed in an incredibly foreseeable way

Every single fucking time with socialists. It's always about giving the government abusable power and being shocked when it's abused.

>hurr everyone is retarded but me
>I'm going to pretend that the average woman wasn't a homemaker or part time worker at the most in 1960
It's like you're too fucking stupid too look up some stats. There's still a huge difference in the number of females participating in full time labor compared to males today.

bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jan/wk2/art03.htm

>39% LFPR rate for females in 1960

You're right, of course. I just take issue with writing off gross misuse of government power as "Well, it was a shitty idea from the start. Let's just end all the good stuff the government does and keep all the shitty things, that'll fix it."

>Social security
>good
>ever
It was an insolvent program doomed to failure from the start.