But user empowering women is good for the economy! everybody knows that!

and raping women is good for my dick

now bendover bitch I'm coming in, I bet you don't even know about my stinky links

that's right whore, my links are stink STINKY LINKIES $1000 EOY fucking stacey doesn't even know about my

>stinky linky

LINKS STAY STINKY $1000

Attached: 1520640895963.jpg (1548x2048, 589K)

That's obviously an inherent flaw of capitalism, not women. Our entire economy is oriented around this dumbass notion that there should be enough work for every person, even as automation replaces workers. Everyone's forced to do busywork for scraps.

The most skilled people in general should be able to work, gender doesn't really factor into it. There's no difference in IQ distribution between men and women, after all. I wouldn't say we should organize our society so that all men and no women work - we can achieve the same distribution and number of workers by having the smartest and most skilled men and women work and earn a wage for a life of luxury, and then the dumb men and women collect some universal basic income and live in little 300 square foot habitation cubes. If you had the same number of workers but only men, you'd end up with a lot of dumbass men working while there are bright and skilled women doing nothing.

Have you ever even been on /r9k/ or are you just an idiot?

>inherent flaw of capitalism

hmm wasn't sure there was a flaw with allowing people to trade capital, but damn you convinced me

I dont necessarily dispute your hypothetical. But where does the money come from for UBI and living spaces? I'd think you'd agree that the vast majority of the population would go the no work, free life route.

This is false. Womens IQs are more gathered around the mean and men have more outliers on both sides.

Capitalism is wage slavery. The accumulation of capital as the foundation of property ownership and access to markets is based on a lie propped up by the rich and powerful: that there's a job for every sucker, that you must work to live. The flaw isn't that you can trade capital, that's fine. The mandatory participation in this system is the problem.

There is an IQ difference in distribution between men and women. Women are more clustered around the mean than men are so you have more males that are retarded as well as more males who are high IQ, this is part of why there's so few women in STEM.

The generational entrenchment isn't so hot, either.

Yeah you'd be the skilled one living in luxury right? That idea sounds a hell of a lot worse than the current system.

>allowing people to trade capital is wage slavery

hmmm solid argument good sir, you are a true debater and logician, really made me think

It's not true that you have to work to survive. Look at any other species on earth. They just lay on their asses all day and make it to ripe old age.

Not necessarily. And I'm kind of joking with the 300 square foot living cubicle. But look at a list like this: uh oh. Retail salesperson, cashier, fast-food prep and service worker, heavy-truck driver....all can easily be made redundant by machines in the next decade or two. You've seen the burger-flipping robots, self-driving trucks, self-checkout and Amazon Go. Millions of workers. And don't forget the normal distribution of IQ - about half the population's at or under an IQ of 100. If we have the capability of replacing these workers with machines, what will they do? They're not gonna be retrained as scientists or engineers, that's for sure. Yes, they could starve to death. I'm not really sure what option there is other than UBI. That doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing other possibilities, I just can't see what other solution there possibly can be, it seems like a natural end-point for a purely capitalist system.

Attached: jobs.png (796x932, 174K)

That is a meme graph. In reality they have similar distribution, but have less IQ.

Seek help

... no that is the effect of the differences between XX and XY chromosomes, just like women have "patchy" bodies, they also have an averaged effect for the leverage their X chromosome's quality has over their body.

you're a fucking nitwit.

This is wrong, those studies are on youth

After adulthood women retain that wider distribution, but there average ends up being less

Capitalism means more than just trading capital, for a pedant you have a pretty narrow view of things. Stone tools were a sort of capital for cavemen, people have traded since the Palaeolithic era. Capitalism - the economic system, the market economy - is only as recent as, at the very earliest, the 16th century. Capitalism also consists of the accumulation of capital, private ownership of the means of production, investing money to make profit, freedom to manage businesses using one's capital, and so on.
People are forced to participate in this system: society is organized in such a way that you must at the very least work for someone in that market economy to survive. That's why we call it "wage slavery" - people don't really have a choice, and are easily exploited by those with capital….outside of NEETs, who found out the secret of living with your parents.
If you think that “capitalism” is synonymous with “trading capital” then you’re a brainlet.

You realize that it actually IS good for the economy right?

More workers means more producitivity means a higher GDP which due to economies of scale means lower cost of goods and services which in turn means your personal life is in a better position.

I personally don't give a fuck about politics. I only give a fuck about profitability and having the best life as possible. Cheaper labor/goods/services give me and humanity as a whole the best life and therefor I support this notion.

If enslaving all women led to a better economy I would have supported that instead. But it doesn't so I don't.

Attached: 1498072296977.gif (250x250, 1.16M)

its funny that I never have to read more than the first line to know you don't know what you're talking about

capitalism is based on private ownership and trading of capital

Its apparent you dislike something else in the system that isn't the fundamental skeleton called capitalism because I'm very much sure you wouldn't like it if you couldn't own things or trade things

I only need women to spend their cuckfriends money on crypto idgaf if they work or not

You could own and trade things in 500 BC. Was Ancient Rome a capitalist society?

yes except for when the government abused laws to seize capital unjustly from its people

sound familiar?

I know it's a bit ridiculous to have to link you to a goddamn wikipedia article but I think you have some light reading to do:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
>The history of capitalism has diverse and much debated roots, but fully-fledged capitalism is generally thought to have emerged in north-west Europe, especially in the Low Countries (mainly present-day Flanders and Netherlands) and Britain, in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries.

btw folks we have females on this board.. they just don't say much

yeah and I never said Rome was capitalist since the government would regularly abuse their power to seize capital unjustly

regardless of where the roots of capitalism are, at its most abstract capitalism is still just:

1. the ability to privately own capital
2. the ability to trade capital

I guarantee any problems you have with today's society do not inherently deal with capitalism unless you genuinely don't believe people should be able to own things or trade things

Attached: 14420238450892657.jpg (657x527, 34K)

Most retarded shit I've ever heard but that's a delusional commie for ya. Throughout all of natural history every animal has had to work to survive. Not a single species survives by sitting around and expecting handouts to live.
>inb4 plants
They still have to use and store energy

Other animals and plants don't have machines. It's not an intrinsic law of the universe that the only way we as a species will have enough food and water for every person is if every single person works 9 to 5. It's not a universal truth that for every job made redundant by a machine, a new one will take its place.

>the world needs to support me because machines are efficient

commies everyone

Attached: 17052987523.jpg (1280x720, 86K)

And I'm not a communist. I'm not advocating for from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I'm saying that in the near future, enough jobs will be made redundant by machines and enough surplus of resources will be available to provide the basic necessities of every citizen in developed nations. Labor and wages will be used for luxuries, not basic survival. What's the alternative? Maybe I'm wrong about the solution (UBI), but I don't think I'm wrong about predicting the problem. There won't be enough work for everyone, so what, they're gonna starve? That's an option, but that'd lead to a fucking messier society than one where everyone gets some cash every month.

I'm not in a career where I'd be at risk of losing my job to automation.

what is your alternative to private ownership and trading of capital friend

Attached: 14523223.jpg (920x730, 56K)

They'd probably assume they are entitled to my alpha Chad cock. Nope.

traps don't count, fgt

I've never understood the desire of some women to be housewives or the desire of some men to allow that arrangement. I earn about 200k but my wife isn't allowed to not work. If I'm busting my ass to take care of us then she should be too.

7 and 5 at best

t. currently attending huge party school

My issue isn't with the facets of capitalism that support private ownership and the trading of capital (both of which predate capitalism by thousands of years). My problem concerns wage labor, which is inextricably tied to modern capitalism.

you mean 5 and 7 right?
btw have fun user

wage labor being so pitiful has more to due with our centralized banking system than the affects of a free trade economy

Capitalism means I can come on this website and say nigger. All these fancy definitions of capitalism don’t exist in the weal world so you might as well drop it. Nigger nigger john stewart niggermill

So you can make sure your kids are raised properly by their mother instead of the nanny, TV/ipad, or the fucked up schools.

“Automation is just around the corner and will eat up all the jobs” is a stupid meme perpetrated by Silicon Valley so they can enact their totalitarian globalist utopia.
Self driving cars/trucks have some giant hurdles to overcome and are at least a decade away from being rolled out in the US (easiest to navigate roads in the world). Robots are clunky, expensive and severely limited by battery capacity. ML might automate some office clerk tasks but considering how many office workers are uncomfortable switching from one MS Office version to another, I still see a long way to go.
Automation is coming, but much slower than you think. I’d argue that the agricultural revolution(s) and the industrial revolution were far more disruptive and yet we didn’t need UBI, Zeitgeist AI overlords, or any other collectivist bullshit.

>so what, they're gonna starve?
Even aside from UBI being in the equation here, the fact that this outcome has such an alien possibility of occurance to you means that you're probably going to be one of the people starving in the near future