this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
451 points (98.3% liked)

Political Humor

797 readers
19 users here now

Political Shitposting

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well, the problem with option #2 is that they need the half of the population who are women to work also, otherwise the amount of the wealth produced by workers would halve and that would make the 1% (who get most of it) pretty sad.

And if, on one hand both members of a couple being force to work merelly to survive (an increasing trend since the 70s) is a bad things, on the other hand earning their own salaries has made many women independent.

The only way I see to have both the Economic production of female work in a way capturable by the 1% (the traditional housewife/houseman work is in fact actual work with Economic value, but its value accrues directly to the familly and can't be captured by the 1%) AND not giving women the independence that comes from having their own income is some kind of way more extreme anti-women legislation such as making sure that women's salaries can only be paid to their male "guardian", never to the woman.

(It's actually interesting to look at the world of The Handmaid from an Economic point of view: the removing of most women from working except as servants for a handful of "regime" families and the huge fraction of the remaining population that would need to work in Security to provided for all the massive and heavilly armed security apparatus we see in the TV series would completelly collapse the Economy of Gilead, transforming it into a country as poor as the poorest Latin American nations or worse).

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

otherwise the amount of the wealth produced by workers would halve and that would make the 1% (who get most of it) pretty sad.

I would bet that, the GOP bets that, these vacancies would be covered by men, automation, immigrant labor^1^, and offshoring. But that still allows those on top to retain wealth - they really don't care about a healthy middle class. That leaves all the best, desirable jobs to men which is exactly where they want things. I'm not saying it's at all a sane or even realistic plan, but rather, that's an outcome that's in line with this insane ideology they call a political platform.

^1^ - skilled jobs can be covered by work visas.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The appeal of the US for skilled workers goes down the worst the cost of living there gets and the nuttier its politics becomes.

Mind you. judging by Brexit, the far right crowd only figures out (if at all) that they actually need to attract the most skilled workers if they want the prosperity from having high value added industries and that their "great nation" isn't inherently appealing for the kind of people they need, after they fucked it up.