Would wages and salaries be higher if women didn't infiltrate the workforce

Probably, but we would just import more immigrants.

Most people shouldn't be allowed to vote, men and women.

Private unions are good, public unions are a cancer.

True. But, OP is talking about waging in a factory, not cooking, cleaning, farming and child barring.

Women in the workforce raised consumer demand though

It's okay. Trannies are filling the female quotas in a lot of industries, like coding and web design.

Women are pathetic. You would think they're at least competent at being women but men are better at that too

Attached: 1663195616336783.jpg (1039x1350, 121.86K)

no, its completely unrelated.

Attached: wagescompensation-1200x1093.jpg (1200x1093, 185.71K)

Does this answer your question, user?

Attached: the answer.jpg (553x757, 103.44K)

is he a gamer?

>doubling the workforce halves value of labour
>wtf why am i only making half as much this is BULLSHIT!

Factories have employed poor women since the dawn of the industrial revolution because they were cheaper

No. Productivity and efficiency have only been going up but wages haven't kept up with inflation. Even without female workers you'd still be getting paid like garbage.

Also I'd like to point out that prior to the 19th century women pretty much did every job a man did (trades and warfare and clear exceptions) because we all lived agrarian lifestyles together. During the 19th century the burgeoning middle class could avoid having their spouse work and it was a status symbol. Then working class women were forced out of many jobs because of moral panics about their safety (same reason why labour laws stopped kids working in mines and factories). So most of those women could only really do at home industries (e.g. metal nail making), domestic work or prostitution. This only really changed during the world wars then 60s/70s onwards.

Feminism is a product of middle class women wanting both freedom of choice as well as security, but you can't have both: to be free to choose also means you accept risks. To be secure also means you accept limits to your freedoms.

So what did destroy the economy? Well, they demanded that the government behave like a safety net because middle class women wanted freedom of choice and security. So the safety blankets of benefits mean working class women don't tend to work anymore. And middle class women can be free to pursue whatever educational course they want. All modern society is basically rewarding women for something that no one has ever had before in society.

A peasant, male or female, both had limited choices in what they could do, who they could marry. Feminists created the illusion of oppression. Our ancestors actually had a better work life balance than we did. Feminism means we work to secure a safety blanket for people to risk whatever they want while our own freedom to choose is limited.

It is literally them having their cake and eating it too.

See:
>Then working class women were forced out of many jobs because of moral panics about their safety (same reason why labour laws stopped kids working in mines and factories).
Early factories were more like collectively pulling in at home industries. So family
cottage industry under one roof for several processes of say, shoe making.

But urbanisation led to a lot of problems. Like gin was called "mothers ruin" because it was a cheap drinking choice. Urban problems were much more easy to perceive because they were in your face, on your streets. So many moral panics began. When people saw working conditions and how they adversely affected people, it forced many women out of factory work. Only labour shortages during the wars really began to overturn this.

Of course this occured in Britain. Modern third world countries fill factories with women and don't have the same constant moral panics about working conditions.