According to The New York Times President Trump's policy reversal on Obamacare, rescinding the no-cost birth control mandate, is going to slow economic growth.
That's because the pill increased women's participation in the workforce back in the 1970s. By 8 percent. "In fact, about a third of the increase in how many women attained careers in fields like law and business was due to birth control." And rescinding free birth control is a burden on women, to the tune of $1.4 billion a year.
President Trump wants 4 percent growth. But that won't be possible without "policy interventions, and tax changes or tough talk on trade won’t cut it."
Sorry NYT. You are clueless. It is the "policy interventions" like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and regulation up the ying-yang on everything from renewable energy to labor law that put the kibosh on growth. And it is a global tragedy that folks like you don't get it.
Finally, says the Times:
Actually, of course, these liberals are clueless. It is policy interventions and clueless free stuff that hinders economic growth, not products and services priced in the market. And young women that push for careers in law and business can certainly afford to pay for their contraceptives, and if they can't I'm sure that Daddy can.
Really, of course, the cluelessness goes deeper. The purpose of women on this Earth is not to boost economic growth. It is to put the next generation on the ground and then get them off the nest. You can have all the economic growth in the world, but if women don't have 2.1 children, on average, then your country and your people are going into the toilet. Or you will have to import millions of the uneducated and un-cultured to the market economy, and those immigrants are going to cost a bundle. See California and Germany.
And then there is the whole question of What Do Women Want? What upscale women want, far too often, is to pay someone else to raise their kids while they do high-status stuff instead. These days high-status stuff means a professional career, or activism. But the studies show that ordinary women want to concentrate on their families. They like to work, but their preference is part-time work so they can concentrate on raising their children.
But who cares about what ordinary women want?
The funny thing is that liberals are sitting here in the ruin of their cultural and economic ideas, and still asking for more. John C. Wright, the sci-fi author, has just put out, in the aftermath of Harveywood, a withering critique of the sexual revolution, and how it leads directly to young women getting exploited and then blaming everything in sight for their misery but the misery of being flung around in the pitiless culture of sex by "consent."
We are now, of course, trying to recover something similar today. That's what all the fuss about rape culture is about. It is recognizing that "consent" is not enough. But it is trying to enact a culture to protect young women without admitting, and declaring before all the world, that the sexual revolution is a failure. Because we People of the Creative Self cannot admit that the old bourgeois culture of the People of the Responsible Self was right after all.
And this is to say nothing about the real drawbacks of the sexual revolution, that STDs very often lead to sterility, particularly in women, that delayed childbearing past 30 means difficulty getting pregnant, and that the Pill often results in depression in women (like 20 to 30 percent more than those not using the Pill).
But what is that compared to to vital importance of women in the workforce contributing to economic growth and the transcendental truth of the sexual revolution?
That's because the pill increased women's participation in the workforce back in the 1970s. By 8 percent. "In fact, about a third of the increase in how many women attained careers in fields like law and business was due to birth control." And rescinding free birth control is a burden on women, to the tune of $1.4 billion a year.
President Trump wants 4 percent growth. But that won't be possible without "policy interventions, and tax changes or tough talk on trade won’t cut it."
Sorry NYT. You are clueless. It is the "policy interventions" like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and regulation up the ying-yang on everything from renewable energy to labor law that put the kibosh on growth. And it is a global tragedy that folks like you don't get it.
Finally, says the Times:
If contraception goes back to costing hundreds of dollars a year, women will feel the financial pinch. If that happens, we’ll all suffer the economic consequences.Imagine that! a few hundred dollars a year is going to sink the economy! Start the policy interventions this afternoon!
Actually, of course, these liberals are clueless. It is policy interventions and clueless free stuff that hinders economic growth, not products and services priced in the market. And young women that push for careers in law and business can certainly afford to pay for their contraceptives, and if they can't I'm sure that Daddy can.
Really, of course, the cluelessness goes deeper. The purpose of women on this Earth is not to boost economic growth. It is to put the next generation on the ground and then get them off the nest. You can have all the economic growth in the world, but if women don't have 2.1 children, on average, then your country and your people are going into the toilet. Or you will have to import millions of the uneducated and un-cultured to the market economy, and those immigrants are going to cost a bundle. See California and Germany.
And then there is the whole question of What Do Women Want? What upscale women want, far too often, is to pay someone else to raise their kids while they do high-status stuff instead. These days high-status stuff means a professional career, or activism. But the studies show that ordinary women want to concentrate on their families. They like to work, but their preference is part-time work so they can concentrate on raising their children.
But who cares about what ordinary women want?
The funny thing is that liberals are sitting here in the ruin of their cultural and economic ideas, and still asking for more. John C. Wright, the sci-fi author, has just put out, in the aftermath of Harveywood, a withering critique of the sexual revolution, and how it leads directly to young women getting exploited and then blaming everything in sight for their misery but the misery of being flung around in the pitiless culture of sex by "consent."
She has been taught that consent, just consent, and nothing else, is the sole measure of whether sex is licit or illicit. Whatever is without consent is rape, even if she consented at the time. Whatever is with consent is legitimate, even if she is not married to the man she is servicing sexually. But the whole point of luring and tempting a young girl with offers she lacks the strength of will to resist is to obviate her consent.In other words, "consent" is meaningless, a band-aid plastered over the debased culture of the sexual revolution. The simple fact is that men are sexual predators, and every society needs to enact cultural norms and guardrails to restrain that predation. In the old days of the "double standard" women who observed the niceties were not be the object of sexual predation, and there were penalties for men that violated the norm.
You see, if you live in a society where consent is the sole measure of right and wrong in matters of sex, then consent also does not matter. Only power matters.
We are now, of course, trying to recover something similar today. That's what all the fuss about rape culture is about. It is recognizing that "consent" is not enough. But it is trying to enact a culture to protect young women without admitting, and declaring before all the world, that the sexual revolution is a failure. Because we People of the Creative Self cannot admit that the old bourgeois culture of the People of the Responsible Self was right after all.
And this is to say nothing about the real drawbacks of the sexual revolution, that STDs very often lead to sterility, particularly in women, that delayed childbearing past 30 means difficulty getting pregnant, and that the Pill often results in depression in women (like 20 to 30 percent more than those not using the Pill).
But what is that compared to to vital importance of women in the workforce contributing to economic growth and the transcendental truth of the sexual revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment