"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:eme09.25512$Fq6.2721104 at news2.west.cox.net...
> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5Xs_8.11402$o7.2411397 at news20.bellglobal.com...>> > > Congratulations for failing to figure this out. The Japanese love it.
> > > Through patriarchy, Japanese women rose to family incomes twice ours
> from
> > a
> > > fifth of ours just 4 decades ago. This 10x swing was mostly because
of
> > our
> > > drop in fortunes rather than their dramatic increase.
> >
> > This is not true. Japan had immense economic growth. A 10x swing being
> > blamed on America's decline could only exist if families were broken
into
> > more than 2 parts. Are you suggesting that there are no dual income
> > families, let alone two parent families, and that the first born of
every
> > family starts working as soon as they're out of the womb?
> >
> >
>> This mythology that "dual income families" improved anything or increased
> family incomes is a cruel joke, and the joke's on you feminazis.
>> The mostly one income families in the US in 1970 had household purchasing
> power THREE TIMES what these "dual income families" have today. The
> Japanese households which earn two and three times our "dual income
> families" today are almost exclusively one income families. Where's the
> beef?
>> Why? Because it requires the positive productivity of 8 male workers in
the
> American labor force just to make up for the negative productivity of one
> female worker. There's no other way this could happen.
I'd like some cites that illustrate women are negatively productive.
>From what I know, the only group of negatively productive people are
environmentalists and anti-globalization protesters.
