Before you read this, you may want to consider purchasing "The Book of Numbers," the statistics of which will provide a lot of context to the article below.
Economics > Women
A regret I have about my blog/podcast/internet "career" is that I had to abandon economics long ago, and in true economist form, speak about what my audience wanted me to - women. To this day I still have an intellectual interest in economics. I'm fascinated by inflation and how the past four presidents' printing presses have priced Millennials out of housing. I love how ALL financial methods of valuing stocks are now obsolete, rendering most of the financial services industry equally so. And I'm actually looking forward to sharpening my economic chops, shopping the globe for a new home-country replete with low taxes, low debt, no root beer float requirements, and low obesity rates. I would love to write about those things. But the largest, most in-demand market right now is "whamen, ammirite?" because half the population so desperately wants the other.
However, in all fairness, I have never really abandoned economics. Because while we can talk about international trade with China, the global price for oil, or whatever crypto-currency is doing, by far the single largest market in the world is men's desire and pursuit of women. And if you really wanted to put numbers to it, the vast majority of GDP is created as a consequence of men's pursuit of women. And if you can optimize that relationship/pursuit, you will do more to increase humanity's standards of living than the industrial and information technology revolutions combined.
This provides me a little bit of forgiveness, because in all reality we are at the ground floor of economics. We are at the atomic level of where all of economics begins. Without the original trade between men and women, no economy would ever exist. And this two-decade's-long meta study I've been a part of - called "The Red Pill" - is more important, germane, and relevant to the profession of economics than literally anything any other economist is doing in the world right now.
And I literally mean that. The work I've done will have more ramifications for the world of economics than any other economist alive today. Not because I'm a genius, but simply because they're all fishing in the wrong hole.
And so it is with a heavy heart I share my latest sexual-economic observation or epiphany. Not because I'm a "doomer" or a "black piller" but because it's simple economic reality. And (if I'm right) the real-world ramifications of this observation are very dire indeed.
A Very Dark Thought Experiment
The current assumption or "prevailing thought" within the Red Pill community is that deep down inside women want men. But due to feminist/leftist indoctrination they receive from 5 until death, women are somehow "tricked" into spending their fertile years eschewing men, and instead pursue soulless education and careers. Furthermore, capitalism, advances in technology, and democracy have afforded women careers, as well as a welfare state, eliminating their dependence upon men. This means all relationships between men and women are now voluntary, instead of compelled, technically "freeing" women from men. But without men these poor women forgo true love and meaning in life, throwing their fertility and beauty away on careers and leftist political causes, dying angry old spinsters with cats and $250,000 in student loans for their masters in social work degrees in the end. We try to stop them, warn them, and convince them to return to traditionalism, but our care and concern are met with accusations of patriarchy and sexism instead. And thus we all conclude...
But come on a journey with me, if you will, and assume what feminists say is true. That women are not, in fact, being naively duped by the promises of careerism, corporatism, and a welfare state. That women are not, in fact, after a night of night-clubbing crying into their box of wine at night, pining for a man. But instead, women not only don't need men....but really don't want them either.
It takes a bit of removing human emotion from yourself, but look at some statistics and facts as if you were an alien from outer space looking down at society.
First there is perhaps the most modern metric of women's interest in men - online dating analytics. Joker at Better Bachelor did a decent break down of the numbers, but the short version is that women only swipe right on 1 in every 100 men. And out of that 1%, only 1 in 100 do they ever go on a date or have relations with. I don't know about you, but if I was an actuarial alien looking down on Earth, I would view a 1 in 10,000 event as pretty convincing proof women don't really like men.
Second, if Tinder is too modern an example, perhaps the genetic history of the human race may convince you. Based on a DNA study conducted at the University of Arizona, only 5.9% of males reproduced, while nearly every female did. Admittedly, many men died in earlier times, many men were enslaved, and powerful men had concubines and harems. But even accounting for that, more modern times (1,000 years ago) show only 1 in 5 men got to pass on their genes. Again, most women seem to not like most men.
Third, online dating data and DNA are marred with their own inherent problems, but simply polling young women about their life priorities is a much more direct and accurate way to gauge their interest in men. And while there are many studies/polls, this general one from CNBC show men are fourth on the list behind career, education, and financial stability (aka - paying off her student loans). Even kids don't come into play until 7th place, and this was for women between 30 and 45. If men are 4th on the list when women are squarely mid-life/half-dead AND your youth and beauty is the only thing the counterparty is really interested in, it speaks volumes how little genuine interest women have in men.
Fourth, disparate sex drives and prostitution.
A common canard you'll hear from posers in the Red Pill community is that "women like sex just as much as men" - translation "I have so much sex because I'm so alpha brah!!!"
That is such a blatant lie I have to laugh every time I hear it. Because if women liked sex just as much as men, we would overpopulate and destroy humankind in about a generation. Additionally, the fact prostitution only goes one way for 99.9% of all transactions, is proof women do NOT like sex or men ANYWHERE NEAR as much as men like sex/women. And while methodologies are a little fuzzy on how precisely to measure men's versus women's sex drives, a rough average of 9 to 1 is good enough for ballpark standards. That 9 to 1, can be flipped to a 1 to 9 proximate of women's fractional interest in men.
Fifth, let's say "you're alpha, brah!" Let's say you convince a girl to marry you. Presumably, that is an admission on the woman's part that she IS interested in (at least) one man. Furthermore, she also presumably wishes to procreate with you. But whatever the act of marrying a man states about women's original interest in men, that interest is quickly eliminated once they get divorced. And with 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, 75% of the time initiated by women, EVEN MARRYING A MAN isn't a gauge of interest. You throw in the fact that only 14% of marriages are happy, 86% of women don't even really like the man they married! You are going to have a hard time convincing actuarial aliens from outer space that women have any interest in men when 86% of the time they choose a man "till death do them part," they still end up regretting it.
And sixth, I'm always one for taking inventory of your own personal experiences. If there's anything this world has taught me, it's that society likes to lie to the individual to take advantage of them. Be that telling every young person to go to college, that you're not popular in school because you don't wear this type of shirt, or an entire generation of economists saying there is no housing bubble when there is one, modern day society will go out of its way to keep up a Potemkin Village of lies, instead of admit the truth. And so I ask every man to ask himself one simple question - have the majority of women you had an interest in treated you with kindness or interest in your past? Or indifference, aloofness, even malice or spite? And I'm going to bet the VAST majority of experiences for the VAST majority of men have been one proving women's general disinterest in men.
You couch all of the above in the historical fact that women have for eons depended upon men for their survival, I can totally understand and see where women have no interest in men. I can even go so far as to see feminism's view that women were oppressed and needed to be freed of men (though I do not agree, I can just see their point). And I can see where disparate sex drives flood women with an annoying amount of unwanted attention, further repulsing them from men. And now that they're free - either through a career or the welfare state or both - I have to conclude that a significant percent of the behavior you are witnessing in a significant percent of women is authentic.
Sadly, a significant percent of women just don't like men. A significant percent of women, don't really want anything to do with men. And unless you are an absolute 9 or 10 (and I would argue gaussian, not linear), women really do not have an interest in your average guy or everyday Joe.
Men Going Galt
But as with everything in physics and nature, there has to be balance. And the relationship between the sexes is no different. Because whereas women have an interest in men only 11% that of men do women, unfortunately men have evolved overtime to compete and produce to get this dwindling percentage of marginally interested women. And this has resulted in the inconvenient truth that men account for
- the majority of economic production,
- an even larger percent of real economic production (carpentry, electricianship, engineering, etc.),
- and nearly ALL technological innovations.
And here we return to regular boring ole economics. Because if you haven't been paying attention to the news, women's effective and stated disinterest in men has resulted in about two generations of men increasingly going Galt. Because if they're not going to get married, fall in love, or have children, what, precisely do they have to get out of bed in the morning for?
Labor force participation for young men has been going down when, in theory, it should be stable as all young men presumably would want to get out there, start a career, and at minimum enjoy a life.
Consequently, with fewer men working, an increasing percentage of them live at home (and easily triple that live off of a subsidy from their parents). This is one of the main complaints my female clients (as well as I'm sure nearly all young women) have today about men, because how do you date (let alone marry) somebody who lives with his mother?
Naturally, not working, going to school, or getting some kind of training has resulted in the crisis of "economically unattractive men," causing a shortage of marriageable men. However, I cannot help but point out how women did this to themselves. The welfare state swings both ways, and when you put life on easy mode with welfare checks, student loan bailouts, stimmie checks and free healthcare, don't complain when you have (now two) generations of soyboy pussies who may vote democrat, but need to borrow money from you to pay rent. You enabled it.
Worse, soyboys who vote democrat and don't support themselves also do not produce economic growth. I'm sure Tanner strums his acoustic guitar real well with his "Music Therapy Degree" part time playing at the old folks home on a taxpayer grant. But he is less than half productive his grandfather WWII generational counterpart who was producing cars or something society could actually use at the factory. Consequently, in taking away any romantic incentive men would have traditionally had to work (family, love, wife, children, etc.), you destroyed their work ethic. But it also didn't help that you paid them not to work out out blind, naive, socialist political stupidity. Thus, it should be no shock we all suffer with economic growth rates LESS THAN HALF of what we had back in the 40's-60's.
I truly do believe that a certain and significant percentage of women do not like men or simply have no interest. I also believe that a certain and significant percent of women do like men and want to get married. But I also would wager most women, regardless of their interest in men, on paper want to get married. But unlike the sex market, men control the market to commitment. And here, like the economy, you see men also going Galt.
Be it seeing their old man get divorced. Their friends get divorced. Their buddy's $3,000/month payment in child support/alimony. Higher taxes. Or the simple, yet decades-long-consistent message that women didn't need them, men are exiting from the marriage market, and thus society, and thus the economy. Agreed, women may not have any interest in men. But men increasingly have no interest in marrying women. And regretful as this may be, society will not exist without men's participation in it.
The Real Kick in the Economic Groin
If the macro-economic picture painted above wasn't bad enough, it gets worse. Because whether we like to admit it or not, the truth is that men produce the majority of real stuff in the economy. If you don't believe me, try this little exercise.
List the the next 5 things you're likely going to buy. Gas, toilet paper, a massage, whatever. And also consider everything that goes into the production, manufacture, transportation, and delivery of those products. So even if it's a massage, that massage parlour requires computers, electricity, insurance, construction, furniture, etc.
Now, go to this site and move the cursor along the data points to find the professions/workers that will go into making those products. And what you'll realize is that the vast majority of workers that are going to produce those products are men.
You don't even have to consider what products you're going to buy. Just scroll along the right side of the curve and any intellectually honest person will realize that it is men who produce the lions share of anything that really matters in this economy. And on the left side - though admittedly there are some legitimate professions (nurse practitioners, sonographers, etc) - the majority of the jobs listed there are either nowhere near as vital to the economy or are complete make-work welfare job programs (social work, non-profit, etc.) that disproportionately employ women.
So not only will the nominal economy contract linearly as men retreat from the labor force, it will disproportionately affect the things we demand and need most, exponentially lowering our standards of living.
The Real Kick in the Economic Groin Part II
But it gets even worse than that.
Because just like women (disproportionately) voted to put life on easy mode for men, thus resulting in soft, unemployable soyboys, we also lied to now three generations of men (as well as women) about the value and veracity of their degrees.
I don't know if you're noticed, but there's a labor shortage of skills that matter. Ask any suburbanite soccer mom about how easy it is to find a landscaper and she will frustratingly explain to you they're booked out till next year. Ask any clean-fingernailed MBA mid-level manager about getting car repairs done, and he's frustrated his mechanic won't be able to get to his car until next month. Employers are desperate for engineers, accountants, and anybody with a modicum of talent or skill. And even getting people to show up on time seems to be a chore.
But what precisely did you think was going to happen when you propagandized generations of young men and women with the relatively female, idealistic poppycock of "follow your heart and the money will follow?" Let alone that YOU decide what you're going to do for a living and then the rest of the world will forcibly abide??? The country is in desperate need of linemen, welders, CPA's, even simple landscapers, and you've raised a labor pool of self-righteous liberal arts majors who can't even lift a roll of sod. Worse, it's not like you can just flip a switch and "POOF" all these worthless social science majors suddenly know how to weld or program a computer. It will take AT MINIMUM 10 years of hard, dedicated retooling of people's skills as well as the entire education system. In the meantime things like your heater, car, and computer are just going to have to wait AND are going to cost a lot more. Thank god we have millions of liberal arts majors who can lecture you about racism and "the patriarchy" in the meantime.
The Real Kick in the Economic Groin Part III
And if you can imagine it.... it even gets worse than that. Because I don't know if you've ever visited the bachelor pad of a single, unemployed man in his twenties, but they can get by on VERY VERY little. Which consequently means they're going to work/produce VERY VERY little.
While Stefan Molyneux opines that men can get by on 1/10th the income a family of 4 does (and I believe him because I've lived it) a better proxy or measure might be the income differences between married and single men.
It depends on how old you are and where you are along your career, but generally speaking single men work (which means "produce") 39% less than their married counterparts. You may make the argument, "well that's because they have a wife and kids"
and I would argue back
"YES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A WIFE AND KIDS!"
Because the above data (as well as any unemployed, 20 something bachelor's apartment) will tell you is that without women or family, men have no incentive to work anywhere near as hard because they frankly have no reason to live aside from themselves. And this would all be fine and well if men and women equally produced things that mattered in the economy (as the proportional drop in population would require proportionally less of real economic goods and services), but since men by far are the main producers of valuable items in the economy, men's non-participation in society is going to impoverish everyone.
Yes, we can get by importing labor from overseas to do the work American men won't.
Yes, we can import real goods made by (again) largely men overseas from China, etc, and can keep prices low (for now) with a world reserve currency.
But without these international trade ticks or the incredible luck of having the world's reserve currency Americans could very easily be facing a nominal drop of 39% in GDP, more if you factor in the fact that drop would be in important things like;
food, energy, housing, and medicine
and not laughably worthless things like;
college lectures, HR, diversity and inclusion consultants, Oprah books, and tarot card readings.
"The Final Solution"
Whether women's lack of interest in men today is authentic or a byproduct of propaganda (or likely a bit of both), it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Because men cannot act upon what we guess to be in the heart of women. Men can only act upon whatever empirical actions women put forth in society. And with women's general disengagement from men (sometimes even somewhat hostile), men are increasingly forced to live their lives under the expectation the majority of them will not marry, let alone happily so, let alone with kids. This will continue the trend of men going Galt and the lowering of our standards of living.
However, while the majority of men will disengage or only put forth marginal effort in life, the men who do put forth the effort to attain excellence present an interesting situation, and ultimately solution to society's production and even repopulation problem. Because for all the feminist propaganda that women don't need...or want...men, most women I would surmise do want children. But nearly none of them will be willing to settle for anything less than near-perfect. And with the historic human race track record of only 6% of men passing their genetics onto the next generation, we may see a reversion back to that norm. And whereas today the norm is monogamy (ehhhh....sorta), we can already see pressures, trends, and even technology moving to polygamy where an elite 6% group of men impregnate nearly all the women.
The trend in news media pushing for open relationships is indicative of a polyamorous society. Women's insistence for only top 20% men on online dating is also indicative of a harem-like society. Women's (reluctant) willingness to share an alpha instead of having a beta all her own, reinforces this. And women celebrating articles that herald advances in IVF or egg-freezing technology show men may not even be necessary.
And so what we will see is a continuation of what's been happening for the past 40 years anyway. A migration from a nuclear family to a state-financed/subsidized, female-headed family, while an increasing percent of men drop out of the work force as they are essentially relegated to a slave class to produce things for people they have no familial, romantic, sexual and love interest in. Economic growth will continue to slow, if not contract. Debts and money supplies will be inflated as a psychological magic trick to fool people into thinking the economy is stable. Trade deficits will drastically increase as foreign countries will (essentially) enslave their workers to produce the things Americans won't produce themselves. And our entire GDP will consist of elementary school teachers, HR directors, non-profits, body positivity bloggers, and marketing consultants.
I would normally say "Enjoy the Decline," but it is going to be such interesting times, I have to say "enjoy the show." Trust me, you will not see anything more spectacular in your entire life. I just hope you know how to prepare for it.
If you're a young man (or old) and you're trying to figure out
what role or capacity women should play in your life,
consider purchasing AND READING the book below:
Also consider getting your financial act together!