I understand that conservative movements have done an effective job at aligning our culture’s concept of masculinity with conservative values.
What I don’t understand is that the stat is “under 35’s”, not “males under 35”. One would think that for every man that feels progressive politics is for triggerable-purple-haired-whales and no-good-lazy-soyboys, there would be more than one woman that feels conservative politics is for abusive-crypto-fascist-dicks and no-good-vacuous-pickmes.
Men are only half the population, so what’s drawing women to conservative politics?
Men are only half the population, so what’s drawing women to conservative politics?
Women being allies to conservative men. Religious women (women are generally more religious than men) also tend to be more conservative.
Furthermore I think a lot of young women are disillusioned by the “having it all” lifestyle that was promised to them by feminism. Having a dream career and raising a family (without waiting until 35 to have kids) is extremely unattainable for all but the very rich.
I also think a lot of young women, like their young male counterparts, feel that housing is unattainable. Back in the time before women entered the workforce in a major way a house was genuinely affordable on one income. Now that women are nearly equal participants in the labour force it shouldn’t be a surprise that it takes two (upper middle class) incomes to be able to afford a house. What once was an option (a career for a woman) became a requirement. Through no fault of anyone, that can leave people feeling cheated by the system.
The working class is supposed to get compensated fairly for increases in productivity.
The issue is that productivity gains aren’t equally distributed across the economy. A factory worker today is probably 100x more productive than a factory worker in the early 1900s. However, a hairdresser today has exactly the same productivity as one from a hundred years ago.
So it would stand to reason that the hairdresser should see no increase in pay at all due to no increase in productivity. Yet a haircut today costs a lot more than it did a century ago. Why is this? Because no one would work as a hairdresser today at century-ago wages. They would go work in a factory instead.
And so increases in productivity — even if they’re restricted to only one sector of the economy — cause inflation across the whole economy. This is called the Baumol Effect. This inflation means that a lot of the wage gains of the factory-worker get eaten up by the increased cost of haircuts, education, healthcare, and countless other goods and services.
It should also be noted that none of the productivity gains have led to an increase in the availability of land in desirable areas. When something is limited in supply but not demand it should be no surprise that the price goes up.
I understand that conservative movements have done an effective job at aligning our culture’s concept of masculinity with conservative values.
What I don’t understand is that the stat is “under 35’s”, not “males under 35”. One would think that for every man that feels progressive politics is for triggerable-purple-haired-whales and no-good-lazy-soyboys, there would be more than one woman that feels conservative politics is for abusive-crypto-fascist-dicks and no-good-vacuous-pickmes.
Men are only half the population, so what’s drawing women to conservative politics?
Women being allies to conservative men. Religious women (women are generally more religious than men) also tend to be more conservative.
Furthermore I think a lot of young women are disillusioned by the “having it all” lifestyle that was promised to them by feminism. Having a dream career and raising a family (without waiting until 35 to have kids) is extremely unattainable for all but the very rich.
I also think a lot of young women, like their young male counterparts, feel that housing is unattainable. Back in the time before women entered the workforce in a major way a house was genuinely affordable on one income. Now that women are nearly equal participants in the labour force it shouldn’t be a surprise that it takes two (upper middle class) incomes to be able to afford a house. What once was an option (a career for a woman) became a requirement. Through no fault of anyone, that can leave people feeling cheated by the system.
It’s a Red Queen’s race
Yes it should. The working class is supposed to get compensated fairly for increases in productivity.
Billionaires are right there.
The issue is that productivity gains aren’t equally distributed across the economy. A factory worker today is probably 100x more productive than a factory worker in the early 1900s. However, a hairdresser today has exactly the same productivity as one from a hundred years ago.
So it would stand to reason that the hairdresser should see no increase in pay at all due to no increase in productivity. Yet a haircut today costs a lot more than it did a century ago. Why is this? Because no one would work as a hairdresser today at century-ago wages. They would go work in a factory instead.
And so increases in productivity — even if they’re restricted to only one sector of the economy — cause inflation across the whole economy. This is called the Baumol Effect. This inflation means that a lot of the wage gains of the factory-worker get eaten up by the increased cost of haircuts, education, healthcare, and countless other goods and services.
It should also be noted that none of the productivity gains have led to an increase in the availability of land in desirable areas. When something is limited in supply but not demand it should be no surprise that the price goes up.