>The uncertainty of an AI centric futureOr>Perpetually being stuck in 2021 culture where all of human morality revolves around the feefees of stupid whores
>>85090421Reading your posts. Worse than both of those options by far.
>>85090421This study was done on NZ households only by the way. But there's more reason why you should be more skeptical on how this infograph is framing this: The biggest methodological issue is that the study measures individual fiscal incidence rather than household fiscal incidence. A woman raising children at home while her husband works is coded as a net fiscal negative because she's not generating individual tax revenue, but the unpaid domestic and childcare labor she's providing has real economic value that doesn't show up in the tax data at all. If you priced that labor at market rates the picture shifts significantly.The researchers themselves note that women earn less than men on average before tax, and that taxation and government assistance notably reduces this inequality between genders, which is actually the intended function of a redistributive tax system, not evidence of exploitation.It also ignores that the largest recipients of government expenditure in the data are children and the elderly, not working age women specifically. Women living longer and therefore receiving more pension and healthcare in old age accounts for a significant portion of the gap.And most importantly, the researchers project that increased labour force participation for women would increase their tax liabilities and reduce gender differences.Just another example of someone twisting data to fit a narrative.
Gynocentrism is a ponzi scheme. Laotzu was spittin' fax when he dropped the Tao pill.
>>85090421I think AI future is going to be based. I hope there is mass homelessness and people actually have to suffer because I'm tired of faggots whining about how hard life is when it really isn't 90% of the time.
>>85090508>taking care of your own children is real laborThen why aren't you also accounting for male childcare labor? There's no such a thing as a husband coming home from work anymore, if he does, he takes care of children as well.Not only that, there's no such a thing as single household income for well over 50 years now, you cretinous feminist apologist. That's only an extremely small percentage of people who do that. >The researchers themselves note that women earn less than men on average before taxWomen also work less hours in the same context, so obviously they earn less. Women do not earn less per hour.tl;dr you are a retard
>>85090508>Just another example of someone twisting data to fit a narrative.Funny how you don't see the irony behind that. You must be a woman 100%
>>85090508meh, the first point is not good, but the rest is right. this study can't really be used the way op's infograph is using it. it is misusing the data 100%.
>>85090733>rest is right>women earning less due to their own choices and redistributing that back to them is "a good thing"You're just confirming everything in OP. Parasites.Same with the pensions: if men lived less biologically, they should receive more money per year. Instead both get the same, but women get more as they live longer, which is ridiculous. It should be the same $$/lifetime for it to be equal. Or work longer. Instead, they are parasiting on working men here as well.
>>85090508>which is actually the intended function of a redistributive tax system, not evidence of exploitationThis is the key part of this dude's pilpul: he's trying to claim that a redistributive tax system isn't exploitation (which it inherently is).
