Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Wisdom from America’s #1 Upper-Class Twit
Now we know the economic value of every abortion, thanks to the highly credentialed, brilliant Chelsea Clinton:
It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?
The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.
Wow! That comes out to about $53,300 for every life snuffed out. I bet even slavery wasn’t that remunerative.
Published in Domestic Policy
Neo-Ba’al worship. Truly a sophisticated death cult.
Wait, I thought she said previously she just couldn’t bring herself to care about money?
It depends on what “about” is about.
Touche!
Perhaps all those women entered the labor force due to the fact that taxation required two earners in the family to be able to afford a house, take a real vacation, send the kids to school.
But, but…if there were no abortions wouldn’t there have been even more women entering the work force?
Also, I think she forgot to work interconnectedness in there somewhere. Maybe so many people made fun of it she decided to substitute ‘not disconnected’. How does she say this crap with a straight face?
Well… Since we are talking facts that can’t be disconnected … 1973 also marks an inflection point in real wages. Real hourly wages grew nicely from the 1940’s until 1973. Then, beginning in 1973, real wages began a shallow decline and stagnation.
Supply and demand still works, no? If the supply of workers increases in 1973, then, other things being equal, the price paid to each worker has to go down. Has to. So says Econ 101.
If real wages had continued to grow at the pre-1973 rate, they would be about 250% higher than they are today.
The link is worth checking out-particularly the last three paragraphs:
Oh, yes they were!
Thank you, @cliffordbrown
Re: housing inflation…
When you could buy a house on one salary, you could get a mortgage where the payment was 28% of your income. Once two earners became common, prices adjusted to be what that bank would give you one two incomes. The market adjusts to what the market will bear.
Cost of living is responsive to shifts.
For example, cost of living doesn’t cause minimum wage hikes. Minimum wage hikes drive cost of living.
The cost of housing is how much people are willing to pay for it, right? If more people have 2 incomes, more people can buy more expensive housing.
The glut in expensive housing rises with the number of households able to afford it. Eventually, it reinforces itself, like the minimum wage/cost of living.
If fewer people can afford to buy expensive homes, then supply outpaces demand and prices drop – 2008? So purchasing power is driving cost of homes…
Only Andrew Klavan could make Ba’al so funny:
She makes so many false assumptions, I hardly know where to begin:
She assumes that if the women had their babies, they would not have entered the workforce. I guess in her addled brain, there is no such thing as working mothers.
She assumes that the 30 million babies killed would not have added even more to the economy. 30 million folks need lots of stuff and services from the market and would be likely to produce lots of stuff and services for the market.
Idiot.
She didn’t say she didn’t care about other people’s money…..the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. She can’t backtrack this one.
Fascinating article. And, oh yeah, Cartago delenda est.
She pays managers to care about her money for her.
In all honesty Chelsea Clinton seems to be a few mules short of a train. Why do the Democrats keep putting her on display?