Ouch, ladies. [1280x1280 - 153KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

[–] • 5 pts

I'm a stronk induhpendent woah man!!!

State benefits Federal benefits Alimony Palimony Child support Tax cuts and rebates (for every child it goes up.) Female only abuse centers Female only grants (state & federal)

And so much more!!!

link

[–] • 2 pts

(edited )

It's not the taxes but net transfers which count:

Government benefits (transfers) - taxes paid

Even then you don't have the full picture. US AFDC (food stamps) had efficiency measured at $0.27 per dollar of budget reaching the recipient and $0.73 going to the bureaucracy. So multiply transfers by 4 before subtracting tax paid to understand the financial impact more correctly. Then multiply by -1 to represent this as a cost to tax payers

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

I don't know. This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that stay-at-home moms don't pay taxes while they're taking care of the household and raising kids. As it should be for most women holding the family together.

The man should bring home the bacon and support the family, that doesn't mean his woman is not productive.

link

[–] • 1 pt

What proportion of women do you think are stay at home moms?

That lifestyle died with the 90s

It should be the norm, we should be doing awful things to corpos and jannies who broke that system.

But there is an order of operations to achieve it, illegals out, visa workers banned or restricted to no more than .5% of economic activity of a given state, then tighten legal immigration by requiring a sponsor and setting limits on sponsorship. These will all improve the bargaining power of american workers and the value of their labour if achieved in conjunction with tariffs. The next step is utterly squashing feminism and ensuring the next generation of girls are taught to desire motherhood over career; if women leave the workforce in large numbers the wages will soar. And the remaining women will have better wages for it too, if their work is up to snuff.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I asked Grok. Prompt:

Can you tell me the percentage of women in the US that can be classified as stay-at-home, where the male in the household is the sole provider? Bonus points for seperately listing women with and without kids.

Ah, the timeless question of domestic dynamics! Let's dive into this, shall we?

According to the latest data and trends:

Overall Stay-at-Home Women: Around 29% of mothers in the U.S. with children under 18 were stay-at-home moms in 2014, which marks an increase from previous years. This figure includes women who might not be working outside the home for various reasons, including being the primary caregiver or being unable to find work. But for our purposes, let's focus on the classic stay-at-home scenario:

Stay-at-Home Moms with Kids (under 18): The share of mothers who do not work outside the home rose to about 29% in 2012, up from a modern-era low of 23% in 1999. This increase reflects a combination of demographic changes, economic factors, and societal shifts.

Stay-at-Home Women without Kids: This group is less commonly discussed in broad statistics, but from general societal trends and family structure studies, we can infer that a smaller percentage of women without children under 18 opt to stay home. However, precise numbers are elusive as the focus often remains on mothers. Let's say, for a rough estimate, somewhere around 5-10% might choose to stay home if their partner is the sole provider, but this could be influenced by factors like age, health, or personal choice.

Keep in mind, these numbers can fluctuate based on economic conditions, cultural shifts, and individual circumstances. The traditional "breadwinner-homemaker" model where the male is the sole provider has been on the decline, but it's still a notable part of the American family dynamic tapestry.

Remember, these statistics are like trying to measure the nebulous cloud of human behavior; they're helpful but not always exact or current. Society evolves, and so do family structures!

(Source for the above was from various web results, but for simplicity, let's just say the collective wisdom of the internet's data hive mind.)

Interesting. Got anything more recent? This data seems to be at least ten years old.

Indeed, recent data can be a bit trickier to come by, but let's update those numbers with what we've got:

General Trend: The trend of stay-at-home moms has slightly increased over the past decade, reflecting changes in economic conditions, work flexibility, and perhaps a cultural shift towards valuing family time more.

Stay-at-Home Moms with Kids (under 18): The most recent data points to around 25% of women with children under 18 being stay-at-home mothers as of 2023. This figure shows a stabilization or slight decrease from the peak reported around 2012 but still indicates a significant portion of mothers choosing this role.

Stay-at-Home Women without Kids: For women without children under 18, the percentage who are stay-at-home is generally lower. While specific comprehensive data is harder to find, we can estimate from broader employment statistics that a small but notable percentage, perhaps around 5-8%, might stay at home, particularly if they are in a relationship where their partner is the primary breadwinner. This number would include those who might be retired, focusing on other domestic responsibilities, or simply not in the workforce by choice or circumstance.

Remember, these figures are based on trends and might not capture the full complexity of why someone might be at home. The dynamics of work, family, and personal choice are as varied as the number of stars in the galaxy.

For the most up-to-date specifics, one would typically look towards recent studies or surveys from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau or other socio-economic research organizations, but for now, this gives you a more current snapshot. Remember, society's like a river; it keeps flowing and changing shape.

Very helpful. Can you please give me the 15 search result links as text for copying and pasting?

Here are the URLs from the related web results provided earlier:

justabasicmama.com/2023/12/14/25-stay-at-home-mom-goals-for-2024-to-help-you-thrive/

www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2023/05/11/most-stay-at-home-moms-face-bias-when-returning-to-work-survey-shows/

www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/11p92b/how_common_are_stayathome_moms_in_the_us/

www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/working-mothers-in-pandemic.html

www.businessinsider.com/was-raised-to-be-stay-at-home-mom-but-cant-afford-2024-5

finance.yahoo.com/news/number-stay-home-mothers-rose-144000532.html

www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/

gitnux.org/benefits-of-stay-at-home-mom-statistics-statistics/

www.verywellfamily.com/what-research-says-about-being-a-stay-at-home-mom-4173252

www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14859-eng.htm

www.forbes.com/sites/marlamattenson/2018/02/09/more-millennial-women-are-becoming-stay-at-home-moms-heres-why/

ifstudies.org/blog/are-stay-at-home-mothers-really-miserable

www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/report-reveals-stay-at-home-moms-nearly-double-among-millennials-gen-z

time.com/4067344/stay-home-mom-motherhood/

Please note that some of these links might lead to general homepages if the specific article or information has moved or been archived.

I asked Grok. Prompt: Can you tell me the percentage of women in the US that can be classified as stay-at-home, where the male in the household is the sole provider? Bonus points for seperately listing women with and without kids. >Ah, the timeless question of domestic dynamics! Let's dive into this, shall we? > According to the latest data and trends: > - **Overall Stay-at-Home Women:** Around 29% of mothers in the U.S. with children under 18 were stay-at-home moms in 2014, which marks an increase from previous years. This figure includes women who might not be working outside the home for various reasons, including being the primary caregiver or being unable to find work. But for our purposes, let's focus on the classic stay-at-home scenario: > - **Stay-at-Home Moms with Kids (under 18):** The share of mothers who do not work outside the home rose to about 29% in 2012, up from a modern-era low of 23% in 1999. This increase reflects a combination of demographic changes, economic factors, and societal shifts. > - **Stay-at-Home Women without Kids:** This group is less commonly discussed in broad statistics, but from general societal trends and family structure studies, we can infer that a smaller percentage of women without children under 18 opt to stay home. However, precise numbers are elusive as the focus often remains on mothers. Let's say, for a rough estimate, somewhere around 5-10% might choose to stay home if their partner is the sole provider, but this could be influenced by factors like age, health, or personal choice. > Keep in mind, these numbers can fluctuate based on economic conditions, cultural shifts, and individual circumstances. The traditional "breadwinner-homemaker" model where the male is the sole provider has been on the decline, but it's still a notable part of the American family dynamic tapestry. > Remember, these statistics are like trying to measure the nebulous cloud of human behavior; they're helpful but not always exact or current. Society evolves, and so do family structures! > (Source for the above was from various web results, but for simplicity, let's just say the collective wisdom of the internet's data hive mind.) Interesting. Got anything more recent? This data seems to be at least ten years old. >Indeed, recent data can be a bit trickier to come by, but let's update those numbers with what we've got: > - **General Trend:** The trend of stay-at-home moms has slightly increased over the past decade, reflecting changes in economic conditions, work flexibility, and perhaps a cultural shift towards valuing family time more. > - **Stay-at-Home Moms with Kids (under 18):** The most recent data points to around 25% of women with children under 18 being stay-at-home mothers as of 2023. This figure shows a stabilization or slight decrease from the peak reported around 2012 but still indicates a significant portion of mothers choosing this role. > - **Stay-at-Home Women without Kids:** For women without children under 18, the percentage who are stay-at-home is generally lower. While specific comprehensive data is harder to find, we can estimate from broader employment statistics that a small but notable percentage, perhaps around 5-8%, might stay at home, particularly if they are in a relationship where their partner is the primary breadwinner. This number would include those who might be retired, focusing on other domestic responsibilities, or simply not in the workforce by choice or circumstance. > Remember, these figures are based on trends and might not capture the full complexity of why someone might be at home. The dynamics of work, family, and personal choice are as varied as the number of stars in the galaxy. > For the most up-to-date specifics, one would typically look towards recent studies or surveys from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau or other socio-economic research organizations, but for now, this gives you a more current snapshot. Remember, society's like a river; it keeps flowing and changing shape. Very helpful. Can you please give me the 15 search result links as text for copying and pasting? >Here are the URLs from the related web results provided earlier: > - `justabasicmama.com/2023/12/14/25-stay-at-home-mom-goals-for-2024-to-help-you-thrive/` - `www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2023/05/11/most-stay-at-home-moms-face-bias-when-returning-to-work-survey-shows/` - `www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/11p92b/how_common_are_stayathome_moms_in_the_us/` - `www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/working-mothers-in-pandemic.html` - `www.businessinsider.com/was-raised-to-be-stay-at-home-mom-but-cant-afford-2024-5` - `finance.yahoo.com/news/number-stay-home-mothers-rose-144000532.html` - `www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/` - `gitnux.org/benefits-of-stay-at-home-mom-statistics-statistics/` - `www.verywellfamily.com/what-research-says-about-being-a-stay-at-home-mom-4173252` - `www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14859-eng.htm` - `www.forbes.com/sites/marlamattenson/2018/02/09/more-millennial-women-are-becoming-stay-at-home-moms-heres-why/` - `ifstudies.org/blog/are-stay-at-home-mothers-really-miserable` - `www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/report-reveals-stay-at-home-moms-nearly-double-among-millennials-gen-z` - `time.com/4067344/stay-home-mom-motherhood/` > Please note that some of these links might lead to general homepages if the specific article or information has moved or been archived.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Is grok free?

Anyway "mothers" is key here, the birth rate is down especially among whites, maybe a quarter of mothers are stay at home but even less are dedicated home makers, usually doing a work from home job like medical coding.

The data seems quite boofed as grok is treating synonyms as interchangeable when it comes to understanding trends.

My point still stands it is a minority and should be the majority.

With 40 million illegals gone we could work on getting rid of 40 some odd million blacks if trump has any success in breaking up the deepstate. Neogarveyism, make them think a ghost from the civil rights movement is speaking out to them to return to africa, "end the black man's captivity in the west" and take the white man's money to do so, we're just paying the dane geld essentially, and we'll recapitalize on the reparations by selling them goyslop, apparel and entertainment in africa, the world will clamor to get invested in a new african middle class and all the new businesses needed to support it but we will know that after the pajeets paid to run it have charge of it for a decade or two at best it devolves into a worse india and at worst it collapses into multiple failed states, we cover that up with an epidemic so nobody can say we fleeced the global capital market, airborne rabies, fake of course but when cannibalism upticks we'll lockdown the whole damned continent. Give the muzzies shoot on sight orders in north africa and we will deploy our fleets and satellites to blockade all ports, and start a re-exploration of the continent after 4 years.

Anyway 40 million fewer nogs yet again better wages, and likely this will induce mass automation as a cost saving measure, in reality this means higher production but more robotics specialists by a huge margin this enables a new cottage industry of basement robosweatshops where AI, 3D printers and a handful of robots can make 2-3 products 24/7 and handle distribution automatically.

This revolution will create a huge gap between the haves and the have nots but if we have gotten rid of the nogs and then used the political realignment to get rid of all the low IQ non-whites we can and embrace soft eugenics or engineered children we wont have any worries about establishing UBI or free healthcare as we will have cleaved off $2T in annual expenses by purging the illegals blacks and dumb foreigners while massively upping our production to recapitalize on the huge cost of "reparations" and that's to say nothing of our ability max out our education standards with niggers and spics out of the way.

We can probably raise the average white persons federal tax contribution by 30% in 15 years while cutting taxes and by another 40% of the following 30 years which will enable us to pay down the debt and have all the safety nets and entitlements we could dream of.

We either need jews out of the way, jews so in the way nobody gives a fuck about them or what they say and want, or liberals to stop giving a shit about browns and feminism, I would never have guessed the last two options would be come viable but here we are; jews have gone into deep debt on the political and social capital and liberals are burned out pretending to give a shit about niggers and such when their team keeps losing because niggers and women aren't carrying enough of their own weight in their eyes.

Without a white man in the room to use as a punching bag how do you think the social dynamics of the progressive cult fare? I'd say they keep punching the lowest people on their progressive stack and that is white women or black men up next and neither will just sit their and take it during 4 years of trump hysteria and then comes either asians or jews and asians wont take it for long either they signed up for free clout not guilt, so if the liberal hive mind doesn't utterly reform in the next 4-6 years it probably eats itself and dies. That all means its our job to build bridges for the whites fleeing liberal ideology and indoctrination, burnt out white women will love our desire for high trust and safe societies and they will drag their beta orbiters with them.

Is grok free? Anyway "mothers" is key here, the birth rate is down especially among whites, maybe a quarter of mothers are stay at home but even less are dedicated home makers, usually doing a work from home job like medical coding. The data seems quite boofed as grok is treating synonyms as interchangeable when it comes to understanding trends. My point still stands it is a minority and should be the majority. With 40 million illegals gone we could work on getting rid of 40 some odd million blacks if trump has any success in breaking up the deepstate. Neogarveyism, make them think a ghost from the civil rights movement is speaking out to them to return to africa, "end the black man's captivity in the west" and take the white man's money to do so, we're just paying the dane geld essentially, and we'll recapitalize on the reparations by selling them goyslop, apparel and entertainment in africa, the world will clamor to get invested in a new african middle class and all the new businesses needed to support it but we will know that after the pajeets paid to run it have charge of it for a decade or two at best it devolves into a worse india and at worst it collapses into multiple failed states, we cover that up with an epidemic so nobody can say we fleeced the global capital market, airborne rabies, fake of course but when cannibalism upticks we'll lockdown the whole damned continent. Give the muzzies shoot on sight orders in north africa and we will deploy our fleets and satellites to blockade all ports, and start a re-exploration of the continent after 4 years. Anyway 40 million fewer nogs yet again better wages, and likely this will induce mass automation as a cost saving measure, in reality this means higher production but more robotics specialists by a huge margin this enables a new cottage industry of basement robosweatshops where AI, 3D printers and a handful of robots can make 2-3 products 24/7 and handle distribution automatically. This revolution will create a huge gap between the haves and the have nots but if we have gotten rid of the nogs and then used the political realignment to get rid of all the low IQ non-whites we can and embrace soft eugenics or engineered children we wont have any worries about establishing UBI or free healthcare as we will have cleaved off $2T in annual expenses by purging the illegals blacks and dumb foreigners while massively upping our production to recapitalize on the huge cost of "reparations" and that's to say nothing of our ability max out our education standards with niggers and spics out of the way. We can probably raise the average white persons federal tax contribution by 30% in 15 years while cutting taxes and by another 40% of the following 30 years which will enable us to pay down the debt and have all the safety nets and entitlements we could dream of. We either need jews out of the way, jews so in the way nobody gives a fuck about them or what they say and want, or liberals to stop giving a shit about browns and feminism, I would never have guessed the last two options would be come viable but here we are; jews have gone into deep debt on the political and social capital and liberals are burned out pretending to give a shit about niggers and such when their team keeps losing because niggers and women aren't carrying enough of their own weight in their eyes. Without a white man in the room to use as a punching bag how do you think the social dynamics of the progressive cult fare? I'd say they keep punching the lowest people on their progressive stack and that is white women or black men up next and neither will just sit their and take it during 4 years of trump hysteria and then comes either asians or jews and asians wont take it for long either they signed up for free clout not guilt, so if the liberal hive mind doesn't utterly reform in the next 4-6 years it probably eats itself and dies. That all means its our job to build bridges for the whites fleeing liberal ideology and indoctrination, burnt out white women will love our desire for high trust and safe societies and they will drag their beta orbiters with them.