By Chris Rossini
Government intervention is like an addictive drug. Once that first dose is taken, more and larger doses are required in the future. Every government intervention creates ever larger problems, and they keep piling up until something breaks.
The United States federal government is the largest in the world. In fact, it's the largest government that has ever existed when it comes to welfare and warfare. As such, keeping such a government afloat is not cheap. The tax victims have to work like dogs. There are direct taxes that everyone can see, as well as hidden taxes that nefariously pick our pockets without our even noticing.
One income for a family has been largely squashed by the government. Only the wealthy have such a luxury that was once commonplace in an earlier and much freer America. Now women, for the most part, must work in order for a family to make ends meet, and to fund the biggest government in the world.
Should women always have the freedom to work? Yes, of course. Are there women who are fulfilling their dreams and economic desires? Yes, of course. Should women be forced into the workforce because one income can't keep their family above water. No way!
Most people, thanks to never-ending propaganda will attribute women in the workforce as the great accomplishment of feminism, and that women have been "liberated". But do the masses of women who work at subsistence jobs, and who hate those jobs, and who despise clocking in everyday really consider themselves "liberated"? There's no way to calculate subjective motivations, but you can use your imagination and draw logical conclusions.
What if it were possible to live on one income? How many of these "liberated" women would walk into their bosses offices and give their two weeks notice?
Once again, should women always have the freedom to work? Yes, of course. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the masses of women who are working to keep the biggest government in the world from bankruptcy is some kind of "liberation".
The U.S. government is not a "liberator". Just ask the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Syrians, the Afghanis, and on and on.
Women need to be liberated from government.
However, now that the die has been cast, there are the unintended consequences that inevitably show up. Women, after all, are women and are the only gender that can give birth. Naturally, they can't work while giving birth and have maternal instincts to take care of their newborns. But how can they do that when government forces the existence of two incomes? Now there's a problem.
Keep in mind that if government didn't force the existence of two incomes, women could join and leave the workforce as they please. Taking a hiatus to have a child wouldn't be an impossibility or huge burden. Only the powerful and highly paid women would have tough choices to make. But the masses of women that are doing grunt work would take the time off without the heartache.
Since two incomes are a necessity, and government has no intention whatsoever to shrink the tax burden, they're going to "help" women instead. How? By mandating that employers compensate women who don't work and stay home to care for their newborns. Some politicians out there are screaming for 3 months (!!!) of paid leave.
As always, government's attempt to "help" will only hurt. Its mandates must now make women very unattractive to hire. Now an employer would have to think very hard about hiring female employees. The higher-skilled women will not have a problem, but (like men) the higher-skilled are the minority. Employers will take the higher-skilled first. But the low-skilled women will not be an attractive hire, and an even less attractive hire if employers are forced to pay for no work.
When government forces up the price of something, people will buy less of it. That's supply and demand. So if government forces up the price of hiring women, expect employers to hire less of them.
So now that there's a necessity of having two incomes, government seeks to make it harder for a women to even get a job!
Government intervention is like an addictive drug. It's a road that should never be taken. We've been on that road for a long time now, and something is eventually going to break.