Income inequality and broken families — a modest proposal

I have taken to heart all the left-leaning outrage at the unequal distribution of wealth — 1% versus 99% !!! — as well as all the social conservative angst over the breakdown of the traditional family. Sobering stuff.

In all modesty, however, I believe that I have hit upon a totally awesome solution that will satisfy both groups at once:

Let’s ban women from the workplace.

The leftish will love that all those double-income couples will find their income halved. women-not-allowedAnd the newly-vacated jobs can be filled by unemployed family men, thereby increasing the wealth of those currently poorer. A giant step towards income equality!

The socons will applaud that more women will now devote more energy to their families. And without independent income, the womenfolk will have more incentive to stay married, so divorce rates will plummet. A giant step towards family stability!

Brilliant, or what? Two birds, one stone, and there will be peace in the land. No need to thank me, since that’s just the kind of guy I am — always thinking: How can I arrange other people’s lives to make everybody happy?

Our only obstacle: Those stuck thinking that unbridled economic freedom trumps benevolent social planning.

This entry was posted in Humor, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Income inequality and broken families — a modest proposal

  1. Now that’s lateral thinking! :-)

  2. Trevor says:

    I like the Swift reference. And everything else.

  3. Jack Gardner says:

    I don’t know how you do it. Always making logical connections so many miss. My lady friend was mumbling something about pursuit of happiness or something, but I wasn’t listening . . . probably not relevant. I applaud your efforts to enforce the rights of women to stay home and care for children. Such rights are what this country is built on. Like the newly recognized right to buy health insurance.

  4. R Richard Schweitzer says:

    No, read J S Mill on the Subjection of Women.

    If we are to have such authoritarianism, arbitrarily select that one of the two producers of revenues within a “family” must withdraw from the workforce, by designation, no choice.

    [That recognizes the satirical purpose of the original post]

    Thus, other men can take the work of the men designated. There has always been some kind of reluctance by “men” to take “women’s jobs.” This way there can be some “men” jobs open up as well as “women jobs.”

  5. Bob Marks says:

    If you keep coming out with these brilliant ideas, you will be offered a job in Washington.

  6. That sounds like a threat, Bob.

  7. Bob Marks says:

    Bob – If you keep coming out with these brilliant ideas, you will be offered a job in Washington.

    Stephen – That sounds like a threat, Bob.

    Bob – Not a threat at all. The government needs brilliant ideas like the one you proposed here so it can selflessly serve the needs of the masses of individuals, who (as all the great moralists of the past have shown) are too ignorant to know what is good for themselves. I am referring to the great moralists Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and Occupy Wall Street.

    So if you keep up the good work, there will be a well paying job for you in Washington. Don’t worry where the money will be coming from. There will be just a little bit added to the national debt, which, as Paul Krugman has shown, never has to be repaid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>