Programs to raise female wages will secure a voting majority for Democrats?

Democrats advocate more low-skill immigration. This makes sense politically since roughly 80 percent of Americans on welfare will vote for Democrats (stats at end of this article; 88 percent of folks who benefit from public housing are loyal Democrats, for example). With 10-year waiting lists for public housing, though, it is unclear that low-skill migrants are a sustainable resource for the Democrats.

How about women? The Economist: “unmarried women are spectacularly loyal to the Democrats … The ‘marriage gap’ dwarfs the sex gap, by which women as a whole have long favoured Democrats.”

Is there a way that Democrats could increase the percentage of unmarried women and thereby secure permanent control of the U.S. political system? In general, it does not make sense for women to marry men who earn less than they do. So for every additional dollar that women earn relative to men, support for Democrats becomes more secure.

[See “Mismatches in the Marriage Market”, which notes a “shortage of economically attractive partners for unmarried women to marry” (if the economists who wrote this wanted a one-line summary, they might have said “Men see women as sex objects; women see men as success objects.”); see Real World Divorce for the ruinous exposure to alimony and child support lawsuits that a woman incurs by marrying a lower-income man (or having a child with one; see Sarah Palin’s daughter sued for child support by a Marine Corps veteran); see “Burning Man: Attitudes toward marriage and children” for a finance executive saying “I worked my ass off for 17 years for what I have. I am not going to risk losing it,” regarding the idea of marrying a man who earned less than her (way above average) salary. “Men from poor backgrounds ‘twice as likely to be single'” (BBC).]

Consider Melinda Gates, a supporter of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation (side question: are foreign governments still donating to this foundation now that Hillary Clinton is out of power?). She explains “Here’s Why I’m Committing $1 Billion to Promote Gender Equality”:

I am committing $1 billion to expanding women’s power and influence in the United States. I want to see more women in the position to make decisions, control resources, and shape policies and perspectives.

Previously, in Harvard Business Review, Melinda Gates “We still aren’t earning as much” and “a stubborn 20% gap persists between men’s and women’s pay.” (Note that this might not be a reasonable measure; see “Gender equity should be measured by consumption, not income?”; Melinda Gates herself is a great example of a person whose income was negligible (went to $0 after marriage), but whose spending power is in the $billions (due to her sexual relationship with an older high-income man).)

Elizabeth Warren has been an advocate for increasing women’s pay relative to men’s (e.g., press release). She recently mocked men who don’t earn enough to attract a wife: “then just marry one woman … Assuming you can find one” (New York Times). If the typical woman in the U.S. earned more via wages than the typical man, Elizabeth Warren (or any other Democrat) would easily defeat Donald Trump.

Male Democrats are also passionate about increasing female wages to the point that marriage (and voting Republican) won’t make sense for them. Here’s a 2014 Obama Administration web page on the subject.

Readers: What do you think? Are efforts to boost wages by those who identify as “women” at least partly motivated by a desire to reduce the number of women who vote for Republicans?

(And, don’t forget that as long as this massive wage gap exists, a company can make crazy huge profits simply by hiring only women and thus having a big labor cost advantage over competitors with a mixed-gender workforce.)

11 thoughts on “Programs to raise female wages will secure a voting majority for Democrats?

    • We just need a tax on the wealthy to finance the shortfall in the female wages. Later on, we are going to impose another tax on the wealthy to assure equality of all 384 non-binary genders.
      Obama said, if you like your non-binary gonads…

  1. She’s committing $1 billion of her husband’s equity to promote something, the easy way or hard way. Interesting study because it was about generation X. Previously, they studied baby boomers.

    • As a response to Mrs Gates, I am willing to commit 2 billion dollars of Bill Gates’ money to promote the gender inequality: only progressive genders should survive. No Fascist USA!
      Down with men and women, the two most promiscuous genders!
      Please support my groundbreaking initiative via GoFundMe!

  2. “She recently mocked men who don’t earn enough to attract a wife”

    Fake news, she was mocking men who don’t support gay marriage, read the article

    • Joe: Definitely she was not a coastal high-income elite person mocking a medium-to-low-income flyover-country Christian believer. Probably you’re right that she was saying “Even if a guy earned $2 million/year, if he were not woke enough to hang a rainbow flag, there would be no woman interested in tapping into this cash fountain.”

    • Look dude, I normally like and agree with your blog, but you are embellishing your own very creative interpretation onto what was said. Democrats try to appeal to poor voters too.

    • Joe: Look at to see how opposition to same-sex marriage is nearly twice as high among low-income Americans compared to among those at the top of the income scale.

      The gender ID split is minimal:

      Since there are plenty of women who are also opposed to same-sex marriage, and would presumably therefore be happy to marry a high-income man who was similarly opposed, I think the only thing Warren could have been referring to that would make the guy unmarriageable is a lack of income.



      Statistically speaking, a man with money has no difficulty attracting a woman eager to spend the rest of her life turning that money into consumption. (And the beauty of no-fault divorce in the U.S. is that she can have money for the rest of her life even if the marriage is of significantly shorter term!)

    • Let’s see how the mouse utopia theory handles this…

      First and foremost, the causation is reversed. The women are single because they are “Woke” (and therefore Democrat voters), not the other way.

      The lab “saw a breakdown in social structure… females ceased to reproduce”. Since the mice enjoyed excellent material conditions, the breakdown can be attributed only to mental illness. A similar breakdown and disinclination to reproduce is evident in all Western societies, which we can likewise attribute to profound and pervasive mental illness.

      > …opposition to same-sex marriage is nearly twice as
      > high among low-income Americans compared to among
      > those at the top of the income scale

      Since people tend to resemble their ancestors, it follows that the ancestors of today’s poor people were exposed to utopia conditions later and less completely than those of today’s wealthy. In Calhoun’s lab, all the mice were immediately exposed to a complete utopia but human history is not so neat.

Comments are closed.