>>8775
I'm
>>8759 and you seem to think that I said that declining birth rates somehow lower the value of labor. Here is the sentence being referenced again:
>Just look at what happened to the value of labor once women allowed into the workplace, not to mention the birth rate.
This sentence does not, in any way, mean that the birth rate is having any affect on the value of labor. This sentence does mean that women entering the workplace has had an impact on both the value of labor and the birth rate. Do you see how drastically different that is? Now read the whole post again. I am not talking about labor value, I am talking about what is causing the rapid decline in the United States. I cite jewish meddling, deficit spending, fluid society and multiculturalism as core reasons. I then move on to talk about women entering the workplace and how it has negatively affected two major things. The next sentence is the same idea, except concerned with the value of voting. I conclude the post with a comment referencing an earlier post on how woodrow wilson becoming president was the start.
Reading comprehension is important, not looking cool by calling
(((jew))) at a post you havent even read. Why you retards insist on trying to derail and destroy every single conversation you see is entirely beyond me. What have you gained by acting like a retard?