Our thanks to Gerry for this (video, 14:56). From the video description:
“A striking new study corroborates my economic model of relationships. Apparently, when men earn more money, they are more likely to start a family – whereas women are significantly less likely to do so when given the same advantage. The data suggest that women don’t share in the same way men do. If we want to fix declining birth rates and prevent population collapse, it will become increasingly important to give him the money.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This fits nicely with the Scarlett McGuire poll for the New Statesman. Investigating the increasing gender divide in left and right. In effect it’s women who are increasingly left leaning https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2026/04/revealed-the-new-radicalism-among-young-women
However it’s not the traditional left ideas but the new “woke” ones. The discussion about this on the New Statesman YouTube station was very interesting. It turns out that young men (under 25s) have a much more favourable view of women and children than women do of young men and children. Young men are also far more likely to think positively about their future, even though in fact they currently face a tougher jobs market and pay growth.Young men are more likely to aspire to form a family and “get on” and more determined to do so. In the political sphere they are more interested in the things that directly affect these aspirations, economic growth, immigrant competition, punitive tax, housing and fuel costs. While young women are fixated with “virtue signalling” issues Gaza, Trump, Climate Change, Racism,Trans rights etc. And most importantly that this wokeness is concentrated in white, university educated,”middle class” young women. Ethnic minority women are considerably less likely to think Britain is “racists” than their white middle class peers for instance. And far more likely to express fear/hatred of men. The unexpected part of this is that it’s the young men who are pragmatic, family oriented, have realistic plans for their future and focus on political issues that directly affect them and their plans. Meanwhile the young women fulfil Melanie Phillips’s prediction of feminists being perpetual adolescents. Believing all sorts of nonsense on social media about fearing men, climate, war, the future in general and responsibilities for children and partners in particular. Wedded to issues that fill media but in fact don’t really impact them but give opportunities to look properly upset. A complete mismatch with their much more sober, realistic and hopeful male peers. It looks far more like young men struggle to find a sensible female peer rather than it’s men who “can’t commit”.
the one plus point is really that it’s the same white, middle class , university educated “professionals”, who parade luxury beliefs. That won’t reproduce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Conclusion:
The labor supply responsiveness of men and women are key to understanding welfare reforms and optimal tax policy. In this paper, we show that fertility adjustments are an important driver of especially women’s labor supply elasticities. This has implications for how we design optimal policy.
We provide new evidence that fertility responds to general tax changes not specifically targeted families with children. Using detailed Danish register data and a series of tax reforms from 2009, we show that increases in women’s marginal net-of-tax wages tend to decrease fertility while increases in men’s marginal net-of-tax wages tend to increase fertility. Our results suggest that this asymmetric response stems from the fertility substi-tution effect dominating w.r.t. wages of women while the fertility income effect dominatesw.r.t. wages of men.
We then estimate a dynamic model of fertility and family labor supply that repli-cates our empirical finding, without explicitly being targeted in estimation. Our main contribution is to quantify the importance of fertility adjustments through counter factual simulations within our framework.”
This is the conclusion of one such large scale Danish Study. In this case trying to “model” the actual effects on fertility of the tax/benefit schemes and from that suggest different (“counterfactual” ) models that might increase fertility. Although it should be obvious the Danes appear to be working on the idea that rather than concentrating efforts on supporting existing families with children(which are a strong feature of all Scandinavian natalist policies) they should look at trying to influence people/couples to decide to have children. To find levers that encourage this to happen. Given their policy goal is to have more Danes in future not less. Inconveniently for feminism what they find is that “asymmetric” effect.
In this country, and the US, with huge populations I think we simply don’t “get” how important this sort of thing is to smaller nations. Danes,Swedes, Swiss, Latvian, Estonians, Finns and so on realise they are not numerous and have long been worried about there being even fewer. They have long had “natalist” policies and the ante has been raised by both the “migrants crises” and the Ukrainian war. So the UK and USA really is unlikely to seriously look into this issue preferring “theory” (aka opinions). Whereas I suspect there will be a much bigger effort and hard data for the Scandinavians, who fortunately often publish in English. I’ll try to keep an eye on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exhibit 1. A usual whining article about how hard it is for single women to afford their own property. Of course its worse for women we’re told and someone should do something for single women. The Impossible Task Of Buying A Property As A Single Woman Yet the Telegraph and BBC tell us One in three young men now live with their parents, ONS data shows – BBC News because it turns out its worse for men! What neither addresses is of course the reality. Women partner with older and better off men. So of course in general not only has the boyfriend/husband increased the income available but no doubt more than doubled it. And of course is more likely to have savings too! (as feminist point out women build up debts in their youth) The obvious corollary for the men is not only do they also need a partner to afford to buy but they need in reality to have a good income and savings in order to get that Girlfriend/wife, and to be a couple of years older than the young women when they finally decide they might “settle”. All because in the real world men have to be more than “equal” to achieve family formation. And we’re back to that fertility problem, without the higher earning jobs we have exported to make all our stuff. It takes a longtime to reach the desired savings and income to be “the good men” we are supposedly short of. Because in reality those supposedly badly done to single women enviously looking at their partnered sistas are not about to happily find a man and cheerfully do the financial heavy lifting in the pairing. And in deliberately hobbling boys and young men in education, discriminating against them(often illegally) in recruitment, training and promotion and wrecking productive industries through DEI and “net zero” drag on innovation and productivity. The feminists ,they add to the society slowly dying and soon reaching a point of rapid extinction. I guess that’s what they want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The subtle madness is in this How I manage my money: Book seller, on £2,500 a month, spending £6,000 on holidays It goes through the family expenditure in detail. She talks about her past jobs and income as well as her current earnings. A family of 4. She lays all bare to show how she must worry. She even mentions her husband pays into a pension. In another version of this she does mention her husband is a “critical care technician in intensive care” presumably in the NHS and was in the forces. Having worked in the NHS myself, it is likely her husband’s income is circa £3000 per month. Which puts a very different perspective on the family finances doesn’t it ? Equally it makes a nonsense of her finish “While I would love to pay my mortgage off” its clear it is in fact their mortgage, that her husband is securing their future by paying into the generous government pension schemes and her supposed “fear” of surviving just on the state pension is a fantasy as even if he dies or they divorce she’ll benefit from his pensions (as well as her own from working 1 years in a bank). A “poor me” story that vanishes in a trice if she’d been as detailed with her husband’s employment history and income. Because of course her being able to “work to live and not live to work” is in fact a function of both of their efforts, not just hers.
Yet there are a parade of such stories of women going on about their “poverty” or “struggles” or not paying into pensions or having savings. Where in fact some where hidden the text will be mention of a husband/partner/boyfriend usually in a profession that is generally well renumerated. A fiction of “independence” as if somehow the men’s contribution is invisible or doesn’t count. Though in real life couple and families do not live their lives as if both incomes are completely separate and have no impact on both partners and their offspring and indeed their choices and decisions.
Interestingly this blindness is touched on a version of the Danish paper delivered in a US University. Observing that the Danish tax and welfare system is based on individuals (like much of Europe and the UK) whereas the American system still largely treats married couples as a “unit”. Therefore the Danish analysis doesn’t really address “negotiation” within the “unit” as one of its scenarios. In other words the partners making choices based on what they believe works for the “unit” rather than just two individuals. One can see that in the example I’ve given, in that the woman and man have made a deal wherein he does the solid work and pays the pension subs while she has money for the kids school trips and family holidays. In fact a traditional “Preference Theory” choice that divides the roles really as one might expect despite the veneer of feminist independence and victim hood. One can see how hard it will be for researchers to introduce the idea of a couple and family as a “unit”. Because feminists have made that “unit” the acme of oppression.
LikeLiked by 1 person