(or why businesses support Prog Workplace Feminism)
Women working for wages has been a scourge of our times. It has led to destruction of untold families and has brought up generations of maladaptive children. I will not rehash the social/family arguments against female wageslavery here. I often see businesses of the Vaishya kind (unconverged by Prog, dedicated to making money) also engaged in aggressively promoting working women, and many reaction-aligned intellectuals fail to see the problem with this. Here I will make the economic argument about why "Capitalists" seem hand-in-glove to progressives in promoting working women (at long-term detriment to society).
Status quo ante
The man of the family is the sole breadwinner, his wife handles all domestic responsibilities. This is a state of stable equilibrium that sustains itself indefinitely, and societies have a tendency to return to this formula after any major upheaval.
Determination of market-clearing wage
Wages, as with anything else, are determined by supply and demand of labour. Low labour supply will tend to drive wages up, while a labour glut will tend to drive wages down. A good Vaishyacrat (Capitalist) will seek to drive down wages as far as possible, to increase value for himself/shareholders. This, of course, fails to account for negative externalities to society, which are controlled by the King in power, via the priests serving his State Religion.
To drive wages down, there must either be a significant increase in labour supply, a decrease in labour demand (corresponding to low production or increased automation) or both. The "problem" with automation is that although it nominally decreases the labour demand per product made/per service given, what actually happens is that the greatly increased product/service supply is accompanied by a lower per-unit price, swamped by an equal increase in demand. This is why the fears of the Industrial Revolution causing mass labour unemployment turned out to be unfounded, and Industry has, if anything, greatly increased labour demand. So automation is not a good means to drive down wages.
The Vaishyacrat then turns to labour supply — if it can be increased, then surely wages would come down! There are two conventional ways to increase labour supply — increasing population, or increasing immigration. Traditionally, immigration has been fraught with political risk, and wise sovereigns restricted it to the bare minimum needed to provide some product/service completely unavailable locally. This is the first point of agreement between Mammon and Moloch. The Prog considers immigration a sacrament to destroy his hated enemy, promoting unlimited immigration at all skill levels as a good in itself. The Vaishyacrat sees a golden opportunity to hit two birds with one stone: appease the Prog Brahmins in power as well as drive down wages. This has been the modus operandi of Bill Gates, for example. This forms the basis for the entire H1B slave industry.
The second way — increasing population — is the Dharmic, eusocial way to increase wealth, and is always permitted and encouraged by wise Kings. Higher population increases the number of taxpayers, farmers, and potential soldiers, so is a win for the King. This is derided by Mammonites as the "Hindu rate of growth."
Unfortunately, this is not enough for a Vaishyacrat (who has abandoned Dharma for Mammon). Whether through population growth (eusocial) or immigration (antisocial), labour supply is increased through a greater number of individuals in the market. These individuals are also consumers, so by their mere presence they increase demand for goods and services proportionate to their contribution to the labour force. In the absence of socialistic/redistributive state loot, these forces tend to balance out and average labour costs remain relatively constant (inflation-adjusted). This is why "strict border controls" and the like were not needed in ancient times — life in Ujjain was no better than life in your village, in subjective terms, and labour migration was a self-limiting phenomenon. Thus remained society for millenia.
Squaring the circle of Lower Labour Costs
In effect, what is needed to reduce labour costs for Vaishyacrats is a significant increase in the workforce without a corresponding increase in consumption. And Mammon found the answer in Moloch — Feminism. Historically, it’s not as if women were physically restrained from working — they did work, but working for wages was considered extremely low-status, and reflected very poorly on the woman and her husband both. As such, wage labour was limited to those in dire poverty, which, in a just society, is only the result of some catastrophe or misfortune. There was a study about female workforce participation in India, that found that women and men were almost equally matched in tasks requiring menial labour, but as socio-economic outcomes improved, female workforce participation decreased rather than increase (as expected by Feminism). Clearly, a working wife was a hit to the social status of a couple, and as soon as the dire need was overcome, the wife removed herself from employment. Which exploded the peabrains of Feminists, but still.
Feminism made female wageslavery high status, and suddenly there were women competing for the same jobs as men, with average consumption either slightly increasing or holding still. Increased consumption because a working wife needed more resources (transport, materials, clothes), and the entire family consumed more (no/less home cooking, mending, sewing, gardening) — which was balanced by a decrease in consumption due to lack/lower number of children. Although it seems counter-intuitive, a family with children consumes at a much higher rate than a barren couple. It’s just that most of their consumption goes into staples and essentials while the barrens splurge on luxury/discretionary/conspicuous consumption. Over time, the total consumption decreases, and increased workforce participation by women can theoretically double the labour availability — leading to a precipitous fall in wages within a generation. The Vaishyacrats’ dream is finally achieved! In real terms, a "two-income" household earns the same or lower amount in actual terms than a "one-income" household of a generation ago, and the treadmill is sustained by womens’ need for status that is now conferred by "job" and "salary" rather than "husband," "house," "car," "family."
The unholy union of Mammon and Moloch has achieved what Mammon or Moloch alone could not. This is why Vaishyacrats are so gung-ho in promoting Feminism and other degeneracy — it is the price they pay for more profits. This is also why "hitting them in the wallets" is a stupid, foolish idea. Moloch gives them far, far, more profits than you or I can ever challenge by "boycotts." They have even moved beyond women to a class of hyperconsumers — sodomites and tranners. Lacking the emotional need for children that women feel at some age, these are simple consumption machines, working their days out, fueled by cocaine, consuming like there’s no tomorrow (because a lot of them really do have very short lives — whether due to GRIDS or suicide).
What to do
On a broad societal scale? Nothing. This was a priestly attack using Vaishyacrats’ weakness, and as such can only be countermanded by a priestly counter-attack. I’m providing an example memetic tool. The objective is to reinforce the fact that working wife is low-status for husband and wife both.
For husband: As people in dire poverty know, women must work brick kilns or construction sites or menial office jobs where they are pressurised and harassed by evil men. Surely a good husband would protect his wife from such trials and tribulations all for the sake of money. Unspoken: he’s getting cucked by the boss.
For wife: Look at Sheela’s husband! He earns so much that he told Sheela to stop working and rest, take up her hobbies and passions! I wish all women had husbands like that!
For unmarried girls: There are two kinds of prospective grooms who look for a working wife, either needy, or greedy. In either case, they’ll exert pressure on the girl to earn more, in order to satisfy family needs beyond the ability of the husband, or due to greed of the husband. What girl would marry a needy poorfag!? Such low-status! What girl would marry such a greedy bastard!? What will he sell the wife’s kidneys next like those drug addicts we see in the movies? Such low-status!
For unmarried boys: Girls may say they want love, but they actually want status. Have you ever seen a rich girl marrying a poorfag? The poorfag will give them all the time they want and will dote on them, but they don’t marry him. If you are dependent on your wife for money, she’ll never respect you. You should earn enough for a family, and only marry a girl who acknowledges that.
Customise as needed. Happy hacking!
 Alternatively, decrease in price of a product enables purchase of a second product that was not otherwise selling, thus increasing total demand. This is formalised in economics as Say’s Law: Supply creates its own demand.
 H1B is "less holy" for progs because H1B slaves are bound to return to their home country, with little/no paths to citizenship. This compromise was worked out when Vaishyacrats were serving Machiavellian politicians like Bill Clinton, not out and out holiness spiralling progs. Unlimited Mexican/Arab immigration is more to their liking.
 I use the traditional term "barren" for childlessness because it reinforces the low-status conferred.