OT: How Did Women Inundating The Labor Market Affect The Economy?



S

Spungo

Guest
Harder to get jobs? Jobs pay less than they used to? Both spouses/life
partners/soulmates/whatever the hell you want to call 2 people living
together need to work to support a family instead of one?
 
D

Dally

Guest
Spungo wrote:

> Harder to get jobs? Jobs pay less than they used to? Both spouses/life
> partners/soulmates/whatever the hell you want to call 2 people living
> together need to work to support a family instead of one?


When, exactly, was it that women didn't work?

I think you may be reading too many Regency romances.

Or perhaps new-age novels where everyone was a Princess in a prior life.

Women always worked.

Dally
 
C

cruiser

Guest
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:00:39 -0500, Naught! <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Women always worked.

>
>Yeah sure, with their legs in the air.


The good ones anyway...
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Spungo wrote:
>
>> Harder to get jobs? Jobs pay less than they used to? Both
>> spouses/life partners/soulmates/whatever the hell you want to call
>> 2 people living together need to work to support a family instead
>> of one?

>
> When, exactly, was it that women didn't work?


Women have always worked, but there has been a significant increase
since 1950 in the number or women participating in the workforce
outside of the home:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...list_uids=12267653&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=2

Here's the abstract:

This paper investigates the reasons for the growth in the
female labor force in the US during the 20th century. Female
labor force participation rates increased by 50% from 1950 to
1970. Real wages have played a significant but hardly exclusive
role both in the long term growth in female employment and in
the more accelerated growth after 1950. At the beginning of
this century, fewer than 1 woman in 5 was a member of the labor
force; by 1981 more than 6 in 10 were. Increases in female
participation were slightly larger among younger women during
the 1970s; for the next 20 years the age shape tilted toward
older women. For US women 25-34 years old, labor force
participation rates have been rising by more than 2 percentage
points per year. Closely intertwined with decisions regarding
women's work are those involving marriage and family
formation. 2 demographic factors that would play a part in
subsequent developments are: nuclearization of the US family
and urbanization. Time-series trends in education are observed
because schooling affects female labor supply independently of
any influence through wages; increased years of schooling
across birth cohorts shows that an increase of 1.33 years of
schooling increased labor participation by 6.9 percentage
points during the pre-World War II era. The swing in marriage
rates also affects timing, especially for younger women. Based
on disaggregated time series data across the period 1950-1981,
mean values at single years of age of labor supply, education,
work experience, weekly wages, and fertility are
determined. Profiles indicate that female labor supply varies
considerably not only across cohorts but also over life cycles
within birth cohorts. Results show that: 1) relative female
wages defined over the work force were lower in 1980 than in
1950, 2) children, especially when young, reduce labor supply,
3) large negative elasticities are linked to female wages, and
4) with all fertility induced effects included, real wage
growth explaines 58% of the postwar increase in female labor
supply. Therefore, real wages do explain a considerable part of
the postwar increases in female labor supply.

> I think you may be reading too many Regency romances.


I've never read a Regency Romance, but if they are anything like the
abstract above then perhaps I am missing something :)

> Or perhaps new-age novels where everyone was a Princess in a prior
> life.


Don't you have to be stoned to understand those?

> Women always worked.


Yes, women have always worked. It wasn't until fairly recently,
however, that they worked outside the home in large numbers.

Jason
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:
> Dally <[email protected]> writes:


>>Women always worked.

>
> Yes, women have always worked. It wasn't until fairly recently,
> however, that they worked outside the home in large numbers.


Nice abstract, but I'd posit that it wasn't until fairly recently that
MEN worked outside the home in large numbers, either.

By "labor" I think you mean "wage labor in corporate industries." I'd
submit that the actual hours worked by women have decreased compared to
say, 1905.

There is a huge, massive, under-represented cottage industry that these
sort of broad economic indicators miss. Today, while picking up my son,
I fell into conversation with two different women who both mentioned
that they were going from their day job (as teachers) to their evening
jobs (desk clerk & sales clerk). This is not because Feminism made it
possible, this is your basic working-class woman doing what
working-class women have always done - work.

Dally
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:

>
>>>Women always worked.

>> Yes, women have always worked. It wasn't until fairly recently,
>> however, that they worked outside the home in large numbers.

>
> Nice abstract, but I'd posit that it wasn't until fairly recently
> that MEN worked outside the home in large numbers, either.


I grew up in a rural community out west. I understand that running a
family farm is a job for the whole family. My grandfather used to
have us live with him on his ranch during the summer because my
brother and I were old enough and big enough to be "useful." Still,
it was the man's name on the tax forms, and there's no question that
historically there was "man's work" and "women's work."

> By "labor" I think you mean "wage labor in corporate industries."
> I'd submit that the actual hours worked by women have decreased
> compared to say, 1905.


No, the "labor market" as defined by the department of labor is
somewhat larger than that and also involves people that are
self-employed and even people that are looking for work. This doesn't
cover farm-wives (who generally tend to be a fairly hard working
crew), but it does cover women that earn any sort of a wage.

Color the numbers however you want, the end result is pretty clear.
Women are working outside of the home in much higher numbers than ever
before in history.

> There is a huge, massive, under-represented cottage industry that
> these sort of broad economic indicators miss. Today, while picking
> up my son, I fell into conversation with two different women who
> both mentioned that they were going from their day job (as teachers)
> to their evening jobs (desk clerk & sales clerk). This is not
> because Feminism made it possible, this is your basic working-class
> woman doing what working-class women have always done - work.


I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men. Women
have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change that one
bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society in that it
has created a perception that a woman that works outside of the home
is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being a mother first
and a "worker" second.

Jason
 
J

John

Guest
"Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jason Earl wrote:
> > Dally <[email protected]> writes:

>
> >>Women always worked.

> >
> > Yes, women have always worked. It wasn't until fairly recently,
> > however, that they worked outside the home in large numbers.

>
> Nice abstract, but I'd posit that it wasn't until fairly recently that
> MEN worked outside the home in large numbers, either.
>
> By "labor" I think you mean "wage labor in corporate industries." I'd
> submit that the actual hours worked by women have decreased compared to
> say, 1905.
>
> There is a huge, massive, under-represented cottage industry that these
> sort of broad economic indicators miss. Today, while picking up my son,
> I fell into conversation with two different women who both mentioned
> that they were going from their day job (as teachers) to their evening
> jobs (desk clerk & sales clerk). This is not because Feminism made it
> possible, this is your basic working-class woman doing what
> working-class women have always done - work.


It's also made possible by dead-beat dads, causing single moms to work two
or more jobs to feed the kids.
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:
> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men. Women
> have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change that one
> bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society in that it
> has created a perception that a woman that works outside of the home
> is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being a mother first
> and a "worker" second.


That's not feminism. I'm a feminist and I'm arguing that women work in
economically significant ways and always have. Feminism is arguing that
women ought to be able to work at the levels that they're capable of in
non-traditional fields. They were always working outside the home as
stillroom maids, Feminism says they ought to be allowed to work as a
pharmacist.

The person creating the perception that women working outside the home
are more successful is whoever says women are just now entering the
labor force, as if they are only now becoming engaged in the economy.

Dally
 
D

Dally

Guest
John wrote:

> It's also made possible by dead-beat dads, causing single moms to work two
> or more jobs to feed the kids.


And that's new? Women never had to support their kids before? Men
always stuck around? No one ever got widowed or had a disabled
(alcoholic) husband?

Dally
 
K

Killfile me

Guest
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:25:42 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm a feminist and I'm arguing that women work in
>economically significant ways and always have.


ie: hookers
 
S

Spungo

Guest
"Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jason Earl wrote:
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men. Women
>> have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change that one
>> bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society in that it
>> has created a perception that a woman that works outside of the home
>> is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being a mother first
>> and a "worker" second.

>
> That's not feminism. I'm a feminist


What a surprise, an illogical feminist. Face facts (and actual history) the
gender makeup of the job market is NOTHING like what it was in the 1950's,
1960's and even 1970's. Those are just cold, hard facts. Now you can get
back up on those feminist hind legs and assume the MANdatory defensive
feminist posture.
 
J

John

Guest
"Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> John wrote:
>
> > It's also made possible by dead-beat dads, causing single moms to work

two
> > or more jobs to feed the kids.

>
> And that's new? Women never had to support their kids before? Men
> always stuck around? No one ever got widowed or had a disabled
> (alcoholic) husband?


Holy ****! I was defending your position that women have always had to work
with another example. You need some sex. Drink your fix of coffee, put the
leather on, stick the red ball in your husbands mouth, and rape him, for
cryin' out loud.
 
D

Dally

Guest
John wrote:

> "Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's also made possible by dead-beat dads, causing single moms to work

>
> two
>
>>>or more jobs to feed the kids.

>>
>>And that's new? Women never had to support their kids before? Men
>>always stuck around? No one ever got widowed or had a disabled
>>(alcoholic) husband?

>
>
> Holy ****! I was defending your position that women have always had to work
> with another example. You need some sex. Drink your fix of coffee, put the
> leather on, stick the red ball in your husbands mouth, and rape him, for
> cryin' out loud.


Internet diagnosis. Gotta love 'em.

Anyway, my beef is with spungo and the people who think that women are
"entering" the "job market" by working in corporate industry. Yes, I
agree there are more women taking more varied positions in corporate
industry over the past 50 years. Of course, corporate industry as a job
market isn't much older than that in human history terms. I agree that
there are more women corporate executives in 2005 than in 1905.

But in 1905 there were probably just as many women running businesses,
whether they were the family farm or a laundry service or offering
personal services like nanny, maid, cook, tutor, dressmaker, or doing
some retail/wholesale occupation like ailwife, baker, etc.

I agree that women are being counted in the labor force more, but they
were always there, just hidden. Was it Ryan who mentioned that the
women worked the farm but it was the man's farm? That made me laugh out
loud.

Dally
 
C

Charles

Guest
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:29:10 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>> "Dally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's also made possible by dead-beat dads, causing single moms to work

>>
>> two
>>
>>>>or more jobs to feed the kids.
>>>
>>>And that's new? Women never had to support their kids before? Men
>>>always stuck around? No one ever got widowed or had a disabled
>>>(alcoholic) husband?

>>
>>
>> Holy ****! I was defending your position that women have always had to work
>> with another example. You need some sex. Drink your fix of coffee, put the
>> leather on, stick the red ball in your husbands mouth, and rape him, for
>> cryin' out loud.

>
>Internet diagnosis. Gotta love 'em.
>
>Anyway, my beef is with spungo and the people who think that women are
>"entering" the "job market" by working in corporate industry. Yes, I
>agree there are more women taking more varied positions in corporate
>industry over the past 50 years. Of course, corporate industry as a job
>market isn't much older than that in human history terms. I agree that
>there are more women corporate executives in 2005 than in 1905.
>
>But in 1905 there were probably just as many women running businesses,
>whether they were the family farm or a laundry service or offering
>personal services like nanny, maid, cook, tutor, dressmaker, or doing
>some retail/wholesale occupation like ailwife, baker, etc.
>
>I agree that women are being counted in the labor force more, but they
>were always there, just hidden. Was it Ryan who mentioned that the
>women worked the farm but it was the man's farm? That made me laugh out
>loud.
>


Would you please stop posting all this self-centred provocative
nonsense about feminism and political correctness. This is essentially
a fitness and weights group and we should all really try and keep on
topic.

This business of expounding your rabid personal beliefs, knowing it
offends many other group contributors, is nothing more or less than
"trolling", and if it isn't stopped I may have to recommend to other
members that they seriously consider allegedly "killfiling" you.

We are, even as I speak, devising criteria that will effectively
disbar pains in the **** like you Dolly, from any further
participation in Group activities.

You have been warned.
 
C

Charles

Guest
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:05:56 GMT, "John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Drink your fix of coffee, put the
>leather on, stick the red ball in your husbands mouth, and rape him, for
>cryin' out loud.


You forgot the extra large strapon she uses on him.
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
<snip>
>
> I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men. Women
> have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change that one
> bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society in that it
> has created a perception that a woman that works outside of the home
> is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being a mother first
> and a "worker" second.
>
> Jason


A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of the
kids in the now empty home.
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>> I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>> Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>> that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>> in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>> of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>> a mother first and a "worker" second.

>
> That's not feminism. I'm a feminist and I'm arguing that women work
> in economically significant ways and always have. Feminism is
> arguing that women ought to be able to work at the levels that
> they're capable of in non-traditional fields. They were always
> working outside the home as stillroom maids, Feminism says they
> ought to be allowed to work as a pharmacist.


OK, then I am a feminist too. That comes as a bit of a shock :).
Only an idiot would argue that women haven't contributed economically
in significant ways. I would argue, however, that in the past it was
much more socially acceptable for a woman to just be a homemaker than
it is today. Sure women used to work, and even work outside of the
home when necessary, but the home was definitely seen as the woman's
place.

There was a sound economic reason for this as well. 100 years ago
(and pretty much throughout all of history) the primary investment
that people made for the future was their children. Parents with
large families of children that survived to adulthood were assured of
family to look after them when they were old. In fact, in most cases
the children could make themselves economically useful to the family
at a relatively young age. The care and nurturing of these children
was an important economic activity.

> The person creating the perception that women working outside the
> home are more successful is whoever says women are just now entering
> the labor force, as if they are only now becoming engaged in the
> economy.


Once again, it's not a perception. There is no question that far more
women have been entering what the Department of Labor considers the
"workforce" since the 1950s. Now you can pretend that the workforce
is fundamentally different since the 1950s (or even since the 1970s
when the amount of women in the workforce was still significantly
lower than it is today), but that's not really the case. It certainly
hasn't changed enough to account for the huge difference in the
numbers.

Your theory really breaks down when you start taking into
consideration that the rise in women participating in the workforce
has a strong correlation with the increase in women's education.
What's really happening is that far more women are receiving higher
education and entering the workforce. Are you going to try and tell
me that women have always received as much higher education as they do
today as well? If they did, they certainly didn't bother to tell
anyone.

Yes, women have always worked, but in the past women generally worked
in supporting roles that required far less time and education--and
made far less money. The reason for this was simple, raising children
takes a tremendous amount of time, and in the past raising children
was not something that a mother could "outsource" to the same extent
that is popular today. Of necessity most women that worked had to
take jobs that still allowed them to watch their children. That
severely limited their earning potential.

This change in society has been profound. Not only has it changed the
workforce, but it has also change the size and shape of the typical
American family.

Now, I am not laying all of these changes at the feet of feminism, and
most of the changes really are for the better. Our society today
offers much more opportunity for the woman that is raising a family by
herself, and that is definitely a good thing. An increasingly
educated population of women is also a good thing. Most of the
changes in our society are the direct result of the increasing
affluence of our society. Instead of raising and caring for large
families the women of today are having much smaller families and are
outsourcing the care of these children to "specialists." Children are
no longer the investment that they once were.

That's the reality.

Jason
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:

> <snip>
>> I would never even suggest that women are more lazy than men.
>> Women have always been obliged to work, and feminism didn't change
>> that one bit. However, feminism has done a disservice to society
>> in that it has created a perception that a woman that works outside
>> of the home is more "successful" than a woman that focuses on being
>> a mother first and a "worker" second. Jason

>
> A-men. But of course we now have "a village" to help take care of
> the kids in the now empty home.


I grew up in a small town and I now live in an area where I know all
of my neighbors. Having a large support group is definitely a good
thing, even if you have the traditional nuclear family with a
stay-at-home mother. For one thing my wife needs the social
interaction with adults, and it has been very handy on any number of
occasions to be able to rely on friends and neighbors when your little
boy has wandered off or you need someone to watch the older kids while
you take the little one to the doctor. I know in my own case that a
lot of the positive socialization that I received came from friends
and relatives.

I would argue that "a village" is pretty darn useful in the raising of
children, but nothing can possibly replace a mother. I would also
argue that society has yet to come up with an alternative that is as
successful on average at parenting as the traditional nuclear family.
Sure, there are plenty of cases where single mothers, single fathers,
grandparents, etc. etc. have been able to raise outstanding children.
Likewise, there are all sorts of examples of traditional families that
have done a horrible job of raising children. The reality is,
however, that the further that you stray from the traditional family
the more likely you are to have serious problems with your children.

Jason