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

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Spungo, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. Spungo

    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?
     
    Tags:


  2. Dally

    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
     
  3. Naught!

    Naught! Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:30:56 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Women always worked.


    Yeah sure, with their legs in the air.
     
  4. cruiser

    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...
     
  5. Jason Earl

    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
     
  6. Dally

    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
     
  7. Jason Earl

    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
     
  8. John

    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.
     
  9. Dally

    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
     
  10. Dally

    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
     
  11. Killfile me

    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
     
  12. Killfile me

    Killfile me Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:27:06 -0500, Dally <[email protected]> wrote:

    >No one ever got widowed or had a disabled
    >(alcoholic) husband?


    Just you.
     
  13. Spungo

    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.
     
  14. John

    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 crap! 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.
     
  15. Dally

    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 crap! 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
     
  16. Charles

    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 crap! 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 arse like you Dolly, from any further
    participation in Group activities.

    You have been warned.
     
  17. Charles

    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.
     
  18. Ryan Case

    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.
     
  19. Jason Earl

    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
     
  20. Jason Earl

    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
     
Loading...
Loading...