The Economics of Working Women

[Michael]

The Economics of Working Women

Lately I've been thinking about economic history over the course of the 20th century (particularly in the USA) and one thing that seems to stand out as a significant factor is the female labor-force participation rate. Obviously, women have always worked (and worked very hard at that), but by traditional economic valuations, women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century, and what money they did earn, comprised only a tiny fraction of GDP.

In general, the labor force participation rate for women rose enormously throughout the 20th century - but the rate of increase was not steady through the years. The first big step up in female labor rate was during WW2 when women went to work in the factories filling lots of job openings due to so many men leaving to go fight the war. That is to say, there was a huge demand for labor at that moment in history and women filled that demand.

After WW2 though, there was a huge focus on the family and lots of corporate propaganda about the nuclear family (and the stay at home mother) - encouraging women to leave their jobs and raise families. In reality, there was a huge flood of labor after WW2 with all those decommissioned service men coming home. The female labor force participation rate starts falling off after WW2, bottoms out in the 1950's and slowly starts to rise again in the 1960's and really picks up the pace in the 1970's and then rising more steadily ever since.

Coincidentally, the 'real' value of wage labor follows a somewhat inverse pattern. Wages were stagnant in the 1940's but started rising in the 50's and 60's then stalled out in the mid-70's and have been rather stagnant ever since. It is now commonly asserted that it takes two full-time adult incomes to afford a 'middle class' lifestyle that not too long ago could be financed by one full-time adult income.

On this (admittedly slim argument) it appears that the economic advancement of women has had the general effect of flooding the market for full-time workers, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, suggests that wages would be stagnant or falling.

Admittedly, the rise of female labor force participation does produce more wages and thus more money for general spending and this in turn produces an increase in general demand for labor over time. But the fact that the average 'real' wage has remained mostly stagnant since the mid-1970's indicates that overall, the gain in demand for labor has been over-matched by the added supply of labor.

So, there you have it. Women are entirely to blame for stagnant wages. :erm:

Comments, counter-arguments and/or critiques are encouraged. Indeed, I'd like someone to shoot down this argument.

[The Drunk Guy]

The Economics of Working Women

Lately I've been thinking about economic history over the course of the 20th century (particularly in the USA) and one thing that seems to stand out as a significant factor is the female labor-force participation rate. Obviously, women have always worked (and worked very hard at that), but by traditional economic valuations, women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century, and what money they did earn, comprised only a tiny fraction of GDP.

In general, the labor force participation rate for women rose enormously throughout the 20th century - but the rate of increase was not steady through the years. The first big step up in female labor rate was during WW2 when women went to work in the factories filling lots of job openings due to so many men leaving to go fight the war. That is to say, there was a huge demand for labor at that moment in history and women filled that demand.

After WW2 though, there was a huge focus on the family and lots of corporate propaganda about the nuclear family (and the stay at home mother) - encouraging women to leave their jobs and raise families. In reality, there was a huge flood of labor after WW2 with all those decommissioned service men coming home. The female labor force participation rate starts falling off after WW2, bottoms out in the 1950's and slowly starts to rise again in the 1960's and really picks up the pace in the 1970's and then rising more steadily ever since.

Coincidentally, the 'real' value of wage labor follows a somewhat inverse pattern. Wages were stagnant in the 1940's but started rising in the 50's and 60's then stalled out in the mid-70's and have been rather stagnant ever since. It is now commonly asserted that it takes two full-time adult incomes to afford a 'middle class' lifestyle that not too long ago could be financed by one full-time adult income.

On this (admittedly slim argument) it appears that the economic advancement of women has had the general effect of flooding the market for full-time workers, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, suggests that wages would be stagnant or falling.

Admittedly, the rise of female labor force participation does produce more wages and thus more money for general spending and this in turn produces an increase in general demand for labor over time. But the fact that the average 'real' wage has remained mostly stagnant since the mid-1970's indicates that overall, the gain in demand for labor has been over-matched by the added supply of labor.

So, there you have it. Women are entirely to blame for stagnant wages. :erm:

Comments, counter-arguments and/or critiques are encouraged. Indeed, I'd like someone to shoot down this argument.
I'll beat my woman when I get home, that gold-diggin' bitch.

[Michael]

I'll beat my woman when I get home, that gold-diggin' bitch.
:erm:

That wasn't quite the reaction I was hoping for... ;)

[The Drunk Guy]

:erm:

That wasn't quite the reaction I was hoping for... ;)

Don't worry....she likes it.

[Michael]

Don't worry....she likes it.

The way you post about her, I wouldn't blame her if she turned violent on you.

[Americano]

The Economics of Working Women

Lately I've been thinking about economic history over the course of the 20th century (particularly in the USA) and one thing that seems to stand out as a significant factor is the female labor-force participation rate. Obviously, women have always worked (and worked very hard at that), but by traditional economic valuations, women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century, and what money they did earn, comprised only a tiny fraction of GDP.

In general, the labor force participation rate for women rose enormously throughout the 20th century - but the rate of increase was not steady through the years. The first big step up in female labor rate was during WW2 when women went to work in the factories filling lots of job openings due to so many men leaving to go fight the war. That is to say, there was a huge demand for labor at that moment in history and women filled that demand.

After WW2 though, there was a huge focus on the family and lots of corporate propaganda about the nuclear family (and the stay at home mother) - encouraging women to leave their jobs and raise families. In reality, there was a huge flood of labor after WW2 with all those decommissioned service men coming home. The female labor force participation rate starts falling off after WW2, bottoms out in the 1950's and slowly starts to rise again in the 1960's and really picks up the pace in the 1970's and then rising more steadily ever since.

Coincidentally, the 'real' value of wage labor follows a somewhat inverse pattern. Wages were stagnant in the 1940's but started rising in the 50's and 60's then stalled out in the mid-70's and have been rather stagnant ever since. It is now commonly asserted that it takes two full-time adult incomes to afford a 'middle class' lifestyle that not too long ago could be financed by one full-time adult income.

On this (admittedly slim argument) it appears that the economic advancement of women has had the general effect of flooding the market for full-time workers, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, suggests that wages would be stagnant or falling.

Admittedly, the rise of female labor force participation does produce more wages and thus more money for general spending and this in turn produces an increase in general demand for labor over time. But the fact that the average 'real' wage has remained mostly stagnant since the mid-1970's indicates that overall, the gain in demand for labor has been over-matched by the added supply of labor.

So, there you have it. Women are entirely to blame for stagnant wages. :erm:

Comments, counter-arguments and/or critiques are encouraged. Indeed, I'd like someone to shoot down this argument.

An interesting topic that involves US culture and economic evolution/decline. I'll look around at sources to confirm my opinions. This was a hot economic issue in the late 1960s when the US was facing the reality of oil dependency and eventual declining currency value related to PPP. Think Nixon's visit to China.

[Donkey]

Women have been forced into the labor market. As you point out, a decent standard of living for a family necessitates both spouses working. Even in an ideal world in which misogyny and paternalism didn't hold women back, and allowed men to stay home with credibility, both men and women would be forced into this market. It's stagnating wages, not women's lib that is the relevant factor.

My (highly educated) mother did not work for the first 16 or so years of my life. She went to work because what my father was making just didn't cut it anymore.

A "flooded" labor force doesn't explain wealth stratification, and THAT is the root of economic woes, not working women.

[Greendruid]

Lately I've been thinking about economic history over the course of the 20th century (particularly in the USA) and one thing that seems to stand out as a significant factor is the female labor-force participation rate. Obviously, women have always worked (and worked very hard at that), but by traditional economic valuations, women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century, and what money they did earn, comprised only a tiny fraction of GDP.

In studies of world cultures using the HRAF (Human Resources Area File), which is a massive compilation of ethnographic facts databased and sorted by category, in something like 51% of societies men do virtually no domestic work, in the other 49% men do some but not the majority. In the care, handling and discipline of young children (under 4), women have authority and responsibility in 66% of world cultures, in 16% the authority and responsibility is shared and in 18% men have more authority and responsibility.

On a different point, I don't know if it's fair, relevant or even correct to say that women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century. Most people didn't earn independent incomes prior to the 20th century, or at least prior to the 18th century. Industrialisation was not a men-only pursuit of course but prior to that, the feudal system as you well know intimately through your extensive studies of it Michael, was largely supported by a 90% labour force of landless, wageless serfs who bartered and traded through life, regardless of sex. Women had their roles in agriculture as did men. I would go back to the 19th century to point out that it was the industrialisation of agriculture, specifically, that uprooted women from their traditional agricultural roles (weeding and seed collection and processing) and began the cycle that resulted in their participation in the industrial revolution into that century and the next in various forms, always being overlooked in positions that could be offered to men first. This latter fact is likely due to property rights and voting as well.

[The Drunk Guy]

Women have been forced into the labor market. As you point out, a decent standard of living for a family necessitates both spouses working. Even in an ideal world in which misogyny and paternalism didn't hold women back, and allowed men to stay home with credibility, both men and women would be forced into this market. It's stagnating wages, not women's lib that is the relevant factor.

My (highly educated) mother did not work for the first 16 or so years of my life. She went to work because what my father was making just didn't cut it anymore.



That's how it went down with my family. Dad was a union minor and just couldn't feed us all anymore, so Mom hit the books.

[Michael]

A "flooded" labor force doesn't explain wealth stratification, and THAT is the root of economic woes, not working women.

How so? A flooded labor force drives down wages (law of supply and demand). And falling cost of labor, with stable or modestly rising prices means a substantial increase in net profits for the elite asset owning class.

There's your increasing wealth stratification - that incidentially follows a similar trajectory - with a big rise starting around 1980 and rising steeply ever since after remaining fairly stable throughout the 1940 to 1970's period.

[Michael]

In studies of world cultures using the HRAF (Human Resources Area File), which is a massive compilation of ethnographic facts databased and sorted by category, in something like 51% of societies men do virtually no domestic work, in the other 49% men do some but not the majority. In the care, handling and discipline of young children (under 4), women have authority and responsibility in 66% of world cultures, in 16% the authority and responsibility is shared and in 18% men have more authority and responsibility.

1. I very clearly stated that I was looking at "1st world" countries (specifically the USA), since 3rd world countries often have very different economic relationships between the sexes, not to mention mostly agrarian economies.

2. I also specifically stated that I was looking at paid wage labor, not "work" itself. Obviously child-rearing and domestic housework constitute "work" - no doubt about that. But it generally isn't performed as paid-wage-work outside the house on any large scale. My argument is not meant to suggest that women do not do productive work. My argument is about women becoming wage-laborers in 1st world countries and the economic results of this simple fact.

On a different point, I don't know if it's fair, relevant or even correct to say that women rarely earned independent incomes prior to the 20th century. Most people didn't earn independent incomes prior to the 20th century, or at least prior to the 18th century. Industrialisation was not a men-only pursuit of course but prior to that, the feudal system as you well know intimately through your extensive studies of it Michael, was largely supported by a 90% labour force of landless, wageless serfs who bartered and traded through life, regardless of sex. Women had their roles in agriculture as did men. I would go back to the 19th century to point out that it was the industrialisation of agriculture, specifically, that uprooted women from their traditional agricultural roles (weeding and seed collection and processing) and began the cycle that resulted in their participation in the industrial revolution into that century and the next in various forms, always being overlooked in positions that could be offered to men first. This latter fact is likely due to property rights and voting as well.

Fact is, actual feudalism died out in the 14th century and the process of switching from customary or barter labor to actual money-wage-labor began back then. Certainly the reign of Edward I (reigned 1272 to 1307) provides lots of notable evidence of this. The Great Plague (1350 to 1358) also marks the beginning of a substantial increase in the actual money-wage-income of peasants (law of supply and demand - a shortage of labor meant a rise in the relative value of labor = increasing wages).

By the 17th century, wage-labor had become so wide-spread and dominant that critics began to attack it (birth of Brownism, Levellers and socialist ideas).

On this basis, I have no problem in characterizing the 19th century as a time of wage labor dominance (as long as we are talking about 1st world countries). The exception to this rule would be the 'boom' in agriculture in the USA in the 19th century - where many farmers were not wage-laborers. But even this doesn't violate my argument given that 19th century US farmers farmed for the mass market (selling produce for money and to buy seed) rather than for primary self-sustainance.

Indeed, one only has to look at the influx of Irish immigrants to America in the mid-1850's - these people came looking for wage-work in factories, not to become customary farm laborers on some agricultural estate.

[dilettante]

So, there you have it. Women are entirely to blame for stagnant wages. :erm:


"Entirely"? :lol: I don't think you've managed to rule out all other contributing factors.

And one could argue that if we removed women altogether, wages would simply fall to zero because the species would go extinct.

But I think if you tweak that to "The addition of women to the workplace decreased average wages," then you're probably on solid footing.

If you removed women from the labor force, wages would rise. Of course, wages would also rise if you removed men from the labor force (or people with red hair, or short people, or people whose last names end in "son.")

[Americano]

No one has mentioned cultural change, widespread divorce in particular, declining higher education in marketable skills and of course vastly increased consumerism based on expensive credit terms. Those factors put large numbers of women into a 1970s and beyond workforce dominated by mostly unskilled and semi-skilled labor. How could wages not stagnate when labor supply was significantly increased during unremarkable developed country economic growth?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I think the wage gap is a bit exaggerated.

[dilettante]

No one has mentioned cultural change, widespread divorce in particular, declining higher education in marketable skills and of course vastly increased consumerism based on expensive credit terms. Those factors put large numbers of women into a 1970s and beyond workforce dominated by mostly unskilled and semi-skilled labor. How could wages not stagnate when labor supply was significantly increased during unremarkable developed country economic growth?

There's also improvements in automation technology and the increased availability of skilled overseas labor over the last 50 years. Those have practically nothing to do with women in the workforce, but doubtless contribute to suppressing wages.

[Donkey]

I think the wage gap is a bit exaggerated.

I suppose you have data to contravene the significant data demonstrating a very real wage gap?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I suppose you have data to contravene the significant data demonstrating a very real wage gap?
No. I didn't say I was sure, did I?

[Americano]

I think the wage gap is a bit exaggerated.

That would depend on your definition of a wage gap. In the US women earn an average of 77% of what men are paid for the same labor function.

[Michael]

That would depend on your definition of a wage gap. In the US women earn an average of 77% of what men are paid for the same labor function.

And the reason that the topic is considered newsworthy lately is because it appears that this ratio has flat-lined.

That is to say, for the last twenty/thirty years, that number has been rising steadily. It has apparently reached a plateau at 77% and stopped rising.