3 ms·
I don't think you're being sexist. I think that's a very good question. If we roughly double the supply of labor, but have roughly the same number of jobs - w
by eric_b 9y ago
I don't think you're being sexist. I think that's a very good question. If we roughly double the supply of labor, but have roughly the same number of jobs - what would happen? Wages would naturally go down. It's obviously not that simple, but there's good reason to believe that the entry of more women in to the labor force put downward pressure on wages.
What will be interesting is if the more recent trend of young men leaving the labor force will put upward pressure on wages, or if the jobs will just disappear.
- abakker 9y agoOne interesting observation that supports this is that women's labor rate participation had a slower ramp. Not a doubling over night. Following that, their wage equality has slowly been ramping, too. Both of those sound like gradual dilutive trends on the labor supply/wage graph. I REALLY like the idea of looking the cumulative burden of employer-born costs of employees as the percentage of dual earners goes up. my "bet" is that you'd find that the cost of those benefits have been growing at par with the women's labor force participation rate. Take a look at the charts in the Slate Star Codex post on Cost Disease, and overlay the growth in Women's labor force participation rate, and growing pay equality. The relationship is likely not perfectly causal, but there might be a meaningful effect in there.
- runT1ME 9y agoWhy would we have the same number of jobs? If more women are working who didn't before, they will need some way to commute to said job, to buy work clothes as well as leisure clothes, have more disposable income, etc.
- eric_b 9y agoYep, that's why I said "it's obviously not that simple". I also described "downward pressure" on wages, not a cutting of wages in half.