3 ms·

Don't mean to be negative but is there any evidence of causation? I might be missing a link or study but this simply seems to be wild speculation that it's rela

Don't mean to be negative but is there any evidence of causation? I might be missing a link or study but this simply seems to be wild speculation that it's related to gender. I would definitely believe the idea that including more women in the work force will help us be richer but i don't see much data in the article suggesting this. I see data showing how woman are under represented, and how in Norway they're not and norway has a strong GDP. But that is one data point. But the title says the US WOULD be $1.6 trillion richer. Also worth pointing out i'm no economist, please enlighten me if i'm misunderstanding.

dominotw 9y ago
They seem to have used 10% of 1.8 trillion over the next decade as per the linked report from S&P global https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf
- frostwhale 9y ago
  Yeah I looked at that article and I have the same critique. I am not trying to refute anything they are saying, I think they are correct, there just doesn't seem to be enough data points to make anywhere near the statement they are. THey only mention US and norway which used to employ women in the work force at the same rate, and now they don't and had different growths in the GPD. That is true but it is TWO DATA POINTS. It seems they are drawing causation when its just a line connecting the points. Please correct me or link me if there is more data, but this seems entirely theoretical.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    Yea you are right. They seem to have used the following logic "Lost Labor-Force Participation Means Lost Economic Activity" Chart 1 . " women’s participation has also declined, to just 57% this year from roughly 60% in 2000." Chart 2. They seem to have correlated those two charts to come up with that figure. " Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, gave women greater freedom to work outside the home" is their explanation for higher rates in the past. Interestingly though men's participation rate seems to have fallen more dramatically and seem to mirror women's trend exactly from 2000. > Hey only mention US and norway which used to employ women in the work force at the same rate, and now they don't and had different growths in the GPD. While we’ve singled out Norway, many other countries provide meaningful contrast to the U.S.If we were to look closer to home, Canada offers an example where women’s participation picked up dramatically a few decades ago. I looked at canadian participation rate for women[2], I don't see "picked up dramatically" , perhaps I am looking at it wrong. 1. https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf 2. https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

dominotw 9y ago

They seem to have used 10% of 1.8 trillion over the next decade as per the linked report from S&P global https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf

frostwhale 9y ago
Yeah I looked at that article and I have the same critique. I am not trying to refute anything they are saying, I think they are correct, there just doesn't seem to be enough data points to make anywhere near the statement they are. THey only mention US and norway which used to employ women in the work force at the same rate, and now they don't and had different growths in the GPD. That is true but it is TWO DATA POINTS. It seems they are drawing causation when its just a line connecting the points. Please correct me or link me if there is more data, but this seems entirely theoretical.
- dominotw 9y ago
  Yea you are right. They seem to have used the following logic "Lost Labor-Force Participation Means Lost Economic Activity" Chart 1 . " women’s participation has also declined, to just 57% this year from roughly 60% in 2000." Chart 2. They seem to have correlated those two charts to come up with that figure. " Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, gave women greater freedom to work outside the home" is their explanation for higher rates in the past. Interestingly though men's participation rate seems to have fallen more dramatically and seem to mirror women's trend exactly from 2000. > Hey only mention US and norway which used to employ women in the work force at the same rate, and now they don't and had different growths in the GPD. While we’ve singled out Norway, many other countries provide meaningful contrast to the U.S.If we were to look closer to home, Canada offers an example where women’s participation picked up dramatically a few decades ago. I looked at canadian participation rate for women[2], I don't see "picked up dramatically" , perhaps I am looking at it wrong. 1. https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf 2. https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm