3 ms·
> [...] sticky total # of jobs. As women further enter the workforce, the mean household income will trend towards double income, and the labor pool will be con
by avz 9y ago
> [...] sticky total # of jobs. As women further enter the workforce, the mean household income will trend towards double income, and the labor pool will be contested with more applicants, in both cases rendering a male applicant at a substantial disadvantage (comparatively to history).
Isn't this the lump of labor fallacy [1]?
I think the economic theory leads to a different description: As more women enter the workforce, the aggregate income goes up. Some of it is spent and becomes someone else's income. Some of it is saved in a bank which loans it out or invests it. The receiving business then spends it and once again the money becomes someone else's income.
IOW, as more people work, both aggregate demand and aggregate income rise. The economy shifts into a higher gear.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
- Spooky23 9y agoIt seems a little sketchy to me that apparently labor is exempt from the basic laws of supply and demand. Fundamentally, enlarging the supply of workers, through the entry of women, ending systemic discrimination against minorities, elimination of early retirement while reducing demand should have an effect on the price of labor. I’ve worked for large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades and I’m familiar with their employment statistics. By any measure, they are using fewer person-hours of labor annually. About 40% less since 1997, about 60% less than 1987. One subdivision in particular replaced about 3,000 workers with 50 IT guys and about $10M in annual IT spend circa 1995. Those labor costs are held in check by a constant stream of cheap contractors.
- mannykannot 9y agoThe basic laws of supply and demand have two sides, but you are just looking at supply. The post you are replying to contains a suggestion as to why the demand side may, at least in some circumstances, mask or compensate for supply-side effects. Large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades do not fully represent the economy as a whole.
- Spooky23 9y agoWhere’s the evidence for a big increase in demand for labor? All signals suggest the opposite. The article and post that I replied to talked about aggregate income, which isn’t the same as demand. Aggregate income is a particularly weasel-ly and misleading stat, as wages across the board have been falling in real terms, and usually excludes the people out of the labor force. When you eliminate midrange and low end jobs, and don’t include the people making $0 in the average, the average goes up. Even in tech, specific verticals are in high demand. Once things get stable, the relentless pressure of offshoring and *aaS deflates labor value.
- mcguire 9y agoHypothesis: this was the major cause of the productivity gains on the late 20th century.