4 ms·

It's almost like forcing women into industry careers, thus increasing the number of workers in the workforce, leads to wage suppression and damages the family s

by fein 8y ago

It's almost like forcing women into industry careers, thus increasing the number of workers in the workforce, leads to wage suppression and damages the family structure... Housewife is a fine career, one more worthy of praise than most college degrees.

eahman12 8y ago
That was the plan all along: push feminism so women are forced to work to keep wages down and kill the family. When you look at everything carefully, you'll see how all the pieces fit perfectly.
arandr0x 8y ago
It's not. It's hard to find a second job in that career once you get laid off, for once. There's no labor law restricting your work hours. And you never get a vacation.
- fein 8y ago
  And the outcome of actual reality is that women are putting off childhood until its either too late, or the medical risk increases to dangerous levels. > There's no labor law restricting your work hours. And you never get a vacation. What kind of screwed up family did you come from that gave you this outlook, or is it just interpreting hollywood as reality as I assume much of this nonsense is? I'm sure through history a housewife never got a vacation or a husband that helped out around the house, no it must all be some dystopian version of Handmaidens Tale, because fiction is apparently truth.
- dudul 8y ago
  How do you get laid off?
  - arandr0x 8y ago
    "Laid off" means your position is no longer available, so your husband leaves, dies, no longer has the resources to support you, or decides his money is better employed buying a sports car and you have to work for your own food. Even if in some of those cases you could find a different husband, it takes time and it may not offer the same financial conditions as the first one. There's no "market rate" for your services really.
  - ksenzee 8y ago
    Your kids grow up and move away. No grandkids yet, and your kids live in another state now anyway. There's nothing much left for you to do during the day, and it's lonely.
    - fein 8y ago
      So you spend time doing things with friends around town? this is basically retirement age as is, when you'd have the exact same scenario if retired.
cimmanom 8y ago
But one that many women in the mid-century had to resort to Valium to endure, and not one that anyone should be forced or pressured into.
- fein 8y ago
  And now they result to anti depressant and anti anxiety medications. What exactly has changed? 1 in 4 women on prescribed pharmaceuticals for mental issues in the US (25% of women vs 15% of men): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/21/one-in-four-women-psych-meds https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...
ivl 8y ago
I'm not going to address the social aspect of this as that's not really my concern. This is a clear case of the lump of labour fallacy. It's a zero sum way of looking at the economy that has almost no backing. The same thing is said of immigrants, and the same logic applied to trade. There's nothing to suggest that women joining the workforce suppressed wages. The issue you're facing is that you're looking at the economy as a fixed size. It's not. Increasing the number of wage earners grows the economy. In fact, research(1) suggests that for each 10% of women joining the workforce, wages raised 5%. You've managed to ignore the increase in spending that comes with more earners, with less time to do things at home. 1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jors.12336 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jors.12336

by fein 8y ago

eahman12 8y ago

That was the plan all along: push feminism so women are forced to work to keep wages down and kill the family. When you look at everything carefully, you'll see how all the pieces fit perfectly.

arandr0x 8y ago

It's not. It's hard to find a second job in that career once you get laid off, for once. There's no labor law restricting your work hours. And you never get a vacation.

fein 8y ago
And the outcome of actual reality is that women are putting off childhood until its either too late, or the medical risk increases to dangerous levels. > There's no labor law restricting your work hours. And you never get a vacation. What kind of screwed up family did you come from that gave you this outlook, or is it just interpreting hollywood as reality as I assume much of this nonsense is? I'm sure through history a housewife never got a vacation or a husband that helped out around the house, no it must all be some dystopian version of Handmaidens Tale, because fiction is apparently truth.
dudul 8y ago
How do you get laid off?
- arandr0x 8y ago
  "Laid off" means your position is no longer available, so your husband leaves, dies, no longer has the resources to support you, or decides his money is better employed buying a sports car and you have to work for your own food. Even if in some of those cases you could find a different husband, it takes time and it may not offer the same financial conditions as the first one. There's no "market rate" for your services really.
- ksenzee 8y ago
  Your kids grow up and move away. No grandkids yet, and your kids live in another state now anyway. There's nothing much left for you to do during the day, and it's lonely.
  - fein 8y ago
    So you spend time doing things with friends around town? this is basically retirement age as is, when you'd have the exact same scenario if retired.

cimmanom 8y ago

But one that many women in the mid-century had to resort to Valium to endure, and not one that anyone should be forced or pressured into.

fein 8y ago
And now they result to anti depressant and anti anxiety medications. What exactly has changed? 1 in 4 women on prescribed pharmaceuticals for mental issues in the US (25% of women vs 15% of men): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/21/one-in-four-women-psych-meds https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...

ivl 8y ago

I'm not going to address the social aspect of this as that's not really my concern. This is a clear case of the lump of labour fallacy. It's a zero sum way of looking at the economy that has almost no backing. The same thing is said of immigrants, and the same logic applied to trade. There's nothing to suggest that women joining the workforce suppressed wages. The issue you're facing is that you're looking at the economy as a fixed size. It's not. Increasing the number of wage earners grows the economy. In fact, research(1) suggests that for each 10% of women joining the workforce, wages raised 5%. You've managed to ignore the increase in spending that comes with more earners, with less time to do things at home. 1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jors.12336 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jors.12336