5 ms·

Women joining the workforce increased the labor supply which decreased wages on the whole. This makes it so many women HAVE to work as opposed to GET to work. A

Women joining the workforce increased the labor supply which decreased wages on the whole. This makes it so many women HAVE to work as opposed to GET to work. A double income for many families is required nowadays.

User23 8y ago
Women joining the workforce lead to a long term decrease in the labor supply. The only reason wages haven’t gone up is a massive influx of foreign born workers that keeps supply high.
- tejtm 8y ago
  ... because they were not home having babies?
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    ...that does sound like a long-term decrease in the labor supply?
  - tejtm 8y ago
    please not that this is not a rhetorical question on my part. down voting statements looking for more information/ clarification seems out of place here
- eikenberry 8y ago
  From what I've read the birth rate has long been on a gradual decline as wealth has increased. That there was no sudden drop when women went back to work, just a continuation of the trend.
  - User23 8y ago
    That doesn't appear to be true. Birth rates plummeted in the 60s and 70s[1], which is when women started to really join the work force in quantity. Perhaps the people inclined to down vote think I'm advocating for banning women from work? Please realize I'm saying no such thing, I'm simply pointing out an obvious consequence for long term labor supply that simple reasoning can deduce and the data bears out. [1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-ferti...
    - piyh 8y ago
      Lower birthrates could as easily be attributed to lower infant mortality catching up to a new generation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1.gif https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1....
      - User23 8y ago
        The decrease in births is twice the decrease in infant mortality according to the sources we both linked. Also, it takes at least a generation before lowering infant mortality lowers birth rates. It does look like lowered infant mortality contributed quite a bit to the baby boom.
- epx 8y ago
  Anticonceptional techniques are IMHO the game changer. Humans have always tried to limit their offspring. Once it was possible without extreme measures, parents prefer to pour more resources on fewer kids. My wife haven't worked out a single day in life, and haven't ever taken a single anticonceptional pill, either. The only thing we agreed without discussion in our marriage was having a single kid. I went to vasectomy the month after my son was born.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
At the same time, it's also given women the ability to survive and exist in society without requiring them to be married or otherwise supported by a man.
- devmunchies 8y ago
  By giving up more freedom and time and being dependent on an employer? I think women should have the option, but my argument was that the option is no longer there, they HAVE to work now.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Being reliant on being married is NOT more freedom.
- msiyer 8y ago
  If that is your argument, I would say men have done a commendable job. They supported women for centuries while building a society that would eventually let women not be dependent on men.
  - tomnipotent 8y ago
    They never needed to be dependent in the first place. We're probably centuries behind where we could have been if half the population had been allowed to contribute from the start.
    - msiyer 8y ago
      We are centuries behind because we do not embrace the beauty of dimorphism. One sex complements the other. This is not a war for supremacy.
      - tomnipotent 8y ago
        > This is not a war for supremacy Tell that to generations of men that have used violence to stay on top. Hard not to consider it a war when it looks, talks, and walks like a duck.
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876875.

User23 8y ago

Women joining the workforce lead to a long term decrease in the labor supply. The only reason wages haven’t gone up is a massive influx of foreign born workers that keeps supply high.

tejtm 8y ago
... because they were not home having babies?
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  ...that does sound like a long-term decrease in the labor supply?
- tejtm 8y ago
  please not that this is not a rhetorical question on my part. down voting statements looking for more information/ clarification seems out of place here
eikenberry 8y ago
From what I've read the birth rate has long been on a gradual decline as wealth has increased. That there was no sudden drop when women went back to work, just a continuation of the trend.
- User23 8y ago
  That doesn't appear to be true. Birth rates plummeted in the 60s and 70s[1], which is when women started to really join the work force in quantity. Perhaps the people inclined to down vote think I'm advocating for banning women from work? Please realize I'm saying no such thing, I'm simply pointing out an obvious consequence for long term labor supply that simple reasoning can deduce and the data bears out. [1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-ferti...
  - piyh 8y ago
    Lower birthrates could as easily be attributed to lower infant mortality catching up to a new generation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1.gif https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1....
    - User23 8y ago
      The decrease in births is twice the decrease in infant mortality according to the sources we both linked. Also, it takes at least a generation before lowering infant mortality lowers birth rates. It does look like lowered infant mortality contributed quite a bit to the baby boom.
epx 8y ago
Anticonceptional techniques are IMHO the game changer. Humans have always tried to limit their offspring. Once it was possible without extreme measures, parents prefer to pour more resources on fewer kids. My wife haven't worked out a single day in life, and haven't ever taken a single anticonceptional pill, either. The only thing we agreed without discussion in our marriage was having a single kid. I went to vasectomy the month after my son was born.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

s73v3r_ 8y ago

At the same time, it's also given women the ability to survive and exist in society without requiring them to be married or otherwise supported by a man.

devmunchies 8y ago
By giving up more freedom and time and being dependent on an employer? I think women should have the option, but my argument was that the option is no longer there, they HAVE to work now.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Being reliant on being married is NOT more freedom.
msiyer 8y ago
If that is your argument, I would say men have done a commendable job. They supported women for centuries while building a society that would eventually let women not be dependent on men.
- tomnipotent 8y ago
  They never needed to be dependent in the first place. We're probably centuries behind where we could have been if half the population had been allowed to contribute from the start.
  - msiyer 8y ago
    We are centuries behind because we do not embrace the beauty of dimorphism. One sex complements the other. This is not a war for supremacy.
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      > This is not a war for supremacy Tell that to generations of men that have used violence to stay on top. Hard not to consider it a war when it looks, talks, and walks like a duck.

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876875.