3 ms·

If you take it as a given that all the men work and will continue to work then yes, women entering workforce means the birth rate declines. But that isn't a giv

by furi 8y ago

If you take it as a given that all the men work and will continue to work then yes, women entering workforce means the birth rate declines. But that isn't a given, men can leave the workforce just as women can enter it. My point is that I think it has less to do with women working and more to do with both partners working simultaneously.

throwaway2w09 8y ago
I think women working and both partners needing to work simultaneously are inextricably linked though. While this could be a gross oversimplification, adding 1/2 of the population to the workforce would, through the laws of supplyand demand, decrease wages by 1/2 (assuming that all women were not already dedicated to raising children). Yes, men can also leave the workforce just as women can enter it, but would a man be more inclined to leave if he was the only breadwinner because the woman was already raising his children? Sorry I know a lot of this may be considered inflammatory but I don't think these questions are being asked (precisely because they may be seen as inflammatory, though my intention really is not to be controversial).
- furi 8y ago
  I think that's true in a historical sense, it was women who joined the workforce as the second household income and started the vicious cycle I proposed (if such a thing exists, what do I know about economics). But you can still construe the problem both ways, is it women increasingly working outside the home that society takes as an unhealthy unquestionable good or men almost exclusively working outside the home which has been taken as good (or at least normal) since time immemorial. And it's the same thing with the solution, if we come to the conclusion that somebody should take a smaller part in the workforce to help correct the birth rate and other problems two income households produce, the historical role of women in "creating" the problem doesn't imply they should be the ones to go.
- rocqua 8y ago
  > While this could be a gross oversimplification, adding 1/2 of the population to the workforce would, through the laws of supplyand demand, decrease wages by 1/2 This presumes zero-sum. That is, it presumes that this growth of the workforce does not affect the total productivity. If instead, more people working means more productivity, then part of that productivity can go to paying wages. Whether this increase of productivity actually goes towards wages is difficult to say. I think that most of the recent productivity increase have been to the benefit of investors rather than labor.

by furi 8y ago

throwaway2w09 8y ago

I think women working and both partners needing to work simultaneously are inextricably linked though. While this could be a gross oversimplification, adding 1/2 of the population to the workforce would, through the laws of supplyand demand, decrease wages by 1/2 (assuming that all women were not already dedicated to raising children). Yes, men can also leave the workforce just as women can enter it, but would a man be more inclined to leave if he was the only breadwinner because the woman was already raising his children? Sorry I know a lot of this may be considered inflammatory but I don't think these questions are being asked (precisely because they may be seen as inflammatory, though my intention really is not to be controversial).

furi 8y ago
I think that's true in a historical sense, it was women who joined the workforce as the second household income and started the vicious cycle I proposed (if such a thing exists, what do I know about economics). But you can still construe the problem both ways, is it women increasingly working outside the home that society takes as an unhealthy unquestionable good or men almost exclusively working outside the home which has been taken as good (or at least normal) since time immemorial. And it's the same thing with the solution, if we come to the conclusion that somebody should take a smaller part in the workforce to help correct the birth rate and other problems two income households produce, the historical role of women in "creating" the problem doesn't imply they should be the ones to go.
rocqua 8y ago
> While this could be a gross oversimplification, adding 1/2 of the population to the workforce would, through the laws of supplyand demand, decrease wages by 1/2 This presumes zero-sum. That is, it presumes that this growth of the workforce does not affect the total productivity. If instead, more people working means more productivity, then part of that productivity can go to paying wages. Whether this increase of productivity actually goes towards wages is difficult to say. I think that most of the recent productivity increase have been to the benefit of investors rather than labor.