3 ms·
> In the abstract, you get this statement: "The drop in wages depressed the labor supply of men and increased that of women, especially in married couples." Se
by rcdmd 8y ago
> In the abstract, you get this statement: "The drop in wages depressed the labor supply of men and increased that of women, especially in married couples."
Seems to get cause and effect backwards. Isn't it more likely that an increase in labor supply (women entering the workforce) had, simply by the laws of supply and demand, decreased wages?[1]
[1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#one https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#one
The paper is full of complicated-looking economic models and nice graphs-- but if you don't get the basic assumptions right it's hard to trust the fancy models.
- nixarian 8y agoExactly. More people entering the labor force was only good for the owners and employers, it destroy the bargaining power of the actual workers. Add to that the fact that having two parents at work seriously harms the family, making it more difficult for their children to develop in healthy ways. This is the future we asked for. Given the statistics that say women only want to marry men who make more money than them, it seems to have done even more harm than we might imagine, because there are few women wanting men to stay home and fill the role certain ideologues claimed would be open to them.
- wallace_f 8y agoEconomists dont need their models to work, they need people to think they are smart. Imagine writing software that never had to work in the real world. I at least have some formal training in economics to feel confident in making this statement.
- BurningFrog 8y agoThese things are hard to think about. A new worker (or 50 million new female workers) does on one end increase the supply of labor, which should lower the price (wages) of it, but s/he also starts spending an income, which increases general demand in the economy and acts to push up wages. It's not obvious what the net effect is. Economists probably have a (or several :) well thought out and validated answers to this, but my gut feel is that it all evens out.
- gubbrora 8y agoI think it's necessary to look at it more in more detail. What did women stop doing to make time for work? What products and services had higher demand and which ones did not? In particular were they labor intensive goods or resource intensive goods or even zero sum goods? I don't have the answers to these questions unfortunately.
- slv77 8y agoElizabeth Warren did a lot of research on the topic before going into politics. The bulk of the income went towards transportation, childcare, housing and medical care.
- turtlecloud 8y agoThey stopped being mothers and outsourced that to public education. That is why kids now are brainwashed and dumber than previous generations. A generation of impressionable people to fuel capitalistic growth. Social cohesion is down and communities are dying. The social fabric is being torn apart.
- dash2 8y agoThe assumption that lower wages depresses labour supply is a pretty good one. Supply curves slope upwards, i.e., if they pay you less, you work less. The other point they make is that men's wages declined more than women's, which might explain why women are more likely to work. (Assume couples need to make $X per week in the labour market; when male wages drop, the tradeoff between male and female employment changes in favour of the latter.) I agree that increasing labour supply would also decrease male wages.
- dredmorbius 8y agoBackward-bending supply curves, at the extreme limit. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/53mcxn/backward_s_shaped_supply_curves/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/53mcxn/backwar...