3 ms·

Labor force does count the actual workforce. They only count "wage slaves". One grandmother was a farmer. She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and

by maire 7y ago

Labor force does count the actual workforce. They only count "wage slaves". One grandmother was a farmer. She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and he became the house husband. So she would not have been counted. I am not clear if it would have counted my other grandmother since she was a business owner. She owned a beauty salon. She also opened the first health food store in Berkeley with her sister to put my mother and her cousins through college. I doubt either would have been counted as labor force participation. My mother was counted.

buzzkillington 7y ago
>One grandmother was a farmer. She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and he became the house husband. I'm not sure what you think this proves. When the choice is "do something or starve" people do all sorts of things they would rather not do, from farming to prostitution to selling their children: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/4-children-sale-1948/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/4-children-sale-1948/ There but for the grace of god went your mother.
Danieru 7y ago
> She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and he became the house husband. Neither would have her husband been counted in the non-farm labour force survey. Thus swapping husband for wife would not have shown up as a change in the first place. This is an interesting discussion. I remember my economists professor talking about how in Alberta during the 2006 boom labour force participation dropped as wages increased. In that case it was an example of the in-elasticity of labour demand. From the social aspect it was an example of how for many families 2 working parents is not optional. A situation was fully true earlier in the industrial revolution. As the revolution progressed and labour had more negotiation power over capital real wages rose and duel working parents decreased. Thus my pet theory is that the reduction in real wages is a non-trivial driving force for the current historic high labour force participation stats.

by maire 7y ago

buzzkillington 7y ago

>One grandmother was a farmer. She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and he became the house husband. I'm not sure what you think this proves. When the choice is "do something or starve" people do all sorts of things they would rather not do, from farming to prostitution to selling their children: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/4-children-sale-1948/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/4-children-sale-1948/ There but for the grace of god went your mother.

Danieru 7y ago

> She took over from my grandfather when he got sick and he became the house husband. Neither would have her husband been counted in the non-farm labour force survey. Thus swapping husband for wife would not have shown up as a change in the first place. This is an interesting discussion. I remember my economists professor talking about how in Alberta during the 2006 boom labour force participation dropped as wages increased. In that case it was an example of the in-elasticity of labour demand. From the social aspect it was an example of how for many families 2 working parents is not optional. A situation was fully true earlier in the industrial revolution. As the revolution progressed and labour had more negotiation power over capital real wages rose and duel working parents decreased. Thus my pet theory is that the reduction in real wages is a non-trivial driving force for the current historic high labour force participation stats.