4 ms·
It was desirable economically to the upper classes. It was, obviously, bad for workers (two-income trap). The only way it would be a net economic positive for
by morlockabove 6y ago
It was desirable economically to the upper classes. It was, obviously, bad for workers (two-income trap). The only way it would be a net economic positive for them would be through their share of gains to the overall economy... but we know that the median person's proportional share of the economy has shrunk, so that's a bust.
- Miner49er 6y ago> It was desirable economically to the upper classes. It was, obviously, bad for workers (two-income trap). Long term yes. But did women enter the workforce because of the economic benefit originally? Then as women continued entering wages fell (supply and demand) and the working class ended up trapped, as you say. Another huge factor is globalization. Women maybe had to enter to earn enough when work started being outsourced.
- oblio 6y agoI'm guessing you're a guy? Women entering the workforce was good for them because like any teenager knows (boy or girl), true independence happens when you earn your own money.
- morlockabove 6y agoGood for individual women who genuinely want to work, bad for women as a class when everybody does it because now even those young-ish married women who would have been happier raising the kids have to work because of the incrementally lowered cost of labour. Some people making a choice causes a cascade, taking the choice away from everyone else, kind of like car ownership in the mid 20th century. (And bad for all the men, too.)