4 ms·

Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion. > Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody

Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion. > Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation. It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men I framed it as bad for everyone because it essentially doubled the number of workers looking for jobs. Simple economics. > It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women They're certainly a lot more independent now but my point is it did not come without cost. Nowadays both husband and wife have to work to maintain a good standard of living.
- Veraticus 3y ago
  But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks. And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.
      - judge2020 3y ago
        I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck. It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spouse or children. In fact I agree that it's better now that women are no longer literally forced to find a man to live separate from their parents. It's just bad that capitalism made it impossible to be a mother without two incomes (as in, forcing both parental figures to have enough of an income to provide for the child). To add, this is partially what the school system is for - not just to educate the workforce of the future, but to babysit them during the day so that their parents can work their 9-5.
        Veraticus 3y ago
        Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth. Worse for whom? For women personally, probably. For nations? For the species? I don't know.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men I framed it as bad for everyone because it essentially doubled the number of workers looking for jobs. Simple economics. > It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women They're certainly a lot more independent now but my point is it did not come without cost. Nowadays both husband and wife have to work to maintain a good standard of living.

Veraticus 3y ago
But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.
- judge2020 3y ago
  The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks. And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck. It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spouse or children. In fact I agree that it's better now that women are no longer literally forced to find a man to live separate from their parents. It's just bad that capitalism made it impossible to be a mother without two incomes (as in, forcing both parental figures to have enough of an income to provide for the child). To add, this is partially what the school system is for - not just to educate the workforce of the future, but to babysit them during the day so that their parents can work their 9-5.
      - Veraticus 3y ago
        Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth. Worse for whom? For women personally, probably. For nations? For the species? I don't know.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]