4 ms·

I don't accept that the initial primary motivation behind more women joining the workforce was out of financial necessity. But I can see that once you have a ce

I don't accept that the initial primary motivation behind more women joining the workforce was out of financial necessity. But I can see that once you have a certain critical mass of households with dual incomes then it becomes very difficult for single income households to compete in the same buyers market for housing especially (given its uniquely inelastic supply and it being a fundamental need for all of us), hence essentially forcing them to convert into (or remain as, after having children etc.) dual income households even if they wouldn't otherwise choose to be so.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
This is correct. Humans are competitive, and if your peers are competing with two incomes and you are chasing after the same scarce resources they are, then prices will rise accordingly. Scarce examples would be homes in the best school district you can afford near the best job markets. Or the best doctors, tutors, etc. And if the majority of people opt to be in dual income households, then the price of even average products/services will rise so that single income households will have to settle for less.
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  This would imply that women work and get paid, but do not contribute. The reality is that woman who work DO contribute. That is, they produce things for all of us, including themselves. Introducing women to the workforce does not mean there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now Humans are status seeking, so stuff is not just stuff. People value obtaining products/services that others cannot afford. The most basic example of this is the common advice to “buy the cheapest home in the most expensive neighborhood”. Meaning, if you want your kids to hang out with kids of parents who earn at least as much or more than you, then you bid up housing prices as much as you can to minimize the number of families under a give income level that can afford the homes in the school district. > in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services. This is also true, and it did drive down the price of many goods and services, including the price of labor itself. But it can also be true that prices for average or below average product/service decline, and above average products/services to increase.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Except prior to women joining the workforce they were providing essential services that they weren't being financially remunerated for.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Goods and services did get cheaper relative to incomes, but there is more money to bid up land prices. I think this aligns with what we have seen happen?

lotsofpulp 3y ago

This is correct. Humans are competitive, and if your peers are competing with two incomes and you are chasing after the same scarce resources they are, then prices will rise accordingly. Scarce examples would be homes in the best school district you can afford near the best job markets. Or the best doctors, tutors, etc. And if the majority of people opt to be in dual income households, then the price of even average products/services will rise so that single income households will have to settle for less.

Nifty3929 3y ago
This would imply that women work and get paid, but do not contribute. The reality is that woman who work DO contribute. That is, they produce things for all of us, including themselves. Introducing women to the workforce does not mean there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now Humans are status seeking, so stuff is not just stuff. People value obtaining products/services that others cannot afford. The most basic example of this is the common advice to “buy the cheapest home in the most expensive neighborhood”. Meaning, if you want your kids to hang out with kids of parents who earn at least as much or more than you, then you bid up housing prices as much as you can to minimize the number of families under a give income level that can afford the homes in the school district. > in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services. This is also true, and it did drive down the price of many goods and services, including the price of labor itself. But it can also be true that prices for average or below average product/service decline, and above average products/services to increase.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Except prior to women joining the workforce they were providing essential services that they weren't being financially remunerated for.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Goods and services did get cheaper relative to incomes, but there is more money to bid up land prices. I think this aligns with what we have seen happen?