3 ms·

Our World in Data has a nice series on this here. [1] Female labor participation rate was dramatically lower in the past. Unfortunately it only goes back to 189

Our World in Data has a nice series on this here. [1] Female labor participation rate was dramatically lower in the past. Unfortunately it only goes back to 1890 but even as 'recent' as that, it was still only ~19%. The nature of work was also dramatically different in the past with the overwhelming majority of people being independently employed, or working at extremely small local businesses. Said businesses would also generally double as the store owner's house. So the notion of work was just starkly different than what it is today in most urban Western areas. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-supply https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-supply

Swizec 2y ago
> The nature of work was also dramatically different in the past with the overwhelming majority of people being independently employed, or working at extremely small local businesses. Said businesses would also generally double as the store owner's house So here’s my question: Would a woman helping out in her husband’s shop/restaurant/farm/etc even count as a job in terms of labor force participation? Personally I’d consider that a job but I have a feeling it doesn’t show up in stats because it’s an unpaid position and just considered the default expectation in a family business. Especially back then.
- Cordiali 2y ago
  From my personal research of some local history, I've seen "farmer's wife" consistently listed as a woman's occupation from the 19th Century, in the same context of terms like "schoolmistress". Conversely, there are probably occupations today, that wouldn't have been regarded as occupations previously. That's not taking into account all the handcrafted goods: half the stuff we buy, would've been made instead, and that proportion would probably increase the further back in time you go. But the labour to buy stuff is counted as worked hours, while made stuff isn't. That makes some sense in the perspective of economic exchanges, but not for many comparisons.

Swizec 2y ago

> The nature of work was also dramatically different in the past with the overwhelming majority of people being independently employed, or working at extremely small local businesses. Said businesses would also generally double as the store owner's house So here’s my question: Would a woman helping out in her husband’s shop/restaurant/farm/etc even count as a job in terms of labor force participation? Personally I’d consider that a job but I have a feeling it doesn’t show up in stats because it’s an unpaid position and just considered the default expectation in a family business. Especially back then.

Cordiali 2y ago
From my personal research of some local history, I've seen "farmer's wife" consistently listed as a woman's occupation from the 19th Century, in the same context of terms like "schoolmistress". Conversely, there are probably occupations today, that wouldn't have been regarded as occupations previously. That's not taking into account all the handcrafted goods: half the stuff we buy, would've been made instead, and that proportion would probably increase the further back in time you go. But the labour to buy stuff is counted as worked hours, while made stuff isn't. That makes some sense in the perspective of economic exchanges, but not for many comparisons.