You're viewing a single thread.
One major factor: women entered the workforce. Labor supply doubled, and two incomes per household became normalized. Our current economic system fails to account for the work of raising children which was implicitely built into the "traditional family" model.
That's a double whammy for workers. The value of labor is halved. Both partners are expected to work to achieve a similar standard of living. And, without one partner doing household and child-rearing labor, those costs are borne by the workers.
The value of labor was wrecked because Reagan crushed the unions and factory jobs were outsourced to third world countries, not because more women entered the workforce. That was a symptom, not a cause.
One major factor: women entered the workforce. Labor supply doubled, and two incomes per household became normalized.
I think that may be a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. For one, the labor supply did not double, and a significant amount of women have been in the workforce since the 40's.
In 48' a little over 30% of women worked, today it's only 58%. So, I really doubt a gradual 25% increase in labor supply spread over 60 years is really responsible for the rapid decrease in livable wages we saw from the late 80's on.
Also, an increase in labour supply only equates to a reduction in labour value if production value stagnates or decreases. This is the opposite of what happened post 80s, production has skyrocketed, but labour value has stagnated. This typically means that companies are transferring excess profits to shareholders rather than employees.
Wrong. Women in the US entered the workforce in great numbers because of the 1972 Arab Oil Boycott. The price of gas and energy in general tripled overnight, and families were struggling to maintain. No wages fell. If Dad was making $5,000.00 a year in 1971 he was making the same salary after the prices went up. It was just that $5,000.00 no longer covered the basic expenses.
Cite your sources on this economic theory of yours, that is if you can find any that didn't come out of some MRA's ass
Yeah, the entire premise requires that women entering the workforce didn't cause any new jobs to come into existence.
Childcare alone is a huge industry.
Both working parents often means two vehicles, that's an increase in manufacturing.
It also ignores that women were already part of the workforce but their options were restricted.
Two household incomes exist because it's the only way to survive the past 40 years of wage stagflation. We have an increase in multi-generational households because two incomes is no longer enough.
Obviously women should have the same labor opportunities as men, but do you really think doubling the pool of workers would have no impact on the labor market?
It only becomes MRA bullshit when you stop there and say "see, feminism was a mistake!" instead of arguing for all workers to be better compensated.
but do you really think doubling the pool of workers would have no impact on the labor market?
Why are you talking about hypotheticals?
Some women worked before then, some still didn't work after.
It was a lot closer to a 10% increase than 100%
I'm not talking about hypotheticals; women generally didn't work, and a couple decades later they did. The effective labor pool expanded.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2021/home.htm
I'd quote a part, but you should really read the whole thing.
What part do you disagree with?