To: MCCRon58
Did you ever wonder what the wage scale would be for jobs in america, if we hadn't increased the size of the labor force by 80%, by forcing women into the workplace? I would assume the wage scale would be better, meaning better pay. Or am I reading what you wrote wrong? Also, this is another great point for my research paper. Thanks!
8 posted on
03/15/2006 8:57:18 AM PST by
yellowdoghunter
(I sometimes only vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats....by Dr. Thomas Sowell)
To: yellowdoghunter
Iirc, there was a significant inflation episode which accompained the 'working wife' (as if she didn't already) bringing home the second paycheck.
You might want to check on this, but as I recall, for many that second paycheck became a necessity, not just an option as a result.
The trend got going late in the Nixon years, but was full-tilt by Carter.
10 posted on
03/15/2006 9:04:11 AM PST by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: yellowdoghunter
I think you are reading me right. Fewer worker pursuing the same number of jobs only mean 1 of 2 things. The value of your labor will increase, and/or, their will be greater incentive to automate those jobs that are conducive to automation.
Note, the same thing will happen if we eliminated the 12-2- millions low wage illegals in the labor force.
(case in point, look to what happened in Australia in the raisin industry when they eliminated the immigration labor force in the grape vineyards. (yep price for grapes did go up, but the wages went up until a method was found to harvest the raisins with machinery, vice people.)
11 posted on
03/15/2006 9:05:03 AM PST by
MCCRon58
(Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who do neither, complain!)
To: yellowdoghunter
I don't believe wages were better when women didn't work. Women went to work (because the women's liberation movement told them staying home was mindless work and unworthy of women's intelligence) and for the "things" that the man of the house could not provide on his wages. The second income was gravy for some time. Eventually, it became pretty necessary for some and more necessary for those who wanted the Disney vacations, pools, BMW's and generally the importance of keeping up with the Jones'. I don't know what generation this applies to but surely someone out there knows?
To: yellowdoghunter
There is another side to it as well~ Many more people could afford to stay home to care for their own children if they were not so busy trying to obtain material things to impress their neighbors with.
79 posted on
03/16/2006 6:33:15 AM PST by
Diva Betsy Ross
(Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson