Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why did females re-enter workforce?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 20 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
108 Posts
Points 3,760
Trianglechoke7 posted on Tue, Nov 4 2008 11:34 AM

In the old days, every member of a family had to work (unless aristocratic). The man, women, and their children.

With increases in productivity you should see the number of people required to work drop off. Perhaps the children first, and then typically the female next. For a time, that's how it was. Children went to school and women stayed at home.

However, things began to change. Women became reintroduced into the work force.

Why?

Either (1) wealth is being redistributed so that it requires more members of a family to earn a wage in order to maintain a good lifestyle, or (2) value scales have changed and families just want more so the marginal utility of leisure has decreased.

Which is it?

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

Or simply because cultural values have changed? I suppose it could also be removal of barriers to entry.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
871 Posts
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Tue, Nov 4 2008 11:45 AM

I would pick 2.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,255 Posts
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Considering how many people were forced off their farmlands prior to the Industrial Revolution and considering that Britain was never a "clean" capitalist society, I'd have to say a mixture of both.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
108 Posts
Points 3,760

Well, if you mean that it wasn't seen as proper for women to work and then it came to be that it was seen as proper, yes, that could account for why women began to work, but it doesn't account for why men continued to work. If women enter the workplace, you should see men starting to drop out at at least an equal amount which hasn't occurred.

Unless, my number (2) scenario is true and people's value scales have adjusted such that they see leisure among the adults of a family as having less utility.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,985 Posts
Points 90,430

Trianglechoke7:
Well, if you mean that it wasn't seen as proper for women to work and then it came to be that it was seen as proper, yes, that could account for why women began to work, but it doesn't account for why men continued to work. If women enter the workplace, you should see men starting to drop out at at least an equal amount which hasn't occurred.

Yes, there has been a decrease in men working. Which I view as ridiculous, but there you go.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
108 Posts
Points 3,760

Yes, we do see men now staying at home, but not anywhere near the level that women were. 

If anyone is wondering what the point of my question is, I just want to make sure that more people working isn't due to the actions of government redistributing wealth, and is really due to change in value scales.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
38 Posts
Points 535
thebob replied on Tue, Nov 4 2008 12:38 PM

I think while point two is certainly a big factor, point one is also a necessary condition . You can't forget the big increase of the state sind 1945 and especially since 1900. Many extra hours are for feeding the parasite.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
252 Posts
Points 4,230
Moderator
Morty replied on Tue, Nov 4 2008 4:04 PM

I think it is mostly (1), but with a bit of (2). I'm of the belief that second-wave feminism succeeded in large part due to economic troubles of the 70s and 80s.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
574 Posts
Points 9,305

Two incomes are better than one.

 

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
10 Posts
Points 170
Suggested by Sphairon

I thought the most obvious answer was that inflation had eroded the standard of living and so people needed two incomes to have a standard of living comparable to say the 1950's with one income.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
108 Posts
Points 3,760

Explain more and I will verify your answer.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
946 Posts
Points 15,410

(3) they were bored, and the onset of (2) allowed them to alleviate that through professional pursuits.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
573 Posts
Points 9,410
Suggested by Danno

I'd start with the imposition of higher income taxes over the last 40 or 50 years, coupled with rampant inflation.  These two factors contribute to the sad fact that it now requires two incomes for most families to make ends meet, let alone to get at all ahead in life.  A generation or two ago, this was not the case.

Now, all that said, there's no economic/policy reason as to why men have traditionally been the primary breadwinners for a family.  This certainly doesn't need to be the case.  I'd offer that any perceived disparity in men/women working is the product of A) societal norms and B) biology.

 

============================

David Z

"The issue is always the same, the government or the market.  There is no third solution."

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Female
18 Posts
Points 495
Susi replied on Tue, Nov 4 2008 10:34 PM

I think it was because of the female empowerment movement as well as that people of both genders are marrying later and are more independent of one another.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS