I've heard that idea before. The basic idea is if you double the available number of workers, but leave the economy's consumption the same, then the amount of work and money each person makes gets cut in half. Since women have to live and eat regardless of working, if they don't work they reduce that wage-lowering competition. The problem is that we're currently at something of a stable equilibrium, where if a woman chooses not to work her husband is still making half the amount of money he would otherwise. So for every individual women it makes sense to work, even though this means that we're all at work more than we need to be.
Obviously it doesn't scale perfectly this way; economies aren't that simple. But it's possible there is an effect of some magnitude.
The most interesting thing though is that this means that people have far more to fear, in terms of job availability, from women over immigrants. If an immigrant comes here to work, they're also consuming; they need food to eat and a roof over their head. If an American women goes to work, she's not consuming anything to create the demand for her work, since she already lives here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-02-01 02:52 pm (UTC)Obviously it doesn't scale perfectly this way; economies aren't that simple. But it's possible there is an effect of some magnitude.
The most interesting thing though is that this means that people have far more to fear, in terms of job availability, from women over immigrants. If an immigrant comes here to work, they're also consuming; they need food to eat and a roof over their head. If an American women goes to work, she's not consuming anything to create the demand for her work, since she already lives here.