Back in the old days mostly men worked and women stayed at home, doing what women should be doing.Back then the labour force pool was much less.Now, enter womens lib and the entry en masse of women to the labour force. So now there is almost 2x the people looking for the same jobs which in turn drives down wages.But you know what, women make their own money, and men make less than we used to, but they still want men with money to provide for them.
It’s like some sort of a sick joke for men everywhere. Women haven’t yet gotten to modern times, They don’t get it, but we do.Or they do get it, they just want to play princess.
This isn’t how a market economy works. The flaw in the reasoning is that more participants also means more demand for goods and services. Put another way, the population can grow, along with the economy. Or, another way still: With both parents working, there is more consumption of durable goods and services — more cars, more kitchens remodeled, more TV’s purchased, larger homes, eating out more, etc.
Now, you may or may not view such blatant consumerism and excess as being positive. I’d actually, argue it is frequently negative — rarely is the second income used for, say, early retirement. But such are the priorities of those making the decisions. Milton Friedman’s ‘Free to Choose’ is a great introduction to free market economics. Also bear in mind, whenever wages go up, that cost has to be passed on to consumers. Let’s say we let in unlimited Indian Engineers. My salary will likely go down as this is my field of work. But product prices would drop, albeit probably by a miniscule amount, since the inputs/costs to industry would be slightly reduced. At least, that is the case in markets where several companies compete. So letting these engineers in, would actually benefit the average citizen. No, of course, special interests, such as Engineering societies, are all for quotas and limits because they want to keep wages high. Industry, in contrast, lobbies for more H1 B visas so they can hire cheap employees.
The market sets the prices and wages based upon supply and demand — Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Of course, in kleptocracies such as the United States, the government has a multitude of invisible strings on that hand, paid for by special interests, both labor AND industry.
The question most certainly arises, why two parents must often work, when they did not have to in the past, to support a middle-class household. I would argue much of this is due to the growth of government, which now comprises about 40% of GDP in the United States. An increased appetite for luxuries certainly contributes. As does the decline of manufacturing, which is central to low wages in my humble opinion — when previously, an 18 year old could get a factory job and earn a significant income, that is very difficult nowadays. I work with skilled tradesmen that drive 60-80 min ONE WAY to work in a manufacturing plant, when, 3 or 4 decades ago, there would be one in their backyard.
We must have cell phones, cable TV, and McMansions to be the little conforming monkey brained lemmings that social pressure and advertising demands. People define themselves by what they HAVE. Now, I’m a non-conformist, but you get my point.
I disagree about women ‘should be’ staying home; that’s for individuals to decide. I’m all for a woman wanting to make money and acting upon it. I’m AGAINST hiring quotas that favor OR disfavor them…
The problem I have with ‘women’s lib’ is it should come with ‘women’s responsibilities’. Women should be financially responsible, just like they expect men to be. The typical ‘liberated woman’ is NOT liberated as far as expecting a man to pay for s~~~. Women always want to marry up. Almost no women that have the net worth I do would consider me as a serious partner — but they sure would if they had much less! She can’t take half my stuff if she brings equal assets in and has equal or greater earning capacity… I think it’s hilarious men are on strike, women will then have the following choices: live together with a partner that earns less, marry a partner that earns less, or stay single. Commentators are calling this a ‘mixed collar’ marriage, i.e. where he’s a blue collar worker, she’s a white collar worker, and she has him on a collar (I made the last clause up). I think it’s hilarious, especially if men can do a turnabout and take her to the cleaners!
Wages have been stagnant for decades, except amongst those in the top earning percentiles. This benefits people like me but is s~~~ for blue collar workers. See, for instance http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/10/Wage_stagnation2.png or any number of other sources. The free market values skills, so best approach is to find what is in demand and do it, but also something you enjoy..
juanca654321 4 years, 5 months ago.
