Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tpxl 1588 days ago
> Not only are many things in the economy zero-sum, in the case of labor, even if the economy is humming at 150%, it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the man and the woman are both earning 75% of what they would have without the other sex in the labor force. Both are worse off, yet the capital owners are better off and it gives the illusion that everything is going great.

Can you elaborate further on this please, I'm not sure I understand your point (genuinely).
1 comments
piaste 1588 days ago
Women entering the workforce en masse did double the supply of labor, regardless of any other merits of that change.

And increasing the supply reduces prices.

link
tpxl 1588 days ago
Unless it halved the prices (which I doubt greatly) it's a positive sum.
link
piaste 1588 days ago
It's a valid point, but I have at least three objections:

1) Everybody starts out as single, so young men start out with a sharply reduced salary due to higher supply, which makes it harder for them to become financially secure and find a partner (which would then decrease their costs).

2) There are many extra costs associated with a two-income household, and many more negative effects from a two-income-as-the-default economy. Elizabeth Warren write The Two-Income Trap on this very subject.

3) It's quite possible that it did halve prices, or came surprisingly close! Have you seen those productivity vs wages graphs? Productivity increased by about 245%, wages increased by 110% (since 1950). That means wages are now at 60% of what they were, relative to productivity. That's not quite half, and the switch to a two-income expectation can't be the only factor, but it's close. Then again, there is still a significant workforce participation gap between men and women, even in the USA (69% vs. 57%), so even in ideal circumstances I wouldn't expect a perfect halving.

link
tpxl 1587 days ago
1) I don't quite understand, what does being single have to do with anything and why do men start out with a sharply reduced salary? Or do you mean relative to the men only workforce?

2) I'll check it out.

3) 1890 to 1950 has also seen big productivity growth and I doubt the wages kept pace.

link