Re:For first time since 1880s, more young Americans live wit...
by fulafel on Friday June 03, 2016 @01:41PM
(#11831854)
> Increased labor supply drives down wages per employee
According to conventional economics, quite the opposite: it makes the economy bigger and creates more jobs.
(If growing the workforce increased unemployment, then bigger countries would have high unemployment and population growth would also increase unemployment).
Re:For first time since 1880s, more young Americans live wit...
by naveen99 on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @09:52PM
(#11767127)
don't forget upto 40% of her output goes to the government in taxes. so even the civil service / employees of the state (who don't care about left or right) prefer both working...
Re:For first time since 1880s, more young Americans live wit...
by douche on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @06:59AM
(#11768895)
Or nearly 100% of the second income being hoovered up by the childcare racket, if they have children.
Re:For first time since 1880s, more young Americans live wit...
by uptown on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @07:18AM
(#11768949)
This is very true. We made the choice to have my wife stay home and raise our children rather than go back to work. We're fortunate to be able to do so, but when doing the math and calculating the after-tax income she's bring home, so much of that income would have gone straight to child-care that it was a no-brainier to have her be the caretaker in these early years of their development. The cost of childcare is a very real challenge for the United States.
The answer is multifaceted, but part of the problem is that some of the major reasons are extremely politically inconvenient. For example, what are the economic consequences of women entering the workforce in large numbers in recent generations? Increased labor supply drives down wages per employee, then more two income families increase price inflation (especially real estate prices). Together they transfer most of the economic value of women working into the hands of employers and existing land owners, when the economic value of the domestic labor it displaced had previously gone primarily to the woman and her family. And people who remain single are extra screwed because they suffer the same wage and price consequences without the second income.
But for cultural and biological reasons when one spouse is a homemaker it will almost always be the wife rather than the husband, so policies that would increase the standard of living by reducing the number of two income families have consequences anathema to the left (fewer women working) and the right (less value captured by employers and land owners). So we don't talk about it.