Society can't expect the value of labor to remain the same if you double the supply by adding women to it. Plus automation and globalization means no way Americans could continue consuming so much per capita more than the rest of the world. Unless via the use of force, usually military, which the US does but it's not as effective as before.

> Society can't expect the value of labor to remain the same if you double the supply by adding women to it.

This sounds funny if you think about it.

Women fought a long time for emancipation which also means they have the same obligations w.r.t work and other activities.

Now they work and the market corrected itself to account for the new labor supply. In the end: No one won except companies. Sounds like a bad deal in general.

- - -

I don't think that emancipation is bad. I think it's a good thing and necessary for social progress. But I think it's hilarious that good intentions can have these unwanted consequences. I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm too cynical to not laugh about it.

Women who now finally have freedom due to the financial security afforded to them by being able to work certainly "won".

This certainly wasn't my cleverest moment, but I still find it very interesting that we had to pay a certain price to get this privilege. It seems like there's no free lunch in many types of social progress.

While I don't think the supply was doubled (at least not here), yeah, that seems about right. What this meant is the middle class got nuked. You can't have a middle class family any more with only one parent working; as a mother you're pretty much coerced to work to make ends meet (or take a drastic standard of living and social cut). As an added bonus, people will tell you that you have a bad character and you are morally wrong if you want to look after your own kids yourself.

And I think this is one of the most impressive feats here (besides turning, or rather directing, feminism into mainly being about reducing labour costs); a lot like spin doctoring.

Instead of gaining actual, actionable choice and freedoms, merely one social ideal (man works, woman cares for the children) was exchanged for another social ideal (both have to work, state handles the children), and the demographic pressuring women into compliance changed perhaps slightly.

Interesting.

The inflation-adjusted incomes (median for a more accurate analysis) stayed pretty much the same in the US [1], but the purchasing power dropped.

> For example, the Census Bureau reports that the average price of a new home in July 1994 was $144,400. According to the inflation calculator, that price today should be $232,141. The same report places the average sale price for July 2014 at $339,100, however, more than 46% higher than the price when accounting for inflation alone.

The housing and living costs are higher today. It seems that capitalists are chasing inelastic demands (people can't really defend themselves there). I can understand why they do this, but politics should use proper regulations to enable normal people to buy their houses. The system seems to be corrupted at those places.

[1]: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/1...

[2]: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu...