Just a quick reminder for folks who like to talk about the female labor force participation rate in the 20th century:
Folks on the right often talk as if it's a hockey stick graph. "Women were all at home until the women's movement came along in the 1960s and told them all they should be working and then they suddenly invaded the workplace, driving down wages and destroying families." The wages and family stuff isn't true, but, more important, the implied hockey stick graph isn't true either.
The male and female LFP rates since WWII are in the image above. As you can see, the female rate moves upward at a pretty steady rate, starting before the 1950s, with a small further inflection upward in the early 70s due to a jump in the labor force participation of women with very young children.
It's not a hockey stick. It didn't all happen at once. The explanations for that trend are all long-term and largely independent of short-run political phenomena. If anything is a key explanatory variable in the last 50 years, it's the Pill more than "the women's movement" or rising taxes on male incomes or anything else.
The best thing to read about the history of women's work in the 20th century remains Claudia Goldin's Richard T. Ely Lecture.
The rise in number of women in the workplace is very interesting on so many fronts. A lot of guys I know resent the presence of women in the workplace for a number of reasons. There are changes to office culture, language, and behaviour. This creates a bit tension. The funny thing is most of these changes are imposed by male management rather than any complaint by women that I am actually aware of.
There is also a false sense of equality in the workplace as well. The following is based on my own workplace experience. Everything on paper will appear as if men and women have equal opportunities. In reality, this is often not the case. Often the more competent women are given less opportunities while the less competent women are given more opportunities. When it comes to rising through the ranks based on performance, the men stay ahead because they are not competing against their strongest competition.
Another strange phenomenon is that when women climb the ladder, they often provide the men with more opportunities than the women. Again, this is all based on personal experience in the Australian workplace.
I thought I would just touch on wages. Increasing supply of workers for whatever reason will put downward pressure on wages. We have more people competing for jobs. Still, this is just one side of the story. There is also an effect on demand as well. Clearly jobs have not been created just so women can work. More people are employed because there is a demand for whatever work they happened to do (unless we are talking about the Government who care little for market forces). Therefore, increased demand puts pressure on wages to increase. Whatever pressure is strongest will determine if wages go up or down.
Another thing to consider as well is the number of working hours. Your graph shows an increase in participation rate, It does not show the overall increase in hours worked per household. It is possible that this increase may not be that significant. All this information is available but I don't have time to dig it out right now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @honeybee!
You raised your level and are now a Dolphin!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard World Cup Contest - The results, the winners and the prizes
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit