10.4.17

LAWS OF CONSERVATION IN ECONOMICS.

I hesitate to pass judgement on the full bill of particulars Fay Weldon levels against the current crop of gender feminists.  On one score, however, she's spot on.
Weldon, 85, says the feminist revolution had adverse implications by ‘halving the male wage, so it no longer supported a family.’

That meant some women had to get jobs, even if they would rather have been at home with their children. ‘Women had to work to support the family. So for two in three women, it really was a problem.
Stated precisely:
The problem, dear reader, is that the injection of additional productive resources into an economy implies that those resources will produce goods and receive income, either in the form of goods or in the form of claims to goods. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that additional productive resources get injected into an economy in the form of women. At this level of abstraction, it matters not whether these women come from the ranks of stay-at-home wives seeking some income and some intellectual stimulation, or from the ranks of collegians discontented with the traditional education and nursing majors or with the notion of the M.R.S. degree. What matters is that their presence in the work force affects the potential output of the economy, as well as the equilibrium price ratio.
With illustrations at the links.

Is the opting-out already with us?

No comments: