There was a matter that I intended to address in this thread, although we have all been involved in lengthly discourse concerning those on welfare. It is true that such discourse is not over yet, but there appears to be something of a lull, so I’m going to go ahead and slide this in here.
It is very difficult to take a position that is Anti- Women’s Lib in terms of employment propsects, and I certainly would not do so, but there were certainly unintended consequences with respect to employment. The problem that you run into is basically one of a saturated workforce which creates competition amongst employees, (where supply/demand is tilted more towards supply) thereby decreasing the demand:supply ratio and bringing the prices (read: wages) down. This is obvious when one looks at the relative prices and household incomes between 1960 and 2000…because those happen to be the numbers most readily available to me.
You’ll see that the Median Household Income, Inflation-Indexed, for the year 1960 is about $32,500 where you’re looking at about $42,000 for the year 2000.(1) This translates to (assuming a 52-week workyear and 40 hour week) $15.63/median household income per hour for 1960 and $20.19 for 2000. (Where Income/52/40=x)
However, it is paramount to look at what we are actually doing for that income.
You will notice that, in 1960, 37.7% of women were in the workforce where they made up 33.4% of the workforce. The number of women in the workforce was 23,240,000. Contrastly, in the year 2000, 66,303,000 women were in the workforce, which is 60.2% of women making up 46.6% of the labor force.(2)
You will see that, with the increase of women in the workforce, we found an inflation-adjusted income of 129% (42,000/32,500) for the year 2000 as compared to the year 1960. However, that increase is tied to an increase to 140% (46.6/33.4) of women’s percentage of the labor force, an increase to 160% (60.2/37.7) of women who are actually working in 2000 compared to 1960 and an increase of 43,063,000 actual women in the workforce. (285%)
This clearly points to a trend in which we have added to the labor force, but the actual incomes (expressed as a percentage of Median Household Income) have declined as a result of an over-saturated workforce. This is largely due to employers being able to pay wages for positions where the wages do not have to suffice to take care of a family (as another family member will just have to work) where wages used to be such that they could sustain a family or, quite simply, nobody would ever take that job.
This is a clear example of employers using the saturated workforce to their advantage to command reduced wages, which economically, they should, but morally? Patriotically?
Finally, we will look at the difference in hours worked between 1960 and the year 2000 to gage if there is any significant disparity in that regard.
In any case, if you look at the hours worked per week in April 1960 (Page 5)(3) you’ll see that the average white male (why is it seperated by color?) worked 41.9 hours per week whereas the average white female worked 35.2 hours per week. You will see that in 1960, once again, 37.7% of women were in the workforce and 83.3% of men were in the workforce. (4)
What we are going to do here is we are going to take the average hours worked per week, and subtract out the percentage of people NOT in the workforce from each gender to determine an average hours worked per week, per person, in the year 1960.
(41.9-men -16.7%(not working) = 34.9 35.2-women-62.3% (not working) = 13.3)
You are looking at an average workweek of 48.2 hours for men and women combined (one of each) in 1960.
Contrastly, we see that 60.2% of women were in the labor force in 2000. You will also note that the average workweek (combined) in the year 1999 is 34.5 hours.(5) I have a different source that says 58% of women in the labor force in 2000 and 71% of men in the labor force, that goes against my argument, so we’ll use those numbers which skew in favor of me being wrong. (6)
In that case you have a combined workweek of:
(34.5men -29%(not working)=24.5- 34.5women - 42%(not working) = 20)
It would seem that you have a combined 44.5 hours per week which is 3.7 less combined hours than 1960, however this decrease can largely be attributed to a decline in full-time workers due to the saturation of the labor market because you have a labor force of roughly sixty-point-five percent of the total (83.3% men + 37.7% women/2=60.5%) population working in 1960 and 64.5% labor force participation in the year 2000 (71% men + 58% women/2=64.5%) The numbers are actually skewed against my argument because women slightly outnumber men, but that’s negligible.
In any case, you have 4% more of the population in the overall workforce in the year 2000, but those who are in the workforce have seen a drastic decrease in their hours compared to 1960 because an employer no longer has to pay a wage that will, by itself, sustain a family. The employer also has the ability to cut hours and have less full-time staff which will enable the employer not to provide certain benefits that go hand-in-hand with full-time employment.
In 1960, you have a combined workweek of 48.2 hours at a rate MHI-expressed hourly- of $15.63 which results in a combined workweek being good for $753.36/week, combined, adjusted for inflation. Contrastly, for 2000, you have a combined 44.5 hours per week at $20.19 MHI-expressed hourly- which results in $898.45/week. You will see that this tends to benefit 2000 because a household was worth a median of $145.09 more, even with a lesser combined workweek, but these numbers are deceiving.
For one example, we will look at gas prices. We should also keep in mind that, since both individuals in a household are likely working, there is likely more gas being used in a household pertaining to work travel. In 1960, gasoline was $0.31/gallon, (7) which adjusted for 2000 inflation results in $1.80 (8) You’ll see that gas prices were about $1.95, on average, in the year 2000, which is a $0.15 increase, adjusted for inflation. (9)
Travel time to work data is not readily available for 1960, but you can see that it was 21.7 minutes in 1980 compared to 25.5 minutes in 2000. (10) According to the same source, 18% more people also used a private vehicle to take them to work in the year 2000 compared to the year 1960, and vehicles per household increased in 2000 to 164% of 1960 levels. (1.69/1.03)
You can see that, just with gas prices, in the 2000 scenario, gas prices are higher even after the inflation adjustment. You have 164% of the cars per household in 2000 compared to 1960, and a travel time to work that is 3.8 minutes greater than 1980. Furthermore, you have a greater percentage of the population actually working. The combination of these factors leads one to conclude, by necessity, that the expenditures associated in terms of gas, vehicles, and vehicle upkeep JUST TO GET TO WORK in the year 2000 greatly exceed those of 1960.
We will also see that the average housing expenditures in 1960 were $1,588, (11-last page) which would be an inflation-adjusted $11,557 in 2010. (12) We can see, however, that all forms of housing were more expensive than these inflation-adjusted numbers in 2010:
ALL UNITS (Average): $16,557
Homeowner-Mortgage: $22,278
Homeowner-No Mortgage: $12,294
Renter: $12,843
This gives us a concrete example because we can determine that a household with two working parents made an inflation-adjusted 119% of the income in 2000 that they did in 1960, ($898.45/week / $753.36/week = 1.19) where housing expenses, again injusted for inflation, were 143% in 2010 what they were in 1960. (16,557/11,557)
Ultimately, what you have is more workers who are working for wages that did not keep up with inflation. These workers are also working less hours per week and are less likely to be working full-time than their 1960 counterparts. You only have 4% more of the population actually participating in the labor force in the year 2000, although the Unemployment rate in 1960 never breached 5% (13) where the unemployment rate in the period covering the year 2000 was 5.6% compared to the 4.9% covering 1960.
Thus, you have two things, more people actually working and more people looking for jobs. This is necessarily going to result in a trickle-down effect by which someone that may have once (in 1960) been over-qualified for Job B and would work Job A has to go down to Job B. This eventually works its way down to the extent that someone that was once overqualified for Job W takes Job W because someone that was over-qualified for Job U got Job V. Eventually, what you end up with is a labor market that does not have to keep up with inflation, housing expenditures, or the simple costs of getting to work because there are often healthy amounts of people to replace the people who would often not work under certain wage conditions with people who will.
Keep in mind that the unemployment rate does not include people who have dropped out of the workforce, and given the exponentially higher population in 2000 compared to 1960, it stands to reason that more, physical, people dropped out of the workforce in 2000 which would have a greater effect on true unemployment.
It is unfair that such is the case, but women have also made historically less than men…often for the same job.
****We can also looked at total hours worked.
We have already determined that, in 1960, 60.5% of the 16+ population worked compared with 64.5% of same in 2000. Additionally, the average workweek in 1960 was 48.2 hours (one man + one woman, combined) compared to 44.5 in 2000 (one man + one woman, combined) where more women worked (+20.3% of all women 16+) in 2000 as well as a greater percentage of the population (+4%) in the labor force in 2000 with higher unemployment (people who wanted to be in the labor force and weren’t, +0.7%).
We’re also going to assume the same ratio of females to males, 16+, for the years 1960 and 2000. Females slightly outnumbered males in both years, but that will not make a difference for these purposes. In 1960, there were 23,240,000 women in the workforce and they made up 33.4% of the workforce. This means that the total workforce was 69,580,838 (23,240,000/.334) and therefore, there were 46,340,838 men in the workforce. We determine that the average combined worktime for one man and one woman was 23,240,000 * 2 * 48.2 (combined hours) which results in 2,240,336,000 combined hours worked. This also leaves 23,100,838 men unaccounted for who worked an average of 34.9 hours/week for 806,219,246 more labor hours and 3,046,555,246 labor hours total.
Contrastly, in the year 2000, we have 66,303,000 women in the labor force making up 46.6% of the labor force. This means that the total workforce was 142,281,116 (66,303,000/.466) and that there were 75,978,115 men in the workforce. We determine that the average combined worktime for one man and one woman was 66,303,000 * 2 * 44.5 (combined hours) which results in 5,900,967,000 combined hours work. This also leaves 9,675,115 men unaccounted for who worked for an average of 24.5 hours per week for 237,040,317 hours and a combined 6,138,007,317 hours total.
Ultimately, Americans now work a total of 201% of the physical hours that they did in 1960 (6,138,007,137/3,046,555,246) and for this work, the Median Household Income, adjusted for inflation, compared to 1960, of 129%.
Saturated labor markets suck, don’t they?
Effectively, employers just decided to use divide the work up between the two genders as opposed to having one gender do the majority of the work. The problem is that they wages/benefits are generally lower for each individual person (though higher per household ONLY by merit of having more two-income families…by necessity) and the costs of not only getting to work, but simply living costs, are higher than inflation-adjusted amounts for 1960 while the wages are not as high.
Women’s Liberation was actually the most effective and did the least Economic damage in Professional jobs such as Doctors and Attorneys, because there you have people that are going to make insane amounts of money, anyway. The problem with the movement, as I have mentioned, is that it trickled down into more menial jobs where a male (single-income household) would once work full-time, but be able to command enough of a wage (because of an unsaturated labor-market) that he could make a living for family. That is no longer the case because, with a saturated labor-market, there are lines of people ready to come in and take a job that pays minimum wage in which you only work twenty hours a week if you don’t want it.
The more workers you have, the less each individual worker is needed. The supply of workers exceeds (greatly) the demand and the price (wages) drop.
Simple Economics.
You have more people working less instead of less people working more. This is evident by way of a combined laborforce that is 4% more of the population total than it was in 1960, which also works 3.7 less combined hours with men (as a gender) working 10.4 less hours per individual and women working 6.7 more hours per individual. In terms of excess males working, you had 23,100,838 males who worked an average of 34.9 hours per week in 1960 compared with 9,675,115 who worked 24.5 hours per week in 2000. Therefore, you had 569,178,929 more labor hours ([23,100,838 * 34.9] - [9,675,115 * 24.5]=x) for 13,425,723 more unpaired males in 1960 (23,100,838 - 9,675,115) which results in 42.39 hours (569,178,929/13,425,723 = x) per additional unpaired male in 1960 compared to 2000. Essentially, 14,229,473 MORE full-time jobs…just counting unpaired males, with no female working counter-part!!!
If you get into counting the paired people, then you have 46,480,000 males+females in 1960 who worked an average week of 48.2 (combined hours) which is 2,240,336,000 combined hours worked. In 2000, you have 132,606,000 males + females who worked an average week of 44.5 (combined hours) which is 5,900,967,000 hours worked. Therefore, you have 3,660,631,000 more labor hours (5900967000 -2240336000) for 86,126,000 more paired males and females in 2000 (132,606,000 - 46,480,000) which results in 42.50 hours per additional pair, (3,660,631,000/86126000) or, 22.25 hours per worker in 2000 compared to 1960. Essentially, 0 MORE full-time jobs. In the case of 1960, a lesser proportion of women worked and you still had 48.2 combined hours per pair which resulted in an average of 29.1 hours individually.
In short, with an even lesser overall amount of people in the workforce, the average male/female pair worked 6.86 more individual hours in 1960 (which is due to a lesser percentage of females working, ergo, more full time jobs) than they did in 2000. Furthermore, there were 14,229,473 MORE full-time jobs in 1960 for unpaired male workers than there are today…with less overall workers to whom to distribute those jobs!!!
These numbers include ALL who are not in the workforce pursuant to the calculations above which factored in those who were unemployed
Shit, even if you look at the numbers for the women WHO DID WORK in 1960 compared to 2000, you’ll see that the average working woman (including only those who worked) in 1960 worked 0.7 HOURS MORE per week than did the average working woman in 2000. You’ll also see that the average working man (including only those who worked) in 1960 worked 7.4 HOURS MORE per week than did the average working man in 2000. The average working man in 1960 (41.9 hours per week) also worked full time whereas the average working man in 2000 did not.
Do you see what I mean about the utter sucktitude of saturated labor markets, yet?
This does not even take into account the negative effects that are felt by families that are two-income households by necessity, (financial stress, divorce rates, effects on the kids) the above is just pure Economics.
Obviously, the only reasonable solution to the problem are wages indexed to the current average cost of living (being minimum wage for a full-time job) which are such that an individual can support a family on one full-time job…the way it seemed to be in 1960!
(1) stanford.edu/class/polisci12 … Income.pdf
(2) infoplease.com/ipa/A0104673.html
(3) nber.org/chapters/c1265.pdf
(4) bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf
(5) bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/07/art3full.pdf
(6) census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
(7) historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-gas.htm
(8) westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
(9) wiki.answers.com/Q/Gas_prices_in_2000
(10) fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census … k/jtw1.cfm
(11) bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf
(12) westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
(13) bls.gov/opub/ted/2002/sept/wk1/art03.htm
(14) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi … ted_States