• TurtleJoe
    link
    010 months ago

    Cite your sources on this economic theory of yours, that is if you can find any that didn’t come out of some MRA’s ass

    • @Clent
      link
      210 months ago

      Yeah, the entire premise requires that women entering the workforce didn’t cause any new jobs to come into existence.

      Childcare alone is a huge industry.

      Both working parents often means two vehicles, that’s an increase in manufacturing.

      It also ignores that women were already part of the workforce but their options were restricted.

      Two household incomes exist because it’s the only way to survive the past 40 years of wage stagflation. We have an increase in multi-generational households because two incomes is no longer enough.

    • @abbotsbury
      link
      110 months ago

      Obviously women should have the same labor opportunities as men, but do you really think doubling the pool of workers would have no impact on the labor market?

      It only becomes MRA bullshit when you stop there and say “see, feminism was a mistake!” instead of arguing for all workers to be better compensated.

      • @givesomefucks
        link
        English
        310 months ago

        but do you really think doubling the pool of workers would have no impact on the labor market?

        Why are you talking about hypotheticals?

        Some women worked before then, some still didn’t work after.

        It was a lot closer to a 10% increase than 100%