Are _you_ one of those workers who _has_ to eat, sleep and wear clothes? Do you also have kids? And a need for housing? And a spouse? And the probability that any one of you could get sick at any moment, or the fact that government takes 25% of your $30,000 every year? What if you or your spouse gets laid off because your jobs are being sent to Mexico?
(I'm not making this last point up by the way. I was warned that if we didn't become more efficient our jobs would be sent to Mexico.)
I'm not trying to be irrational here. I'm just saying that you're thinking at the margin about people's lives, and over time margins get eroded, then eroded some more, then a little more... hence the numbers this person is highlighting.
And, over the course of nearly a century, we see it has dramatic effects.
EDIT: I might also make the point that women entering the workforce definitely, by the looks of these numbers, didn't drive a vast expansion in the number of jobs. Rather, it displaced many men who _used_ to have those jobs, and proved its inflexibility at the same time.
But every time I try and take a stab at this, theres lots and lots of information that pulls in many different directions, and sans a full time economist gig, I don't think this parseable by me (and I've given enough time to it).
So, the theory I mentioned, still holds true - even if someones jobs on the margin are lost.
And at the same time, that loss also holds true, no matter what those theories say.
>I might also make the point that women entering the workforce definitely, by the looks of these numbers, didn't drive a vast expansion in the number of jobs. Rather, it displaced many men who _used_ to have those jobs, and proved its inflexibility at the same time
This is a completely different thing, women entering the workforce did not involve new people entering the consumer market. Immigrants do.
I disagree. Women taking a job who formerly did not have one isn't much different than an immigrant moving to the United States and taking that job. While I agree the latter involves adding an additional 'consumer' to the market (how everyone seems to refer to a US Citizen these days), they could just as well have 'consumed' outside of the US, and I doubt they would become an overwhelmingly positive contribution to demand in the short term.
Though globalization is a definite trend, so much of a persons money is spent on the basics of food and housing, where the money spent is usually higher in the US and more of it will stay local. As these things still need local jobs, and more of those jobs requires more middle class jobs to care for their needs.
And I mean no offense here, they would need to spend more on housing than yourself in the short term, making them a net positive relative to yourself almost immediately.
(I'm not making this last point up by the way. I was warned that if we didn't become more efficient our jobs would be sent to Mexico.)
I'm not trying to be irrational here. I'm just saying that you're thinking at the margin about people's lives, and over time margins get eroded, then eroded some more, then a little more... hence the numbers this person is highlighting.
And, over the course of nearly a century, we see it has dramatic effects.
EDIT: I might also make the point that women entering the workforce definitely, by the looks of these numbers, didn't drive a vast expansion in the number of jobs. Rather, it displaced many men who _used_ to have those jobs, and proved its inflexibility at the same time.