tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post638323252356818306..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Working women and the middle classNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-25498105619139272362015-02-05T22:24:07.905-05:002015-02-05T22:24:07.905-05:00Or you must try to visit this one warwick associat...Or you must try to visit this one <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCx879LC6cU" rel="nofollow">warwick associates boiler room</a> Frankie Haphnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09290979349477047725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89946934766384556582015-02-02T17:45:26.736-05:002015-02-02T17:45:26.736-05:00Families needed to work more to maintain their inc...Families needed to work more to maintain their income. In a counterfactual world, some would have worked less. Others would have earned more. But all would have been better off.<br /><br />Regarding your retort to Anonymous, above: I'm assuming here that whatever it was that enabled women to enter the labor force would still have existed. (I don't think it was labor-saving technology by the 1980s, but that's not relevant.) You're arguing an odd counterfactual in which wages rise but the other enabling factor remains equal. <br /><br />Your post would have made sense if you'd stopped at the penultimate line. But you didn't, and thus you've lost me completely. It's really very odd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78609567291854506462015-01-31T12:41:01.716-05:002015-01-31T12:41:01.716-05:00"You should save that extra income, quit, and..."You should save that extra income, quit, and find something better."<br /><br />You *are* trolling.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44502750528739346162015-01-28T21:52:03.487-05:002015-01-28T21:52:03.487-05:00But female labor force participation rose steadily...But female labor force participation rose steadily throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and did not accelerate in the 80s and 90s, so I don't believe this story.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36113191910509515952015-01-28T21:46:56.015-05:002015-01-28T21:46:56.015-05:00Doesn't Figure 9 in that report basically tell...Doesn't Figure 9 in that report basically tell the same story I'm telling?Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69121177505170761302015-01-28T20:50:02.310-05:002015-01-28T20:50:02.310-05:00Hi Noah,
I'm not sure I'd agree the pictu...Hi Noah,<br /><br />I'm not sure I'd agree the picture looks the same after taking into account after tax income and transfer payments given the research recently published by the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604 <br /><br />Naturally, I'm open to your thoughts if you see it diffrently. Finn0123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68962519702943320722015-01-28T01:57:52.940-05:002015-01-28T01:57:52.940-05:00Or maybe you can interpret this as weekly wages fa...Or maybe you can interpret this as weekly wages falling because men worked less by choice, and working women took up the slack. In that case I'm completely wrong. Oops. <br />But if men worked less not by choice but by changes in pay structure, then I'm probably correct, and women were working to bring weekly household wages back to previous levels or trends, or something. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85998033394840922015-01-28T01:41:23.586-05:002015-01-28T01:41:23.586-05:00Noah, the situation is that real weekly wages fell...Noah, the situation is that real weekly wages fell. Just as they started to fall, more women decided they needed to work. This is not a coincidence, and it's just wrong to say they "could have bought their original bundles." Empowerment and exogenous social change might be part of the explanation, but as we know social change is often driven by economic reality. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9078905660184158372015-01-27T23:25:18.605-05:002015-01-27T23:25:18.605-05:00But this does not describe the situation that actu...But this does not describe the situation that actually happened.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51923347520429293452015-01-27T22:35:20.154-05:002015-01-27T22:35:20.154-05:00"So, median real wages in America stayed roug..."So, median real wages in America stayed roughly flat in America in 1980-2000, and people worked more - actually, what happened is that many women stopped being housewives and began working. The obvious conclusion would seem to be that if this choice represented a deterioration in the standard of living, people would not have chosen to do it. In other words, if you can still afford to buy your old bundle back, revealed preference says you like your new bundle more."<br /><br />This is just wrong. If my income goes down, and to compensate I work more, that doesn't mean I secretly wanted to work more. It just means I prefer my previous income with more work, to a lower income without work. I would still be better off at my previous income, with the original amount of work. Obviously.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-34007165845543539442015-01-27T21:45:50.793-05:002015-01-27T21:45:50.793-05:00On possibility 2: Housework for mothers dropped fr...On possibility 2: Housework for mothers dropped from 32 hours to 18 hours a week since 1965. Paid work took up most of that free time, and childcare increased a little. Either choosing a messier house or by technological improvements (or getting rich enough that we can all afford "toys" like washer/dryers) this possibility seems to be happening pretty dramatically. (Second time I've cited this study, I feel like a Pew shill)<br /><br />http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/society-and-demographics/parental-time-use/Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38206215138131528962015-01-27T14:58:14.273-05:002015-01-27T14:58:14.273-05:00Just gonna throw this one out here.
"If I c...Just gonna throw this one out here. <br /><br />"If I can choose how much I work, and my wage stays the same, and I work more and my income rises, then I must be better off."<br /><br />Have you ever worked in food service or retail? Antecotetally, I worked in kitchens for ten years from high school through grad school. Even in situations where I had good senority, I was still expected to have full avaiability (meaning only one job), and then was often scheduled for over forty hours but then would only get 25 hours. In situations where I did get the hours, it was never at time and a half because wage and hour laws are a farce -- I even tried to call the department of labor to get them to look into things, but that went no where. The thing is the time you have a "fat" paycheck like 300 bucks for a 60 hour week in 2005, you use that to smooth the weeks where you were short like you couldn't work a couple days when you were sick. <br /><br />Now that I'm middle class, that's not an issue, yay!J. Edgar Mihelichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08735224229199089531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72916583716633900332015-01-27T12:59:30.820-05:002015-01-27T12:59:30.820-05:00i have to agree with kenneth thomas...my parents g...i have to agree with kenneth thomas...my parents generation had a higher standard of living with just the male head of household working (usually in a factory) than my college educated nieces and nephews have now, with both parents working...Reagan busted the unions, forcing women to go to work to maintain the standard of living needed to raise a family...rjshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15681812432224138582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70600644509430643392015-01-27T12:19:36.668-05:002015-01-27T12:19:36.668-05:00Even with individuals acting rationally, the crite...<i>Even with individuals acting rationally, the criteria they are trying to maximise is not present happiness but their discounted expectations of future happiness.</i><br /><br />Actually I doubt people maximize happiness at all. But I see what you're trying to say. Yes, the question of risk is important, although some people label income risk "mobility" and call it a good thing. I've thought about how to deal with the question of risk, and not come up with solid conclusions. But it's an important question.<br /><br /><i>But generally, your argument seems nonsensical: you are basically arguing that on a societal level, any large scale change represents an improvement in welfare.</i><br /><br />Not at all, just any large-scale change that A) coincides with a rise in incomes, and B) does not produce any obvious negative externalities. I think the entry of women into the workforce passes that test, and many other social changes do not pass that test.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72368681861771807182015-01-27T11:43:40.642-05:002015-01-27T11:43:40.642-05:00Sure, at any given time, a disproportionately larg...Sure, at any given time, a disproportionately large # of the unemployed are the long-term unemployed, just like you spend a disproportionately long time being passed by other cars in a traffic jam, no matter which lane you're in. Think about the statistics.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20756139050579541342015-01-27T10:57:09.203-05:002015-01-27T10:57:09.203-05:00"I don't want to make national policy to ..."I don't want to make national policy to help people keep up with the Joneses."<br /><br />Rephrase: I don't want to make national policy to keep, in the beginning, the top 10% from running away with all the economic growth (GET ME MALTHUS), and in the end, to keep the top 1% from running away with all the economic growth (WHAT DID WE HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION FOR?).<br />[snip]<br />If the top 1% income continues to receive all the economic growth, then, by the time the output per person expands 50% (25-30 years?) the top 1% income will “earn” half of a half-larger economy (25% + 50% = 75% of 150%). By the time output per person doubles (typically 40-50 years) the equation will read 25% + 100% out of 200% = 62.5% of a twice-as-large economy.<br />[snip]<br />Be nice if the bottom 50% were not being bled to death: federal minimum wage closing in on $4 an hour lower than 1968 -- DOUBLE the per capita income since. Minimal minimum wage = $15. $15 is the American 45 percentile wage. Would take a big 3.5% of income shift to make the minimum $15. (Last I looked, years agon, $15 was the German 10 percentile wage.Denis Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11833367196756465896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17151280112177658642015-01-27T10:24:16.834-05:002015-01-27T10:24:16.834-05:00---
Because if I don't have as much money as I...---<br />Because if I don't have as much money as I wanted/expected, it must be because some other person took it from me!<br />---<br /><br />Trickle down says: vote for policies that make corporations more profitable, since that will lead to increasing affluence for the employees.<br /><br />Reality says: Apple is the most propfitable company in the history of the world, yet they conspired to constrain wage growth for its employees.<br /><br />So Apple did, in fact, conspire to take money from their employees.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation<br />eightnine2718281828mu5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigationnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6630409029733475452015-01-27T10:10:34.141-05:002015-01-27T10:10:34.141-05:00Average duration of unemployment is an invalid mea...Average duration of unemployment is an invalid measure of the risk from unemployment for the same reason that average lifespan (especially before modern medicine and sanitation, which is the situation in economics IMHO) is a poor measure of the "risk" of remaining alive at a given age: the average is skewed by the inclusion of a lot of atypical short durations. In population those are infant deaths; in employment it's a lot of very short periods of unemployment. If one imagines a snapshot of the unemployed at a given instant, the great majority face more, and often much more, than twenty weeks.<br /><br />Moreover, saving twelve weeks of income is very hard for most. One part of Warren's (superb) presentation not quoted is that the most common reason for heavy mortage commitments is the desire to live in a good school district.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11978317782067362242015-01-27T08:25:12.203-05:002015-01-27T08:25:12.203-05:00"If I can choose how much I work, and my wage..."If I can choose how much I work, and my wage stays the same, and I work more and my income rises, then I must be better off. Because if I was not better off, then I wouldn't have chosen to work more and earn more income.<br /><br />So, median real wages in America stayed roughly flat in America in 1980-2000, and people worked more - actually, what happened is that many women stopped being housewives and began working. The obvious conclusion would seem to be that if this choice represented a deterioration in the standard of living, people would not have chosen to do it. In other words, if you can still afford to buy your old bundle back, revealed preference says you like your new bundle more."<br /><br />WOAH. Stop right there and think about it, Noah. This is a poor argument. Anyone can write a long list of major issues with this.<br /><br />One of the most important ones is that you are disregarding the entire issue of risk. Even with individuals acting rationally, the criteria they are trying to maximise is not present happiness but their discounted expectations of future happiness. Households can be taking on more work than they want as a response to future uncertainty. By working more than they want, they can build up more wealth reserves to insure against future job loss, or straight up to avoid losing their jobs in the first place. Neither of this represents an improvement in welfare, and can in fact be fully consistent with a fall in welfare.<br /><br />But generally, your argument seems nonsensical: you are basically arguing that on a societal level, any large scale change represents an improvement in welfare. So if all those women all quit their jobs now, that would also be an improvement?Fangzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792907911535480701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24817138463537406822015-01-27T08:16:03.905-05:002015-01-27T08:16:03.905-05:00> Avg. duration of unemployment, until the Grea...> Avg. duration of unemployment, until the Great Recession, never went above 20 weeks. Unemployment benefits are usually around 26 weeks.<br /><br />So, in an environment when your income is already stretched (largely on basics, as mentioned), you should prepare for the historical conditions that existed BEFORE the conditions that exist now? You're usually better than that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67313878204731808802015-01-27T07:35:57.134-05:002015-01-27T07:35:57.134-05:00Agreed. Unless Noah has evidence that people (gene...Agreed. Unless Noah has evidence that people (generally, not just rich people) have a preference for inequality, then the most likely explanation for government policies that increase inequality is that people who would benefit from increased inequality have more influence than others.<br /><br />On the other hand, we could just deny that government policy promotes inequality because that makes people who have decent incomes feel better about themselves, like they got what they have because they're simply better than everyone else. This would, of course, require that the people who are simply better than everyone else have gotten even betterer over the last few decades. Since there's no evidence of this, it's probably better if those who believe this avoid engaging in real arguments of it because their supporting evidence is unsurprisingly thin.Alex Bollingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23957795279017235012015-01-27T07:26:32.313-05:002015-01-27T07:26:32.313-05:00Do you think peak divorce rate might result in mor...Do you think peak divorce rate might result in more women in the workforce in 1980?<br /><br />What about the change from welfare to workfare?bakhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472764185459425186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-47884239586201695542015-01-27T07:17:54.796-05:002015-01-27T07:17:54.796-05:00I have to wonder about those people who see women ...I have to wonder about those people who see women working outside the home as an unmitigated negative. Sure, people prefer leisure to work, but women who stayed at home in the 50's weren't exactly lounging around eating bonbons. Changing from one form of work (that's thankless, menial, repetitive, and uncompensated) to another form of work is unlikely to decrease welfare in the same way that going from leisure to work does, and probably doesn't require the same income to keep welfare constant.<br /><br />On the other hand, I also would like to think that it's just an oversimplification that economists believe that "welfare=income" is a decent welfare equation. There may be other factors involved, like security (mentioned above), fairness (we all seem to agree that hourly compensation has not kept pace with increases in hourly productivity, and people express a preference for a fair distribution of income), leisure (that may have decreased as women are still expected to do the bulk of the housework, plus the retirement age increased)...<br /><br />Also too, I wonder about consumption that has gotten substantially more expensive since the 1970's that isn't a choice in the same way that choosing a brand of soft drink is a choice (like health care, education, transportation...) and if that offsets gains in income. Has the utility derived from education kept pace with the cost of education? And health care?Alex Bollingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12391853406313475042015-01-27T06:47:01.089-05:002015-01-27T06:47:01.089-05:00I believe the gist of the argument is that before ...I believe the gist of the argument is that before you had one person working for market wage and another person working in non-market home production. If you keep this setup and market real wage increases it is undoubtedly better.<br /><br />On the other hand if you replace house production with market production you have to estimate how large the household production was before and then subtract it from the market wage of new earner to see the change in utility. <br /><br />But to add sometimes this effect goes the other way in terms of poverty. For instance I am always suspicious of reports of absolute poverty defined as income of less than 1 dollar a day. Surely in such a poor countries there is a lot of household production of food, shelter and services. Which means that poverty in terms of consumption (including consumption of non-market goods) will not be the same as if there is somebody living in New York, working 8 hours a week and earning just $30 a month. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853090724221729923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60247822569671000892015-01-27T06:03:36.333-05:002015-01-27T06:03:36.333-05:00Also regarding (1), there were (and still are) a d...Also regarding (1), there were (and still are) a decent number of part time jobs, especially for middle class women entering the workforce during this period with kids at home. Full time jobs pay better including benefits (for a variety of reasons, including some fixed costs), but flexible hours are not unusual even at office jobs where most people work 40 hours. So there are forces pushing towards 40 hours (or more), but it's not a strict choice between 0 and 40 hours either.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.com