Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The underlying assumption of this poll, that the material wealth of our country would remain the same but be distributed differently if women did not work, is faulty. It discounts the utility that women in the workplace provide and further neglects that the US economy is no longer a closed system. If US women stopped working we would all be worse off compared to countries where they did not or are already not working. Those who claim that we would be better off materially if we stopped doing business with other countries neglect the significant amount of raw and manufactured materials we import. I'm sure we could become self-sufficient, but we would do so with a significant loss of our material well-being.
And yes, it could be argued that even if our material wealth decreased our overall wealth could increase--we would be poorer but happier. If you believe that, there is certainly no requirement that women work--people manage to survive on one, even relatively small, income. You can test the poorer but happier hypothesis without dragging all of society with you.
It's all irrelevant, though. Even if preventing women from working solved all of our nation's problems, prevented war forever, and saved all the cute little creatures in the world we should still allow women to work for one simple reason: they deserve the freedom to choose their lives for themselves.
The underlying assumption of this poll, that the material wealth of our country would remain the same but be distributed differently if women did not work, is faulty. It discounts the utility that women in the workplace provide and further neglects that the US economy is no longer a closed system. If US women stopped working we would all be worse off compared to countries where they did not or are already not working. Those who claim that we would be better off materially if we stopped doing business with other countries neglect the significant amount of raw and manufactured materials we import. I'm sure we could become self-sufficient, but we would do so with a significant loss of our material well-being.
And yes, it could be argued that even if our material wealth decreased our overall wealth could increase--we would be poorer but happier. If you believe that, there is certainly no requirement that women work--people manage to survive on one, even relatively small, income. You can test the poorer but happier hypothesis without dragging all of society with you.
It's all irrelevant, though. Even if preventing women from working solved all of our nation's problems, prevented war forever, and saved all the cute little creatures in the world we should still allow women to work for one simple reason: they deserve the freedom to choose their lives for themselves.
Ya know, all that common sense and logic will get you in a lot of trouble in here!
One thing I have wondered about is the long term ramifications on the economy. That is, with 2 salaries in most families, there is more money overall to go around. It seems like the market has caught up to the fact in that, in order for a family to buy a house and make ends meet, it now requires two incomes, as often a family cannot make it on one.
Is this a product of women in the workforce? When there is more money around in general, prices tend to rise. Just look at states where people earn the most money on average (Connecticut for example). Cost of living is higher in those states. That is one of the most basic principals of inflation. But I have nothing other than speculation to prove it would be any different had the traditions remained in place.
Now, what is my own personal opinion of the matter? I really don't give two shakes if a woman wants to work. She's an individual and can make up her own mind. It's her right to decide for herself.
It has. A lot of women are extremely catty and two-faced. I've even seen them gang up and try to oust out other women too. It is crazy!
Women have a right to work and that is fantastic when they do but they need to keep their BS feminism/women are victims and men are dumb pigs mentality out of the work place.
How about less of the "men are dumb pigs' AND less of 'women are catty'?
I do not understand why there is even a poll like this?
Well, if gays are told to "keep their place" and stay out of marriage, I figured it would be fine to see how many people think that women should stay out of the workplace. There are parallels.
"A woman's place is in the home." There was a time when most Americans agreed with that sentiment, just like "marriage is between a man and a woman".
It has. A lot of women are extremely catty and two-faced. I've even seen them gang up and try to oust out other women too. It is crazy!
Women have a right to work and that is fantastic when they do but they need to keep their BS feminism/women are victims and men are dumb pigs mentality out of the work place.
Wonder how military workplace compares with private workplace.
Well, if gays are told to "keep their place" and stay out of marriage, I figured it would be fine to see how many people think that women should stay out of the workplace. There are parallels.
"A woman's place is in the home." There was a time when most Americans agreed with that sentiment, just like "marriage is between a man and a woman".
Throughout history when "gays" were commonly accepted, they never married, or demanded it, for the obvious definitional and biological reasons.
Flat-chested girls don't work at Hooters, because they're not qualified.
I like variety, and would patronize a Perkys if they existed.
Some argue that the women's movement has caused more problems than its been worth, even claiming that dual-income families have driven up the cost of living.
What do you think?
Take no offense from this but you must have had your head in the sand for tooooo! long ., What is happening in the US has nothing to do at all with women working , it would have happen even if women were not even here on this earth . its all about our ( your ) government and there way of controlling the people and as SOON AS PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THE MANY SMOKE SCREENS THEY ARE BLOWING AS US the sooner we will see what need to be done to put an end to it all.
The underlying assumption of this poll, that the material wealth of our country would remain the same but be distributed differently if women did not work, is faulty. It discounts the utility that women in the workplace provide and further neglects that the US economy is no longer a closed system. If US women stopped working we would all be worse off compared to countries where they did not or are already not working. Those who claim that we would be better off materially if we stopped doing business with other countries neglect the significant amount of raw and manufactured materials we import. I'm sure we could become self-sufficient, but we would do so with a significant loss of our material well-being.
And yes, it could be argued that even if our material wealth decreased our overall wealth could increase--we would be poorer but happier. If you believe that, there is certainly no requirement that women work--people manage to survive on one, even relatively small, income. You can test the poorer but happier hypothesis without dragging all of society with you.
It's all irrelevant, though. Even if preventing women from working solved all of our nation's problems, prevented war forever, and saved all the cute little creatures in the world we should still allow women to work for one simple reason: they deserve the freedom to choose their lives for themselves.
It is true that removing women from the workforce would be detrimental to our economy. The same thing can be said for going to a single payer health care system(all those health care insurance jobs lost). The same thing can be said for if we heavily downsized our military, or if we went from our current tax system to a fair tax-like tax system.
Most large changes are usually designed to be slow and gradual. Just as women slowly joined the workforce, a slow withdrawal would not have huge shocking effects on our way-of-life.
One more thing, did you know that the average American works about 35% more hours a year than the average Frenchman. Yet, the French get paid far more per hour than the average American.
The reality is, compensation is almost always based off a system of the average number of hours of work given per household vs the average cost of living for an average household.
So in France, they work less hours and get paid more, because if they were paid less then their cost of living would be too high compared to the number of hours worked.
In the United States with the average worker putting in more hours a week than in France, the average worker gets paid less per hour, since once you apply the additional hours, that pay becomes adequate vs the cost of living.
If the same rule applied in terms of the additional hours a household would work if the woman also worked, it becomes pretty obvious that pay would be less per hour worked on average. So in that case, women cause men to be paid less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
