Not really tho. The women in my orbit went to work after the War. 2nd incomes were the norm, at least in CA anyway, by early 70s. All the females my age (b.1965) were ALL going into the labor force. Again, the point is not to pick nits over the timing, but rather to see that doubling the labor force was a tsunami event. And here we are.
I never said they didnтАЩt enter the labor force en masse. I said the opposite, that in the past 60 years weтАЩve gone from women not having careers and jobs to them working outside the home by default. IтАЩm confused by this.
Statistics do not bear you out, at least not nationwide.
And while 30 years is hardly a "nit", nobody is arguing that labor force participation is not a "tsunami event". The question is what caused that to happen.
Umm, ok. Would you agree that by the 80s most Western women were in the labor force? And to 'the question': prob multiple answers, with an emphasis on social engineering. And that tax thing.
Oh, the internet. Having a discussion isn't an argument. Not in the adversarial sense, anyway. Refresh my admittedly less than adept memory, btw: What is the point here?
Once the labor force was essentially doubled post WW2, it was inevitable Captalism make the necessary adjustments. It's a feature, and a function.
Except it wasn't. Most women, to the extent they worked during the War, went back to what they were doing before the war.
Timeline might be a bit off, but point was the mechanism was in motion, and the next generation went directly into the labor force.
Timeline was off by some 30 years.
Not really tho. The women in my orbit went to work after the War. 2nd incomes were the norm, at least in CA anyway, by early 70s. All the females my age (b.1965) were ALL going into the labor force. Again, the point is not to pick nits over the timing, but rather to see that doubling the labor force was a tsunami event. And here we are.
I never said they didnтАЩt enter the labor force en masse. I said the opposite, that in the past 60 years weтАЩve gone from women not having careers and jobs to them working outside the home by default. IтАЩm confused by this.
Statistics do not bear you out, at least not nationwide.
And while 30 years is hardly a "nit", nobody is arguing that labor force participation is not a "tsunami event". The question is what caused that to happen.
Umm, ok. Would you agree that by the 80s most Western women were in the labor force? And to 'the question': prob multiple answers, with an emphasis on social engineering. And that tax thing.
You are arguing with points that I wasn't making.
Oh, the internet. Having a discussion isn't an argument. Not in the adversarial sense, anyway. Refresh my admittedly less than adept memory, btw: What is the point here?