Replies

"Because wages got hit then by the double-whammy of global competition and new technologies, the typical American family was able to maintain its living standard only if women went into the workforce in larger numbers, and later, only if everyone worked longer hours."

This caught my eye. I've been wondering for some time now, if the cause/effect isn't going in exactly the opposite direction.

I wonder if the entrance of huge numbers of women into the paid labor force in the 1970's caused the slump in working men's hourly wages and the death of the ideal of the "family wage": wages so that a workingman could adequately support a wife whose thrift and diligence and nurturance maintained their home-life (remember that term? Home Life?) and their children.

Comments?

Interesting point.

Any addition to the entry level workforce adds competition for work and exerts a downward influence on real wages...so in that you are certainly correct.

What mystifies me with the writer of this article is her belief that an economy can somehow promise a certain standard of living to anyone at any point on the economic ladder.

In my mind, Americans are substantially wealthier now than in any previous generation (at least in terms of material goods).

The problem is that we are now poorer in terms of our morality, character, and culture (none of which is a function of income).