## Wednesday, 15 March 2017

### Have Women at Work Lowered Men's Wages, or Men's Relatively Lowered Wages Driven Women To Work? (quora)

It could be both:

How could 1950s families afford to have only a working father, but a stay-at-home mother?
Dakota White, B.S. Psychology & Biochemistry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale (2016)
Written Mar 5

How could 1950s families afford to have only a working father, but a stay-at-home mother?
Robert Horvick, Principal Engineer at MaxPoint Interactive (2015-present)
Written Mon

Valid points
Dakota White
First off, I’ll compare the differences between minimum wage then and now. In 1950, the average income per year was \$3,210. Since the minimum wage was \$0.75 an hour (on January 25, 1950), people working the minimum wage the average number of hours a week (43) made \$1,677 a year. So, by working the average number of hours and making the federal minimum wage, you could make 52% of the average wage. In 1950, The estimated price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. was \$1,510, less than what minimum wage workers made a year. In 1950, a new house cost \$8,450. So, if you never spent a penny of the money you earned, it would take roughly 5 years at the federal minimum wage to save the amount equal to that of a new house.

In 2015, the average income per year was \$55,775. Since the minimum wage in 2015 was \$7.25 an hour, people working the minimum wage the average number of hours a week (34) made \$12,818 a year. So, by working the average number of hours and making the federal minimum wage, you could make 23% of the average wage. The estimated price of a new car sold in the U.S. in 2015 was \$33,560, roughly 3 times the amount made by federal minimum wage workers in a year. The average sale price for a new house in January 2016 was \$365,600. So, if you never spent a penny of the money you earned, it would take 29 years at the federal minimum wage to save the amount equal to that of a new house. Do those seem equal to you?

Secondly, in the 1950s, productivity meant more money went into workers pockets. Here are two graphics from the Economic Policy Institute.

[Graphs on his post. As well as continuation.]

Valid points
Robert Horvick
If the cost of housing and education is so much higher relative to income, then isn’t the problem that pay is too low?

Well sure - making more would be great, right? But that doesn’t address the other side of the problem.

Today we own 2 cars instead of one. Our houses are twice as large, education cost substantially more and more than twice as many people are paying for it.

Our spending growth has outpaced our income and instead of slowing down, we look back on the past with nostalgia and wish things were like they used to be.

Except we don’t actually want to live like we did in 1950.

We don’t want to have only one car. We don’t want to live in a smaller home. We don’t want to tell our children that we won’t take on debt for their education. We want a 2017 lifestyle on a 1950 budget.

It doesn’t work that way.

[Some previous explanations to his post.]

What Both Miss
Feminism has driven women into the workplace.

This means that some women have driven others into the workplace too.

This also means they have been driven to university studies and families have been driven to having two cars.

This also means they have been driven out of homes where they were experts of thrift.

I think a certain "Friend" was right when she share the meme "women at work, lowering men's wages since" (whatever the year, but I think it was 1950).

Losers have been people on minimum wage. Winners have been shareholders.

And women in typical modern high status female works, often financed by the state.

A point
"This video covers the income inequality that really got rolling in the 1976." (dixit Dakota White)

This Is The Income Inequality Video CEOs Don’t Want Americans To See
The Young Turks