Economics, as usually defined, is the study of how societies can allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible. (The "scarcity" refers to the fact that no society has one-hundred percent of everything it needs, so societies must prioritize and decide what to do.) Here is an example from an old, economics textbook of mine:
What commodities are produced and in what quantities... Will we produce pizzas or shirts today? A few high-quality shirts or many cheap shirts? Will we use scarce resources to produce many consumption goods (like pizzas)? Or will we produce fewer consumption goods and more investment goods (like pizza-making machines), which will boost production and consumption tomorrow?
How are goods produced? A society must determine who will do the production, with what resources, and what production techniques they will use. Who farms and who teaches...? (Emphasis added.)
The problem of scarcity is relevant to the effect that feminism has had on Western economies since the 1960s, and it is becoming more obvious during these hard, economic times.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
y --- x
y --- x
y --- x
y --- x
y --- x
This group of five couples represents society. There are a total of ten people. Now, imagine that there are only five jobs available in this society because of economic conditions. In all Western societies, each individual will compete with everyone else in such a scenario for those scarce positions. As a result, the distribution of jobs among these five couples will likely be random (capital letters refer to employed people):
Y --- x
Y --- X
y --- x
y --- X
Y --- x
Some couples have no jobs, some have two, and some have one. My question: is this the most-efficient allocation of resources? I would posit that the answer is "no" for the following reasons:
- Men generally earn higher salaries than women (feminists blame sexism while the truth is that females are generally less aggressive and do not ask for more in salary negotiations).
- Unemployed men are generally more prone to depression and despair than unemployed women.
- Men are generally programmed -- by both nature and society -- to be resource providers while women are generally built to provide for house and home by the same influences.
- Young children suffer in households where neither parent works (for obvious reasons) or in those where both parents work (since they are raised by nannies or as so-called latch-key kids).
- Men who are looking for a wife and children subconsciously look for a woman who, in part, will be a good wife and mother as well as know how to manage a household. Women who are looking for a good husband and father will generally want a man who can provide security. (Though both parties will likely not admit these things out loud in today's politically-correct climate.)
- The unintended consequences of feminism and the dramatic increase in financial success among women have wrecked havoc on the dating world.
In cold, economic terms, the ideal solution, in general, is for men to be ones who work and for women to be the ones who manage the household. (Economics is not known as the "dismal science" for nothing.) Every household in my hypothetical example has an income-provider and a person to take care of the household. The distribution of scarce resources would be more efficient, and society would be much happier.
Related posts:
FYI: In America, more people would be starving and homeless, too. What a solution!
(Quote)
I think the opposite would be true. In my scenario, some households have no jobs while some have two. This leads to greater income-inequality. My hypothetical solution would have one wage-earner, on average, in every household.
(Quote)
In the interest of streamlining, I am going to ignore Sam’s opinion on the so-called natural state of man and woman.
Are you advocating that the five jobs should be allocated evenly amongst the population, regardless of merit? It seems to me that would be FAR more inefficient than merely allowing the most deserving and qualified individuals occupy the positions. If people are given jobs for which they are unqualified, it will take an inordinate amount of time to train these people to properly fulfill the demands of the positions. Meanwhile, individuals that are ALREADY QUALIFIED for those spots are denied based on the artificial quotas set up by your system.
In fact, your theory sounds, dare I say, communistic. Allocating employment based on numbers, not merit? Attempting to eliminate income inequality? These are not capitalistic arguments, my friend. These bear the hallmarks of a command economy, which was fairly well documented as a failure in the Soviet Union. Why would your hypothetical system function any better?
(Quote)
Dan, when I discuss “efficiency,” I am not discussing only how the most-qualified people can obtain the five jobs. I am discussing what is best for society as a whole when one takes into account the six additional factors I listed as well.
And, no, I’m not advocating a command economy; I would not want government to ban women from working, or anything of the sort. I would argue that society itself could chose this option through individual choice.
In addition, most free-market economists (except those on the extreme right) study how a society can decrease income-inequality while fostering economic growth at the same time. If one believes in capitalism, as I do, one does not need to shrug his shoulders at income-economic inequality and say, “Well, that’s life.”
(Quote)
I started a response, but I think this is better: your idea is absurd on its face and doesn’t, in my opinion, merit much (if any) discussion.
(Quote)
The number of jobs in a society is a function of the purchasing power of that same society (ignoring the global economy). If you make every wife stay at home and be domestic, and ever husband go out and work the full time job, you will still end up with a certain percentage of men who are unemployed, because at the same time you take women out of the workforce, you take out the demand created by their productivity and wages.
You repeatedly ignore this productivity/demand effect that is created when more than one part of the couple works.
(Quote)
I agree with Jeff. Your thoughts on the place of women in society are so patently out-of-touch, dangerous, and outright offensive that they derail any possibility of taking the rest of the post seriously.
(Quote)