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 generally for men to be ones who work full-time and for women to be the ones who manage the household full-time. (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.