Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Help
Smilies
BB Codes
Trophies
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
Off Topic
Kame House
Feminism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ahill1" data-source="post: 54925" data-attributes="member: 246"><p>Only someone that has popped up quite a bit recently and was brought here too and that I would like to contest since it isn't true, which was the idea that more women in the work face added to economical crisis... The hypothesis that reducing female employment would lead to the firing of women, consequent lower wage bills for businesses, and subsequently stimulate the creation of more companies might seem plausible on the surface. However, this overlooks the broader repercussions in terms of reduced consumer spending power, talent drain from the workforce, and a potential decline in overall productivity.</p><p></p><p>It'd give more power to companies with power to do so to open up, with lower waging costs, which would in ling term require demands and work force with the tax income raising, which is a contradiction within the own libertarian argument which is why no serious economic libertarian defensor would ever use this argument.</p><p></p><p> Curtailing female employment would likely result in a scarcity of skilled labor, ultimately leading to an increase in wages due to heightened competition for the remaining workforce. This would not only counter the initial reduction in labor costs but could also lead to inflationary pressures and reduced profitability for businesses.</p><p></p><p>History and global examples substantiate this argument. For instance, during periods when female workforce participation increased significantly, such as in the United States and Brazil, these nations did not experience economic downturns due to women joining the labor force. Conversely, Nordic countries, known for their high female workforce participation rates, illustrate robust economies that thrive due to a diverse and inclusive workforce. Heck, when Brazil grew amlot economically between decades, there were a huge increase of women in the work force... The economical crisis in the US is another thing based on a history of events that has absolutely nothing to do with increased work force. It'd be like when slavery became illegal, the argument that black people working paid jobs would lead to an economic downturn with more work force... So it's a nonsense point, sorry. The US couldn't just hold the power it had once and which it acquired with specifics accomplishments and advantages post war. Brazil grew a lot for example with the boom of commodities, the raising of China and a more stable world trade and relationships, which are way bigger facts in economic growth. </p><p></p><p>Besides a smaller workforce might hamper innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, thus impacting tax revenues derived from corporate taxes and stifling economic growth.</p><p></p><p>Contrary to the argument that increased workforce is a driving factor of economic downturns, historical and empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Economic downturns are multi-dimensional, involving complex factors like financial mismanagement, market speculation, and external shocks rather than simply an increase in the workforce.</p><p></p><p>Looking at the aftermath of economic crises, policymakers often aim to stimulate employment and bolster consumer spending to aid recovery. Limiting female workforce participation during such periods would not align with these recovery strategies, as it would curtail the very consumer spending necessary for economic revival.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry for the the revival, but with economics arguments, I feel the need to point out flaws when I see them because it's something of extreme importance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ahill1, post: 54925, member: 246"] Only someone that has popped up quite a bit recently and was brought here too and that I would like to contest since it isn't true, which was the idea that more women in the work face added to economical crisis... The hypothesis that reducing female employment would lead to the firing of women, consequent lower wage bills for businesses, and subsequently stimulate the creation of more companies might seem plausible on the surface. However, this overlooks the broader repercussions in terms of reduced consumer spending power, talent drain from the workforce, and a potential decline in overall productivity. It'd give more power to companies with power to do so to open up, with lower waging costs, which would in ling term require demands and work force with the tax income raising, which is a contradiction within the own libertarian argument which is why no serious economic libertarian defensor would ever use this argument. Curtailing female employment would likely result in a scarcity of skilled labor, ultimately leading to an increase in wages due to heightened competition for the remaining workforce. This would not only counter the initial reduction in labor costs but could also lead to inflationary pressures and reduced profitability for businesses. History and global examples substantiate this argument. For instance, during periods when female workforce participation increased significantly, such as in the United States and Brazil, these nations did not experience economic downturns due to women joining the labor force. Conversely, Nordic countries, known for their high female workforce participation rates, illustrate robust economies that thrive due to a diverse and inclusive workforce. Heck, when Brazil grew amlot economically between decades, there were a huge increase of women in the work force... The economical crisis in the US is another thing based on a history of events that has absolutely nothing to do with increased work force. It'd be like when slavery became illegal, the argument that black people working paid jobs would lead to an economic downturn with more work force... So it's a nonsense point, sorry. The US couldn't just hold the power it had once and which it acquired with specifics accomplishments and advantages post war. Brazil grew a lot for example with the boom of commodities, the raising of China and a more stable world trade and relationships, which are way bigger facts in economic growth. Besides a smaller workforce might hamper innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, thus impacting tax revenues derived from corporate taxes and stifling economic growth. Contrary to the argument that increased workforce is a driving factor of economic downturns, historical and empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Economic downturns are multi-dimensional, involving complex factors like financial mismanagement, market speculation, and external shocks rather than simply an increase in the workforce. Looking at the aftermath of economic crises, policymakers often aim to stimulate employment and bolster consumer spending to aid recovery. Limiting female workforce participation during such periods would not align with these recovery strategies, as it would curtail the very consumer spending necessary for economic revival. Sorry for the the revival, but with economics arguments, I feel the need to point out flaws when I see them because it's something of extreme importance. [/QUOTE]
Loading…
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Off Topic
Kame House
Feminism
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…