I am reading this post now and I see it covers much of what we discussed recently. I hope you don't think I cheated! I must have just skimmed this initially. The ideas I told you came from my own sources and understanding, completely unrelated to this essay.
I am tempted to write a comment summarizing the charedi approach to this article.
I am reading this post now and I see it covers much of what we discussed recently. I hope you don't think I cheated! I must have just skimmed this initially. The ideas I told you came from my own sources and understanding, completely unrelated to this essay.
I am tempted to write a comment summarizing the charedi approach to this article.
For now, I leave you with one question.
Can you prove that women entering the job market increased productivity, or at least did not decrease somewhat the productivity of males?
From what I've seen it seems that the rate of growth of GDP did not change during the decades when women entered the market.
>>Can you prove that women entering the job market increased productivity, or at least did not decrease somewhat the productivity of males?
I must be the one who is cheating: Did I write that?
In any case, I don't belive that. I believe that young people exited the labor market at roughly the same rates as mothers entered it. Years in education increased at the same time as women increased their labor market participation. So in effect, mothers replaced teenagers, who were expected to be in school.
Since I don't believe a lot in education, I wouldn't expect such an arrangement to increase productivity. To the contrary, actually - if anything it should decrease productivity.
Edit: Sorry, I misread what post we are discussing. My response is roughly relevant anyway. But I understand much better why you posed that question.
I hear your theory. I would have to look if the dates match.
As you can now tell, my question really is that if we are weighing the pros and cons of integrating women, we need to be clear how much the integration actually increased productivity and to what extent it may have distracted men, and most importantly, effeminated the economy thus hindering progress.
I am nervous that I am too anti-feminist with this, but actually I am just curious what the data is.
I am reading this post now and I see it covers much of what we discussed recently. I hope you don't think I cheated! I must have just skimmed this initially. The ideas I told you came from my own sources and understanding, completely unrelated to this essay.
I am tempted to write a comment summarizing the charedi approach to this article.
For now, I leave you with one question.
Can you prove that women entering the job market increased productivity, or at least did not decrease somewhat the productivity of males?
From what I've seen it seems that the rate of growth of GDP did not change during the decades when women entered the market.
>>Can you prove that women entering the job market increased productivity, or at least did not decrease somewhat the productivity of males?
I must be the one who is cheating: Did I write that?
In any case, I don't belive that. I believe that young people exited the labor market at roughly the same rates as mothers entered it. Years in education increased at the same time as women increased their labor market participation. So in effect, mothers replaced teenagers, who were expected to be in school.
Since I don't believe a lot in education, I wouldn't expect such an arrangement to increase productivity. To the contrary, actually - if anything it should decrease productivity.
Edit: Sorry, I misread what post we are discussing. My response is roughly relevant anyway. But I understand much better why you posed that question.
Are you saying that young people exiting the labor market is directly related to mothers entering it? Or is this a mere coincidence?
I hear your theory. I would have to look if the dates match.
As you can now tell, my question really is that if we are weighing the pros and cons of integrating women, we need to be clear how much the integration actually increased productivity and to what extent it may have distracted men, and most importantly, effeminated the economy thus hindering progress.
I am nervous that I am too anti-feminist with this, but actually I am just curious what the data is.