Quote:I think you get what I am saying here they women"s rights movement did not help the economy it hurt it. like I said now the economy is based on a two family income instead of just one income.
Wherever has existed an imbalance in rights and access to political, economic or educational 'empowerment', there has been movement toward more access.
Women's' suffrage and the civil rights laws were the result in this country, and more equal opportunity in education, employment and military service resulted.
What could have possibly prevented any of it? As it was, those who attained more access felt it took too long by half.
Women's' rights not only helped the macro economy but very definitely helped their personal economics. And again, how exactly would you have chosen to prevent that?
'Spit-ball' and deplore the reasons for change for all your worth. It was all going to happen regardless.
Quote:This analysis is an extension and update of the analysis presented in the forthcoming book “Finding Time: The Economics of Work-Life Conflict” authored by one of the co-authors of this issue brief, Equitable Growth’s Executive Director and Chief Economist Heather Boushey. Here are our key findings:
•Between 1979 and 2013, on average, low-income families in the United States saw their incomes fall by 2.0 percent. Middle-income families, however, saw their incomes grow by 12.4 percent, and professional families saw their incomes rise by 48.8 percent.
•Over the same time period, the average woman in the United States saw her annual working hours increase by 26.4 percent. This trend was similar across low-income, middle-class, and professional families.
•Across all three income groups, women significantly helped family incomes both because they earned more per hour and worked more per year. Women’s contributions saved low-income and middle-class families from steep drops in their income.
These findings establish that working women, especially those within low-income and middle-income families, have made the key difference in securing earnings for their families. Without women’s added earnings, families would be much worse off.
Women’s changing role in the U.S. labor force
An increasing number of families across the United States, especially low- and middle-income families, are becoming less economically secure.
This trend began more than four decades ago, long before the Great Recession of 2007–2009. In light of this increasing instability and stagnant growth in family incomes, families have had to find ways to cope—including an growing reliance on the earnings of women.
The role of women in the United States has transformed from predominantly being a wife or mother to being all of these things and a breadwinner.
Half a century ago, women—especially middle-class women—began entering the U.S. labor force and staying there, although they were still more likely to be their family’s caregiver for children, the aging, and the ill.
And starting in the 1970s, more women started gaining professional degrees, which along with other factors contributed to a sharp rise in women’s labor force participation as well, especially for prime-age working women (ages 25 to 54).
By 2000, about 60 percent of all U.S. women were in the labor force, which remained the case until the financial crash in 2007 and the ensuing Great Recession. (See Figure 1.)
equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/women-have-made-the-difference-for-family-economic-security/
Figure 1
1
