(02-14-2011 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote: I do not believe that allowing women to work improves an economy's long-term output.
Take this thought experiment: Country A and Country B have identical laws, with the exception that women cannot go to college in Country B. Each have a population of 2 million.
Let's say there are 500 million youths in Country A that go to college.
Conversely, only 250 million youths in Country B go to college (since the women do not).
Because Country A's women go to college, their birthrate is low, around 2 per woman. In country B, their birthrate is high, around 4 per woman.
Country A, however, is able to immediately utilize 250 million more workers than Country B does. Country A's GDP and overall size of their economy becomes much greater than Country B's.
Country A's 250 million women produce 500 million children. Country B produces 1 million children.
Generation 1:
Country A sends the next generation of 500 million children to college. Country B sends 500 million males to college.
Generation 2:
The generation of Country A will send 500 million children to college. Country B will send 1 million children.
Generation 3:
Country A: 500 million. Country B: 2 million.
As you can see, in just one generation will Country B, although starting with half as many workers as Country A, create as many workers as Country A. Therefore, the idea that female liberation creates prosperity is false. It only increases prosperity in the short term, but within a few generations female liberation spells a stagnating economy that will be left in the dust by patriarchal economies.
In addition, without growing populations, there will be no new jobs created for each new generation of workers. This is one of the primary reasons why every developed country in the world today has growing unemployment rates. Population growth = real wealth for existing people to grow with. In fact, I would say population is the most valuable resource. If you want more buyers and sellers you need more people. It's retarded how most economists overlook this.
Of course, population growth means nothing if the rest of the country's laws are fucked up (i.e. middle eastern countries). But female liberation? Bad for the country's economy any way you slice it because it kills growth rates.
Samseau,
Expanding on your thought experiment, your example would be correct when it comes to an economy's total output, GDP. But have you considered GDP per capita? While GDP per capita is imperfect, is a much better marker for individual wealth and therefore individual "prosperity" than just GDP. Another problem with your logic is that it lacks a basic understanding of a basic business principle - cost.
Let's use an extremely simplified business example as a metaphor for your country thought experiment:
Let's assume the following:
total output (GDP) = total revenue
individual wealth (GDP per capita) = revenue per employee
individual costs = cost per employee (we'll pick $25 per employee for easier math)
Company A: Employs both salesmen and saleswomen along with support staff, who sometimes feel neglected and stressed because they don't get to spend time with their beautiful, nurturing saleswomen except after hours.
-Has 10 salesmen, 10 saleswomen, and 20 support staff (2 per salesman + saleswoman combo).
-Each salesperson sells 10 units @ $10 for $100 in sales. Therefore:
-Revenue = (salesmen + saleswomen) x units x price = (10 + 10) x 10 x $10 = $2000
-Revenue per employee = $2000/(salesmen + saleswomen + support staff) = $2000/(10 + 10 + 20) = $50 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 40 = $1000
-profit = revenue - costs = $2000 - $1000 = $1000 (50% gross profit margin)
Company B: Employs only salesmen but each has a secretary that boost their sales effectiveness by 50%, but has even more support staff because secretaries are not allowed to sell and are bored and end up influencing more support staff to be hired. The support staff are very loveable and do the cutest things.
-Has 20 salesmen, 20 secretaries, 80 support staff (4 per salesman + secretary combo)
-Each salesman sells 15 units @ $10 for $150 in sales. Therefore:
-Revenue = salesman x units x price = 20 x 15 x $10 = $3000
-Revenue per employee = $3000/(salesmen + secretaries + support staff) = $3000/(20 + 20 + 80) = $25 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 120 = $3000
-profit = revenue - costs = $3000 - $3000 = $0 (0% gross profit margin)
So Which company is healthier?
While company B can leverage its size occasionally to gain influence, company A would almost always be in a better position. Of course, we assume no marketing/quality advantage nor the influence of corruption.
1. in direct competition, company A can lower their price to $8 which is below company B's cost and still make a profit ($3 per unit) thereby pricing B out of the market.
2. in downturns, assuming all of it is fixed cost (unrealistic but good for simplicity), company A burns through $1000 worth of cost vs. company B's $3000 worth of costs. As you can see, company A is much more likely to survive the downturn as A's burn rate is lower while it generated more profit previously and should have more reserves.
3. in labor and capital investments, company A also has the advantage of being able to apply more of its profit toward its employees and for capital investments (such as automation). If done fruitfully, this should lead to even greater disparity between company A and B.
So what has any of this to do with Country A and B?
If we agree that revenue per employee = "GDP per capita". And we agree that "GDP per capita" is a better measure of individual wealth, then by having the mother (saleswoman) contribute along with the father (salesman), you are effectively increasing the household (salesman + saleswoman + support staff) output and therefore the GDP per capita (revenue per employee = individual wealth).
If country B attempts to "grow" its way out of this by generating more males(salesmen), it also generates more females (secretaries) who while supposedly boosting male productivity (imaginary 50% boost added to not make it too lopsided against you) only generate costs in theoretical country B along with birthing more kids (support staff) and their costs.
Company B: Increases salesmen trying to grow its way out.
-Has 40 salesmen, 40 secretaries, 120 support staff (4 per salesman + secretary combo)
-Each salesman sells 15 units @ $10 for $150 in sales. Therefore:
-Revenue = salesman x units x price = 40 x 15 x $10 = $6000
-Revenue per employee = $6000/(salesmen + secretaries + support staff) = $6000/(40 + 40 + 160) = $25 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 240 = $6000
-profit = revenue - costs = $6000 - $6000 = $0 (0% margin)
Therefore, while GDP is increased by producing more males, you are also producing more females and children who just require an increasing amount of resources, housing, safety nets, etc. so there is no gain vs. country A which continue to produce more individual wealth especially if investments are further made to improve labor efficiencies, infrastructure, and even completely new industries.
Of course, in real life, it is much more complex than this. But, it's my take on your thought experiment.
As to your hypothesis about "patriarchical societies" (women prevented from working) being more prosperous in the long run. It sounds like wishful thinking to me. Outside of a couple of tiny oil rich monarchies, all lists of wealthiest countries by GDP per capita are dominated by countries with "liberated women".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...per_capita
As to growing unemployment rates, have you considered the effect of automation? As one business of mine deals in a specific sector of automation, I can say from first hand experience, that more and more roles are being automated away. It only seems to be getting worse (or better depending on your viewpoint) as intelligent devices get both more powerful and cheaper. We are constantly replacing/enhancing human labor which only gets more expensive as time goes on with automation which trends downward in price. It's much more of an impact than "outsourcing" to other countries for unemployment, IMO. I also worry what is going to happen to high population countries with low GDP per capita in 20-30 years when automation appears likely to potentially replace the great majority of basic production. Food for thought.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes oldnemesis's post:
Between being 38 having done 70% on what is on my bucket list and not having a kid versus being 38 having had a wife and kids but not have done 70% of what is on my bucket list I would go for the former. 
