First, here’s this:
She is far from alone, according to a new study from the Federal Reserve, due to be published shortly.
It shows that between 1993 and 2006, there was a decline in the workforce of 0.1 percent a year on average in the number of college-educated women, with similarly educated spouses.
That contrasts with growth of 2.4 percent a year between 1976 and 1992.
The result: the labor force in 2008 had 1.64 million fewer such women than if the growth rate had kept up its earlier trend, slightly more than 1 percent of the total workforce in that year.
Then there’s this:*
I have commented on these job losses a few times before, so this time around I want to highlight the gender dynamics a bit. These cuts to state and local government workforces, while a significant drag on the economy as a whole, are particularly damaging for women. In 2011, women made up 46.6 percent of the overall labor force, but among state and local workers, about 60 percent are women. Because women are so disproportionately represented in state and local jobs, they also have taken the brunt of the job losses in state and local governments. Of the net change in total state and local employment between 2007 and 2011—a decline of roughly 765,000 jobs—70 percent of the drop is from female employees. Today, there are about 540,000 fewer women in state and local jobs than in 2007, compared with about 225,000 fewer men.
The first thing to note is that women are not as indispensable to the workforce as is generally supposed. The first story tells us that the economy grows just fine without them, since GDP increased from $6.6 trillion to $9.9 trillion (in constant 1993 dollars) from 1993 to 2008** in spite of there being 1.64 trillion fewer female participants in the labor force.
Now, it is possible that nominal GDP would have grown in the event of greater female labor participation, but this hypothetical occurrence could potentially be due to the fact that it is easier to record the contributions to GDP in the event of increased formal channels of production. For example, there really is no way to calculate, say, how much a SAHM’s completion of household chores contributes to GDP, while one can calculate the costs of formally recognized cleaning agencies. This is to say that a SAHM’s economic contributions are not—and indeed cannot be—generally accounted for in the official measurements of GDP, while a SAHM’s replacement goods and services (say, pre-cooked meals or day care) can be accounted for. As such, any potential growth in nominal GDP that might result as a result of hypothetically increasing the labor participation rate of women might occur simply because the contributions can now be officially measured.
The second thing to note is that women take disproportionately economically damaging jobs. Government bureaucracies impose economic inefficiency on citizens. At the most basic level, this accomplished merely by taxation. At more advanced levels, some economic inefficiencies take the form of asinine regulations that must be met. If the government does provide some desirable services (I would argue for education and criminal investigations and prosecutions), it is likely that these services could be performed more efficiently on the free market, away from the coercion of taxes. On the other hand, the government may provide some services that aren’t desirable at all, like issuing driver’s licenses, in which case the loss imposed by this economic inefficiency is simply revealed in its direct costs. Additionally, the government may impose some counterproductive services, like regulation, that not only impose direct costs on taxpayers (which is one form of inefficiency) but also indirect cost via increased consumption costs (which is another form of inefficiency).
That there are a disproportionate number of women that work in government jobs, it is highly likely that, in the aggregate, women impose significant economic costs by their employment. Since they work so many government jobs, relatively speaking, eliminating their jobs would lead to either more efficient outcomes through privatization or the elimination of wasteful or counterproductive spending. Remember, regulations and vast government services are luxury goods, which makes them marginal items, not the foundation of society. Thus, eliminating women from government jobs frees up the economy to do things that are more productive.
When all is said and done, it would appear that the feminists’ press for gender equality in the workforce is nothing more than a steaming pile of bovine fecal matter. Women are not needed for economic growth, and in many cases their presence in the workforce hinders it. As such, the call for increasing women’s presence in workforce seems a little forced, and not particularly well thought-out. Perhaps it’s time we encourage women to leave.
* On a completely tangential note, can you tell which of the two excerpts was written by a journalist and which one was written by an academic?