"Diluting the labour pool"

[ScienceNostalgia101]

I keep hearing from proponents of so-called "traditional gender roles" that bringing women into the workforce "diluted" the labour pool by giving employers so many more prospective employees from which to choose. The idea, as put forth by gender role proponents, is that this so reduced upward pressure on wages that it is partly responsible for the fact that wages are low enough to make both partners need to work; and that, in turn, women in the workforce are (supposedly) at fault for women who would prefer to be housewives not having that option.

 

Of course, I can already think of three reasons why an increase in the minimum wage sounds to me like a better solution than a "return to traditional gender roles."

 

1. Unless no-fault divorce is abolished and shares of the marital assets are seized proportionally to culpability for the breakdown of the relationship, having only one person collect a wage might give them too much leverage, and in turn, more opportunity to get away with mistreating their spouse than they might otherwise have.

 

2. So long as minimum wage exists at all, market-worshippers didn't get their way. You're not going to win them over anyway. It's such a half-measure to make minimum wage anything short of a living wage.

 

3. Proponents of gender roles, even when they bring this up, usually don't specify how, if at all, we're supposed to get back to "traditional gender roles." One could press them on it, sure, but one shouldn't need to. If you tell someone to unscramble an egg it should be on you to specify how to do so.

 

So what say you, science forums? Is there any particular reason why increasing the minimum wage; and stepping up enforcement thereof; can't offset any ill effects of "diluting the labour pool"?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Is there any particular reason why increasing the minimum wage; and stepping up enforcement thereof; can't offset any ill effects of "diluting the labour pool"?

Yes. The low number of minimum wage jobs as a proportion of the overall workforce is a particular reason your idea "can't offset any ill effects of a diluted labor pool."

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Eh, can't say I have too much sympathy for an office worker who thinks he deserves to be paid more for sitting on his ass all day than some kitchen prep worker on his feet 8 hours a day making minimum wage constantly doing arduous, stressful tasks.

 

If minimum wage isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for everyone. Don't count on the market fairy to do the right thing.

[iNow]

Okay. I have no idea what that has to do with your OP or my response, but thanks for sharing your opinion.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Just for clarification, I see where you're coming from; the average voter's interest is in making "market forces" protect their own wages and not someone else's; but it's still unjust to allow market forces to impoverish people who are already working harder than many if not most upper class individuals.

 

EDIT: One thing I neglected to ask in the OP... how strong is the evidence for, or against, the idea that "diluting the labour pool" decreases wages for non-minimum-wage jobs in the first place?

Edited January 27, 2021 by ScienceNostalgia101

[iNow]

1 minute ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Just for clarification, I see where you're coming from

Given the content and nature of your posts in this thread, I'm not convinced that's accurate

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Just now, iNow said:

Given the content and nature of your posts in this thread, I'm not convinced that's accurate

Go on. Be specific. Or are you just trying to troll me for shits and giggles?

[swansont]

15 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I keep hearing from proponents of so-called "traditional gender roles"

Is that what sexists want to be called these days?

 

15 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Of course, I can already think of three reasons why an increase in the minimum wage sounds to me like a better solution than a "return to traditional gender roles."

How about: people should do jobs they want to do and/or are good at, rather than being limited by societal categories based on biological differences? i.e. no discrimination based on sex/gender. IOW “return to traditional gender roles." isn’t a solution at all, since labor pool dilution isn’t really a thing.

limiting people to “traditional gender roles” would open the door to more discrimination, since you wouldn’t have men and women doing equal work, and thus no comparison for equal pay. You could return to the state where employers hide low wages behind the excuse that the job is valued less, not the people. IMO the whole scenario is thinly-veiled misogyny, and the argument should be rejected out of hand, instead of discussing alternatives as if this is a legitimate beef.

[Curious layman]

17 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:Eh, can't say I have too much sympathy for an office worker who thinks he deserves to be paid more for sitting on his ass all day than some kitchen prep worker on his feet 8 hours a day making minimum wage constantly doing arduous, stressful tasks.

An unfair comparison.

This sounds like my job. I'm the poor sod on his feet all day.

But here's the thing, the work I do is enough to support my job only, the office worker on his ass all day supports all our jobs. Not to mention the extra effort they put in while at school/college. 

Also, have you ever sat on your ass all day? I'd rather stand up and walk around, much less tiresome.

17 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Eh, can't say I have too much sympathy for an office worker who thinks he deserves to be paid more for sitting on his ass all day than some kitchen prep worker on his feet 8 hours a day making minimum wage constantly doing arduous, stressful tasks.

 

If minimum wage isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for everyone. Don't count on the market fairy to do the right thing.

 

Note: something went a bit wrong the the quote thingy.

17 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

EDIT: One thing I neglected to ask in the OP... how strong is the evidence for, or against, the idea that "diluting the labour pool" decreases wages for non-minimum-wage jobs in the first place?

Emphasis mine. 

Disagree with this.

Didn't Apple once say that one of the biggest reasons they manufacture in China is because of the volume of workers compared to America for certain jobs?

Expanding the labour pool would more accurate. 

Sorry this is two posts, just got back from work. A bit flustered at the moment.

 

 

[CharonY]

19 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

One thing I neglected to ask in the OP... how strong is the evidence for, or against, the idea that "diluting the labour pool" decreases wages for non-minimum-wage jobs in the first place?

That is a myth for the most part. Friedman had a great quote for that:

Quote

Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

It is the assumption that jobs are a fixed commodity and hence increase in labour would decrease its value. However, it is in fact elastic. With more folks entering the workforce, consumption also increases, which in turns stimulates the economy. While there can be depressing effects locally and short-term, the effects long-term and globally are usually either neutral or positive (i.e. net increase in wages) based on empirical studies.

For example a paper by Weinstein (2017; J Reg Sci 57:4 591-610) found after adjusting for regional differences that an increase in labor participation of women in the workforce between 1980 and 2010 increased wages, for both men and women.