Now that woman's Lib. is over, we have twice the workforce.  This, logically,
means that we should have half the work per person.  That is, ideally, four
hours per day.  However, we seem to still have the eight hours.  What gives?

10 responses total.

Around the time women's lib ended, the increase in production and demand went
up *significantly*.  Think of all the advances since the early 20th century.

That doesn't explain why there is twice the work.  It sounds worthwhile to
mention that there have been increased STRESS levels, as well, since woman's
Lib.

More work = more stress.  Duh.  :)

Lessee...
All the real but off-the-books work that women were actually doing at home
still had to be done.  All the food service, home cleaning, etc. jobs thus
created don't pay that much, and are more stressful (overall) than how the
work got done previously.
Working women meant many households had more disposable income.  Naturally
the builders jacked up home sizes & prices, ditto every other industry.
(Compare typical homes built in the 1950's to the current crop.  Ditto cars,
consumer electronics, entertainment, you name it.)  All that new crap has
to be designed, marketed, built, distributed, sold, and paid for...which is
a load of work to do.

You ought to include, as well, the tremendous increase in the cost of 
government (and the billions that it has wasted).

So you're suggesting that women shouldn't have equal rights?

Or are you suggesting that everyone work 20 hours a week instead of 40?

And I still say that as the population and products and services increased,
the production demand increased.  If you took women out of the work force
right now, men would end up working double the hours, if not triple, and
two-income households would suffer tremendously.

I like Lynne's idea.

One reason I would like to see things like national health insurance is 
that it takes things like that out of the wage equation. Many employers 
will not pay for insurance for part time workers or even for 1/2 the 
insurance for part time workers. There are a lot of people who probably 
can afford to work less as far as salary goes but cant afford the loss 
the insurance. 

One thing I just dont get is why so many companies are so rigid when it 
comes to the 40 hour work week. There is some evidence that workers 
have higher levels of productivity per hour when they work fewer hours. 
I know there are fixed costs per employee in any organization but I 
wonder if those wouldnt be offset by the increased productivity. 

I would love to work a 20 hour week although at this point I probably 
cant afford to cut my income in half. *shrug*

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss