What would happen if....

[Tabrett]

70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force?

 

 

Just for fun-what do you think would happen?

 

:lurk5:

[Murphy101]

Wages would go up

And the degree boundary for jobs that don't really need one would lessen considerably

[JoyfulMama]

I'd be excited that the schools might benefit from their new-found time to volunteer, but then part of me thinks the schools might freak out not knowing what to do with all of these new offers of help, especially since many women might be used to not just following orders, but have ideas they want to bring to the table.

 

There would be a significant decrease in the need for child care centers.

 

There would be an EXTREME shortage of skilled/competent workers in fields where women dominate (medical, customer service, retail, etc.).

 

More coffee shops would open. :D

[eaglei]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

[angela in ohio]

70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force?

 

 

Just for fun-what do you think would happen?

 

:lurk5:

 

A baby boom to beat all baby booms. :D

 

But seriously... Without considering any gender issues, political issues, etc., we can objectively look at what would happen to an economic system if a large portion of its workers left. Wages go up, unemployment goes down, etc. However, the demand on public assistance organizations would be overwhelming, the number of foreclosures increase, etc., because many of those women are the sole supporters of households. So taxes would skyrocket, property values would plummet, etc.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Mostly, I think that our country is so obsessed with "equality" and "opportunity" and "success," I think there would be a huge number of incentives to get them back into the workforce.

 

However, if it lasted? I think the country would have a NUMBER of positive benefits, especially as it relates to people learning fulfillment otherwise, the raising of children, the family circumstance, etc. A lot of things that have gone downhill in the past many years would reverse. And yet, I think that people are in a place where it would *mostly* not slip downhill in the ways the past was less desirable. And in time, after the initial uproar, I believe men would gain jobs. I think the economy would recover and life would go on, possibly better than ever.

 

Of course, all this is my knee-jerk response. No doubt I'm forgetting some major issues to this idea.

[ProudGrandma]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

 

:iagree:

[Pamela H in Texas]

However, the demand on public assistance organizations would be overwhelming, the number of foreclosures increase, etc., because many of those women are the sole supporters of households.

 

I don't know. All the people on assistance with men (not necessarily together with them, but exhubbies and the like) who could (or should) be supporting them could get off assistance because now husbands and fathers can go to work. Additionally, we didn't take ALL women out of the workforce. Instead, we make it where most women don't "have to" in order to live decently.

[elegantlion]

 

But seriously... Without considering any gender issues, political issues, etc., we can objectively look at what would happen to an economic system if a large portion of its workers left. Wages go up, unemployment goes down, etc. However, the demand on public assistance organizations would be overwhelming, the number of foreclosures increase, etc., because many of those women are the sole supporters of households. So taxes would skyrocket, property values would plummet, etc.

 

 

The work load wouldn't go away either. So the men would be doing double the work, be more stressed, and probably spend less time with the family. Divorce rates would rise, suicides rates would probably increase in both men and women (some women aren't built to stay at home, some men aren't wired to be the sole provider), and our society would lose a lot of valuable contributors to the workforce.

[*~Tina~*]

I got goosebumps just pondering the thought!

 

Blessings,

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Tina ~

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

http://seasonsoflearning.blogspot.com/

[Melinda in VT]

I'd be excited that the schools might benefit from their new-found time to volunteer, but then part of me thinks the schools might freak out not knowing what to do with all of these new offers of help, especially since many women might be used to not just following orders, but have ideas they want to bring to the table.

 

The immediate impact on our local schools would *not* be positive. Sure, they might have volunteers, but they wouldn't have any teachers.

 

Literally. There are no male teachers in our elementary school.

[angela in ohio]

The work load wouldn't go away either. So the men would be doing double the work, be more stressed, and probably spend less time with the family. Divorce rates would rise, suicides rates would probably increase in both men and women (some women aren't built to stay at home, some men aren't wired to be the sole provider), and our society would lose a lot of valuable contributors to the workforce.

 

I don't think it would double, just increase slightly and shift. We would lose some businesses in large numbers: restaurants, day cares, etc. University enrollment would drop by half of more, so they would be closing. The men employed in some of those industries would have to change careers. The women who were home wouldn't do nothing at all, so the men's work load wouldn't double.

[LibraryLover]

Yeah, what fun. ;) I'd have to find a new pedi, a new dentist, a new ballet school, a new voice teacher, a new gyno, a new art tutor, a new language tutor. There would be about 10 teachers left at the high school my son attends. All the libraries would shut down. Several businesses I frequent would cease to exist. What happens in countries when women are forced to stay home? Are the countries stronger/better? Are families happier? Are people healtheir?

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[angela in ohio]

The immediate impact on our local schools would *not* be positive. Sure, they might have volunteers, but they wouldn't have any teachers.

 

Literally. There are no male teachers in our elementary school.

 

They'd get male teachers eventually. They'd have to pay more, though. :001_smile:

[mommaduck]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force?

 

 

Just for fun-what do you think would happen?

 

:lurk5:

 

Maybe we need more clarification. Are we talking about just married women with dc, or a total lack of any woman in the workforce? Will they be able to farm, teach from home, etc., or are they doing nothing at all to produce income?

[LibraryLover]

You are all mostly very scary people. You know that, right?

 

PS There would be no WTM books.

Edited October 26, 2010 by LibraryLover

[elegantlion]

Another issue is that this supposes that there are a finite number of jobs and industries. Obviously, in a mathematical sense there are, but I also believe we are in a midst of a huge paradigm shift in jobs. We don't just need more jobs, we need more creative, critical thinkers, who can think outside the box to create industries we haven't even yet imagined.

 

Roll that back to education and the economy thread. Someone talked about the autoworkers who were laid off and all they know how to do is make cars. Sad, but true. How many companies now make stuff? We are over consumerized (not a word probably). People are going through school knowing how to play the school game, how to test well, maybe even expressing a unique thought along the way. They take that know how to follow the authority into the workforce. How many posts have we had about dealing with people NOT doing their jobs properly lately? They're probably not happy with their job, but they don't know how to do anything else, they've never been taught how.

 

We need self-starters (men and women) in the workforce. I'd hate to limit our society by going back to defined gender roles. That would be truly sad.

[Perry]

The immediate impact on our local schools would *not* be positive. Sure, they might have volunteers, but they wouldn't have any teachers.

 

Literally. There are no male teachers in our elementary school.

:iagree:

Schools and hospitals would be devastated. There would be very few nurses and techs.

[smrtmama]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

 

Yes, women should definitely quit their jobs so that men can be providers.

 

Excuse me while I go throw up a little at that completely sexist statement.

[mommaduck]

The work load wouldn't go away either. So the men would be doing double the work, be more stressed, and probably spend less time with the family. Divorce rates would rise, suicides rates would probably increase in both men and women (some women aren't built to stay at home, some men aren't wired to be the sole provider), and our society would lose a lot of valuable contributors to the workforce.

Well, I guess then some people would get a taste of what it's like for the working poor already. No change there.

[kiana]

Well, since my SO is permanently disabled, we'd end up on welfare or very hungry. Or, I guess, start relying on my brother to support us as well, since he's a man and all.

[elegantlion]

Well, I guess then some people would get a taste of what it's like for the working poor already. No change there.

 

I'm there with you. We live on one very stretched income, but that is because we chose to. I'd love if my dh had never had to work while he was injured, but because we're self-employed his work = our income. He's worked with a concussion, broken wrists, while ill. Currently he is 1000 miles away working because he couldn't find work where we live. He's been in business 30 years and never felt the impact like this. But we do this because we've made homeschooling and me not working outside the home a priority. It's not a choice I would force on anyone else.

[angela in ohio]

I don't know. All the people on assistance with men (not necessarily together with them, but exhubbies and the like) who could (or should) be supporting them could get off assistance because now husbands and fathers can go to work. Additionally, we didn't take ALL women out of the workforce. Instead, we make it where most women don't "have to" in order to live decently.

 

Those men wouldn't go to work just because there would be more jobs available, and they could now provide for their children. We work with those in the inner city, and unemployment is not usually the problem. Incarceration, a family history of public assistance dependency, substance abuse... those things would keep the same women in need. Without jobs, the need would just shift to the government for those women who are now able to support themselves and their dc.

[Rivka]

The GDP would plummet. The US would drop many immigration barriers in a desperate attempt to prop up the economy and fill huge gaps in the workforce. Tax revenues plunge at the same time that there is a massive increase in the need for public assistance. Female-headed families become hungry and homeless in droves, and unfortunately there are very few social workers or professionally-run charities to assist them because the women who dominate those professions have all gone home.

 

Your husband will almost certainly get a big raise, but he'll also almost certainly be pressured to put in 80-hour weeks as his company tries to function with so many fewer workers. Don't expect to see him much. Don't expect his increased wage to improve your family's standard of living, either - in such a dramatic labor shortage, wages for jobs like supermarket checker and gas station attendant will have to go through the roof if those positions are to be filled, and so the prices of basic goods and services will skyrocket. Lots of US jobs will simply move overseas where there is plenty of cheap labor.

 

Hospitals are plunged into chaos with virtually no nurses; all elective procedures and routine care will need to be canceled while nursing training programs are hastily set up to train some of the new male immigrants in nursing. The death rate for hospital patients soars. Because things like mammograms, Pap smears, and colonoscopies are halted due to the need to prioritize on emergency medical services, the cancer rate climbs. If you have a relative in the hospital, be prepared to go and stay with that person yourself 24/7 to provide personal care, prepare and serve meals, administer meds according to the doctor's instructions, etc. If you need to go into the hospital and don't have someone able to sit with you, I hope you survive. There are no more midwives. Your options: unassisted childbirth at home or a virtually unattended (no L&D nurses) hospital birth in a criminally understaffed facility. Maternal and neonatal death rates soar.

 

At first it seems that elementary schools will have to close, but then they triple or quadruple class sizes so that male middle school and high school teachers can be spread out to cover all the grades. Parent volunteers fill in as best they can. Special needs students suffer the most; the vast majority of OTs, speech therapists, etc. are women, and those aren't jobs that can be taken over by volunteers.

 

By the time everything shakes out and we return to some degree of economic stability, 30% of American workers are permanent residents or new citizens born in a foreign country. The huge influx of immigrants is hard to assimilate; they're so critically needed that they must be welcomed, but U.S. culture returns to the atmosphere of New York City in 1900. Language barriers and lack of experience continue to depress the economy. There are nurses in the hospitals again, but they only speak rudimentary English and most of them are brand new. So the death rate doesn't exactly go back down again.

 

And, by the way: women who wanted to work and/or needed to work will not universally find joy in being a stay-at-home wife and mother. Especially not given the increased economic stress caused by soaring prices and the increased workload caused by the scarcity of service workers.

 

"Just for fun?" It would be a social and economic nightmare. An utter nightmare.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Rivka

[smrtmama]

Those men wouldn't go to work just because there would be more jobs available, and they could now provide for their children. We work with those in the inner city, and unemployment is not usually the problem. Incarceration, a family history of public assistance dependency, substance abuse... those things would keep the same women in need. Without jobs, the need would just shift to the government.

 

Yup, my husband sees those families every day. Lots of grandmas supporting teenage grandchild because BOTH parents are in jail.

 

Also, a lot of low income families (where both parents are working one or more minimum wage job) are also very large families, so even if the fathers go to work, with their education and skill level, it's not like they'll be able to provide enough income. There are only so many hours in the day.

 

I stay home with my kids because we felt it was important to have a parent at home with them, but I still work. When DH was in police academy, it was my freelance writing/editing that made up the financial gap. I guess we should have all just starved while he was getting trained for his job, because OMG I was in the WORK FORCE, therefor it must mean he's a bad provider.

[LibraryLover]

What kind of work do you do? This is a fabulous assesment.

 

The GDP would plummet. The US would drop many immigration barriers in a desperate attempt to prop up the economy and fill huge gaps in the workforce. Tax revenues plunge at the same time that there is a massive increase in the need for public assistance. Female-headed families become hungry and homeless in droves, and unfortunately there are very few social workers or professionally-run charities to assist them because the women who dominate those professions have all gone home.

 

Your husband will almost certainly get a big raise, but he'll also almost certainly be pressured to put in 80-hour weeks as his company tries to function with so many fewer workers. Don't expect to see him much. Don't expect his increased wage to improve your family's standard of living, either - in such a dramatic labor shortage, wages for jobs like supermarket checker and gas station attendant will have to go through the roof if those positions are to be filled, and so the prices of basic goods and services will skyrocket. Lots of US jobs will simply move overseas where there is plenty of cheap labor.

 

Hospitals are plunged into chaos with virtually no nurses; all elective procedures and routine care will need to be canceled while nursing training programs are hastily set up to train some of the new male immigrants in nursing. The death rate for hospital patients soars. Because things like mammograms, Pap smears, and colonoscopies are halted due to the need to prioritize on emergency medical services, the cancer rate climbs. If you have a relative in the hospital, be prepared to go and stay with that person yourself 24/7 to provide personal care, prepare and serve meals, administer meds according to the doctor's instructions, etc. If you need to go into the hospital and don't have someone able to sit with you, I hope you survive. There are no more midwives. Your options: unassisted childbirth at home or a virtually unattended (no L&D nurses) hospital birth in a criminally understaffed facility.

 

At first it seems that elementary schools will have to close, but then they triple or quadruple class sizes so that male middle school and high school teachers can be spread out to cover all the grades. Parent volunteers fill in as best they can. Special needs students suffer the most; the vast majority of OTs, speech therapists, etc. are women, and those aren't jobs that can be taken over by volunteers.

 

By the time everything shakes out and we return to some degree of economic stability, 30% of American workers are permanent residents or new citizens born in a foreign country. The huge influx of immigrants is hard to assimilate; they're so critically needed that they must be welcomed, but U.S. culture returns to the atmosphere of New York City in 1900. Language barriers and lack of experience continue to depress the economy. There are nurses in the hospitals again, but they only speak rudimentary English and most of them are brand new. So the death rate doesn't exactly go back down again.

 

And, by the way: women who wanted to work and/or needed to work will not universally find joy in being a stay-at-home wife and mother. Especially not given the increased economic stress caused by soaring prices and the increased workload caused by the scarcity of service workers.

 

"Just for fun?" It would be a social and economic nightmare. An utter nightmare.

[phathui5]

Schools would virtually shut down, since the vast majority of teachers are women.

[Rivka]

What kind of work do you do? This is a fabulous assesment.

 

Thanks! I'm a research psychologist.

[smrtmama]

Thanks! I'm a research psychologist.

 

Would you mind if I quoted you (with a link to your blog, if you'd like)?

[LibraryLover]

Schools would virtually shut down, since the vast majority of teachers are women.

 

 

But we wouldn't need school, doncha know? All those women workers have come home and can now hs. Big Pharma would be very busy cranking out little happy pills. Remind me to invest in Pfizer when this starts to go down.

[smrtmama]

But we wouldn't need school, doncha know? All those women workers have come home and can now hs. Big Pharma would be very busy cranking out little happy pills. Remind me to invest in Pfizer when this starts to go down.

 

I might need some little happy pills just to make it through this thread. They don't call them "Mother's Little Helpers" for nothing, right?

[Rivka]

Would you mind if I quoted you (with a link to your blog, if you'd like)?

 

:D Go right ahead.

[MBM]

Well, since my SO is permanently disabled, we'd end up on welfare or very hungry. Or, I guess, start relying on my brother to support us as well, since he's a man and all.

 

Exactly.

 

My sister, a single parent, and her two children would have been homeless.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Fine, send most of the men home.

 

BTW, and I guess I don't see "not working" as limiting as many seem to. The Proverbs 31 woman (or Carolyn Ingles) still had an income and provided plenty for their families. They had lives outside of popping happy pills. Additionally, because of advances we HAVE made, I don't think we have to go back to the problems of the 50s anyway.

 

I think there are huge issues with the current way of doing things. I think that it is bad economically and socially and spiritually. I believe it is hurting our children and every other individual. It makes everything from education to family values to stresses of life worse.

 

To me, this has NOTHING to do with gender roles.

[TheCoffeeChick]

.

Edited October 26, 2010 by BramFam
:)

[smrtmama]

Fine, send most of the men home.

 

BTW, and I guess I don't see "not working" as limiting as many seem to. The Proverbs 31 woman (or Carolyn Ingles) still had an income and provided plenty for their families. They had lives outside of popping happy pills. Additionally, because of advances we HAVE made, I don't think we have to go back to the problems of the 50s anyway.

 

I think there are huge issues with the current way of doing things. I think that it is bad economically and socially and spiritually. I believe it is hurting our children and every other individual. It makes everything from education to family values to stresses of life worse.

 

To me, this has NOTHING to do with gender roles.

 

The Proverbs 31 woman didn't have to worry about healthcare, property taxes, maintaining vehicles, purchasing most of their food and clothing, or, you know, actually having equal rights to men. She lived in a patriarchal, largely tribal society. Pretend she's relevant if it gives you comfort, but don't be so arrogant as to believe that's actually a realistic way to live.

 

She could get stoned to death for adultery -- should we emulate that, too?

[LibraryLover]

Thanks! I'm a research psychologist.

 

 

That is pretty awesome, Rivka.

[mommaduck]

But we wouldn't need school, doncha know? All those women workers have come home and can now hs. Big Pharma would be very busy cranking out little happy pills. Remind me to invest in Pfizer when this starts to go down.

Oh yeah, because all of us SAHM's can't survive without happy pills :glare:

[smrtmama]

Oh yeah, because all of us SAHM's can't survive without happy pills :glare:

 

SAHMs by choice, sure? SAHM because suddenly you've been yanked out of the workforce and KEPT at home with your kids? Remember the '50s. Lots of unhappy housewives.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

More men would be gainfully employed and therefore better able to *properly* provide and care for their families.

:iagree:

Fewer day care centers would be needed.

The term latch key kid would become a thing of the past.

[LibraryLover]

I might need some little happy pills just to make it through this thread. They don't call them "Mother's Little Helpers" for nothing, right?

 

:tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

SAHMs by choice, sure? SAHM because suddenly you've been yanked out of the workforce and KEPT at home with your kids? Remember the '50s. Lots of unhappy housewives.

Actually, I could see a lot of small business starting up...because of women not being in the mainstream workforce. Even SAHM's throughout history have worked and earned money. Some in the mainstream, most on their own. That's where I see the positive. I'm not thinking 1950's...that's just a blip on the radar and a warped blip at that. I believe that there are more moms forced to work than there are moms that are forced to stay home. If given a choice, meaning if husbands were actually able to fully support their families on their own and without killing themselves, more women would choose to stay home.

Edited October 26, 2010 by mommaduck

[smrtmama]

Actually, I could see a lot of small business starting up...because of women not being in the mainstream workforce. Even SAHM's throughout history have worked and earned money. Some in the mainstream, most on their own. That's where I see the positive. I'm not thinking 1950's...that's just a blip on the radar and a warped blip at that.

 

But women wouldn't be running small businesses. They wouldn't be in the workforce.

[mommaduck]

But women wouldn't be running small businesses. They wouldn't be in the workforce.

Apparently you didn't get what I said, though it really couldn't be said any plainer.

[Wheres Toto]

The GDP would plummet. The US would drop many immigration barriers in a desperate attempt to prop up the economy and fill huge gaps in the workforce. Tax revenues plunge at the same time that there is a massive increase in the need for public assistance. Female-headed families become hungry and homeless in droves, and unfortunately there are very few social workers or professionally-run charities to assist them because the women who dominate those professions have all gone home.

 

Your husband will almost certainly get a big raise, but he'll also almost certainly be pressured to put in 80-hour weeks as his company tries to function with so many fewer workers. Don't expect to see him much. Don't expect his increased wage to improve your family's standard of living, either - in such a dramatic labor shortage, wages for jobs like supermarket checker and gas station attendant will have to go through the roof if those positions are to be filled, and so the prices of basic goods and services will skyrocket. Lots of US jobs will simply move overseas where there is plenty of cheap labor.

 

Hospitals are plunged into chaos with virtually no nurses; all elective procedures and routine care will need to be canceled while nursing training programs are hastily set up to train some of the new male immigrants in nursing. The death rate for hospital patients soars. Because things like mammograms, Pap smears, and colonoscopies are halted due to the need to prioritize on emergency medical services, the cancer rate climbs. If you have a relative in the hospital, be prepared to go and stay with that person yourself 24/7 to provide personal care, prepare and serve meals, administer meds according to the doctor's instructions, etc. If you need to go into the hospital and don't have someone able to sit with you, I hope you survive. There are no more midwives. Your options: unassisted childbirth at home or a virtually unattended (no L&D nurses) hospital birth in a criminally understaffed facility. Maternal and neonatal death rates soar.

 

At first it seems that elementary schools will have to close, but then they triple or quadruple class sizes so that male middle school and high school teachers can be spread out to cover all the grades. Parent volunteers fill in as best they can. Special needs students suffer the most; the vast majority of OTs, speech therapists, etc. are women, and those aren't jobs that can be taken over by volunteers.

 

By the time everything shakes out and we return to some degree of economic stability, 30% of American workers are permanent residents or new citizens born in a foreign country. The huge influx of immigrants is hard to assimilate; they're so critically needed that they must be welcomed, but U.S. culture returns to the atmosphere of New York City in 1900. Language barriers and lack of experience continue to depress the economy. There are nurses in the hospitals again, but they only speak rudimentary English and most of them are brand new. So the death rate doesn't exactly go back down again.

 

And, by the way: women who wanted to work and/or needed to work will not universally find joy in being a stay-at-home wife and mother. Especially not given the increased economic stress caused by soaring prices and the increased workload caused by the scarcity of service workers.

 

"Just for fun?" It would be a social and economic nightmare. An utter nightmare.

 

This is a great summary. :001_smile:

 

On a more personal level, I think there's a few problems with the men-only working scenario. Not all women want to be SAHM's, especially if it's forever and they have no choice in the matter. Not all men want to be the sole providers - there are some men who are excellent SAH parents and their wives work. FOR THEIR FAMILY, THEY LIKE IT THAT WAY. Taking away choices for no reason/trying to put everyone into the same mold is never a good thing, IMO.

 

I am a SAHM (I've also spent 20 years as a full time WOHM mom). I am extremely far from the homesteading/happy housewife type. A return to that kind of a lifestyle would result in me yearning for the workforce and/or needing those little happy pills. I don't even cook dinner, DH does, every night.

 

I think we can also realistically say that not all men are going to step-up and get a job even if one is offered to them on a silver platter.

[smrtmama]

Apparently you didn't get what I said, though it really couldn't be said any plainer.

 

Yes, I'm sure the sudden rash of moms embroidering hand towels and selling them on Etsy will offset the economic crisis. Except you realize how little those business actually generate, right?

 

And go ahead and be condescending. It's not that I didn't "get" what you said. I just think what you said is absurd.

[Wheres Toto]

70% of women, who hold full-time jobs, left the work force?

 

:lurk5:

 

Left the workforce.... I took this to mean not doing paid work - not starting a business, not working at home. Isn't the "workforce" the sum total of all people working for an income in any capacity?

[smrtmama]

Left the workforce.... I took this to mean not doing paid work - not starting a business, not working at home. Isn't the "workforce" the sum total of all people working for an income in any capacity?

 

I took it that way, too, but apparently I just didn't "get" that "leaving the workforce" actually means "starting your own small business." Silly me! I'm such a great example of how education is wasted on a woman.

[LibraryLover]

But women wouldn't be running small businesses. They wouldn't be in the workforce.

 

Only 70% of women are not working. Maybe 30% can do certain work that is deemed apporpriate...they can work at home during nap time, or write or paint in their garage offices while their (not toxic) mothers and MILs babysit and hs. Maybe they are post menopausal and the kids are grown. They can go back to work then. I can't see why you're having difficulty with something so simple as 70% of women out of the workforce.