Home Feminism Gender Equality In Pay Is A Luxury

Gender Equality In Pay Is A Luxury



Or, to be perhaps more accurate, gender equality in income is a luxury good. For it appears that when we get poorer we do less of it and, historically, we’ve been doing more of it when we become richer. This being what a luxury good – as opposed to the colloquial meaning of luxury – is, something we devote more of our income to as our income rises.

This is of course causing all sorts of whining among those not understanding this basic point:

At the centre of women’s predicament is the expectation that they will sacrifice their own economic viability to provide care at home. The burden of care is the single biggest barrier to women’s economic participation everywhere in the world, whether in employment or business ownership.

There’s a significant error in an assumption there, that only paid, market, work is economic. This is entire nonsense. There’s a certain amount of labour that has to be performed to keep a household – or family, either or both of which is the basic human economic unit – on the road. Some of that is that work external to the household creating that cash surplus that can be used to buy goods and services in the outside the household economy. Some other amount of that work needs to be done within the household. It is simply wrong to say that one side of this is “economic” and the other isn’t. Sure, one is monetised but that’s a different thing.

But back to this predicament thing. That women, voluntarily, do something is a problem why?

Or even, that women do something economically logical is a predicament? Think on it, that household is the economic unit of interest, There are, say, 120 hours of work in a week available in a 2 adult household. Sure, maybe that should be divided 40 hours market work, 20 hours household each.

Now, let us vary something. There is less of that market work available, more of that needs to be substituted with the household variety. Whose work is it that should stop being in the market and be added to the household side? The bit that brings in the least to add to the household cash pile with which to purchase imports from other households, obviously.

Given that women do on average earn less per hour than men – this difference being true at near whatever the household income is – then it should, logically, be the women who do that substitution.

And if everyone’s doing what makes logical sense then why is this a problem?



Comments are closed.


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Agatha has been published.

Aunt Agatha has been published (the money came from an anonymous donor). It was £2500+ If you'd like a copy, donate £10+ and you'll get...

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

Recent comments