[If this post does not seem relevant to the thread anymore, I originally sent it yesterday morning – before the commentary got derailed into the usual femophobe ditch – but hit an OLO technical glitch. Have been too busy to resend until now.]

Pericles

Comparative advantage is what drives salaries UP not down.

It is more ‘competitive’ for corporations and businesses to employ one person on a $75,000 salary than two people on a $50,000 salary – and then expect that person to deliver a high performance (and long hours). Also, the government is happy because the $75,000 salary is likely to pay more tax than the two $50,000 salaries.

This then drives overall wages up, because it raises the bar of expectation for all workers.

Also, regarding your point about Gibbon. The Roman Empire was run on slave labour, and all but about 6 per cent of non-slaves lived lives of extreme hardship. Ditto, the European empires up to the early 20th century. Yet these empire economies all collapsed, despite pitifully low labour costs.

Rather than keeping economies strong, I believe that comparative advantage is what does them in. In trying to gain perpetual advantage, their social infrastructure becomes far too complex – needing more and more resources in order to function. Inevitably, more and more time, labour, energy, capital, transport etc must be invested to secure more and more resources, for less and less return. Eventually, these economies render themselves unviable.

Comparative advantage eventually morphs into the Law of Diminishing Returns.

Eva Cox is an old-school feminazi who firmly believes that gender equality is a zero sum game. That is, the only way to "empower" women is to "disempower" men. She is too steeped in the ideology of radical feminism to readily acknowledge the genuine usefulness of raising children and to treat it as a worthwhile choice. Her entire career has been based on the premise that men deliberately suppress women for their own advantage, conveniently ignoring all the ways in which she's received preferment simply because she's a woman. In another thread, I referred to "uber-feminists in the halls of power" which is a great description of Eva.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner yesterday released a press release relating to the reform of the Sex Discrimination Act. Ms Broderick's argument is that men are currently discriminated against by not being given the opportunity to prioritise home duties in their work/life balance. I can't help but applaud the sentiment, even while I remain suspicious that this is a measure designed to obfuscate a grab for even greater power by uber-feminists such as Eva.

Not sure we're on the same track, SJF.

>>Comparative advantage is what drives salaries UP not down. It is more ‘competitive’ for corporations and businesses to employ one person on a $75,000 salary than two people on a $50,000 salary<<

This is not the same "comparative advantage" as the one I had in mind.

http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php

This one works on production efficiencies - in its simplest form, it says that it is cheaper to produce cars in China than in Detroit, for example, because the labour content in each vehicle is still sufficiently substantial to affect its cost. This equation will hold true for a vast range of goods and services, which is the driving force behind the shift of world production from richer countries to poorer.

This works in favour of both parties for a while - our economy, for example, has benefitted greatly from the massive influx of consumer durables from the north in recent years, with its dampening effect on household expenditure.

But this will eventually exhaust itself.

Despite the initial misunderstanding, I agree with the broader thrust of your conclusion, with only a slight shift in perspective.

Inevitably, "more and more time, labour, energy, capital, transport etc must be invested to secure more and more resources, for less and less return"

But this applies to every economy, including those that currently exercise comparative advantage in goods and services that we feel that we need. The only circumstances in which the balance would change is if we decided that these items are no longer important to our daily lives... or that we couldn't afford that new car, or that plasma tv...

But that's called a recession, and you won't hear too many politicians drawing our attention to it.

Just yet, anyway.

My reference to Gibbon was not to the existence of slavery, but the increasing myopia of successive governments as the overall economic power of the Empire leached away.

Pynchme, I work in an industry that is very flexible with regards to work arrangements - it has to be or it wouldnt have any workers. There are part-time arrangements where you can work 2, 3 or 4 days, or 5 days on school hours, you can work partially or wholly from home, and while these arrangements are more traditionally taken up by the women in the workplace, they are also available to the men. Taking flexible work arrangements does not inhibit the chances of promotion and having an open and family friendly workplace is encouraged (eg my bosses kids come into the office after school, help out with shredding or packing boxes, or dump school bages and go for a wander down the street with friends). It can be done, although certain jobs are more open to it than others. However, having kids cared for in your home is quite expensive (more so than "normal" childcare) and can also be very distracting if your home is not large enough. Better I think to have both parents work a 4 day week, and kids go to daycare only 3 days (if chosen well the socialisation skills are very good for them).

HRS - haha what a great sense of humour!

"Perhaps much of the so called women’s housework is being spent on the phone and watching day time TV. It is interesting that the day time TV programs for women start just after the children go to school, and finish just before they come home."

Couple of points for you:

1. Why do you insist that the housework belongs to women ? Why are men, in your worldview, automatically absolved from any requirement to tidy up and take care of themselves ?

2. Check employment figures; female participation in the workforce is roughly equivalent to men and I believe exceeds them in some age groups.

3. Data on housework shows that women who work in paid employment an equivalent number of hours still do most of the home duties and child care. (though that is changing - bravo young men).

4. For the women (and the something like 25% of men who are also at home during soapie time - and btw why don't you ask whether they too are twiddling their thumbs all day - or is it ok with you for men to twiddle but not women ?)

cont'd

To HRS - cont'd:

... anyway; let's say that a woman - with all children in school - lolls about watching TV all day. Usually she'd have got them off to school - ironing uniforms; packing bags and projects and lunches; breakfast and washing up and so forth. Maybe walking or driving them to and fro.

The children come home at 3.30 ish. Woman attends to whatever they need plus starts cooking the evening meal; then washes up. When do her duties cease ? At 5.00 pm? at 8.00 pm ? Later ?

Add in that she is the first port of call for everything domestic every day of the week - a homemaker (female or male, but we're talking females because that is your cherished image) doesn't get sickies and flexi days and annual leave and public holidays....

- and while you think women are at home watching the most mind numbing TV possible; who do you think has done the floors; washed and folded clothes; done errands; maybe mowed the lawn and so on?

The soapies take from what - 12 to 3.30 ?

Even in paid employment one is entitled to a lunch and breaks and let's be honest; we have our little interludes where we get to pause a bit.

Remember - the homemaker is not getting paid; though they might (but often do not) be fortunate enough to have a generous earner on whom to lean.

We who are blessed with someone at home to do the drudgery, get to collect a pay packet AND knock off at 5.00 ish or at least complain legitimately if we work late. I think the least we can do is extend the same tolerance towards those who support us with unpaid labour.