Opinion World

Trade-Offs of Women Working

"There is a principle, that every increase in one area, comes with a trade-off in another area..."

When you sit and ponder what pushing women into the workforce has done for society, objectively, it really shows how silly we are as people. Let’s examine it! What has moving women into the workforce done for society? 

Well, it has created more opportunities for women. Almost endless opportunities. Women can today be anything from childcare workers to doctors, through to professional rugby players. So, opportunities. You cannot deny it has achieved that.

It has filled the workforce with a mixed-gender field, because women can work in pretty much any field now – so they do. 

This has had mixed results. Some people meet their husband or wife at work, and some people encounter sexually abusive interactions. There are now endless court cases dealing with sexual complaints in the workforce, placing a massive burden on women, men, employers, the court system, bringing in the creation of HR and more. A massive bureaucratic burden has been increased on the workplace, and women often write articles about how hard it is to deal with sexism in the workplace. In other words, many are not happy with the situation. 

The most common place adultery happens is in the workforce, far more than anywhere else, so it has undermined countless marriages. This offsets the benefits of people finding a spouse at work. Sometimes they were even somebody else’s spouse first. 

It also places wives under the authority of someone else outside the home that competes with the husband’s authority. This means the husband is not the real leader in his home, he’s one voice among many in his wife’s life. 

So, it is a mixed bag, to say the least. 

Women can earn far more than ever before. A lot of professional jobs attract women, and women have managed to monetize things like therapy, child minding, child teaching, social services, and many other things which they did for free in their communities in past decades and centuries. So, they have far more money, but they are earning money doing things they did as wives, mothers, mothers-in-law and grandmas for millennia.

Because women have more money, everything costs more. Therefore this having more money is a double-edged sword because it means women can earn more, sometimes even more than their husbands, which massively inflates the family home budget, without necessarily leading to higher production in society because women often choose careers that monetize the things they used to do anyway. So there’s more money in the economy to compete for what we needed to buy anyway. 

A double-income family can buy a bigger home, nicer cars, etc, etc. But the more people who do this, the more money there is in the economy, the more the economy inflates, and you get to a situation eventually (where we are now) where it is almost impossible to live on one income in the home.

So, the double income effect has been cancelled out, and now it’s more of a burden for families, rather than a boon, because many women now believe, as do their husbands, that they need to work outside of the home. 

This causes women to delay having children to pursue a career, which means fewer children are born. So, immigration is needed (some think so at least) to make up gaps in the workforce, which drives up prices even more, because it brings in people or families with already fully formed incomes to compete for homes and other products in our already expensive society. These people often come from cultures opposed to ours causing other issues as well. So the advantages of double income homes are well and truly cancelled out. 

Women having access to higher incomes makes divorce less painful, making it more common, and then you have the social disasters this causes for children and families. Plus you have one family spread across two homes driving up rental and housing costs again, a hidden cause of inflation in the housing market rarely mentioned. 

So just a quick examination of the modern principle of egalitarianism in the workforce and home shows that having women in the workforce is as much, if not more, negative than positive. At least at one point in the past, a woman did not have to worry if her husband had a work-wife, or a man worry that his wife would leave him for her boss (a common occurrence), and a working-class man could afford to provide for his family and buy them a home. Those days are increasingly over because we’ve monetized the family unit in ways we should not. 

In engineering, there is a principle, that every increase in one area, comes with a trade-off in another area (or so engineers tell me, and so I have observed). You can tune your engine for more power in your car, but this puts increased pressure on the drive train, wearing out clutches, gears and other parts quicker. We have done this to society by driving women into the workforce.

We have traded a lot, for little return, and we are wearing society down in the process. If you modify a vehicle too heavily it becomes unwieldy for most purposes. We have played with the boundaries too much and now are trapped in a bad situation.