Estella Jung

04/15/2014
Pol S 355
2. How do we understand the economic division of labor? What are the costs, and
who bears them? How should we evaluate the costs and benefits?
Since the beginning of civilization, the world has progressed from
hunter/gatherer societies to agrarian to post-industrial. Over time as societies adapted
to different lifestyles due to new innovations, the tasks women took on changed. Prior
to industrialization, cultivating food and other forms of work often required strenuous
physical labor, which made it more efficient for men to work and women to remain in
the household as a caretaker. These gender roles became a norm in society and
resulted in a patriarchy that discriminates against women in the job market. The
continuous discrimination women faced made it more difficult for woman to advance
and for their labor to be valued more than that of men. Since World War II and the
beginning of the post-industrial era, there have been greater job opportunities for
women and they are trying to become more integrated into the job market than ever
before. Due to the pre-existing customs of male-dominance in society, womens
positions in the labor force are worse off than men, which forces women into a
loophole of inferiority in the workforce and causes households to determine that it is
more economically beneficial to keep the women out of the workplace and have the
man be the bread winner.

Like the broader concept of economics, households specialize to gain

maximum productivity. American economist Gary Becker first introduced the concept
in the 1960s that the household is the primary economic unit that seeks to maximize
its utility (Clayton-Dye Lecture 4/8). In the pre-industrial era, there were a lot of
brawn work that required men; this made it so that it was more efficient for men, who
are biologically stronger, to work as opposed to women (Iversen Page 86). The
opportunity cost of leaving a woman to do the household work was less than the
opportunity cost of women working outside the home and having the men do the
housework. Consequently, women began specializing in household skills and only
entered the workforce when there wasnt a demand for her skills at home, such as in
instances when the children were all grown. The division of labor was determined by
the maximum economic utility the family agreed with. Because most households
specialized in a way that women stayed home, this eventually became a societal norm.
The change in labor structure, however, influenced peoples behavior differently
(Clayton-Dye Lecture 4/8). In the agricultural era when the acquirement of food
required strenuous physical labor, the men did most of the work while women did the
housework. But with industrialization, there were more opportunities open to women,
and because they did not require specific skills, women were able to more flexibly
move in and out of the labor force depending on their circumstances. Womens roles
began changing with their acceptance into the labor force because now there was a

demand for female labor and women were able to contribute to household income by
working.
Employers try to maximize their utility and plan for the long run. Although
women have joined the workforce, they are discriminated against in the job market.
Women are less likely to be hired and always receive lower pay than men even with
the same qualifications (Steinpreis Page 37). Employers consider women to be a risky
investment in their business because consider them as unreliable. Because women
have the biological role of having children, there is a greater possibility of women
quitting the job or taking time off to have children. When women take a course of
action as previously mentioned, their productivity goes down and it becomes more
efficient for employers to hire males who will stay in the workforce without any
breaks. In top-earning sectors, it is even more detrimental for an employee, especially
a high-ranking person to take leave; this can be seen by only 4% of women being in
top executives positions today (Clayton-Dye Lecture 4/10). The entire organization of
a corporation can be affected by the absence of a high-ranking official so it is a
legitimate concern of private companies to eliminate any chances of facing
detrimental costs and losing profit. But today, womens urge to remain in the work
place is strong and women in top-earning sectors are having fewer kids. Studies have
shown that today, there is a negative correlation between fertility rate and female labor
force participation (Iversen page 82). However, things are still unfair for women

because their role of mother and caretaker is still the norm in society and that has not
changed. Since corporations pay women with the same qualifications as men less
money due to the possibility of leave, if there has to be one person at home as a
caretaker, it would still have to be the women because men make more money. And as
long as women are willing to take time off for children and family, they will continue
to be discriminated against in the workplace (Iversen p. 85). The cycle of women
being placed into the household will be unending because of these discriminations.
Also, if a woman does not make a lot of money, the family will put less of a priority in
having her keep her job (Clayton-Dye Lecture 4/10). Because of cost-benefit analysis
that determine that it is less costly for women to do housework, more men remain in
the workforce, then women are less likely to get hired, and they receive lower
compensation and they are placed in a loophole.
Women who are less dependent on males are more likely to support female
involvement in the workforce. Women are most liberal when in countries with high
divorce rates or when they are single and are not dependent on anyone (Clayton-Dye,
Lecture 4/10). Now with education, training and jobs available for women, many want
to make use of the opportunity but much of society is still male-dominated, as it
wasnt too long ago when it was not common for women to work outside the home.
Many males in society still do not approve of women in the work place because they
believe that it is their duty and they want to assert their power (Arrow Page 19). In

these societies, it is more cost effective and economical for men to work and women
to serve as the caretaker. Especially in countries in which divorce is highly unlikely,
women are more likely to be conservative and oppose women working (Clayton-Dye
Lecture 4/10). When a woman is assured that she will not be divorced and her
husband can support her, she will focus more on developing skills applicable to the
household because households want to maximize productivity, and usually it is more
efficient when men work and women do the housework. These women do not have
any useful skills to join the workforce if they get a divorce and because they depend
on only their husbands labor, it would be disadvantageous to them if the government
subsidizes more women joining the job market since it would take away from their
overall household earnings. The conservative women who oppose womens
involvement in the workforce all have an economic motive in accordance with
household economics that motivates them to act in the way they do. However, women
in countries with low female participation in the work force are developing greater
expectations about career opportunities as they see woman abroad with opportunities
they do not have. Also, with post-industrialization and the demand for labor requiring
general skills, it is more flexible for women to join the work force and to leave
whenever they need to. Women are able to attain low-skilled labor much more easily
because even without a specific set of skills, they can be hired. But as these
economically cost-effective alternatives are becoming presented, women are slowly
becoming more involved in the job market.

From the beginning of human existence, women and men in households

divided labor that was most economic. It happened so that women doing housework
and men doing outside labor was most productive, which is why women stayed out of
the work force for all of those years. Because many societies are still patriarchal and
want to assert male superiority, it is still a strange notion to have women be involved
in the outside world. Women are still discriminated against and treated unfairly in the
job market today, but circumstances have changed and made it less costly for women
to take part in the workplace. Women can join more easily in low-skill labor and more
women are striving to rise in rank. As the norms in society change and the economic
efficiency of gender roles are being re-evaluated, there is more incentive for women to
seek labor.

Work Cited
Arrow, Kenneth. The Theory of Discrimination. In Orley Ashenfelter and Albert
Rees, eds.,Discrimination in Labor Markets, pp. 3-33. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Thurow, Lester. Generating Inequality. New York: Basic
Books, 1975.
Iversen, Torben, and Frances McCall. Rosenbluth. Women, Work, and Politics: The

PoliticalEconomy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale UP, 2010. Print.

Steinpreis, Rhea E., Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. The Impact of Gender on the
Review ofthe Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A
National Empirical Study. Rep. Vol. 41. N.p.: Plenum Corporation, 1999. Print.
Ser. 718.

Pols 335 Paper Rubric

Student Name: Estella Jung
The following rankings are provided to help you identify issues in your writing. Please see the
graders substantive comment for remarks on your argument and your grade.

5=Excellent

4=Above Average 3= Average

2= Below
Average

1= Poor

Ranking
Area of Assessment

Argument is clear and directly responsive to established prompt

4.5

Writing is logically organized

5

Argument is well-supported using course materials and/or external

documentation

Manuscript is consistently formatted

Spelling, Grammar, Formal Language Use

5

Sum:
24.5

Grader Comment:
Very good essay, you have a strong essay and support your thesis very well throughout the paper.
Next time try and be a little more straight forward with your thesis.
Overall Paper Grade (100-point Scale): 98