Why
did women’s rush into the work force stop? Policymakers have been vexed
by the question for years. Social scientists have discussed the sudden
stop for over a decade, in conferences and academic papers.
Almost 12 years ago, I gave the topic a shot
in the pages of The Times: why, after a five-decade rise, did the
labor-force participation of women in the prime working years stall
around the turn of the century?
After years of sometimes scorching debates, over whether highly educated women were “opting out”;
whether the stop was merely temporary; and whether it responded to
gender roles at home or labor-market conditions, the analysis seems to
have converged on a sort of rough consensus: caring for children —
overwhelmingly a woman’s task — ultimately took its toll.
Caring
for children is, to be sure, a formidable barrier to women’s work. In
developed countries where parental leave is guaranteed by law and
governments ensure free child care, women work at a much higher rate
than in the United States.
Still, the consensus is incomplete. It misses perhaps the most
significant impediment to women’s continued engagement in the labor
market, one that is getting tougher with each passing year: aging.
Focused laserlike on child care, we haven’t noticed that the United
States is walking into an elder-care crisis.
Click here for the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment