Hacker News Reader

>I might also make the point that women entering the workforce definitely, by the looks of these numbers, didn't drive a vast expansion in the number of jobs. Rather, it displaced many men who _used_ to have those jobs, and proved its inflexibility at the same time

This is a completely different thing, women entering the workforce did not involve new people entering the consumer market. Immigrants do.

View on HN

I disagree. Women taking a job who formerly did not have one isn't much different than an immigrant moving to the United States and taking that job. While I agree the latter involves adding an additional 'consumer' to the market (how everyone seems to refer to a US Citizen these days), they could just as well have 'consumed' outside of the US, and I doubt they would become an overwhelmingly positive contribution to demand in the short term.

Though globalization is a definite trend, so much of a persons money is spent on the basics of food and housing, where the money spent is usually higher in the US and more of it will stay local. As these things still need local jobs, and more of those jobs requires more middle class jobs to care for their needs.

And I mean no offense here, they would need to spend more on housing than yourself in the short term, making them a net positive relative to yourself almost immediately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com