Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

I’m think you already saw this but here is the complete article: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3P-opwP3ch_k-CpxuKcMg0NoDvmrIjLgehR_CmrRVY5bDoIqL9KZiS-LA …

Did you also look at per capita GDP ? Or did that not align with your narrative (whatever that may be). To prove correlation between fiscal expansion and women's suffrage, the ratio of Per capita revenue/Per capita GDP should have increased.

I don’t follow why this chart is noteworthy - not surprisingly, people vote for government to spend money on issues that effect them.

So the revenue and expenditure both climbed after suffrage. 0 benefit, 0 cost. Would be interesting to see the social impacts of it. Education, crime, value of employment, sorry to say that we’d probably find a devaluation and drop in standards as women’s rights rise.

I’ve no doubt your right when it comes to taxes. But I’m not one to turn a blind eye and pretend that doubling a countries potential workforce without doubling the demand for work hasn’t impacted on the value and wages of every job.

I agree but don’t know how women having more buying power has to do with devaluation of work due to increased supply of a workforce. And it wasn’t just mens wages, it was everyone’s. Every1 has a right to work but their are repercussions to an extra 1/2 of a country wanting jobs.

That’s true but women now having buying power hasn’t lead to a doubling of demand for labour. It’s increased but hasn’t kept up with the number of available workers in the workforce and therefore demand for jobs has always outstripped supply, suppressing wages.

No dear that isn't how governmental economics has ever worked. This graph just means that the government took more of your paycheck and spent it just as quickly on new social programs females pushed for. Sure there was benefit to some. Always is. At the expense of many.