IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v5y1999i1p61-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parasitic-Industries Analysis and Arguments for a Living Wage for Women in the Early Twentieth-Century United States

Author

Listed:
  • Marilyn Power

Abstract

This paper examines arguments by activists and economists surrounding attempts to establish minimum wages for women in the United States in the Progressive Era. In particular, the paper focuses on analyses based on Beatrice and SidneyWebbs' argument that industries paying less than a living wage were "parasitic" on the society, a net drain on macro-efficiency. This analysis, widely accepted among economists of the time, viewed women as particularly vulnerable workers facing labor markets that were institutionally constructed and predatory. Unequal gender roles, employer power, and the absence of collective bargaining could all result in wages that were socially unacceptable as well as economically nonoptimal. These debates offer insights for modern feminist wage theories, and for current living wage campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • Marilyn Power, 1999. "Parasitic-Industries Analysis and Arguments for a Living Wage for Women in the Early Twentieth-Century United States," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 61-78.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:5:y:1999:i:1:p:61-78
    DOI: 10.1080/135457099338157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/135457099338157
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duncan Ironmonger, 1996. "Counting outputs, capital inputs and caring labor: Estimating gross household product," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 37-64.
    2. Kathleen Cloud & Nancy Garrett, 1997. "A Modest Proposal for Inclusion of Women's Household Human Capital Production in Analysis of Structural Transformation," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 151-177.
    3. Beneria, Lourdes, 1992. "Accounting for women's work: the progress of two decades," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(11), pages 1547-1560, November.
    4. Dorothy W. Douglas, 1920. "The Cost of Living for Working Women: A Criticism of Current Theories," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 225-259.
    5. Diana Strassmann, 1993. "The Stories of Economics and the Power of the Storyteller," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 147-165, Spring.
    6. Deborah Figart, 1997. "Gender as More Than a Dummy Variable: Feminist Approaches to Discrimination," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 1-32.
    7. F. W. Taussig, 1916. "Minimum Wages for Women," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 411-442.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruce E. Kaufman, 2009. "Promoting Labour Market Efficiency and Fairness through a Legal Minimum Wage: The Webbs and the Social Cost of Labour," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 306-326, June.
    2. Seguino, Stephanie, 2003. "Taking gender differences in bargaining power seriously: Equity, labor standards, and living wages," MPRA Paper 6508, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2003.
    3. repec:mes:jeciss:v:39:y:2005:i:2:p:439-445 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Robert E. Prasch, 2005. "The Social Cost of Labor," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 439-445, June.
    5. Ellen Mutari & Deborah Figart & Marilyn Power, 2001. "Implicit Wage Theories in Equal Pay Debates in the United States," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 23-52.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:5:y:1999:i:1:p:61-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.