Now this, you can blame on women

The Fraters Libertas draw attention to declining male wages:

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 — their fathers’ generation — adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier.

I’m not one of those of hyper-sensitive “mens rights” freaks who like to embrace male victimhood at the drop of a hat, but I can’t imagine any story about women’s wages incuding a possible explanation that “maybe women are just not working as hard as they used to.” I suppose that once a generation of men is given the label “slackers” when they first enter adulthood, it’s easy to speculate that one of the reasons they’re falling behind previous generations in their thirties is lack of effort.

There is one reason that men in their 30s are earning less. It is that many more women are working. Unlike immigrants, women don’t create any additional demand by entering the work force. The Law of Supply and Demand is an iron one. If supply rises faster than demand, the price falls. That has been the case for labor, because with the expanded labor pool, the price of labor has naturally fallen.

That’s how it works. The unfortunate effect is that the more women that choose to work, the more women who don’t want to work will find that they have to because their husband can’t earn enough to allow them to stay home. It’s a vicious circle. So, if you’re a married woman with a job you’d rather not have, be sure to thank your feminist sisters.

I note that the base point, 1974, was one year after US hourly wages peaked.