Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
277
views
3 May 2018

a. Explain under what conditions it would be rational for a woman who could earn more than her husband in the labor market to specialize in housework.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
277
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Deanna Hettinger
Deanna HettingerLv2
3 May 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Comment on each of the following statements.

a) Given the work-life cycle of the "traditional" woman, it may be rational for women to invest in less human capital than men.

b) An economic recession tends to stimulate college enrollment.

c) The age-earnings profiles indicate that people with more education earn more than people with less education; therefore personal spending on education is always a good investment.

1)Is there such a thing as a natural monopoly? If yes, can you give an example?

2)In which market structure(s) can the firm price discriminate and under which conditions?

3.)Who benefits and who loses when a firm price discriminates?

4)What level of profit will a monopolistic competitive firm earn in the LR? Explain your reasoning.

Business Law by Henry R. Cheeseman Critical Legal Thinking Cases 1.1 Fairness of the Law: In 1909, the state legislature of Illinois enacted a statute called the "Woman's 10-Hour Law." The law prohibited women who were employed in factories and other manufacturing facilities from working more than 10 hours per day. The law did not apply to men. W.C. Ritchie, an employer, brought a lawsuit that challenged the statute as being unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution. In Upholding the statute, the Supreme Court of Illinois stated: It is known to all men (and what we know as me we profess to be ignorant of as judges) that woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a great disadvantage in the battle of life; that while a man can work for more than 10 hours a day without injury to himself, a woman, especially when the burdens of motherhood are upon her, cannot; and that to require a woman to stand upon her feet for more than 10 hours in any one day and perform severe manual labor while thus standing, day after day has the effece to impair her health and that as weakly and sickly women cannot be mothers of vigorous children. We think the general consensus of opinion that a working day of more than 10 hours for women is justified for the following reasons: 1) the physical organization of women 2) her maternal function 3) the rearing and education of children 4) the maintenance of the home Surrounded as women are by changing conditions of society, and the evolution of employment whick environs them, we agree fully with what is said by the Supreme Court of Washington in the Buchannan case; "law is, or ought to be, a "progressive science." **

QUESTION: Is this statute fair? Would the statute be lawful today? Should the law be a "progressive science"?

Related Documents

ECO 1102 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Market Clearing, Market Power, Root Mean Square
pinkclam409
ECON 262 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Utility, Indifference Curve
coffeehorse908
ECO 1102 Chapter Notes - Chapter 9: Frictional Unemployment, Structural Unemployment, Efficiency Wage
goldelk436

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in