On females

[Rhyfelwyr]

And here it is where the complexity sets in. A double household will also have increased wealth so it will in turn have a higher consumption, which in turn produces more jobs.

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

If the long term unemployed simply vanished, it wouldn't take that long before it would regrow from the working population.

Why would this happen?

Repeat after me. To be independent, I'll need my own income. Otherwise I'll need to pray that my provider is both reasonable and not unlucky.

That should cover why socialists prefer it.

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not. The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

And you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the reason why UK has so low social mobillity. The UK aren't in any way special when it comes to women in the workforce, many countries with much higher social mobillity have more.

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.