/lit/ - Literature

>>11176939
I'll explain the graph for you.
>Women who get educations are more likely to work
>Cities with more educated people have more economic growth
>Cities with higher female labor force participation have more economic growth
Now for the last time I'm going to try to drill home the actual point that you should take away from this graph.
Real wages effectively did not change for 30 years. The range of most of the data on the chart is between -3$ and +4$. That's a whole lot of fucking nothing. Now I'm gonna give you a heretical capitalist economic education real quick:

increase supply => price go down
increase demand => price go up

You still with me? Alright, from this, using capitalist voodoo magic where we perform a seance with Adam Smith we can reach the following conclusion:
price stay same = supply/demand stay same
in other words
supply go up + demand go up
supply go down + demand go down
Now compare the points on this provided chart in 1980 and 2010:
As you'll notice, there is a higher labor force participation rate for women in 2010 than in 1980, and a higher cumulative labor force participation rate. AKA, supply went up.
So remember our lesson:
Supply went up + ________ = wages stayed the same
Demand went up. That's right.
Now since we know that demand went up, what would have happened in supply had stayed the same?

I'll let you contemplate that for a while. Do get back to me. Remember kids, Adam Smith is just a seance away.