Arnold Kling  

Thomas Sowell Podcast

PRINT
Look at Cuba... Kotlikoff on the Fair Tax...

This week's econtalk conversation, between Russ Roberts and Thomas Sowell, is not to be missed. My favorite nugget is when Sowell describes the professional progress women made early in the 20th century, because the age of marriage and childbearing was higher than it was in the 1950's and early 1960's. But there are lots of interesting discussions.


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES: Income Distribution



COMMENTS (4 to date)
Jen writes:

National Review is running a series with Sowell too. Fascinating!
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

Here's the first one:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=OTBlMDAxYWM0YWQ5OGYwNGVhNDliOGQxNDQ1ODA4OTU=

Facts and Fallacies with Thomas Sowell: Chapter 1 of 5
The conventional wisdom instructs that the rise of women in corporate America in the latter half of the 20th century was due to the implementation of anti-discrimination laws championed by the feminist movement. In reality, a greater proportion of American women held high-level occupations in the first half of the 20th century. What gives? Thomas Sowell sets the record straight on this and other male–female employment fallacies.

spencer writes:

what is the source of the data behind this claim?

spencer writes:

Historically hasn't the age of marriage been inversely related to economic well being? The average age of marriage rose sharply in the depression came back down in the prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s and has been rising since the 1970s.

Moreover, poor countries, like Ireland was for decades, have been associated with late marriages.

Russ Roberts writes:

Spencer,

Excellent question. Here is what Sowell gives as his sources for the comments in the book making the same point as in the podcast: John B. Parrish, "Professional Womanpower as a National Resource," Quarterly Review of Economics & Business, February 1961, p.58 and Jessie Bernard, /Academic Women/ (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964), pp. 35, 61.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top