Male and Female Economists Disagree on Role of Government

Much like men and women generally, the latter prefer more intervention in the market

Male and female economists differ in their views on the role of government, reports USA Today. Not unlike men and women without "PhD" next to their name, lady economists favor a stronger role for government in the economy than their guy counterparts. When it comes to healthcare, for instance, 40% of women economists thought it should be required for employers to provide it, compared to only 21% of male economists. On the question of school choice, women were against the idea, while men supported it.

Veronique de Rugy, a free-market economist of the female persuasion, ponders the gap: "It's very puzzling; not a day goes by that I don't ask myself why there are so few women economists on the free-market side."

Still, as the report notes, there are some areas of agreement. Both groups e.g. think that Walmart is "good for society" and that - this one will please conservatives - Europe has too much regulation.

Via USA Today.

What accounts for the way men and women see the world differently?

[Thunderchicken]

Motherly instinct?

[Thunderchicken]

I found this when I was looking for a quote that I think is appropriate.

http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/must...

[CanisCanemEdit]

@Thunderchicken - Great Link!

As Steven Pinker notes in his recent book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature”:

“The idea that young men are civilized by women and marriage may seem as corny as Kansas in August, but it has become a commonplace of modern criminology.”

[Thunderchicken]

@CanisCanemEdit

Thank you. If sweetie hadn't forced me to grow up, I'd probably be dead by now. Something else (that I tell my kids) I wasn't this boring till I had children. ;-)

[CanadianIndy]

I agree. To paraphrase that wonderful scene in 'The West Wing': "Generally when the nation needs a caring, protective and defensive 'mother' figure, she elects the Democrats. And when the nation needs a powerful, aggressive, uncompromising 'father' figure, they elect the Republicans."

[Lpguy]

i think women might have a little more compassion, especially for those who can not help themselves like children, mentally ill, terminally ill, the sick, etc. But compassion is a poor excuse to continue to funnel our liberty and treasure to the government in exchange for so much waste, little benefit, and endless wars around the world. Our communities should take care of our own through charities, churches, community activism - but no mandates on the public to fund them

[Cheenoguy]

So if any particular community doesn't have the resources or the desire to help all those in need the government should just stay out of it and let people suffer?
Read books about urban life during the industrial revolution up until the New Deal. As nice as it sounds to think that with pure capitalism employers would provide sufficient compensation for their employees and that those few that would fall through the cracks would be assisted by good hearted, compassionate members of the community it just doesn't work. History has shown that when regulations go down the gap between wealthy and poor goes up because to many greed knows no limits. The conditions of the poor (most of the population because without regulations the middle class disappears) become inhumane and the diet insufficient leading to greatly reduced lifespan. The lack of access to healthcare also greatly reduces the quality of life while alive.
Those of us with more must understand that we must either insure that everyone who works receives enough to in compensation to provide for their family the basic needs of life (including healthcare) along with a safety net for those few who just can't work. Or employers can pay non-liveable wages and we can pay more in taxes so that the government can provide for the basic needs (including healthcare). I prefer the former.
Business self-regulation and the kindness of others sounds nice in theory but it doesn't translate well to reality.

[Lpguy]

@Cheenoguy Taking care of the community is not capitalism, you should know that. If a community does not have the resources then obviously it would seek to join and adjacent one, or those in need might seek to leave, etc. You say the same things in every post. "pre new deal" this and that, read books, capitalism only works in theory. but the same stuff you espouse only works in theory too. I don't know why you even reply to me. History has also shown that the life of the common American "pre new deal" laborer had a higher quality of life than nearly all the other common men around the globe. that's about the time our poorest became better off. and labor unions came in to help with these issues, we didn't need government. Why do you reply to me with all this garbage we have been over before when this thread is about "why are women more in love with government than men?" its not a capitalism v communism thread.

[David944]

I agree, and if the state you live in does not supply the services you need you could move to one that does. The federal government should stick to what it was originally designed to do.

[AceLuby]

@Lpguy The post new deal laborer was the biggest economic driver in human history.

[Lpguy]

@AceLuby the post new deal laborer is the same as the pre New Deal laborer, production improved when working conditions improved - and that was done through labor unions. growing the government does not grow the economy, it is called the broken window fallacy - and is included in the book economics in 1 lesson by henry hazelit

[Pack7]

I can't speak for my female counterparts but my opinion is that anytime the Government gets involved with things, with a few exceptions, it becomes a disaster mired in bureaucratic red tape. Government needs to stay the hell out of our lives. I don't have a clue why women would think differently about these issues and I am not qualified to say why they do.

[LGRepublican]

Seems like the old argument between taking the emotional stance vs. taking the logical one. I'm sure from the emotional side, having government take care of people and look out for their best interests is seen as being well intentioned. The logical side would remind them that there's a certain road that's paved with those good intentions....

[IMAQT]

When I first started listening to talk radio, a conservative host was debating a liberal caller. The host asked the caller how he came to his conclusion on the topic and the caller responded with "Because I feel" and the host cut him off there and said that is why you are wrong..you make your decision based upon feelings. That opened my eyes as what a major difference is between a liberal and a conservative. BTW, I am a Badger, graduated in the late 70's, when their athletic teams could not beat anyone and before the jump around. I'd love to go to a game today, looks like alot of fun.

[ibcingu]

I'd go with the women's view. What's that saying? "Mom's ALWAYS right"

[CanisCanemEdit]

I dunno about all that. After all, "Father knows best." Lol!

[IMAQT]

Silly me, I thought the role of Government is defined in the Constitution.

[Xenocracy]

I Thought All That Bra Burning & Gnashing Of Teeth Was The Show Women That They Don’t Have To Rely On Anyone For Help!!
I Wonder If Rachel Maddow & Suze Orman Feel That Way?

[Denizen_Kate]

This is about differences in thinking on economical matters. If women want equal rights, does it mean we want to actually BE men? I think not, and you'd better hope not.

By the way, Why Are All Of Your Words Capitalized? It's Annoying.

[Xenocracy]

@Denizen_Kate No, It’s About How Some Women Economists Want Someone (Government) To Take Care Of Them,,,,Men Don’t..

Because It's The Proper Form For A Title.

[Denizen_Kate]

@Xenocracy nothing is ever that simple. Not all women are the same, just as not all men are the same. If you need that explained to you, aren't you embarrassed? It just means that more women believe in helping the needy.

As for your capitalization issues, do you believe you comments are titles?

[Denizen_Kate]

@Xenocracy by the way, if proper form is your goal, articles such as 'the' and 'a' should not be capitalized.

[Xenocracy]

@Denizen_Kate The Only Time I Can Remember Being Embarrassed, Was The Time I Broke Up A Fight Inside A Concert I Was Working (I Assumed The Fight Was Between Two Men) And It Turned Out To Be Two Burley Lesbians Fighting Over Some Other Girl. I Didn’t Find Out Until One Of The Brutes Had Ripped Off The Others Shirt.
I Was Kind’a Embarrassing To Be Standing In Front Of The Stage With Shirtless Man Chick In A Headlock And Having To Drag Her To The Exit.(Happens More Than You Think)
Who Dosen't Like Helping The Needy..I Donate About #400 pounds of Venison & Wild Hog Every Year !! And The Goverment Doesn't Have Anything To Do With It.
Yes, All My Comments Are Titles.

[ibcingu]

Men just need to remember this one thing -- WOMEN ARE ALWAYS RIGHT.

[Denizen_Kate]

Different societal priorities probably has something to do with it.

My own question would be, in the case of health care, if "40% of women economists thought it should be required for employers to provide it, compared to only 21% of male economists" who do 60% of female economists and 79% of male economists think SHOULD pay for health care?

[marine1]

I think these guys need some new staff writers. The women are devided about evenly amongst themselves with the larger disparity amongst the men. Again, as I said before,these writers apparently lack in investigative reporting.There are no facts to identify why these percentages are what they are and if we are supose to chime in on these topics, we might provide better imput if all the supporting facts were there for use to judge?

[Keyjo]

"Still, as the report notes, there are some areas of agreement. Both groups e.g. think that Walmart is "good for society" and that - this one will please conservatives - Europe has too much regulation."
I don't know about Walmart being "good for society," they certainly aren't good for small local businesses.
But that Europe "has too much regulation!?"
Of course Fascist-Capitalist swine want to disparage Europeans as much as possible. But time and time again, the average citizen in many European nations is happier and more satisfied than Americans. The quality of life overall, the satisfaction day to day, is better in Europe.
The problem is, the American economy is measured by how well the wealthy elite are doing. How many millionaires, billionaires we have; not by how well the average citizen is doing. In Europe, the measure is how well, how healthy, how financially secure the AVERAGE citizen is. Call it "evil socialism" if you want, even though it isn't. But those people are happier, healthier, less stressed, more satisfied than we.