Women over 50 are not an economic problem

Economic lessons from guppy fish about women and ageing

Back in 2013 three esteemed male scientists published a paper arguing that the reason menopause exists is basically because of Leonardo DiCaprio.

Well, they didn’t EXACTLY put it like that…

“Leonardo DiCaprio” is not the correct scientific term. I’m using it as a METAPHOR.

A metaphor for men who don’t find older women attractive. As you probably know, Leonardo DiCaprio has never dated anyone over the age of 25. (See graph).

Anyway.

According to the three male scientists menopause evolved because women passed a certain age got ZERO attention from men . Not even older men . And this basically caused older women’s reproductive systems to stop working. “What’s the point of releasing an egg every month if Leonardo DiCaprio won’t date you?” was the logic guiding fallopian tubes during early human development.

And the rest is human evolution….

According to this paper at least.

Luckily it was read by Angela Saini who got so angry she wrote Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong—and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story (which I highly recommend).

BUT similar questions have been asked in an economic context. Postmenopausal women have often been perceived as an economic problem.

The great witch hunts in Europe particularly targeted women over the age of 50. Older women were economically more vulnerable especially if they were widowed and lacked the protection that a husband could provide. Older women were therefore under great pressure to be ‘useful’ in order to not be scapegoated as threats and burdens

We still put a lot of effort into devaluing women over 50. Research shows that women are the primary victims of age discrimination. David Neumark, an economics professor at the University of California has shown that ageism at work begins at 40 for women and 45 for men. And all of this brings me to a headline in the Daily Mail this week:

“Why making women retire later comes with hidden cost: State picks up £5,600 bill for the caring of elderly relatives that could have been covered by women if they were not still working”

Yes, that’s what it said.

The article cited a new study by King's College London. It showed that when more women over sixty stayed on the labor market they could not simultaneously do the care work women are still expected to do for free. So the state had to step in… Yes the women paid more tax by staying on the labor market longer. But this didn’t make up for the free care they would otherwise have provided FOR FREE…

The way The Daily Mail wrote the article says a lot about how we still think of care as a female responsibility. A natural resource that women are simple required to provide our economies with FOR FREE.

But I think it’s also a reaction against a bigger trend.

Women over 50 today are an increasingly powerful, highly sought after and successful demographic. Just check out the latest “Forbes 50 over 50”. Things are changing. And if it does there will be economic consequences. We will no longer be able to count on women in their 60s to leave the labor market and provide free care the way they currently do. This will actually shake our economic model to its core. We’ll have to work these things out in a different way.

Men might even have to step in…

The most famous theory to why menopause exists is not the “Leonardo-DiCaprio-won’t-date-you- so- what’s- the- point?”- theory. It’s the “grandmother hypothesis”. It states that women basically live post their reproductive age in order to help raise the grandchildren. I have no idea if it’s true or not. This is very much not my field.

BUT. From the perspective of economics I’d like to point out that guppy fish experience menopause as well.

And guppies actually don’t DO SHIT for their grandchildren.

So if postmenopausal guppies have a right to exist without being expected to provide everyone with free care (or being burnt as witches).

Women should as well.

That would be my radical suggestion for this week.

Happy Thursday!

Katrine