[The causes and consequences of state maximum hours legislation for female workers, passed from 1848 to the 1920s, are found to differ from a recent interpretation. Although maximum hours legislation served to reduce scheduled hours in 1920, the impact was minimal. Curiously, the legislation appears to have operated equally for men. Legislation affecting only women was symptomatic of a general desire by labor for lower hours, and these lower hours were achieved in the tight, and otherwise special, World War I labor market. Most important, the restrictiveness of the legislation had no adverse effect on the employment share of women in manufacturing.]

The 1940's were a turning point in married women's labor-force participation, leading many to credit World War II with spurring economic and social change. This paper uses two retrospective surveys, from 1944 and 1951, to show that half of all married women employed in 1950 were working in 1940, and more than half of the decade's new entrants joined after the war. Of all wartime entrants, the majority exited after 1944 but before 1950. The war had several significant indirect impacts on women's employment, but its direct influence appears to have been more modest.

"The seven-fold increase, since 1920, in the labor force participation rate of married women [in the United States] was not accompanied by a substantial increase in average work experience among employed married women. Two data sets giving life-cycle labor-force histories for cohorts of women born from the 1880s to 1910s indicate considerable (unconditional) heterogeneity in labor-force participation. Employed married women had substantial attachment to their jobs; increased participation brought in women with little prior work experience. Average work experience among cross sections of employed married women increased from 9.1 to 10.5 years over the 1930-50 period. Implications for 'wage discrimination' are discussed."

Female manufacturing workers around 1900 were far more likely to be paid by the piece and were rarely employed at the same occupation in the same firm as males. These and related aspects of work organization can be understood through a model in which workers shirk, monitoring is costly, and males and females have different turnover rates. Employers adopt either piece rates or deferred payment. Occupational segregation by sex and differences in earnings result even if workers are equally productive. Establishment-level data on supervising male and female workers in time- and piece-rate positions are examined.

The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn't hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, especially how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science, and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds.