This has been happening since women went to work after WWII. When you double the size of the workforce and keep the population the same, you will have a productivity boom at first, but then eventually things will come back into equilibrium and the cost of labour is half (since the availability of workers is double) of what it used to be. Looking at history in the macro this is exactly what happened: economic boom in 50's, followed by gradual decrease in labour wages starting from the 70's until today.
I'm not disparaging women working, I'm just saying wage stagnation is an unforeseen side effect. If 1 of every working couple decided to stop working, our economy would crash, but wage rates would increase dramatically.
With a new significant portion of the workforce able to work, you enable on one side, new economic needs (more transports, more kindergartens, etc) and on the other side you enable more production of goods which in theory should improve the material conditions of a society. Basically a society should be more efficient if it stops excluding half its available workforce.
But a the same time, housewives where not passive actors in the economy, they did had an economic impact (raising children, etc), just that this economic impact was not measured previously. However it was probably not equivalent to a paid job in term of economical impact, and for obvious emancipation reasons, it's definitely not a state to return to.
I can't disagree with anything you said. But I think it goes without saying that any bit of economics can't really be fully encapsulated in a couple paragraphs. We're painting with broad strokes and of course there are more variables at play.
I'm not disparaging women working, I'm just saying wage stagnation is an unforeseen side effect. If 1 of every working couple decided to stop working, our economy would crash, but wage rates would increase dramatically.