In John D'Emilio's essay "Capitalism and Gay Identity," he argues that the emergence of industrial capitalism led to new opportunities for "free laborers" in the United States, leading to various beneficial changes in social conditions. It is clear that there are two overarching themes emergent from D'Emilio's argument about the effects of the onset of industrial capitalism: the new abundance of independence, and choice for "free laborers." He implies throughout that these – independence and choice – are the distinct new markers of the social conditions resultant from this economic shift. D'Emilio argues that capitalism empowers laborers as "free" in the sense that they are free to look for jobs and to negotiate contracts and terms of labor. D'Emilio's critics suggest that he largely sidesteps the problems that confound free labor ideology and limit the ability of workers to openly negotiate contracts with employers and to accept or reject the conditions offered. The "contract negotiations" cited as a sign of freedom by D'Emilio are often hardly negotiations at all, but rather highly exploitative arrangements that workers have little ability to affect. From the first Lowell Girls all the way to the modern third world garment works described by Enloe's "Blue Jeans and Bankers," it is clear that for many – particularly women, minorities, and immigrants – free labor has hardly been free at all. Such critics also suggest the D'Emilio misrepresents the historical and continued significance of the home. The shift from a home-based to an industrial economy – though indeed very drastic – was hardly as absolute as D'Emilio suggests. Indeed, from nannying, to housekeeping, to even the "home based jobs" described in "Blue Jeans and Bankers," labor is still a very active part of the home even today. In the essay "The Approaching Obsolesce of Housework: A Working-Class Perspective," Davis spends a great deal of time discussing the continuation of labor in the home in stark contrast to the assertions of D'Emilio. Where D'Emilio argues that industrial capitalism equated to freedom from the home, Davis argues that it actually equated to thickening the bars that caged housewives to the home as productive and reproductive labor split further and more distinctly apart. Davis argues that women "were the losers in a double-sense: as their traditional jobs were usurped by the burgeoning factories, the entire economy moved away from the home, leaving many women largely bereft of significant economic roles."