4 ms·

The dual income household had an unbelievable impact on Western and Asian economies, buoying incredible growth. How the KSA handles the coming social liberaliz

by ihsw2 9y ago

The dual income household had an unbelievable impact on Western and Asian economies, buoying incredible growth. How the KSA handles the coming social liberalization will be interesting, Chinese women still grapple with social conservative attitudes regarding working women (ie: leftover women). It is inevitable that the people of the KSA will encounter similar difficulties.

qiqing 9y ago
Actually, the "leftover women" phrase refers to the relationship / marital status of some women, not their job status. Many of these women (including people I know personally) have reclaimed the term as a compliment -- there's a pun where they substitute a word that roughly means god-like or badass. My mom and both of my grandmothers lived in a world where the dual income household is the norm, and has been the norm since the 50's, but since the 80's and 90's, there has been a retrograde shift because for a while, being a stay-at-home-mom became a status symbol. However, all of my cousins, male or female, are part of dual-income households. (They all live in Shanghai.) But that's a much longer rant and off-topic to the current discussion. But +1 to your initial point, re: effect of dual income households on the economy.
- vfulco 9y ago
  Knowing more than a handful of 20s-30s ladies in SH through my Toastmasters club, although there is selection bias, they are some of the most capable, driven, hard working, talented young people I have ever met. And I am almost 50 so have seen a bit over the years. If they were unleashed by the system and cultural expectations, norms, and restrictions, there is nothing they could not accomplish.
haihaibye 9y ago
>> buoying incredible growth Then why not much deviation from historical trend lines: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/
alexasmyths 9y ago
" buoying incredible growth." That only depends on how you measure value. A parent leaves their kids with their grandparents during the day = $0 GDP. A parent drops of them off at daycare = +$X GDP. Just because people were not working in the economic system does not mean there was not real value creation. My mother sometimes worked, sometimes did not. The difference in the quality of our lives was quite noticeably more negative when she worked. That 'negative value' is not measured in the GDP - only the 'positive value' of her income. I'm not saying that she shouldn't have, and certainly not that there should not have been mass reforms - but it's important to remember that much of 'real consumer surplus' is simply not measured in the GDP. Policies that focus on the GDP tend to overweight measurable economic activity - while other elements are externalized and suffer. The environment, community, social cohesion - they all have value to us but because we don't put numbers behind them, they don't fit into the equations very well.
- mangodrunk 9y ago
  I also question the benefits of dual income families. For the economy, it might benefit certain people in society, typically the wealthy. At the household level, it can actually be detrimental (though obviously not always). Do we really need many cars, large homes, all this stuff filling our large homes?

by ihsw2 9y ago

qiqing 9y ago

Actually, the "leftover women" phrase refers to the relationship / marital status of some women, not their job status. Many of these women (including people I know personally) have reclaimed the term as a compliment -- there's a pun where they substitute a word that roughly means god-like or badass. My mom and both of my grandmothers lived in a world where the dual income household is the norm, and has been the norm since the 50's, but since the 80's and 90's, there has been a retrograde shift because for a while, being a stay-at-home-mom became a status symbol. However, all of my cousins, male or female, are part of dual-income households. (They all live in Shanghai.) But that's a much longer rant and off-topic to the current discussion. But +1 to your initial point, re: effect of dual income households on the economy.

vfulco 9y ago
Knowing more than a handful of 20s-30s ladies in SH through my Toastmasters club, although there is selection bias, they are some of the most capable, driven, hard working, talented young people I have ever met. And I am almost 50 so have seen a bit over the years. If they were unleashed by the system and cultural expectations, norms, and restrictions, there is nothing they could not accomplish.

haihaibye 9y ago

>> buoying incredible growth Then why not much deviation from historical trend lines: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/

alexasmyths 9y ago

" buoying incredible growth." That only depends on how you measure value. A parent leaves their kids with their grandparents during the day = $0 GDP. A parent drops of them off at daycare = +$X GDP. Just because people were not working in the economic system does not mean there was not real value creation. My mother sometimes worked, sometimes did not. The difference in the quality of our lives was quite noticeably more negative when she worked. That 'negative value' is not measured in the GDP - only the 'positive value' of her income. I'm not saying that she shouldn't have, and certainly not that there should not have been mass reforms - but it's important to remember that much of 'real consumer surplus' is simply not measured in the GDP. Policies that focus on the GDP tend to overweight measurable economic activity - while other elements are externalized and suffer. The environment, community, social cohesion - they all have value to us but because we don't put numbers behind them, they don't fit into the equations very well.

mangodrunk 9y ago
I also question the benefits of dual income families. For the economy, it might benefit certain people in society, typically the wealthy. At the household level, it can actually be detrimental (though obviously not always). Do we really need many cars, large homes, all this stuff filling our large homes?