17 ms·
From past podcasts he doesn't see the problem with having two people working to get that gain while ignoring the individual stagnating/declining worker pay. Tha
by kimmeld 8y ago
From past podcasts he doesn't see the problem with having two people working to get that gain while ignoring the individual stagnating/declining worker pay. That stance is not logical to me, but it seems to fit his view on the world.
- gameswithgo 8y agoYeah, once two people are working you NEED more income. Often one of the two people working spends their entire paycheck on child care. You may also to speed more on cleaning, home and auto repair, as you will have less time to do those yourself. You may need to spend more on healthcare since there will be less time to work out and cook good meals. You may need to spend more on food as there will be less time to cook good meals. It goes on!
- rconti 8y agoOkay, so he's being intentionally misleading in this piece, rather than presenting an academic view. I'm fine with that stance, too. He's welcome to argue that the average household is "better off" as long as he's willing to subtract the added costs this situation creates. Or you can calculate doing the reverse; calculate the value generated with a greater number of stay-at-home parents in the 70s, so that this opportunity cost is reflected in the numbers when a second earner enters the formal workforce. Then at least we're comparing apples to apples and we can see where we end up. It's totally possible those lower-income cohorts are better off now, but he hasn't attempted to prove it. Also, it's a lie to present this as individuals earning more money unless you acknowledge that you're averaging individuals across households, and not comparing ACTUAL working individuals.. And admit that you're factoring in some number of individuals in the 70s earning $0 and some other number of individuals today earning $0.