7 ms·

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year.

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year. She was making about 60k / year. Then we not only moved from the US to Poland (where live is just so much cheaper). But I also started making about 330k / year. All the willingness to work evaporated on her part :-) Instead we have another kid. She stopped talking about work and started talking about having more kids. Of course, that's anectodal, but also common sense, isn't it? My little theory is that while men still made enough money to support good life in the US (50s, 60s) most women just didn't want to work. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office? The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal? I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salary won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice.

FactolSarin 7y ago
I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if my wife was making 330k/year :D
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.
  - nathan_compton 7y ago
    I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.
    - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
      Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
      - nathan_compton 7y ago
        Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
        ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
        No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.
- mkoryak 7y ago
  wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM
  - jsharf 7y ago
    Yeah but kids can smile and bond with you. Computers can't. It's hard work, but it's a bad idea to compare the two either way. One might come naturally to some people, even if they're (gasp) computer programmers.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Something can be, at the same time, both more work and more enjoyable than office work.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Harder doesn't mean worse, necessarily. There are lots of things I'd rather do than my white collar programming job, and most of them are at least as much "work" as it is—they just don't pay nearly as well. [EDIT] that includes staying home to teach my kids—much rather do that, and it'd 100% for sure be much harder. Pays zero dollars though, and someone's gotta keep the bills paid.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    With a possible exception of before they can talk and are potty trained, child care is not harder. And it is far far more enjoyable spending time with your kids.
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    Unless parent edited their comment, sounds like you're way over-interpreting their comment. I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home parent if my SO made bank, it's not because I think it'd be "not work" though.
  - username90 7y ago
    100 hour workweeks kills people, 40 hours of work and 60 hours of parenting doesn't, 100 hours of parenting doesn't. Parenting therefore isn't work, parenting is life on the work-life balance spectrum, so it isn't soul crushing in the same way work is. Parenting can still be a lot of work of course, but it isn't work in the same way a job is work, it is more work in the way a vacation trip is work or a hobby is work.
dbancajas 7y ago
do you have a business for 330K/year in Poland?
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
  He screws in lightbulbs.
cortesoft 7y ago
I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working). Childcare is mind numbing work, especially with young kids. Sure, some women (and men) would prefer that, but a LOT of women prefer office work over raising children. "why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?" is really selling short how much work raising young kids is. It is NOT enjoying life to stay home with toddlers. Maybe once they start school and you get hours to yourself, but before that it is way more time consuming than working at an office. I know, I have done both. I took long paternity leaves to care for both of my kids, and while I love being able to bond with the kids, I was so happy to be able to go back to work. The freedom I have at the office compared to being home with the kids was night and day. Just being able to go to the bathroom when I need to, to get food when I want..... young kids are non-stop work. I LOVE being a dad, but the weekends are way more stressful than the weekdays. Wrangling kids is way harder than programming computers.
- flatiron 7y ago
  I totally agree. I work from home programming so my dad office and my programming office is the same place. Taking conference calls and browsing HN is way easier than wrangling 3 kids 5 and younger.
- davidw 7y ago
  > I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working). Especially within earshot of my wife. Stuff like that pisses her off to no end, with good reason. She's smart and accomplished and very much enjoys the challenges of a professional career.
  - jariel 7y ago
    " Stuff like that pisses her off to no end, with good reason. She's smart and accomplished and very much enjoys the challenges of a professional career." No, it's not with 'good reason'. If your wife is 'smart' as you say, then she (and you) will recognise that generalisations having nothing to do with your particular situation. That women may be inclined to want to 'stay home' more than not, has nothing to do with the obvious fact that many women (such as your wife) 'want a career'. That your wife is 'pissed off to no end' to hear what might be actual fact it actually the problem with society. You're afraid to talk about it, as is everyone in the press because it 'upsets some women' to hear some genralizations which may be true. It's actually very problematic that your wife is 'pissed off to no end' when she hears data that might not be consistent with her lifestyle - because it closes down needed conversation. Second - your statement "she's smart and accomplished" is arguably sexist and denigrating to the very 'smart and accomplished' women who chose not to have a career. My belief is that most women do want some kind of meaningful work, until the time they want to have children, in which case things change. At this time, my bet would be most (definitely not all) want to focus on the kids, but have 'some kind of option' that keeps them professionally engaged to the world, but with 'maximum flexibility'. These choices may not be 'careers' in the sense we think of them. Example: women studies years to become licensed acupuncturist, works hard to set up practice and community, then settles down with partner, working with a limited number of clients while raising young children. The work requires intelligence, it's 'helping' (or at least people think it is), it's social, it's independent, it's 'green', it's related to the community etc., and it's not exactly high stress / corporate / careerism. Given an array of life choices for women - something like this example I believe would be highly popular. In my own life, if you replace 'acupuncturist' with 'therapist', 'designer', 'homeopath', 'makeup consultant', 'massage therapist' it would cover a good many number of the women that I know. Of course it has nothing to do with the other good number of women that I know who are engaged in more or less professional career paths.
lettergram 7y ago
I actually just wrote about this lol https://austingwalters.com/tiny-handcuffs/ https://austingwalters.com/tiny-handcuffs/ My general thoughts are that 90% of people don’t want to work - so yea none of us would if we didn’t have to. One thing that’s always astonishing to me is that it’s not the the poor are necessarily getting poorer... it’s that we want to give more resources to our kids. You can have 10 kids on a salary of $120k a year, you just have to live on rice and thrift.
- Konnstann 7y ago
  Given the amount of research that shows that the amount of resources kids have directly impacts their success later in life doing that would severely impact your kids' ability to have a salary of $120k in the future.
nathan_compton 7y ago
Marx and Engels pointed out that all labor is alienating. Childcare is work in many senses, and under certain conditions, it can be as alienating as wage labor. But, in general terms which don't capture all the specifics, it isn't alienating in the sense that you don't own the surpluses - typically, we are invested in our children without concern for the greater economic utility associated (or not associated) with them. I'm a man. I find my job alienating but the work I do as a dad non-alienating. If someone gave me my salary for free, I'd take complete delight in parenting full time.
watwut 7y ago
Having nothing useful to do day after day is not an awesome lifestyle. It is depression inducing, lowers your confidence and self respect. You are becoming increasingly pointless. Not just makes you feel dependent, but also actually makes you dependent. On one hand, you feel like a taker and useless and golddigger, so you are restraining yourself from asking what you would consider normal had you worked. On the other, partner feels like contributing more too. It all has actual consequences. Lastly, I remember reading stats about domestic violence rates going down when economics changes so that women earns more or males less. It goes up when it changes other way. You assume horrible office that expects you to work 60 hours a week. Somehow it is ok for men to work in that horrible office? Why don't men push to work less to actually be with family? Like, man getting to be actually a father and not just a wallet for family?
ed_balls 7y ago
> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. My anecdata is quite opposite. Women having remorse for leaving children in child care, but they can't stand staying at home. They feel lonely.
onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
The US consumer was massively expanding (mostly) his credit during the 50s-80s. This is the American "Golden Age". There's no further room to expand credit -- we tried it in mid 90s-00s and it didn't work out. There was never a time anywhere in the history of the world where one working man could work a low-skilled laborer's job and comfortably provide for a family of four.
- hnuser77 7y ago
  This completely defies logic, considering that 2 kids is replacement level fertility, the world has experienced generally consistent population growth, and most of the labor ever done in the world has been low-skilled labor.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    95-99.9% of the population lived in sustenance or worse from the beginning of time until the Industrial Revolution in England in the 1800s. And outside of the US Post WW2 -- from the 50s to the late 80s -- no where else on Earth could one working low skilled person afford such a high quality of life. If you consider farmers in the 1890s as living outside of sustenance, I guess to each their own. But they worked 7 days a week, basically 12 hours a day, including their entire family, just to afford basic accomodations and food and almost literally nothing else. This is staunchly different to what an autoworker at Ford or a Steal worker at United Steal or a salesperson at IBM could afford from the 50s to the late 80s. Compare that to now, a person working at Ford trying to raise a family of four on his/her own can pretty much only afford sustenance again.
silencio 7y ago
i would prefer to work instead of providing full time caregiving to my 1.5 kids and my parents (and also myself, it’s been a very rough pregnancy). anyone that thinks being the primary caregiver is easier than working out of home is delusional. the pressure would probably crush my wife, honestly. but here we are, the cost of caregiving meeting our standards are high, and unless i also make $300k a year in the bay area, we’re just going to hit a break even point for all the different people that need to replace me.
decebalus1 7y ago
> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal? > I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice. Ok, all of that is incredibly sexist. Male here, born and raised under (full) communism, now living in the opposite system and I'm appalled by this attitude. Women work because they have to? Of course they have to. We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight. There should be no class of people (like women) which should be excluded from the workforce based on some ideological bullshit idea from the 50s. It's funny that in the land of the free, financial dependence on a spouse is a badge of honor! This kind of broken thinking is also the source of the horrors of the US divorce system (for example the absolute batshit crazy spousal support). Let's not even bring up the fact that women also have, like a normal human being, aspirations and ambitions which aim beyond being a childcare provider.. > help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it Help their husbands? In what way are they helping their husbands? They're not helping themselves or the family? If you look at this from the perspective of 'helping the husband' then there will be a problem in there somewhere. Am a husband. If I can't make ends meet the whole family suffers and the wife isn't helping me, she'll be helping the family.
- MrBeansForReal 7y ago
  > We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight. I love this comment, so I'm going to start here. This very sentence: "We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight". By all you mean which class? Poor? Middle class? Middle-upper class? Rich? Wealthy? Don't you see how we're tricking ourselves by believing in this false male/female dychotomy? Let's look at it from Marxist perpective: Poor -- male and female work Middle Class -- male and female work Middle Upper Class -- sometimes one of the partners male OR female will work, while the other will not. Upper Class -- both men and women don't work. They earn passive income on their investments, business onwership, real estate ownership, stocks and bonds profits. So, while we here are arguing if women "should" work or not, the healthy attitude seems to be to do anything possible to be as high on the ladder above as possible. Because the reasons if we work or we don't work have nothing to do with what we believe or want. But they have everything to do with our social status, or as Marx would call it "class". If you are poor you and your partner work. If you are wealthy you and your partner don't work. If you're in one of the middle classes it's a combination. Talking about "women rights" in this scenario is just side-tracking and being blinded by the reality of social classes and social status. This being said, there is bunch, really a lot of research in psychology strongly suggesting that women are attracted to males who are highly successful. Basically poor woman (low class) will be definitely attracted to a guy in higher class. Based on his class / social status alone. This is basic science of psychology backed by a lot of research. Declining simple biology for signaling reasons just looks so... desperate? (sorry, couldn't resist myself)
the_watcher 7y ago
> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office? I think you can replace "women" with people and make this statement more accurate. I don't see why this would be unique to women, whether you agree or disagree with the "people work because they have to, not want to" statement.
- ouid 7y ago
  That too is an undergeneralization. People work because they want to just like they breathe because they want to. Claiming that there is some sort of innate desire to work or not work is ludicrous.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    That's a separate point from "women work because they have to". Regardless of your POV on whether or not most people work out of necessity rather than desire, I don't see any reason to believe any differences here attributable to gender.
- MrBeansForReal 7y ago
  Male psychology is to do pretty much anything to get as high in the socio-economic ladder as possible. To achieve as high status as one can. Starting with lobsters about 300 milion years ago. Deeply encoded in our bodies in all types of weird places like for example endocrine system. Females don't have that. They are rather wired to find males who posses high status as attractive partners. So they are wired differently to males in this regard. And of course, you see the difference, it's just that it is not this comfortable talking about obvious truths nowadays. Even when these basic truths are backed by hard science.
stvswn 7y ago
I agree generally (I believe you may be discounting that many women do want careers and the joys of motherhood and it's hard). I disagree with some commenters that this is an overly gendered idea: while it's true that there are plenty of exceptions, it's definitely true that men and women, as a broad generalization, feel differently. While many men feel a sense of pride if they are able to work hard enough and be successful enough to support their family, many women in the same situation feel guilt for missing out on their kids' upbringing during the day (again, since someone is going to say it, I'm aware there are many exceptions). I think the author missed another difference compared with past decades, however: it used to be more common than it is now for grandparents to cover childcare of young children while both parents worked (or in part-time support of a busy mother with many kids). This seems to be less common than it once was, and it might be because we are now two generations into a trend of people waiting much longer to have kids than they once did. As a child, my grandmother was in her 50s and 60s, and was able to take on a good deal of childcare in her retirement. If two generations each wait until 35 to have a first kid, then the grandparent of a 5 year old is 75 and less likely to be able to be relied upon for childcare. Added to this is the fact that the labor market for childcare looks a lot like the labor market for elder care in that both are career options for similarly situated applicants, and there just isn't enough labor supply.
mikeleung 7y ago
I'm terrified by the fact that this sexist reply is currently the top comment on this thread, so clearly there are many people voting it up, in addition to the fact that many men(and only men) adding their personal takes about how they know why WOMEN make the choices they do. No wonder there is so much gender inequality in the workplace. This does not belong on HN.
rb808 7y ago
Wow you're the second guy I met that went home to a good salary. Is this a manager role I guess? My cousin in law is making like 10 zl/hr so I'm not sure what is going on.
avgDev 7y ago
Wait...were you making 330k in Poland? Because that would be insane.

FactolSarin 7y ago

I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if my wife was making 330k/year :D

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.
- nathan_compton 7y ago
  I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.
  - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
    Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
    - nathan_compton 7y ago
      Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
      - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
        No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.
mkoryak 7y ago
wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM
- jsharf 7y ago
  Yeah but kids can smile and bond with you. Computers can't. It's hard work, but it's a bad idea to compare the two either way. One might come naturally to some people, even if they're (gasp) computer programmers.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Something can be, at the same time, both more work and more enjoyable than office work.
- shantly 7y ago
  Harder doesn't mean worse, necessarily. There are lots of things I'd rather do than my white collar programming job, and most of them are at least as much "work" as it is—they just don't pay nearly as well. [EDIT] that includes staying home to teach my kids—much rather do that, and it'd 100% for sure be much harder. Pays zero dollars though, and someone's gotta keep the bills paid.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  With a possible exception of before they can talk and are potty trained, child care is not harder. And it is far far more enjoyable spending time with your kids.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Unless parent edited their comment, sounds like you're way over-interpreting their comment. I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home parent if my SO made bank, it's not because I think it'd be "not work" though.
- username90 7y ago
  100 hour workweeks kills people, 40 hours of work and 60 hours of parenting doesn't, 100 hours of parenting doesn't. Parenting therefore isn't work, parenting is life on the work-life balance spectrum, so it isn't soul crushing in the same way work is. Parenting can still be a lot of work of course, but it isn't work in the same way a job is work, it is more work in the way a vacation trip is work or a hobby is work.

dbancajas 7y ago

do you have a business for 330K/year in Poland?

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
He screws in lightbulbs.

cortesoft 7y ago

I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working). Childcare is mind numbing work, especially with young kids. Sure, some women (and men) would prefer that, but a LOT of women prefer office work over raising children. "why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?" is really selling short how much work raising young kids is. It is NOT enjoying life to stay home with toddlers. Maybe once they start school and you get hours to yourself, but before that it is way more time consuming than working at an office. I know, I have done both. I took long paternity leaves to care for both of my kids, and while I love being able to bond with the kids, I was so happy to be able to go back to work. The freedom I have at the office compared to being home with the kids was night and day. Just being able to go to the bathroom when I need to, to get food when I want..... young kids are non-stop work. I LOVE being a dad, but the weekends are way more stressful than the weekdays. Wrangling kids is way harder than programming computers.

flatiron 7y ago
I totally agree. I work from home programming so my dad office and my programming office is the same place. Taking conference calls and browsing HN is way easier than wrangling 3 kids 5 and younger.
davidw 7y ago
> I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working). Especially within earshot of my wife. Stuff like that pisses her off to no end, with good reason. She's smart and accomplished and very much enjoys the challenges of a professional career.
- jariel 7y ago
  " Stuff like that pisses her off to no end, with good reason. She's smart and accomplished and very much enjoys the challenges of a professional career." No, it's not with 'good reason'. If your wife is 'smart' as you say, then she (and you) will recognise that generalisations having nothing to do with your particular situation. That women may be inclined to want to 'stay home' more than not, has nothing to do with the obvious fact that many women (such as your wife) 'want a career'. That your wife is 'pissed off to no end' to hear what might be actual fact it actually the problem with society. You're afraid to talk about it, as is everyone in the press because it 'upsets some women' to hear some genralizations which may be true. It's actually very problematic that your wife is 'pissed off to no end' when she hears data that might not be consistent with her lifestyle - because it closes down needed conversation. Second - your statement "she's smart and accomplished" is arguably sexist and denigrating to the very 'smart and accomplished' women who chose not to have a career. My belief is that most women do want some kind of meaningful work, until the time they want to have children, in which case things change. At this time, my bet would be most (definitely not all) want to focus on the kids, but have 'some kind of option' that keeps them professionally engaged to the world, but with 'maximum flexibility'. These choices may not be 'careers' in the sense we think of them. Example: women studies years to become licensed acupuncturist, works hard to set up practice and community, then settles down with partner, working with a limited number of clients while raising young children. The work requires intelligence, it's 'helping' (or at least people think it is), it's social, it's independent, it's 'green', it's related to the community etc., and it's not exactly high stress / corporate / careerism. Given an array of life choices for women - something like this example I believe would be highly popular. In my own life, if you replace 'acupuncturist' with 'therapist', 'designer', 'homeopath', 'makeup consultant', 'massage therapist' it would cover a good many number of the women that I know. Of course it has nothing to do with the other good number of women that I know who are engaged in more or less professional career paths.

lettergram 7y ago

I actually just wrote about this lol https://austingwalters.com/tiny-handcuffs/ https://austingwalters.com/tiny-handcuffs/ My general thoughts are that 90% of people don’t want to work - so yea none of us would if we didn’t have to. One thing that’s always astonishing to me is that it’s not the the poor are necessarily getting poorer... it’s that we want to give more resources to our kids. You can have 10 kids on a salary of $120k a year, you just have to live on rice and thrift.

Konnstann 7y ago
Given the amount of research that shows that the amount of resources kids have directly impacts their success later in life doing that would severely impact your kids' ability to have a salary of $120k in the future.

nathan_compton 7y ago

Marx and Engels pointed out that all labor is alienating. Childcare is work in many senses, and under certain conditions, it can be as alienating as wage labor. But, in general terms which don't capture all the specifics, it isn't alienating in the sense that you don't own the surpluses - typically, we are invested in our children without concern for the greater economic utility associated (or not associated) with them. I'm a man. I find my job alienating but the work I do as a dad non-alienating. If someone gave me my salary for free, I'd take complete delight in parenting full time.

watwut 7y ago

Having nothing useful to do day after day is not an awesome lifestyle. It is depression inducing, lowers your confidence and self respect. You are becoming increasingly pointless. Not just makes you feel dependent, but also actually makes you dependent. On one hand, you feel like a taker and useless and golddigger, so you are restraining yourself from asking what you would consider normal had you worked. On the other, partner feels like contributing more too. It all has actual consequences. Lastly, I remember reading stats about domestic violence rates going down when economics changes so that women earns more or males less. It goes up when it changes other way. You assume horrible office that expects you to work 60 hours a week. Somehow it is ok for men to work in that horrible office? Why don't men push to work less to actually be with family? Like, man getting to be actually a father and not just a wallet for family?

ed_balls 7y ago

> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. My anecdata is quite opposite. Women having remorse for leaving children in child care, but they can't stand staying at home. They feel lonely.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

The US consumer was massively expanding (mostly) his credit during the 50s-80s. This is the American "Golden Age". There's no further room to expand credit -- we tried it in mid 90s-00s and it didn't work out. There was never a time anywhere in the history of the world where one working man could work a low-skilled laborer's job and comfortably provide for a family of four.

hnuser77 7y ago
This completely defies logic, considering that 2 kids is replacement level fertility, the world has experienced generally consistent population growth, and most of the labor ever done in the world has been low-skilled labor.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  95-99.9% of the population lived in sustenance or worse from the beginning of time until the Industrial Revolution in England in the 1800s. And outside of the US Post WW2 -- from the 50s to the late 80s -- no where else on Earth could one working low skilled person afford such a high quality of life. If you consider farmers in the 1890s as living outside of sustenance, I guess to each their own. But they worked 7 days a week, basically 12 hours a day, including their entire family, just to afford basic accomodations and food and almost literally nothing else. This is staunchly different to what an autoworker at Ford or a Steal worker at United Steal or a salesperson at IBM could afford from the 50s to the late 80s. Compare that to now, a person working at Ford trying to raise a family of four on his/her own can pretty much only afford sustenance again.

silencio 7y ago

i would prefer to work instead of providing full time caregiving to my 1.5 kids and my parents (and also myself, it’s been a very rough pregnancy). anyone that thinks being the primary caregiver is easier than working out of home is delusional. the pressure would probably crush my wife, honestly. but here we are, the cost of caregiving meeting our standards are high, and unless i also make $300k a year in the bay area, we’re just going to hit a break even point for all the different people that need to replace me.

decebalus1 7y ago

> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal? > I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice. Ok, all of that is incredibly sexist. Male here, born and raised under (full) communism, now living in the opposite system and I'm appalled by this attitude. Women work because they have to? Of course they have to. We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight. There should be no class of people (like women) which should be excluded from the workforce based on some ideological bullshit idea from the 50s. It's funny that in the land of the free, financial dependence on a spouse is a badge of honor! This kind of broken thinking is also the source of the horrors of the US divorce system (for example the absolute batshit crazy spousal support). Let's not even bring up the fact that women also have, like a normal human being, aspirations and ambitions which aim beyond being a childcare provider.. > help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it Help their husbands? In what way are they helping their husbands? They're not helping themselves or the family? If you look at this from the perspective of 'helping the husband' then there will be a problem in there somewhere. Am a husband. If I can't make ends meet the whole family suffers and the wife isn't helping me, she'll be helping the family.

MrBeansForReal 7y ago
> We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight. I love this comment, so I'm going to start here. This very sentence: "We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight". By all you mean which class? Poor? Middle class? Middle-upper class? Rich? Wealthy? Don't you see how we're tricking ourselves by believing in this false male/female dychotomy? Let's look at it from Marxist perpective: Poor -- male and female work Middle Class -- male and female work Middle Upper Class -- sometimes one of the partners male OR female will work, while the other will not. Upper Class -- both men and women don't work. They earn passive income on their investments, business onwership, real estate ownership, stocks and bonds profits. So, while we here are arguing if women "should" work or not, the healthy attitude seems to be to do anything possible to be as high on the ladder above as possible. Because the reasons if we work or we don't work have nothing to do with what we believe or want. But they have everything to do with our social status, or as Marx would call it "class". If you are poor you and your partner work. If you are wealthy you and your partner don't work. If you're in one of the middle classes it's a combination. Talking about "women rights" in this scenario is just side-tracking and being blinded by the reality of social classes and social status. This being said, there is bunch, really a lot of research in psychology strongly suggesting that women are attracted to males who are highly successful. Basically poor woman (low class) will be definitely attracted to a guy in higher class. Based on his class / social status alone. This is basic science of psychology backed by a lot of research. Declining simple biology for signaling reasons just looks so... desperate? (sorry, couldn't resist myself)

the_watcher 7y ago

> The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office? I think you can replace "women" with people and make this statement more accurate. I don't see why this would be unique to women, whether you agree or disagree with the "people work because they have to, not want to" statement.

ouid 7y ago
That too is an undergeneralization. People work because they want to just like they breathe because they want to. Claiming that there is some sort of innate desire to work or not work is ludicrous.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  That's a separate point from "women work because they have to". Regardless of your POV on whether or not most people work out of necessity rather than desire, I don't see any reason to believe any differences here attributable to gender.
MrBeansForReal 7y ago
Male psychology is to do pretty much anything to get as high in the socio-economic ladder as possible. To achieve as high status as one can. Starting with lobsters about 300 milion years ago. Deeply encoded in our bodies in all types of weird places like for example endocrine system. Females don't have that. They are rather wired to find males who posses high status as attractive partners. So they are wired differently to males in this regard. And of course, you see the difference, it's just that it is not this comfortable talking about obvious truths nowadays. Even when these basic truths are backed by hard science.

stvswn 7y ago

I agree generally (I believe you may be discounting that many women do want careers and the joys of motherhood and it's hard). I disagree with some commenters that this is an overly gendered idea: while it's true that there are plenty of exceptions, it's definitely true that men and women, as a broad generalization, feel differently. While many men feel a sense of pride if they are able to work hard enough and be successful enough to support their family, many women in the same situation feel guilt for missing out on their kids' upbringing during the day (again, since someone is going to say it, I'm aware there are many exceptions). I think the author missed another difference compared with past decades, however: it used to be more common than it is now for grandparents to cover childcare of young children while both parents worked (or in part-time support of a busy mother with many kids). This seems to be less common than it once was, and it might be because we are now two generations into a trend of people waiting much longer to have kids than they once did. As a child, my grandmother was in her 50s and 60s, and was able to take on a good deal of childcare in her retirement. If two generations each wait until 35 to have a first kid, then the grandparent of a 5 year old is 75 and less likely to be able to be relied upon for childcare. Added to this is the fact that the labor market for childcare looks a lot like the labor market for elder care in that both are career options for similarly situated applicants, and there just isn't enough labor supply.

mikeleung 7y ago

I'm terrified by the fact that this sexist reply is currently the top comment on this thread, so clearly there are many people voting it up, in addition to the fact that many men(and only men) adding their personal takes about how they know why WOMEN make the choices they do. No wonder there is so much gender inequality in the workplace. This does not belong on HN.

rb808 7y ago

Wow you're the second guy I met that went home to a good salary. Is this a manager role I guess? My cousin in law is making like 10 zl/hr so I'm not sure what is going on.

avgDev 7y ago

Wait...were you making 330k in Poland? Because that would be insane.