4 ms·

The two income trap you mention was the subject of an Elizabeth Warren book sometime in the early 2000s. It’s a real issue, I’m not sure how to solve it, but it

by entee 7y ago

The two income trap you mention was the subject of an Elizabeth Warren book sometime in the early 2000s. It’s a real issue, I’m not sure how to solve it, but it seems like a different larger scale issue. Also at this point its a little late. That societal evolution has already created facts on the ground such that in most larger cities it’s impossible to afford a good middle class lifestyle without two incomes. Given that, what’s a simple thing that we could do to make life better? Make it easier for people to cope with that. Good, easy childcare is one clear way to do it. It’s also wrong to suggest this is a rich people problem. If anything the lack of childcare is an even more acute strain at the lower end of the wage scale. Completely free childcare for everyone may be unworkable or undesirable for a variety of reasons, but it seems clear we can do a whole lot more, and we would benefit in the aggregate. Not the least of which because more people from different backgrounds in the workplace is a great way to build empathy and creativity.

gowld 7y ago
It's ironic that some of the most virulently anti-union people are also in favor of the most powerful Union that existed for increasing labor wages: the stay at home mother Union
novok 7y ago
We already have socially funded free child care through the ages of 6-18, is it that much of a stretch for society to provide it for 0-5 too?
codingmess 7y ago
The "we" who benefits, would that include the children? Essentially, the going theory seems to be that society would be better of if it would delegate childcare to less people per child, contrary to the "traditional" one on one of mothers and their children. (Thinking about it, in the old days mothers had more children, so it was rarely one on one either). Also, it seems to consider having children merely as a productive factor for society, rather than something people do for its own sake. I like to compare children to Ferraris, as both are expensive (children probably even more so than Ferraris). So in analogy, people like to buy Ferraris, but society would be better off if those Ferraris would be parked in somebody else's garage. Think about all the time people waste driving their Ferraris, which they could have otherwise put to productive use for the benefit of society.

by entee 7y ago

gowld 7y ago

It's ironic that some of the most virulently anti-union people are also in favor of the most powerful Union that existed for increasing labor wages: the stay at home mother Union

novok 7y ago

We already have socially funded free child care through the ages of 6-18, is it that much of a stretch for society to provide it for 0-5 too?

codingmess 7y ago

The "we" who benefits, would that include the children? Essentially, the going theory seems to be that society would be better of if it would delegate childcare to less people per child, contrary to the "traditional" one on one of mothers and their children. (Thinking about it, in the old days mothers had more children, so it was rarely one on one either). Also, it seems to consider having children merely as a productive factor for society, rather than something people do for its own sake. I like to compare children to Ferraris, as both are expensive (children probably even more so than Ferraris). So in analogy, people like to buy Ferraris, but society would be better off if those Ferraris would be parked in somebody else's garage. Think about all the time people waste driving their Ferraris, which they could have otherwise put to productive use for the benefit of society.