6 ms·

Traditionally raising children was a multi-generational effort with grandparents often living under the same roof. Not to mention women were less likely to wor

Traditionally raising children was a multi-generational effort with grandparents often living under the same roof. Not to mention women were less likely to work outside the home back then. Modern society is highly efficient, but also highly susceptible to disruption. It'll be interesting to see how we figure out how to adapt.

bobthepanda 6y ago
Elizabeth Warren actually has a book on this very topic: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/two-income-trap-elizabeth-warren-book https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/t... >>> The “two-income trap,” described The “two-income trap,” as described by Warren, really consists of three partially separate phenomena that have arisen as families have come to rely on two working adults to make ends meet: The addition of a second earner means, in practice, a big increase in household fixed expenses for things like child care and commuting. Much of the money that American second earners bring in has been gobbled up, in practice, by zero-sum competition for educational opportunities expressed as either skyrocketed prices for houses in good school districts or escalating tuition at public universities. Last, while the addition of the second earner has not brought in much gain, it has created an increase in downside risk by eliminating an implicit insurance policy that families used to rely on. This last point is really the key to Warren’s specific argument about bankruptcy, though it’s the first two that would drive her larger interest in politics. Bad things have always happened to families from time to time. In a traditional two-parent, one-earner family, there was always the possibility that mom could step up and help out when trouble arose. “If her husband was laid off, fired, or otherwise left without a paycheck,” Warren and Tyagi write, “the stay-at-home mother didn’t simply stand helplessly on the sidelines as her family toppled off an economic cliff; she looked for a job to make up some of that lost income.” Similarly, if a family member got sick, mom was available as an unpaid caregiver. “A stay-at-home mother served as the family’s ultimate insurance against unemployment or disability — insurance that had a very real economic value even when it wasn’t drawn on.” A modern family where mom is already working has no “give” and is much more likely to be pushed into bankruptcy by job loss or family illness unless it builds up a big financial cushion.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  To elaborate on the "no benefit" for the families, and Warren probably talks about this, but there is benefit for corporations. They get nearly double the supply of workers which drives down wages and gives them more productivity per dollar spent. So in effect, a wealth transfer to equity holders.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    It's bizarre that this, the largest factor by far, gets so little play.
    - cma 6y ago
      Yep, it undermine's everything Peter Thiel said in his debate with Andresson and was amazing to me Andresson didn't bring it up. They were looking at wage stagnation over the period where women entered the workforce, but without ever mentioning it was the period where women entered the workforce en masse.
    - Dirlewanger 6y ago
      It's because it undermines the feminist narrative that women entering the workplace had 0 repercussions on society as whole.
- m0zg 6y ago
  Welcome to the feminist utopia, I suppose? Equal representation of women in the workplace, ignoring the fact that a large percentage of women (majority in my middle class social circle) would rather bear and raise children than slave away in a cubicle, if given a choice? The article calls the book "controversial", but I don't see how the harm from effectively denying motherhood to women is "controversial" at all.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    I mean the real problem is that we went halfsies and didn't actually build out systems that allow women to do both effectively, but then everyone got lumped into doing work because not doing so put your family at a distinct disadvantage. In countries less allergic to establishing welfare programs, cheap subsidized daycare is used to boost workforce participation amongst women: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordable-daycare-and-working-moms-the-quebec-model https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordabl...
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Traditionally being when? The US was settled by people leaving those old generations behind and moving west (be it from somewhere in Europe to the US or from somewhere in the US to somewhere less populated in the US) with their spouse and maybe young kids. You always had stay at home moms, because home was usually mom's workplace, often dad's too. Multi-generational households in the US existed as the exception when early settlers brought their entire communities over or when first generation Americans moved West with their immigrant parents. Having multi-generational households was never the norm.
- sukilot 6y ago
  "early settlers" is a tiny slice of history.
- shard 6y ago
  Tradition being up to the present, actually, in large parts of the world. (Repeating a comment to another article:) I suspect that people living with family until 20s/30s is likely to be much more common than people here expect, and that not doing so is an anomaly of the current age occurring in only certain cultures, with a possible return to norm in the future.
  - pc86 6y ago
    If you're discussing "protestant work ethic"-based communities, and "multigenerational housing"-based communities, they are generally mutually exclusive.
    - shard 6y ago
      I suppose it depends on whether by "Protestant work ethic", you are referring to people who are actually in the Protestant/Calvinist faith, or if you are using it as a euphemism for general workaholism, as there are many non-Protestant communities which espouse hard work and frugality as main tenets to follow in life, which do have a higher rate of multigenerational-housing-based communities. Also, it would be interesting to explore exactly how and why "protestant work ethic"-based communities and "multigenerational housing"-based communities became generally mutually exclusive, whether there is causation, or just a happenstance correlation.
zeveb 6y ago
> Modern society is highly efficient, but also highly susceptible to disruption. That's something my wife & I have been discussing recently. She pointed out that traditional family structures have more slack built into them, which comes in handy in times of trouble. The problem is that in the modern Taylorist world we treat slack as waste. But it really isn't, any more than insurance is waste.

bobthepanda 6y ago

Elizabeth Warren actually has a book on this very topic: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/two-income-trap-elizabeth-warren-book https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/t... >>> The “two-income trap,” described The “two-income trap,” as described by Warren, really consists of three partially separate phenomena that have arisen as families have come to rely on two working adults to make ends meet: The addition of a second earner means, in practice, a big increase in household fixed expenses for things like child care and commuting. Much of the money that American second earners bring in has been gobbled up, in practice, by zero-sum competition for educational opportunities expressed as either skyrocketed prices for houses in good school districts or escalating tuition at public universities. Last, while the addition of the second earner has not brought in much gain, it has created an increase in downside risk by eliminating an implicit insurance policy that families used to rely on. This last point is really the key to Warren’s specific argument about bankruptcy, though it’s the first two that would drive her larger interest in politics. Bad things have always happened to families from time to time. In a traditional two-parent, one-earner family, there was always the possibility that mom could step up and help out when trouble arose. “If her husband was laid off, fired, or otherwise left without a paycheck,” Warren and Tyagi write, “the stay-at-home mother didn’t simply stand helplessly on the sidelines as her family toppled off an economic cliff; she looked for a job to make up some of that lost income.” Similarly, if a family member got sick, mom was available as an unpaid caregiver. “A stay-at-home mother served as the family’s ultimate insurance against unemployment or disability — insurance that had a very real economic value even when it wasn’t drawn on.” A modern family where mom is already working has no “give” and is much more likely to be pushed into bankruptcy by job loss or family illness unless it builds up a big financial cushion.

jjeaff 6y ago
To elaborate on the "no benefit" for the families, and Warren probably talks about this, but there is benefit for corporations. They get nearly double the supply of workers which drives down wages and gives them more productivity per dollar spent. So in effect, a wealth transfer to equity holders.
- sukilot 6y ago
  It's bizarre that this, the largest factor by far, gets so little play.
  - cma 6y ago
    Yep, it undermine's everything Peter Thiel said in his debate with Andresson and was amazing to me Andresson didn't bring it up. They were looking at wage stagnation over the period where women entered the workforce, but without ever mentioning it was the period where women entered the workforce en masse.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    It's because it undermines the feminist narrative that women entering the workplace had 0 repercussions on society as whole.
m0zg 6y ago
Welcome to the feminist utopia, I suppose? Equal representation of women in the workplace, ignoring the fact that a large percentage of women (majority in my middle class social circle) would rather bear and raise children than slave away in a cubicle, if given a choice? The article calls the book "controversial", but I don't see how the harm from effectively denying motherhood to women is "controversial" at all.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  I mean the real problem is that we went halfsies and didn't actually build out systems that allow women to do both effectively, but then everyone got lumped into doing work because not doing so put your family at a distinct disadvantage. In countries less allergic to establishing welfare programs, cheap subsidized daycare is used to boost workforce participation amongst women: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordable-daycare-and-working-moms-the-quebec-model https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordabl...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Traditionally being when? The US was settled by people leaving those old generations behind and moving west (be it from somewhere in Europe to the US or from somewhere in the US to somewhere less populated in the US) with their spouse and maybe young kids. You always had stay at home moms, because home was usually mom's workplace, often dad's too. Multi-generational households in the US existed as the exception when early settlers brought their entire communities over or when first generation Americans moved West with their immigrant parents. Having multi-generational households was never the norm.

sukilot 6y ago
"early settlers" is a tiny slice of history.
shard 6y ago
Tradition being up to the present, actually, in large parts of the world. (Repeating a comment to another article:) I suspect that people living with family until 20s/30s is likely to be much more common than people here expect, and that not doing so is an anomaly of the current age occurring in only certain cultures, with a possible return to norm in the future.
- pc86 6y ago
  If you're discussing "protestant work ethic"-based communities, and "multigenerational housing"-based communities, they are generally mutually exclusive.
  - shard 6y ago
    I suppose it depends on whether by "Protestant work ethic", you are referring to people who are actually in the Protestant/Calvinist faith, or if you are using it as a euphemism for general workaholism, as there are many non-Protestant communities which espouse hard work and frugality as main tenets to follow in life, which do have a higher rate of multigenerational-housing-based communities. Also, it would be interesting to explore exactly how and why "protestant work ethic"-based communities and "multigenerational housing"-based communities became generally mutually exclusive, whether there is causation, or just a happenstance correlation.

zeveb 6y ago

> Modern society is highly efficient, but also highly susceptible to disruption. That's something my wife & I have been discussing recently. She pointed out that traditional family structures have more slack built into them, which comes in handy in times of trouble. The problem is that in the modern Taylorist world we treat slack as waste. But it really isn't, any more than insurance is waste.