4 ms·

Pretty sure the economic impact of doubling the workforce as well as decades of frozen wages has had a significant effect on social acceptance of 2-worker house

Pretty sure the economic impact of doubling the workforce as well as decades of frozen wages has had a significant effect on social acceptance of 2-worker households, but blame whatever boogeyman/woman you'd like to.

curryst 6y ago
I'm not a fan of blaming feminism (there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker), but I do see a correlation between the rise of 2-worker households, stagnating wages, and the difficulty of raising children. The line of thinking here is that feminism caused 2-worker households, which doubled the workforce, which caused wage stagnation. Basically that doubling the workforce crashed the price of labor, but companies were unable to reduce everyone's salaries, and instead stagnated wages until inflation caused them to fall to the new price of labor. I find it crass to blame feminism for that, though. Women should have always been free to join the workforce, and the problem is really 2-worker households, not that women are able to work. I think single-worker households address some of these issues, but there's no reason to point and say women were the problem. It's just as valid for the wife to go work and the husband to take care of the house. Single-worker households aren't going to make a comeback, imo. For one, we, as a society, don't really respect homemakers. It's unskilled labor, and we grant it about as much value as most unskilled labor. And the more likely you are to be able to afford having a single-worker household, the more drastic the gap in prestige between the worker and homemaker becomes, which creates a weird power dynamic. I.e. if you're a hotshot lawyer and your wife stays at home, that's a huge gap in how you're perceived by other people. The second reason is that wages have effectively fallen through stagnation and inflation. Even if we forced all households to only have a single worker tomorrow, I'm doubtful wages would rise to where they might have been. Third and finally, a lot of homemaking is stuff people don't really want to do. Time with the kids is great, but does anyone really enjoy vacuuming, or cleaning the bathroom, or doing dishes? This might just be my perspective bleeding through, but the work itself seems awful. And worse yet, you do it either almost entirely alone, or while children are playing/screaming/fighting around you. It's physically demanding, and generally not mentally stimulating. Longer-term, I would bet that the solution to this is a) more optimized services (i.e. a cleaning service that cleans all the houses on your street, like landscaping people often do), and b) robotics that are able to handle small bits of this. Roomba is a good example. They're reasonably effective at vacuuming. Give it a decade and they'll probably be able to actually replace vacuuming. We will also need a way for people that can't afford the upfront price to have one, which will probably come forth in the form of a subscription (give us a $100 deposit, and then we'll charge you $1 every time it runs).
- globular-toast 6y ago
  > there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker How is it unfair? Men don't get to choose whether to work or not. They can like it or lump it. If you told men they could stay at home all day spending someone else's money improving the home, many would jump at the chance. The grass is always greener on the other side. > Women should have always been free to join the workforce They were always free to join the workforce. Just like they are free to join men's sporting events etc. The problem is now they are being encouraged to join the workforce. They are being indoctrinated into masculine roles from a very young age, fed through education and into the corporate machine. Then they get to 30, panic and realise they are running out of time to have children but they are trapped in the machine. Women's happiness has only decreased. Most women didn't want this. Going to work sucks. The only people benefiting from this are the billionaires who are richer and more powerful than ever.

curryst 6y ago

I'm not a fan of blaming feminism (there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker), but I do see a correlation between the rise of 2-worker households, stagnating wages, and the difficulty of raising children. The line of thinking here is that feminism caused 2-worker households, which doubled the workforce, which caused wage stagnation. Basically that doubling the workforce crashed the price of labor, but companies were unable to reduce everyone's salaries, and instead stagnated wages until inflation caused them to fall to the new price of labor. I find it crass to blame feminism for that, though. Women should have always been free to join the workforce, and the problem is really 2-worker households, not that women are able to work. I think single-worker households address some of these issues, but there's no reason to point and say women were the problem. It's just as valid for the wife to go work and the husband to take care of the house. Single-worker households aren't going to make a comeback, imo. For one, we, as a society, don't really respect homemakers. It's unskilled labor, and we grant it about as much value as most unskilled labor. And the more likely you are to be able to afford having a single-worker household, the more drastic the gap in prestige between the worker and homemaker becomes, which creates a weird power dynamic. I.e. if you're a hotshot lawyer and your wife stays at home, that's a huge gap in how you're perceived by other people. The second reason is that wages have effectively fallen through stagnation and inflation. Even if we forced all households to only have a single worker tomorrow, I'm doubtful wages would rise to where they might have been. Third and finally, a lot of homemaking is stuff people don't really want to do. Time with the kids is great, but does anyone really enjoy vacuuming, or cleaning the bathroom, or doing dishes? This might just be my perspective bleeding through, but the work itself seems awful. And worse yet, you do it either almost entirely alone, or while children are playing/screaming/fighting around you. It's physically demanding, and generally not mentally stimulating. Longer-term, I would bet that the solution to this is a) more optimized services (i.e. a cleaning service that cleans all the houses on your street, like landscaping people often do), and b) robotics that are able to handle small bits of this. Roomba is a good example. They're reasonably effective at vacuuming. Give it a decade and they'll probably be able to actually replace vacuuming. We will also need a way for people that can't afford the upfront price to have one, which will probably come forth in the form of a subscription (give us a $100 deposit, and then we'll charge you $1 every time it runs).

globular-toast 6y ago
> there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker How is it unfair? Men don't get to choose whether to work or not. They can like it or lump it. If you told men they could stay at home all day spending someone else's money improving the home, many would jump at the chance. The grass is always greener on the other side. > Women should have always been free to join the workforce They were always free to join the workforce. Just like they are free to join men's sporting events etc. The problem is now they are being encouraged to join the workforce. They are being indoctrinated into masculine roles from a very young age, fed through education and into the corporate machine. Then they get to 30, panic and realise they are running out of time to have children but they are trapped in the machine. Women's happiness has only decreased. Most women didn't want this. Going to work sucks. The only people benefiting from this are the billionaires who are richer and more powerful than ever.