5 ms·

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seei

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

imtringued 5y ago
Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn even more despite doing absolutely nothing to deserve the money.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  Except that they’re not earning twice as much. This also fails to consider the uncounted domestic labor that previously was completed by a stay at home spouse, but still needs to be completed/paid for.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Starting families was never limited by women not working. If anything, women not working (outside the home) makes it easiest to start families, since adult supervision’s time is the most expensive part of raising young children, and if one adult in a family is not working then they have no opportunity cost for raising the kids.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  Part of the story is that doubling the size of the workforce does depress wages; and it does cause inflation on assets that do not see an increase in production with an increase in workforce size (such as land). The other issue is that "women entering the workforce" is not really an accurate description of what is going on. Women have been entering the formal workforce. This means that family now need to pay for what was once done for free by the wife. The most significant expense here is childcare (the cost of which is often cited as a major barrier to women "entering" the workforce); however there are all sorts of little expenses that could be avoid at the cost of additional time, so not heaving an unpaid homemaker increases your living costs in a bunch of little ways.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Owning property, like rental property is not free money. Loan interest, property taxes, landscaping, and cleaning up after tenants. The maintenance expenses are constant. Due to the number and the declining standards of very many things put into houses now. Fixing things approaches a part time job.
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  > It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. In practice, it doesn't translate to immediately doubling the effective income. You hear many accounts of people whom their father was working a single job in a gas station, yet they afforded a house and car and other amenities. Today that doesn't happen anymore. Furthermore, the children will suffer when both parents are working.
- acuozzo 5y ago
  > It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. This is only true for DINKs, families with access to free childcare, or families in which both parents work schedules that can be arranged to make childcare possible, such as having non-overlapping workdays. The cost of child care where I live in MD is slightly greater than my wife's maximum post-tax earning potential, so we've chosen for her to stay home with the children. Moving back near family in NJ for the free childcare would reduce my income enough to negate any extra earned income from my wife working.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
It also means women have more independence and freedom.
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  Not necessarily, is selling your body on prostitution websites more freedom? I think not. It's known what women face in a secular captialism-first economy.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, having the freedom to sell your body on prostitution websites is more freedom. I do not know what the rest of your comment means, but mine is pretty clear that not having to rely on a man to earn money and then give it to them is more independence and freedom than depending on a man to give them money. PS Isn't it funny that a women "selling her body" on prostitution websites is bad, but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK?
    - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
      Of course selling one's body doing prostitution is bad, I don't know how that's even an arguing point. Not all "freedom" is good, some of it is destructive, like the example above. > but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK? Straw man fallacy.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        How can it be a straw man when it’s not even refuting it? I addressed your argument directly by showing it is more independence and freedom. The post script is a humorous observation of what “selling your body” is used to refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
        gher-shyu3i 5y ago
spywaregorilla 5y ago
It is harder to support families because the required wages have increased. It's fully possible we'd be in the same situation if women didn't see those relative gains.

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

imtringued 5y ago

Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn even more despite doing absolutely nothing to deserve the money.

germinalphrase 5y ago
Except that they’re not earning twice as much. This also fails to consider the uncounted domestic labor that previously was completed by a stay at home spouse, but still needs to be completed/paid for.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Starting families was never limited by women not working. If anything, women not working (outside the home) makes it easiest to start families, since adult supervision’s time is the most expensive part of raising young children, and if one adult in a family is not working then they have no opportunity cost for raising the kids.
gizmo686 5y ago
Part of the story is that doubling the size of the workforce does depress wages; and it does cause inflation on assets that do not see an increase in production with an increase in workforce size (such as land). The other issue is that "women entering the workforce" is not really an accurate description of what is going on. Women have been entering the formal workforce. This means that family now need to pay for what was once done for free by the wife. The most significant expense here is childcare (the cost of which is often cited as a major barrier to women "entering" the workforce); however there are all sorts of little expenses that could be avoid at the cost of additional time, so not heaving an unpaid homemaker increases your living costs in a bunch of little ways.
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Owning property, like rental property is not free money. Loan interest, property taxes, landscaping, and cleaning up after tenants. The maintenance expenses are constant. Due to the number and the declining standards of very many things put into houses now. Fixing things approaches a part time job.
gher-shyu3i 5y ago
> It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. In practice, it doesn't translate to immediately doubling the effective income. You hear many accounts of people whom their father was working a single job in a gas station, yet they afforded a house and car and other amenities. Today that doesn't happen anymore. Furthermore, the children will suffer when both parents are working.
acuozzo 5y ago
> It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. This is only true for DINKs, families with access to free childcare, or families in which both parents work schedules that can be arranged to make childcare possible, such as having non-overlapping workdays. The cost of child care where I live in MD is slightly greater than my wife's maximum post-tax earning potential, so we've chosen for her to stay home with the children. Moving back near family in NJ for the free childcare would reduce my income enough to negate any extra earned income from my wife working.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It also means women have more independence and freedom.

gher-shyu3i 5y ago
Not necessarily, is selling your body on prostitution websites more freedom? I think not. It's known what women face in a secular captialism-first economy.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, having the freedom to sell your body on prostitution websites is more freedom. I do not know what the rest of your comment means, but mine is pretty clear that not having to rely on a man to earn money and then give it to them is more independence and freedom than depending on a man to give them money. PS Isn't it funny that a women "selling her body" on prostitution websites is bad, but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK?
  - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    Of course selling one's body doing prostitution is bad, I don't know how that's even an arguing point. Not all "freedom" is good, some of it is destructive, like the example above. > but a man (or woman) selling their body doing back breaking work for menial wages is OK? Straw man fallacy.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      How can it be a straw man when it’s not even refuting it? I addressed your argument directly by showing it is more independence and freedom. The post script is a humorous observation of what “selling your body” is used to refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      - gher-shyu3i 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago

It is harder to support families because the required wages have increased. It's fully possible we'd be in the same situation if women didn't see those relative gains.