> Who knew such an admiral goal: "having women entering the workforce en mass" would have such a depressing result: "it is now much more difficult for a family

> Who knew such an admiral goal: "having women entering the workforce en mass" would have such a depressing result: "it is now much more difficult for a family to survive on one income" Is it clear that the causation is only in that direction? I am not familiar with economic history back into the 40s and 50s when a lot of women started entering the workforce (note more than 25% of the civilian workforce were women already in 1945 [1]), but could it have been that it's partly the other way around? In other words, how much of "it is becoming more difficult for a family to survive on one income" caused the need for "more women entering the workforce en mass"? [1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/facts-over-time/women-in-the-labor-force#civilian-labor-force-by-sex https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/facts-over-time/women-i...