4 ms·

> Who is forcing women back to work? A modern Western lifestyle. Almost every Western country without fail requires dual incomes to afford a basic lifestyle.

> Who is forcing women back to work? A modern Western lifestyle. Almost every Western country without fail requires dual incomes to afford a basic lifestyle. The working-dad stay-at-home mum has long gone.

burntoutfire 5y ago
That's not true. A comfortable lifestyle perhaps, but "basic" can be had on just a single average salary.
- cure 5y ago
  I think your frame of reference may be a bit warped. What is an 'average' salary? The median personal income in 2019 was $35,805 (cf. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). I think you'd be hard pressed to live on that with a family of 3+ people. And what about the 50% of people who have a personal income less than the median? edit: that stat was for 2019, not 2020, my bad
  - treis 5y ago
    That looks like it counts everyone over 14 including students and retirees. And it's the highest it has ever been in real terms.
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    That's $2983 per month. Biggest costs of life are housing, food and transportation. With one person staying at home, both the cost of transpo and food go down (because: one less person commuting to job, everything can be home cooked and the person staying at home have time to shop smartly and save a lot thanks to it). This lives housing costs. Here, it's all about location. In many areas (assuming renting), you can have a house or apartment suitable for a family of three for less than $1000 a month.
    - showerst 5y ago
      > That's $2983 per month. Before taxes. That's in the area of 2400/mo after taxes [1]. My family of 3 pays around 600/mo for health insurance after employer subsidies, so call it 1800/mo. So after rent now you're living (with an infant!) on 800 a month. That's brutal. My newborn burns nearly that much just on formula, diapers, and life-critical medicine. [1] https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#nNffey40fm https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#nNffey40fm
      - jrumbut 5y ago
        And of course, this is the median salary. 50% of people make less.
      - foogazi 5y ago
        Do you make less than 35k a year ? ACA has subsidies for lower income households
        showerst 5y ago
        Generally subsidies don’t apply if you’re getting an employer subsidy, and they drop off quickly as you rise over the poverty line. I have no clue how the math works on average in terms of 35k jobs offering a subsidy at all, vs the marketplace subsidy. But even at a 50% subsidy it’s still not much money to raise a family on.
    - Fantosism 5y ago
      On average in the US, 1 in 2 bankruptcies are due to medical debt. I think it's disingenuous to include the "biggest costs of life" and omit what is arguably the largest for an american citizen. 3000 gross is more like 2-25 net depending on the state. I haven't been in many industries where an employer is going to be covering healthcare costs for an $18/hr employee. So for a family of 3, that's another $1,000 a month for insurance.
      - nickff 5y ago
- lifeformed 5y ago
  A single family member earning a wage as a low income worker is not making enough to pay for the health insurance for a family with newborns, on top of rent, food, transportation, clothing, all the costs of having a child, saving for emergencies/future/education, and some semblance of entertainment and having a life.
sangnoir 5y ago
> Almost every Western country without fail requires dual incomes to afford a basic lifestyle It will be remiss not to mention that America stands alone among western countries in not providing livable subsidies/incomes to recent parents, and expects them to be back in the workforce after a couple of weeks. The rest of the western world is far less aggressive in "forcing" women back to work.
Aidevah 5y ago
This is correct, and something that needs to be said. Having both parents work is not an inevitable state of affairs. As little as 50 years ago, it was not unusual for one parent to stay at home and raise children. In contrast, the Soviet Union had long since moved to a two working-parents model because of financial pressure, and Soviet women regarded the American housewife with astonishment[1]. Whatever the merits and tradeoffs may be, we need to recognise that significant change has taken place. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-day-care-is-the-norm.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-...

burntoutfire 5y ago

That's not true. A comfortable lifestyle perhaps, but "basic" can be had on just a single average salary.

cure 5y ago
I think your frame of reference may be a bit warped. What is an 'average' salary? The median personal income in 2019 was $35,805 (cf. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). I think you'd be hard pressed to live on that with a family of 3+ people. And what about the 50% of people who have a personal income less than the median? edit: that stat was for 2019, not 2020, my bad
- treis 5y ago
  That looks like it counts everyone over 14 including students and retirees. And it's the highest it has ever been in real terms.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  That's $2983 per month. Biggest costs of life are housing, food and transportation. With one person staying at home, both the cost of transpo and food go down (because: one less person commuting to job, everything can be home cooked and the person staying at home have time to shop smartly and save a lot thanks to it). This lives housing costs. Here, it's all about location. In many areas (assuming renting), you can have a house or apartment suitable for a family of three for less than $1000 a month.
  - showerst 5y ago
    > That's $2983 per month. Before taxes. That's in the area of 2400/mo after taxes [1]. My family of 3 pays around 600/mo for health insurance after employer subsidies, so call it 1800/mo. So after rent now you're living (with an infant!) on 800 a month. That's brutal. My newborn burns nearly that much just on formula, diapers, and life-critical medicine. [1] https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#nNffey40fm https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#nNffey40fm
    - jrumbut 5y ago
      And of course, this is the median salary. 50% of people make less.
    - foogazi 5y ago
      Do you make less than 35k a year ? ACA has subsidies for lower income households
      - showerst 5y ago
        Generally subsidies don’t apply if you’re getting an employer subsidy, and they drop off quickly as you rise over the poverty line. I have no clue how the math works on average in terms of 35k jobs offering a subsidy at all, vs the marketplace subsidy. But even at a 50% subsidy it’s still not much money to raise a family on.
  - Fantosism 5y ago
    On average in the US, 1 in 2 bankruptcies are due to medical debt. I think it's disingenuous to include the "biggest costs of life" and omit what is arguably the largest for an american citizen. 3000 gross is more like 2-25 net depending on the state. I haven't been in many industries where an employer is going to be covering healthcare costs for an $18/hr employee. So for a family of 3, that's another $1,000 a month for insurance.
    - nickff 5y ago
lifeformed 5y ago
A single family member earning a wage as a low income worker is not making enough to pay for the health insurance for a family with newborns, on top of rent, food, transportation, clothing, all the costs of having a child, saving for emergencies/future/education, and some semblance of entertainment and having a life.

sangnoir 5y ago

> Almost every Western country without fail requires dual incomes to afford a basic lifestyle It will be remiss not to mention that America stands alone among western countries in not providing livable subsidies/incomes to recent parents, and expects them to be back in the workforce after a couple of weeks. The rest of the western world is far less aggressive in "forcing" women back to work.

Aidevah 5y ago

This is correct, and something that needs to be said. Having both parents work is not an inevitable state of affairs. As little as 50 years ago, it was not unusual for one parent to stay at home and raise children. In contrast, the Soviet Union had long since moved to a two working-parents model because of financial pressure, and Soviet women regarded the American housewife with astonishment[1]. Whatever the merits and tradeoffs may be, we need to recognise that significant change has taken place. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-day-care-is-the-norm.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-...