5 ms·

First state to legalise no-fault divorce was in 1969 and in the late 1960's was when birth control was becoming widely available. I suspect a lot of this is to

First state to legalise no-fault divorce was in 1969 and in the late 1960's was when birth control was becoming widely available. I suspect a lot of this is to do with the effective doubling of the full-time workforce. To be clear, I'm NOT saying women being able to work full-time is a bad thing. But I DO think that average people have been totally fucked by the transition to 2 person incomes economically. Prior to the 1970's, one middle class partner could bring in enough money to support a family, own a home, pay all the bills etc. Whilst at the same time having one person at home meant cost of living was lower and everyone had SIGNIFICANT amounts more free time. Now, the average middle class family struggles to survive on two incomes and once mum and dad have both completed their 40hrs a week each at work, they both have another 20hrs a week of domestic responsibilities to complete in "their own time" that originally would have been done by the stay at home partner.

alophawen 4y ago
A whole lot of other s-t went down that messed up the economy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
confidantlake 4y ago
This is so strange to me. The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced. You would think that means the average family would be twice as well off. Instead they have to work twice as long for the exact same amount. This makes no sense at all, until you realize that a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded. The amount of content, products, quality and sophistication of these products has skyrocketed as well. Things like an overseas holiday was described as once in a lifetime because it would literally only be affordable to do once. Modern computers would be impossible without the boost to the workforce. Peoples expected standards of living has skyrocketed which has kept them working the same amount. And scarce things like land has gone up because you are bidding against other groups who will work two full time jobs.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    > For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded The complete opposite for housing. How many yearly salaries was a typical house then? How many yearly salaries (of two people!) is it now?
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Housing is expensive because people want it to be exclusive.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        People want a house and similiar sized neighbour property owners
      - remuskaos 4y ago
        People who already have a house may want it expensive, but even that is a double edged sword. People who don't already have a house certainly do not want them to be expensive.
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        Housing is by it's very nature exclusive; every building with a roof and at least four walls is put up to keep out animals, the elements, and other people. Exclusivity on it's own has little to do with price. Desirability, mainly in terms of easy access to/production of vittles and lack of crime, is what influences the latter.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Because the cost of housing isn’t really based on productivity. It’s based on having more money than everyone else who wants to live in that area. Housing is very cheap in undesirable areas. Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces.
      - pydry 4y ago
- boppo1 4y ago
  Eroding the 'natural' i.e. market rate of interest made inefficient activities relatively more valuable. The more we interfered, the more valuable financial holdings became, regardless whether or not they actually contribute to society. IMO we hardly have any idea right now what's worthwhile business activity and what's not, because we destroyed the measuring stick.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced The labor force doubled, productive capital did not, and there are declining production gains to additional labor when existing capital is already well employed. Also, the labor force isn't just the force actually producing; unemployment also went up initially (it came down later, as falling real labor prices made it economical to employ less-productive labor.) > a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value. This is true, but increasing competition for some (especially low-skill) labor played a role in concentrating the gains (within the workforce.) Tax policy also played a role.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote a book in 2004 on the two income trap. Excellent read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22568858M/The_two-income_trap https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22568858M/The_two-income_tra...
- refurb 4y ago
  Elizabeth Warren is advocating for price controls which makes me question her economic chops.
  - bwb 4y ago
    Price controls do work in some very specific cases for short periods. And, success depends heavily on situation, back story, etc…
  - pydry 4y ago
    Or her commitment to the American oligarchy.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Elizabeth Warren basically sold her soul to the DNC to become senator. Don't be surprised when she parrots party platform BS even when she should know better. That's literally part of her job now. Thanks Obama (no really, he should have made her head of the CFPB, she'd have done far more good in that role than she will ever do being a mediocre senator).
    - abofh 4y ago
      My recollection is that her state was held by a republican Governor at the time, so putting her on the CFPB would have reduced the Democratic senator count by enough to threaten other legislative priorities. But I might be misremembering
tinalumfoil 4y ago
Every time this is posted there’s people arguing that this is all caused be social issues. But if you look at the charts it’s pretty highly correlated with the timing of the Nixon shocks, plus the discontinuations (or discontinuation in the derivative) are pretty immediate. My point being something social like the death of the single income two parent family unit didn’t just suddenly happen one day. Hundreds of millions of women weren’t hired on the same day. The gold standard went from there to gone in effectively a day.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
watwut 4y ago
The female employment was not nearly at zero back then - in 1970 male employment rates were 80% and female 43%. There was huge amount of women working, just not at well paid jobs. (In 1950 it was 86% to 34%). Moreover, house work now requires significantly less time and effort then back then. The tech did improved it a lot. Just about the only exception is childcare, in 1970 you could have your 6 years old walk to school alone and play unsupervised whole day. No one would expect you to drive him/her to fifteen activities per week or regularly spend hours on homework projects with the kid.

alophawen 4y ago

A whole lot of other s-t went down that messed up the economy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

confidantlake 4y ago

This is so strange to me. The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced. You would think that means the average family would be twice as well off. Instead they have to work twice as long for the exact same amount. This makes no sense at all, until you realize that a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value.

Gigachad 4y ago
For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded. The amount of content, products, quality and sophistication of these products has skyrocketed as well. Things like an overseas holiday was described as once in a lifetime because it would literally only be affordable to do once. Modern computers would be impossible without the boost to the workforce. Peoples expected standards of living has skyrocketed which has kept them working the same amount. And scarce things like land has gone up because you are bidding against other groups who will work two full time jobs.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  > For the exact same amount? The amount of stuff people have today has absolutely exploded The complete opposite for housing. How many yearly salaries was a typical house then? How many yearly salaries (of two people!) is it now?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Housing is expensive because people want it to be exclusive.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      People want a house and similiar sized neighbour property owners
    - remuskaos 4y ago
      People who already have a house may want it expensive, but even that is a double edged sword. People who don't already have a house certainly do not want them to be expensive.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Housing is by it's very nature exclusive; every building with a roof and at least four walls is put up to keep out animals, the elements, and other people. Exclusivity on it's own has little to do with price. Desirability, mainly in terms of easy access to/production of vittles and lack of crime, is what influences the latter.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Because the cost of housing isn’t really based on productivity. It’s based on having more money than everyone else who wants to live in that area. Housing is very cheap in undesirable areas. Higher density property is the only way to put more housing in the same desirable spaces.
    - pydry 4y ago
boppo1 4y ago
Eroding the 'natural' i.e. market rate of interest made inefficient activities relatively more valuable. The more we interfered, the more valuable financial holdings became, regardless whether or not they actually contribute to society. IMO we hardly have any idea right now what's worthwhile business activity and what's not, because we destroyed the measuring stick.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The workforce doubled, twice as much is being produced The labor force doubled, productive capital did not, and there are declining production gains to additional labor when existing capital is already well employed. Also, the labor force isn't just the force actually producing; unemployment also went up initially (it came down later, as falling real labor prices made it economical to employ less-productive labor.) > a tiny percentage at the top took all that extra value. This is true, but increasing competition for some (especially low-skill) labor played a role in concentrating the gains (within the workforce.) Tax policy also played a role.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote a book in 2004 on the two income trap. Excellent read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22568858M/The_two-income_trap https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22568858M/The_two-income_tra...

refurb 4y ago
Elizabeth Warren is advocating for price controls which makes me question her economic chops.
- bwb 4y ago
  Price controls do work in some very specific cases for short periods. And, success depends heavily on situation, back story, etc…
- pydry 4y ago
  Or her commitment to the American oligarchy.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Elizabeth Warren basically sold her soul to the DNC to become senator. Don't be surprised when she parrots party platform BS even when she should know better. That's literally part of her job now. Thanks Obama (no really, he should have made her head of the CFPB, she'd have done far more good in that role than she will ever do being a mediocre senator).
  - abofh 4y ago
    My recollection is that her state was held by a republican Governor at the time, so putting her on the CFPB would have reduced the Democratic senator count by enough to threaten other legislative priorities. But I might be misremembering

tinalumfoil 4y ago

Every time this is posted there’s people arguing that this is all caused be social issues. But if you look at the charts it’s pretty highly correlated with the timing of the Nixon shocks, plus the discontinuations (or discontinuation in the derivative) are pretty immediate. My point being something social like the death of the single income two parent family unit didn’t just suddenly happen one day. Hundreds of millions of women weren’t hired on the same day. The gold standard went from there to gone in effectively a day.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

watwut 4y ago

The female employment was not nearly at zero back then - in 1970 male employment rates were 80% and female 43%. There was huge amount of women working, just not at well paid jobs. (In 1950 it was 86% to 34%). Moreover, house work now requires significantly less time and effort then back then. The tech did improved it a lot. Just about the only exception is childcare, in 1970 you could have your 6 years old walk to school alone and play unsupervised whole day. No one would expect you to drive him/her to fifteen activities per week or regularly spend hours on homework projects with the kid.