3 ms·
You misunderstood my argument. If father specialises for work, he can devote 100%. If mother specialises for work, she can only devote 90% (or whatever, to acc
by tomp 4y ago
You misunderstood my argument.
If father specialises for work, he can devote 100%. If mother specialises for work, she can only devote 90% (or whatever, to account for birth & recovery in first year).
Therefore all things being equal (i.e. “controlling for other variables” in statistics) father specialising for work will be more profitable for the family than mother specialising for work. Everyone (well, every couple) is free to choose what they want, weighing tradeoffs along many dimensions (money isn’t everything, but it’s a lot) but don’t be surprised if choices are biased towards “economically sensible”.
Sure, you can also do things “equally” but I estimate you’ll be getting less, on average (i.e. you will earn less per day working 3x per week than 5x (or 6x))
- mmcnl 4y agoSo if I understand correctly, you are saying there are two scenarios: 1. Father working full-time, mother staying-at-home for a few years 2. Father and mother working both reduced hours Your conclusion is that sum of wages accumulated over the career length of both the father and the mother is higher in scenario 1 than in scenario 2? If that's the case, then first of all I doubt that's true. And second, that means we as a society are sacrificing gender equality in return for disposable income. I think gender equality is not worth a small increase in disposable income (and I don't even think that staying at home economically is the better choice).
- tomp 4y agoNo, I’m saying that (1) for most unequal splits, father working will be more profitable than mother working, because of biology (mother has to take time off), and (2) unequal splits are better than equal splits (e.g. both working 100%, or both working 60%) because the latter have negative externalities (childcare cost, kids raised by strangers, less career progress because only working 60% etc). Some people will still take equal splits, but not all will. > I think gender equality is not worth a small increase in disposable income Not gonna respond to this part because I can’t really figure out what you meant, but one comment is: “gain for society, loss for individual” usually requires a fair amount of coercion.
- mmcnl 4y agoIndeed you are right that "gain for society, loss for individual" requires coercion, so that's why equal splits should be more profitable (if it's not the case already). That's a political decision.
- tomp 4y agoIt’s the ideological difference between “equality” (of opportunity) vs “equity” (of outcome). The former increases freedom, the latter increases coercion. I see freedom valuable and coercion damaging. Freedom to choose also requires you to be able to choose the “wrong” choice. So in my view enforcing gender equality is just as bad, if not worse, as enforcing gender inequality.
- usrn 4y agoI'm not convinced working mothers are all that happier tbh, and by having them work the market equilibria shift towards requiring them to work. It's more like gain in individual freedom, loss for everyone.
- mmcnl 4y agoWhy wouldn't working mothers be happier? Are working fathers unhappier? I think people who have freedom of choice without facing pressure from society are happier. If they choose to stay at home in a level playing field, that's perfect. Everyone should make their own choice. But as long as the ratio between stay-at-home mothers and stay-at-home fathers is not 50/50, I believe mothers face more pressure from society than fathers and have less freedom of choice. I also think your statement that more individual freedom for women is a loss for everyone needs some clarification. That's a wild thing to say. I hope I interpreted this wrong?
- tomp 4y agoMost people don’t have the freedom to choose not to work.